Bear Attack at Red River Gorge in Ky

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/environment/woman-survives-bear-attack-in-sandias?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+krqe-topstories+%28KRQE+News+13+-+Top+Stories%29

Scott Wrote:

"I agree, i understand why only a 12 gauge slug is allowed for deer, but it really seems like it should be the other way around. People shooting at squirels in trees with calibers that can travel 2-3 miles, or at a deer on the ground with a slug that is lucky to travel 500 yards. Doenst make much sense to me"

Actually Scott a 12 gauge solid slug will travel about 200-300 yards with a lethal rang of about 150 yards.

A .223 round (commonly used for small game, AK-47 are not allowed in Ohio for small game hunting) has a max range of around 1000 yards with a lethal range of around 500 yards.

The big issue is the penetration of a round. The .223 round will be stopped by small trees and brush. In a wooded situation it would be very difficult to have a .223 round travel more than 200 yards without being stopped by a tree. The 12 gauge slug will penitrate brush or small trees but with its limited range it typically can only travel 100-150 yards without being slowed down and stopped by trees.

In addition there are way more hunters in the woods during deer season than during small game season. That is why a shorter range shotgun is used during deer season in Ohio.

Maybe you should find a new place to go! I don't know why you keep coming back! Next time you are here please come dressed as your favorite wild animal for the rednecks in the area!!!!

Hey Ammie, who are you directing your comment twords?

AK-47 are not allowed in Ohio for small game hunting

There's no restrictions on caliber or cartridge published by the ODNR on what you take small game with. I confirmed this with an ODNR enforcement officer when I took the hunting class. Now, there might be a restriction in some gun control law that's not related to hunting. But still, the irony stands – you are restricted to a shotgun for deer, but could use a high power rifle like a .223 or 30-06 for a squirrel. Given the often semi-urban settings in much of Ohio, this is an interesting loophole.

AK-47's are illegal in Ohio, thus you can't hunt with them. :P Sure you could use a large caliber rifle like an .30-06 but there wouldn't be anything left of the small game.

I don’t' believe that there is any state that has a restriction on what caliber round you can use to hunt small game. Caliber limitations are done by the hunters if they want anything left of their game. The same goes for rifle hunting for deer, no caliber limitations.

Oh and a .223 round is NOT high powered rifle caliber. If you want high powered rifle calibers think .380, 7mm, or .30-06 if you want high power. The .223 is a common caliber used for small game (fox, rabbit, groundhog, ect.) Using it to shoot squirrels would be overkill (no more squirrel) as a .22 or .17 would do just fine.

As one of the most popular police and millitary rounds, im suprised the .223 isnt considered a high power round.

.223 is a high velocity round, but its small mass keeps it from being high in knock-down power.

–B.G.–

Scott, while I love your passion for this topic I respectfully suggest that you take some time and learn about firearms a bit before you attempt to discuss them.

As Bob has said, .223 caliber:

Small
Zippy
Low knockdown power
Low penetration (non full metal jacket)
Considered by many in the armed services and law enforcement to be too light of a round for use against humans (aka combat).

Your first post on BPL and THATS what you write? Maybe YOU should find another place to go.

I am very aware of the capabilities of the .223 round and plenty of other firearms as well. To me, any round capable of accurately hitting a target at 500-600 yards is high power, other wise it wouldnt have that kind of range. Velocity equals power in many cases. A .50 without the large amount of powder to propel it at extreme velocities wouldn't be high power at all. Look at the old musketball rounds that were very large caliber but sometimes didn't even have enough velocity to kill.

Scott,

YOU'RE INCORECT.

High power = long range plus knockdown power.

As for a .223 round having an effective range of 500-600 yards . . .

Nope you're mistaken. Typically the maximum effective range of a .223 is around 350 to 400 yards. The bullet can go farther than that but it's trajectory (it would be hitting way lower than your point of aim), its velocity, and its power (it may injure you but being lethal, nope)are greatly reduced.

Not to mention what I've been telling you all along about how the bullets low mass would cause it to be stopped by small trees and brush at ranges over 200 yards.

We can keep debating this but it would be pointless. You do not understand the properties of the .223 round. You think you do but you don’t. If you’d like to continue to discuss this I’d suggest that you do some research, go to a hunting store, talk with some experts there, or just look at the back of box of .223 cartages to see its ballistic properties.

Chad, I think your numbers are correct.

I was "employed by the Federal government" many years ago and was thoroughly trained on the M16E1 and M16A1. That was my personal weapon for over a year, and we slept with them (but not in the biblical sense).

The maximum effective range of a military .223 was 350 yards, and that was defined by a certain percentage of hits on a silhouette target. We were threatened that if we attempted to engage a live target beyond 400 yards, that we were purely wasting lead. About the only exception to this would be a match rifle, but they aren't really used this way. The "claim to fame" for the M16 was not its accuracy or range, but its high cyclic rate of fire.

–B.G.–

Chad – If you want to get specific about definitions of a high power rifle you will see that you as well are WRONG! Do a quick google definition search.

"Do a quick google definition search."

That certainly explains a few things.

If the scientific world depended on Google, we would be near to putting a man on the Moon.

–B.G.–

Google takes you to wikipedia.

I think its kinda funny Bob that you would make a comment like that living where you do.

"If the scientific world depended on Google, we would be near to putting a man on the Moon."

I really can't disagree with this statement strongly enough. You Google lovers don't know what you're talking about. If the scientific world depended on Google, we would be near to putting a man somewhere near Chicago…… ;-)

Yes, Scott, your earlier comments were very humorous, also.

–B.G.–

I suspected that when Chad claims that .223 "isn't high-power", he is editorializing on the perceived effectiveness of the round rather than making a discrete technical claim. Because technically that statement is profoundly incorrect. Agreed. And his tone is condescending, too.

Frankly, the term "high-power" has NEVER been rigorously defined and always invites such arguments by people who misunderstand it or interpret it literally, which is why the experts are tending to use the term "high-velocity" instead nowadays. The .223 is inarguably high velocity. And I can guarantee that Chad has not seen as many bodies perforated by .223 rounds as I have. The survival prospects of someone shot with a .223 are much more like that of a .308 than that of a 9mmP, brother. Sorry.

Regarding range: As Chad alluded to earlier, hundreds of people shoot 1000-yard matches with .223 service rifles every year, and they generally beat the pants off of the .30-caliber guys. Any range limitations that he is citing are references to a RIFLE, the M16, not to the ROUND. And even that can be overcome- thus the service rifle guys.

Does the .223 have issues? Sure. If nothing else, when shot out of a short barrel it looses just enough velocity to compromise its terminal ballistics to a significant degree. It does walk a fine edge. But, again, that's a RIFLE problem. Is it a massive elephant-slaying round? No. It is what it is, not some ridiculous .475 or something. And, if his criteria include the bullet drop at long range then he MUST also claim that those massive elephant rounds aren't high-power either! They all have awful drops. The .223 has less drop than a .450 Weatherby Magnum at almost ANY range, for instance.

So, if one of your criteria is drop, you must exclude any blunt bullet with a poor ballistic coefficient, even stuff like the Weatherby Magnums. Which is ridiculous.

Basically, when someone claims that a rifle is "high-power", they just mean to say that it isn't firing .22LR or a pistol round, like some of the old Winchesters and other rifles did.

But this is all probably not something the fanboys should be arguing on BPL forums.

HA! This entire argument is pretty silly. This poor guy was in a bear's mouth and he considered stabbing it with a pocket knife. I love having rational discussions about firearms and shooting sports, but this current argument is better suited for those forums where they debate "stopping power" and "one shot stops" and "9mm vs .40cal for stopping baboons when SHTF."

Next issue:

Claiming that an M1A isn't a semi-automatic version M14, because it's an M1A, is disingenuous. Likewise the AR15/M16 waffling. It's just sematic nonsense for the purposes of our current discussion.

That's like claiming that an M16A2 isn't an M16, because it's an M16A2. Hello? It is a VERSION of the M16.

You're one of those guys who refuses to call smokeless powder smokeless powder, aren't you? :o)

Since an M14 is BY DEFINITION capable of fully-automatic fire, yes, one would have to call a semi-automatic version something else, eh? Thus my use of the word "version" above. So Springfield calls theirs an M1A. QED. It is essentially visibly identical, uses the same operating mechanism, uses almost all of the same parts, the parts that are not common are minimally different, etc.

But most importantly, the M1A patently WAS directly derived from the M14. Springfield will tell you so.

I will grant that there is derived and then there's derived. Is an M21 an M14? How about an M89? I would propose that the former is pretty obviously an M14 variant. I'd have to see if there is more to the M89 than the stock before I made THAT call, though.

Wise are they who listen to and consider the opinions of a military trauma surgeon with combat experience when he discusses the effects of bullets on flesh.

and never forget the basic physics behind all this:

FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION

all that is needed to separate low, medium and high power terms is an agreed-upon lower limit for FORCE. A heavy bullet moving at a (relatively) low veocity can generate the same degree of FORCE as a much lighter bullet moving at a higher velocity,

But I digress from this interesting discussion. Learn how to avoid bears and vastly reduce your need for either spray or firearms.

Uh oh.

FellaBOOM! has got a new thread to dig into.

Watch out!

:)

At least for grizzlys, bears spray works better than bullets:

FWS Living with Grizzlys