SurvivalBlog.com

Mr. Rawles,
I may soon have the chance to take a job with the USGS in coastal Alaska. It will involve some field work, mostly in summer months. What should I carry for defense against bears? Pepper spray? A magnum revolver? For guns, if it makes any difference: I am in my late 30s, I’m 5’11” and weigh 220. I have fairly large hands. Thanks, – Future Cheechako

JWR Replies: We live in bear country here at the Rawles Ranch. (Brown and black bears.) It is also mountain lion, moose, and wolf country, but bears are our biggest concern. By SOP, we have our children trained to carry 9 ounce canisters of Guard Alaska brand pepper spray in belt pouches whenever they walk more than 20 yards away from the house. That is our standing “20 yard rule”: always carry bear spray. Meanwhile, the Memsahib and I carry lead spray. At the minimum, we carry .45 automatics and two spare magazines for each. (I usually carry four spares, but then I’m the over-prepared type.) Here at the ranch, we carry our pistols loaded with 230 grain full metal jacket (“ball”) ammunition, because of its superior penetration. (Ball is less than ideal for defense against two-legged predators, but reportedly better for stopping bears than hollow points.) Yes, I realize that any .45 ACP load is just a marginal stopper for bears. However, most of our training has been with Colt Model 1911s, so under extreme stress shooting situations I expect to rely on that ingrained training rather than cope with an unfamiliar pistol or revolver. They say “A man has got to know his limitations.” Well one of mine is having 30+ years of experience with M1911 pistols. I know that under stress I can use a M1911 “on autopilot.” With anything else, I know that I’d be Mr. Fumblefingers. That would be a Very Bad Thing^TM, when a 500+ pound bear is approaching in a ferocious blur. Our eldest son is about ready to train and start carrying a handgun. Since he doesn’t share my training limitations, he will probably carry a S&W Model 629 .44 Magnum revolver. When you select a handgun, do not emulate me. If you don’t already have a lot of training/muscle memory invested in a particular breed of pistol, then I recommend that you buy the biggest revolver that you can comfortably carry on a daily basis, at least a .44 Magnum and possibly something as heavy as a .454 Casull or one of the new S&W .500s. You are already used to carrying around 220 pounds. If you diet and you lose five or ten pounds then you should be able to comfortably carry a four pound revolver, holster, belt, and a couple of speed loaders.

If we know for a fact that a bear is in the area, I also carry our 12 gauge Remington Model 870 riotgun, loaded with #00 Buckshot shells alternating with Brenneke rifled slugs. The Memsahib has a Remington 1100 “Youth” variant, with a Choate extension magazine. It is kept loaded with all Brenneke rifled slugs. Both shotguns hold eight shells, and both are equipped with a spare five shells in stock-mounted pouches. I recommend that you get a pump action 12 gauge shotgun, preferably a Remington, Mossberg, or the often-overlooked Smith and Wesson.

Carry your holstered revolver at all times when you are in the field. Keep your riotgun handy in your jeep or helicopter. Depending on what sort of surveying gear that you have to carry, you might also be able to carry the riotgun when walking trails. Practice with both your handgun and riotgun a lot. OBTW, Front Sight has a training center on the Kenai Peninsula, called Front Sight Alaska. (It is just 20 miles out of the town of Kenai.) Taking the (shotgun and handgun courses there would be money very well spent. Yes, they are expensive, but what is your life worth? Don’t skip taking the shotgun course. Under stress, many inexperienced shooters have a tendency to short-cycle a pump action shotgun, causing jams. So training and regular practice are crucial!

In closing, when I’m armed with just a handgun I don’t necessarily expect to win a fight with a brown bear, but I will still do my utmost to do so. I never go unarmed in the woods. There is the chance that I’ll get surprised and chomped before I ever get my pistol out of its holster, or that even if I do, that I won’t kill the bear before it kills me. But at least when the deputies come to collect what is left of me, they’ll see all the empty brass scattered around, so they can vouch that I put up a good fight.

James:
Regarding the letter from the BATF on your [Pre-1899 FAQ] web page concerning antique rifles keeping their antique status even if built as custom sporters, etc. I don’t remember the exact wording. But this question has come up and someone cited your letter as proof that once an antique, always an antique… Except I know of a respected [Class] 01 FFL who was told by the BATFE to stop building pre-1899 Mauser custom rifles because they then became “modern”, manufactured on that date [of modification], not when the receiver was manufactured. – Dutch

JWR Replies: I suspect that the FFL holder that you heard from had heard a personal interpretation of the law from a field agent. The letter that I posted came directly from the ATF Firearms Branch and is hence definitive and authoritative. In essence, here in the U.S., either a receiver was made before 1898 or it wasn’t. Pre-1899 manufactured rifles, pistol, and shotguns–except for machineguns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns–are outside of Federal jurisdiction. Legally, the receiver is what constitutes the gun, and anything that someone does to modify it–aside for turning it into a full auto or attaching a short barrel in violation of GCA-’68–cannot bring it into Federal jurisdiction. Please read the letter again. (See the scanned pages.) The wording from the ATF Firearms Branch is quite clear: “The fact that the firearm has been re-barreled, re-chambered, re-blued, or sporterized would have no bearing on its [Federally exempt] classification.” Most likely the source of the confusion for ATF field agents is their vague recollection of the U.S. Curio and Relic (C&R) law, that states that if a C&R gun is substantially altered, then it loses its C&R status. But that is an entirely different law, pertaining to modern (post-1898) listed C&R guns, which are inside ATF jurisdiction. It is also noteworthy that the ATF letter on pre-1899s specifically addressed Model 1893 Turkish Mausers, that had their receivers re-heat treated and were then rebarreled for higher pressure 8×57 cartridges, in the1930s. These even had their receivers prominently stamped with 1930s dates at the time that they were re-arsenalized. But even these rifles are still considered legally “antique” and outside Federal jurisdiction!

Jim:
Interesting question – is it worth it to get a Class III firearms license to legally buy a sound suppressor ([commonly, but erroneously, called a] “silencer”)?
I’d always dismissed it as a a big hassle, but I’m now told it is not the hassle it used to be. Full auto firearms are a waste of ammo for the most part, but it occurred to me that a silencer would be a huge tactical advantage:
1. No muzzle flash and very little noise to give away your position, or attract return fire.
2. No muzzle flash or noise so you keep your night vision and hearing for the firefight. Especially if shooting indoors, preventing long term hearing damage in invaluable. Post-TEOTWAWKI you really wouldn’t want your first defensive shooting to be the end of good hearing ability, now would you? 🙂
3. Can train more discreetly, and without bothering neighbors
Of course, there is the $200 tax stamp per suppressor, and the loss of privacy, etc., etc. Your thoughts on the matter? Comments from Class III folks? Regards, – OSOM

JWR Replies: Sorry, but I can’t make a blanket recommendation. Why? Every individual must weigh the risk/benefit ratio of acquiring any federally registered firearm or suppressor for themselves. As you mentioned, they do have some tactical advantages. But the risk associated with owning one is the higher profile that comes along with the registration process. That might not be an issue in some locales. Suppressor ownership is considered “cool” in some western and southern states. But it is considered quasi-criminal or even “borderline whacko” in many of the more populous Nanny States. So take regional differences into account when considering a purchase. Some SurvivalBlog readers in parts of Europe–where suppressor ownership is commonplace and virtually unrestricted–might laugh at this. But sadly, here in the U.S., Hollywood movies have warped public perception of suppressors, particularly in the big cities.

I must also mention that it goes without saying that untaxed/unregistered (illegal) purchases or home manufacture should not even be considered, since they carry the risk of a felony conviction in the US.

Although I have several friends and acquaintances that own registered full auto firearms and suppressors, I decided not to buy any. For me, even living in a rural and lightly populated pro-gun state, the risks of the high profile outweigh the benefits. But your mileage may vary.