What guns would you take on an expedition to Alaska?

[gamer_jim]

Stupid question from someone who wants to live in Alaska someday:

Where would one aim to shoot a charging bear? Head? Center of mass?

Would green-tipped .223 be an option? It's a versatile gun and very quick on the second shot. My thought was the penetration through the skull would be better if you had a solid core bullet.

 

[Streetgang]

Stupid question from someone who wants to live in Alaska someday:

Where would one aim to shoot a charging bear? Head? Center of mass?

Would green-tipped .223 be an option? It's a versatile gun and very quick on the second shot. My thought was the penetration through the skull would be better if you had a solid core bullet.

Jim, I would shoot. 223 only if I had nothing more powerful. With that, I wouldn't recommend using it. When the platoons went into the high country to train they didn't take AR platform firearms. As far as shot placement, think about what a charging Kodiak bear looks like. He will be on all fours coming like a freight train. Chances are you're going to get skull and shoulder shots and not much else.

 

[fabsroman]

Stupid question from someone who wants to live in Alaska someday:

Where would one aim to shoot a charging bear? Head? Center of mass?

Would green-tipped .223 be an option? It's a versatile gun and very quick on the second shot. My thought was the penetration through the skull would be better if you had a solid core bullet.

Aim for the head. Brain is located right between the eyes, unlike humans that have their brain in the upper portion of their head. Granted, shooting at a charging grizzly does not give you time to think about the shots and that head is going to be moving around. With a handgun, just shoot and hope that you connect pretty good in the head or hope that the first shot just scares the bear off.

 

[mvee]

Stupid question from someone who wants to live in Alaska someday:

Where would one aim to shoot a charging bear? Head? Center of mass?

Would green-tipped .223 be an option? It's a versatile gun and very quick on the second shot. My thought was the penetration through the skull would be better if you had a solid core bullet.

In Svalbard (polar bear country) I was told to aim at the top of the shoulder if we had to shoot. I was told that a trying for a head shot was not a good idea. The brain is located low in the skull and bullets are often deflected. We had 30-06 mausers.

I later met an Eskimo that took polar bears with his mini-30

 

[Minuteman]

Lot of good ideas here.
I was deployed to Kodiak AK in 97 training Navy in Arctic warfare at what is now called NSWC Det Kodiak.
Our SOP then was two person integrity one carried a long gun (M-14) and the other a pump shotgun with slugs alternating with 00 buck. Both carried 1911's. This was in the late 90's when we still had 1911's in the inventory.
Today I would carry a S&W 500 in .50 magnum and the shotgun.

Cool, thanks. That must be what 'they' mean by "loaded for bear"

In this fantasy scenario, the idea was what would you carry on an trek through part of Alaska (covering dozens miles in a few days, speed matters; so weight matters); and considering all purposes for a firearm. Security against all threats (possibly humans, moose, bears, etc. all being relevant), this is also an exercise in risk management.

The reason I suggested the FN 5.7 is because considering all the risks on such a trip, defense against bears is a relatively small part of the equation. I think it's pretty unlikely to have to face the worst case scenario; a monster grizzly charging at you standing alone. The part I'm least sure of, and part you and most others have pointed out is can a FN 5.7 (or even 5.56 NATO) effectively put down a bear in that unlikely, but possible worst case? I don't know, and am starting to doubt it. I know the 5.7 has great performance in ballistic gel and in the few horrible cases where people have been shot with it, but a monster bear is a whole different ball game. I wasn't able to find any 'proof' much beyond a 5.7 shooting through a pork shoulder, it was impressive, but still not a grizzly.

Most every other issue, other than penetration, which I'm unsure of... I think the 5.7 has more going for it; like how light and reliable it is. Capacity really matters, and almost anyone can shoot the 5.7 very accurately and fast:



If I knew I were going to be confronted by a charging grizzly, I think I'd prefer to go with an M14 and a 1911, sure. But knowing I will have to travel very far, very fast and lots of other hazards, I think I'd still prefer a very light handgun on my chest that I can quickly access and shoot very rapidly than a big battle rifle, and a heavy pistol.

This has been a lively discussion, thanks everyone!

 

[Lou45]

From what I can see, it's both:

375 Weatherby Mag (Parent case was the 375 H&H)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.375_Weatherby_Magnum

378 Weatherby Mag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.378_Weatherby_Magnum

Keep in mind, this is only from Wiki and Google-fu - I personally have zero experience with either one of those aside from things I've read in various gun publications over the years.

The .378 Wea Mag replaced the the .375 Wea Mag decades ago. Basically the .375 Wea Mag is defunct now.

Yep, I don't know about these big bore calibers either, found this:

"Other 375 caliber handgun cartridges compared to the grandaddy of them all, the 375 H&H Magnum. The 375 Winchester and 375 JDJ can be safely chambered in the T/C Contender."

From here: http://www.handgunhunt.com/tech/t7/

The .375 Winchester (pretty much defunct now, actually never caught on and for good reason) is just an overgrown .30/30 with performance equating about that of the .35 Remington. The .375 JDJ is a .444 Marlin case necked down to accept a .375 bullet and it has a pretty good amount of punch with the right home grown loads. Decades ago I fired a friend's T/C Contender in this caliber and it is DEFINITELY NOT for the faint of heart handgunner (only for experienced) as it has a PUNISHING amount of recoil, at least twice as much as the .50 Action Express in a 6" Deasert Eagle, especially the roll your own loads he had; 300 grainers on top of a COMPRESSED load of a fast burning powder. I didn't know about his loads until after I squeezed out a few. The .376 Styer I'm not very familiar with but understand it's supposed to be not too far below the .375 H&H Mag in performance.

Amazing place. Legendary fishing and hunting. My first Halibut was 17lbs. Legal but for Kodiak way too small. If they aren't 100lbs, they're too small.

Up there halibut weighing anything less than 100 pounds is considered a throwback. A friend of mine went up there on TDY with the Coast Guard several years ago and caught two monster halibut weighing about 200 pounds each.

 

[sxs]

So with my very limited hunting/survival/gun experience I have some idea of what i would want. I have done some camping and backpacking in Alaska so I am familiar with the very real threat of bears up there. That being said, I wouldn't carry anything less than a .44mag has a defensive hand gun up there. I pick this caliber because I want something big enough to take down a bear. Even something like a 45 is just going to piss it off. I might have to put all five shots of .44 mag in to the guy but at least the chances of him going down are much higher.

As for hunting in a survival situation, I would probably go with a trusty .22lr rifle with a decent scope. Its powerful enough that I could take down some medium to largerish sized game with a head shot if I was close enough and small enough that I can still take small game if the need arised. Also the ammo is plentiful, cheap and light. The rifle itself is pretty light and nimble.

Plentiful? Is there some source you know of we don't?

 

[kmittleman]

If I had to carry them like the guys on the show, I'd have a Ruger BH in .44 mag and a TC Encore or Contender w/ a .30-06 barrel and a .22 LR barrel. Those should be able to cover self defense and pretty much all game except birds up there.

I would say a shotgun, but you can't carry as much ammo and I think shots at big game in AK are often 200 yds plus.

 

[Ifdot]

Having spent 10 years up in AK hunting and fishing as much as possible I'm going to jump in.
When I left AK in 2008 the caliber of choice was the 325wsm for all around hunting. That was the do all caliber everyone wanted. Than most people would carry 2 back up/self defense weapons with them. Usually a handgun, the Glock 20 was popular and S&W 500 was also popular. But seemed everyone had their own thing, 1911 45's to Browning Buckmarks, it varied wildly. The other back up was usually a leaver gun or a shotgun. The lever gun would be 45-70 or .444. Than the shotgun you had the slug vs buck shot debate.

My arsenal of choice while hunting was Tikka T3 Light Stainless Laminate 338wm (the smoothest shooting gun I have ever shot) with a Glock 21 on my hip and a Marlin 45-70 stainless laminate lever action guide gun on my pack.
While out hiking just carried the Glock 21 on me, nothing else.

You would think bears would be your biggest danger but honestly, in the time I was there bear encounters were extremely few and far between. The only time I had seen one while in the woods was when I was hunting them, in a tree stand at my bait station. Other than that I only saw them while driving down the road, and they would be back in the woods before you even realized you had seen one. Moose was the ones you really had to look out for. Those bastards are like whitetail. You can walk right up on one and not even know it till its too late. Than (happened to me 3 times) you get between momma and her baby and its game on. Luckily I realized just at the last minute each time what happened and got out of those situations without serious incident. Only one time I had momma moose come after me but she didn't chase too far. That was my closest call.

 

[Ifdot]

Stupid question from someone who wants to live in Alaska someday:

Where would one aim to shoot a charging bear? Head? Center of mass?

Would green-tipped .223 be an option? It's a versatile gun and very quick on the second shot. My thought was the penetration through the skull would be better if you had a solid core bullet.

Just point and shoot, usually if a bear is charging you, you only have time to react, shot placement is the least of your worries.
As far as 223 goes, people use it. If your talking AR platform the 50 beowulf is popular up there.

 

[pilgrim]

Of what I own, I'm liking my Ruger BH .41 & Remington 700 in .30-06. I think that would cover most things. I could maybe go light and S&W mountain gun .357 & 10/22

Currently I am hunting for a Marlin 1895.

 

[Minuteman]

Bear charges hunting party, they have no option but to shoot the bear. Looks/sounds like they used shotguns. Took a lot of shots.

 

[Duck]

All of them I would not be coming back.
But if limited my SW model 29, 375 H&H, 300 Wea., My 3006, 270 Win., 1187 slug and My BPS. 10/22.

My M1a, AKs and ARs would be lonely not to mention my c and r's.
All hell, I'll come back for them.

 

[lazarus]

Well I probably would have loaded my drawers.

I can't blame them for firing as many as they did.

As for what I'd take. Probably a 1911 in .45 with a pair of extra clips and a box of JHP in my bag. I'd take my .308 Sako with a few boxes of SP ammo. Call it a day.

I'd consider a Mossberg 590 mariner in SS and a couple of boxes of BB and a couple of boxes of slugs.

I figure that'd be a lot of weight though.

Depends if I was hunting/camping or homesteading. The later all three I mentioned with even more ammo.

I'd consder a Marlin 336 in .30-30 instead. Or possibly an AR-10 in .308 and drop the handgun, but keep the shotgun.

All assumptions are on my own for long, long periods of time.

The .45 would be my chosen handgun just because in my limited experience with handguns (not PDWs) .45 cal is about the heaviest caliber I can actually fire rapidly. Example that bear video. If I didn't think it was coming, in the time that sucker took to grab the tree and start really charging I might have been able to clear a holster and fire once, MAYBE twice from a .44 mag. Assuming I was pretty alert. I could draw and put a least 3 and maybe 4 down range quickly with a 1911 .45.

If I was inordinately lucky I could connect all of them with that bear. Probably it would be more like 2.

Of course if I was hiking somewhere with grizzles I'd have a gun out, not holstered. If that was the case I probably could have put down 8 rounds with a .45 or 3, possibly 4 with a .44. Or maybe 2 or 3 from a bolt action, like my .308 Sako.

 

[Bikebreath]

How I spent the last 20 minutes...

 

[chooks9]

I would take a Vepr in .308 or .30-06. Built for the climate, accurate and powerful enough to do the job. Second choice would be a P14 or a US M1917 "Enfield." It's good enough for the Danish Sirius Patrol (guys who patrol Greenland), so it's good enough for me. Third would be a Ruger Gunsite Scout .308.

As for a sidearm, Glock 20 (10mm) or a Smith and Wesson 629.

 

[BigSteve57]

With lightness taken into consideration, I would take:

1. .300 Win Mag & .375 H&H Mag.
   1. The rifle I have allows me to easily change barrels in the field and either share or switch optics.
   2. For optics I use 1.5-6x for the .375 and 4-16x for the .300 Win Mag. But again, they're interchangeable.
2. .22 rimfire pistol.

If someone else like a porter/tracker is assisting add a .243 rifle & scope and maybe a handgun in 45 LC or 454 Casull.

 

[Czechnologist]

 

[Doc Holliday]

I would say my rem 870 with 18" barrel would cover all the bases. Plenty of ammo options to hunt with and a 3" slug at close range will put down just about anything on this planet.

 

[traveller]

I would say my rem 870 with 18" barrel would cover all the bases. Plenty of ammo options to hunt with and a 3" slug at close range will put down just about anything on this planet.

You are making this way too simple