Could a 22 magnum stop a bear

Did I see right there yesterday? In a report about the sperm bank on Spitsbergen I saw one or the other Mowgli running around with a 98 carbine.
Are they really guarding the bank with it?
on Spitzbergen K98 are issued against polar bears.
The Norwegians had converted the 98 to 308 Win or 30-06 Spr. ... against polar bears, who can weigh up to 1000kg ... well, if it's fun ... but a cheap option and you are not allowed to shoot anyway.
Would the original caliber have a chance to knock a polar bear down?

Kind regards. Markus
Depends on. If he is excited (adrenaline) it will certainly be quite difficult, even if a hit in the head / neck area probably also kills him. Just hit it there ...
In North America, 30-06 is a common caliber for hunting black and brown bears. Polar bears are a bit bigger, but you can still kill anything that bleeds.
30-06 and / or .308 Win. are good enough to kill any living thing on two or four legs (at least on this planet).
The poachers in South Africa have hunted down elephants with AK-47 and FN FAL.
So such a polar bear for .308 caliber shouldn't be a big problem.
An elephant that stands in the steppe, has a huge skull and that you have stalked is an easier target than a polar bear that comes running towards you at 40 km / h and shakes its relatively small head

You can kill him with .308 in any case, but the question is how fast, how many hits are necessary, where you hit, etc. there are too many variables.

1000kg female polar bear on adrenaline, with a hell of a rage because you looked at his cubs don't just stop when you touch his butt, it depends on the hits

If an 80kg Muslim can continue with .223 (1800 J) after several hits, then 4000 J should be digestible for a polar bear that is more than 10 times as heavy, with the question of the man or animal stopping effect Game is coming.

In general, it cannot be said clearly due to the many variables, especially the hit location.

Up close in the skull with 9mm Para should have more effect than at 100m in the ham with .308, it is not possible to make a general statement.
Since you are only allowed to shoot when you are attacked, a carbine that takes a little longer to reload and re-aim is not really the best choice. Of course, it is better to use a weapon whose recoil can be controlled, but even with the 8x57 or .308 Win, the control looks economical when such a white giant stick comes up to you hungry and self-confident. Only in the rarest of cases do you stay cool and quickly ignore it. Unfortunately, reloading then begins - which can cost valuable time. Even if you hit the bear, it was probably just by chance that it stopped fast enough and the reloading and aiming problem (under stress) is there again.
After all, as with humans, the attacker or the target or whatever you like to call it is only stopped or dead by a severe loss of blood pressure. Unless you hit highly vital zones such as the brain (not a big target, by the way) Aorta or cervical artery.
It would make more sense to have a weapon with a higher rate of fire or a stronger caliber (that you can then also control).
In the USA and Canada, large-caliber revolvers - if possible DA - are either required or at least recommended for bear hunting. The 44s are then the lower limit. The same applies, by the way, in some countries in Africa to hunting defensive game and the Big Five.
The K98 has the advantages that it is very cheap to buy and that it works under polar conditions even with little maintenance. That is why there is one on almost every polar expedition. It is not true that humans are the main food source for polar bears. The bears tend to be unsure of humans, but they are also interested. I once saw a documentary about a Russian weather station, someone scared away a polar bear, armed only with threatening gestures and a stick! The polar bear is rather curious and only dangerous if one is surprised. But even then, a quick warning shot helps in most cases, which I think will be the main task of the K98. And it's definitely better than nothing.
How would it look like with multiple hits from a 9mm Mp?

More holes = more blood loss = polar bear dead faster?

Because aiming to shoot a colossus that comes charging towards you at 40 km / h, I imagine a bit difficult.

Kind regards. Markus
An elephant that stands in the steppe, has a huge skull and that you have stalked is an easier target than a polar bear that comes running towards you at 40 km / h and shakes its relatively small head


My statement was purely about the wound balistic properties of the .308 caliber.
If you read an article carefully and don't just skim it, you have a lower chance of making unqualified comments.

That a moving target is harder to hit is of course logical.
Even more if factors such as fear, stress, etc. are added.
Very few people are able to do this under the given circumstances
(angry polar bear charging towards the archer)
staying calm and firing a clean, aimed shot.
You have to be pretty tough and experienced to be able to do that.




Hello, I once informed my employer that the AWI uses large-caliber semi-jacketed bullets.
And another thing about the distance - most polar bears are shot from a distance of 11 meters.

MFG K-Jag
QUOTE (Black Arrow @ Feb 28th 2008 3:12 pm)
My statement was purely about the wound balistic properties of the .308 caliber.
If you read an article carefully and don't just skim it, you have a lower chance of making unqualified comments.


I read your post carefully, but it still didn't make it any better
My objection was not unqualified either, you took it up yourself - and now I'm sliding down my back ...

K-Jag, where did you get that information from? Does it relate to self-defense situations?
Polar bears are only allowed to be shot in dire straits. You first have to use other means such as warning shots or firecrackers.
Those who shoot your polar bears at 100 meters walk into the burrow or get a very high fine because polar bears are protected.
The information came from older colleagues who were Häfiger upstairs and who took part in the training for Svalbard.

MFg K-Jag
Are you allowed to go after 100 meters?
With a polar bear's speed of 40km / h it is a bit short ... especially, what certainty do I have that the polar bear will give up its attack after a warning shot?
As I wrote, most of them were shot at a distance of 11 meters.
There were people who were punished who shot polar bears at 70 meters, because then there is an investigation like we know from series such as CSI, so where was I where was the polar bear and so on, whoever shoots a polar bear unjustifiably has to pay.

MFG K-Jag
QUOTE (Wayne @ Feb 28th 2008 4:19 pm)
With a polar bear's speed of 40km / h it is a bit short ...


Sure, the polar bear sees you 100 meters away and immediately runs towards you (without any threatening gestures etc.) at 40 km / h.



The same applies, by the way, in some countries in Africa to hunting defensive game and the Big Five.

In which country where the Big Five can / is hunted are handguns still allowed today? Namibia, South Africa and the so-called Zimbabwe certainly not.
I really care.
Sure, the polar bear sees you 100m away and immediately runs towards you (without any threatening gestures etc.) at 40 km / h. xyxthumbs.gif


... you never really know ..
I think the reasons for the K98 could also be:
-available
-cheap (because available)
-proven to work reliably in this climate

a hunting rifle that is suitable for big five would be better, but
a) does the (and the ammunition) work reliably at the temperatures?
b) is the weapon still easy to handle for otto normal polar region residents?

I strongly assume that you have a lot more experience with the situation there than the standard couch potatoe here
It is forbidden to leave the towns unarmed on Svalbard. So if you want to get out, you have to go to the police station to borrow a carbine, which probably also applies to tourists who have neither a hunting license nor a gun license and who have no idea about guns. I think that's why it will probably be the reasons given by Goschi, with the fact that the thing was explained quickly. I suppose that it is usually enough to shoot in the air to drive a polar bear away. And I wouldn't entrust any tourists with expensive weapons. 1. They have no idea and 2. if they leave the K98 somewhere on the run from the polar bear, it's not that bad either.
In Alaska, in addition to the chemical club, 12-gauge shotguns are very popular for self-defense.
But it should be quite problematic to hit a bear's brain when it actually attacks. That is why it is recommended to shoot at the shoulder joints.
QUOTE (K-JAG @ Feb 28th 2008, 3:15 pm)
...
And another thing about the distance, most polar bears are shot from a distance of 11 meters.
...

Try to repeat the last 11 meters - will probably not work.

In general, the 98 is quite easy to use, but whoever has no idea how to shoot with a rifle will not really be able to defend himself with a borrowed carbine because it is imposed. Even the first rule of self-defense or even a stronger weapon won't make much sense. But I wouldn't entrust my life to a '98. A self-loader in 9.3x62 would be the lower size or a rapid repeater in the new 45 caliber. Maybe also n revolver in .480 Ruger

The 11m probably results not only from the self-defense situation, but also from the earlier trapping with self-shot traps - the distance was even shorter there. It's just an average value ... Just statistics. Self-defense depends on the situation and not on the distance. Although it will be hard to declare self-defense if the target is 300m away.

Many small 9mm bullets will probably not stop the bear in time. And whoever thinks the polar bear is afraid, shy or respectful of humans is wrong. Even if humans are not actually part of the polar bear's main prey scheme, the bear initially sees good food in humans. A warning shot in the air will then be of little use. Due to the rather barren conditions up there, the fiecher are already quite aggressive and are not so easily deterred - exceptions confirm the rule. In addition, if you disregard the fact that you should wield weapons up there, that people are generally neither very fast, nor agile, nor strong or have particularly good sensory organs (apart from directional hearing and color perception) and because of that, yes is inferior to even a dog.
There are very good reasons why mine gives out a bulky repeater and not a small self-loader. It is obvious that if you have to hand over a gun to everyone, you hand in a weapon that is not so dangerous for your fellow human beings. The K98K is probably a good choice. In the end, it is still better to have a bolt action rifle with you, or at best two, than no weapon. After all, if I haven't managed to hit the huge thing from 11 meters, I can hit a polar bear one more blow with the carabiner. And if it didn't do any good, they probably wouldn't hand in such weapons there either. I now have enough confidence in the authorities there.
It should also be remembered that a weapon is also a moral support.
If the tourist feels armed, it may prevent him from doing something as stupid as running away when he sees a bear.
The K98k in the original caliber stretches every bear with the correct hit position!
Of course, it is important to have a little knowledge of the anatomy of the animal and you should get the right one
Use ammunition. My tip ! TUG bullet 8 x 57! and the bear is in the shot
When is he hit where?

Nobody doubts the ability of .308 and larger to kill a polar bear when hit correctly, but the problem is the hit itself.
QUOTE (Charos @ Feb 28th 2008 1:31 pm)
An elephant that stands in the steppe, has a huge skull and that you have stalked is an easier target than a polar bear that comes running towards you at 40 km / h and shakes its relatively small head

Elephant poaching in Africa has nothing to do with traditional hunting with stalking etc. Rather, fully automatic weapons are mostly used here, often from vehicles.
QUOTE (Charos @ Feb 29th 2008, 9:27 pm)
When is he hit where?

Nobody doubts the ability of .308 and larger to kill a polar bear when hit correctly, but the problem is the hit itself.

I once saw a video in which an attacking Kodiak bear, who is not much smaller than a polar bear, was hit from the front with a .44 Magnum. He stopped the attack immediately and jumped wildly and collapsed shortly afterwards. I'm not a polar bear expert and of course that could have been a stroke of luck. But a hit to the center of the body + - 40 cm should always hit either the lungs or even the heart or the larger blood vessels in the area. I guess most of the people here have already seen a wound canal and know how ugly something looks like, especially deep down. There are certainly more effective against polar bears than ne .308 Win or 8x57 IS, but why buy expensive alternatives when there are easy-to-use, easy-care and cheaper weapons. And whether you miss it with an 8x57 from a 100, - € Mauser or with a .470 Nitro Express from a 10,000, - € luxury rifle makes no difference.

Ok, the bang will probably, apart from tearing your eardrum, freeze the marrow in the bones of every living being, including bears within a radius of one KM.
QUOTE (s3plan @ Feb 29th 2008, 11:37 pm)
Ok, the bang will probably, apart from tearing your eardrum, freeze the marrow in the bones of every living being, including bears within a radius of one KM.

or if things go really wrong, attract their whole family

But the bottom line remains that the K98 will be absolutely sufficient in the absolute majority of cases and the polar bear in the majority will look for something different for a bit of noise ...
With the K98k you can do everything there is in animals on our planet!
Regarding the question of where to hit, it should be said that there are some critical areas for you
Mammal there.
The head is a good target with a corresponding effect, a shot at sight has a similarly good effect.
Lungs are probably not as suitable and would not kill the animal quickly enough. In this case it would be
a second shot is appropriate!
Care should be taken when choosing ammunition. It is not advisable to use too soft ammunition, there
Bears are quite powerful. Even pure full jacket (military ammunition) is only suitable to a limited extent.
As I said, the most suitable ammo for me would be the Torpedo Universal Projectile (TUG) and
for "close combat" it is best to use a 357 mag. revolver with full jacket ammunition.
What do you mean by that now? Everyone knows that and nobody doubts it. You can also kill a lion with a Swiss Army Knife, but a Swiss Army Knife is not an adequate armament for safari self-protection.

If you can tell me now how a civilian who may have never had a gun in hand, let alone fired a gun in a life-threatening stressful situation, should manage to shoot an angry polar bear in the head, then I am completely satisfied.

This is not about any big game hunting phrases that everyone knows who has come to terms with the topic.
@frennek

Hey comrade! I only answered one question!
In addition, these are not phrases, but knowledge! Even if it wasn't a polar bear!
I know the rifle very well and use it often enough to be able to form an opinion about it.
I also know the right ammunition!
And to your question: I can't answer you. But what I can say, I should be on Svalbard with a K98k
encountered an angry polar bear, that would make me, and maybe you too, sure to get out of it.
And as for the civilian? Best not to visit Svalbard.
How likely is it to have an eerie encounter of this kind up there?
Some of them pretend that there is a polar bear lurking behind every container.
The critters will probably not be that often there either.
The weapon of any kind can also be seen as moral support for the tourist, a kind of suspender to the belt.
I cannot imagine that they would let every affluent citizen stalk into the wilderness without shooting training if there is a very likely threat to him.
QUOTE (Boron @ Mar 2nd 2008, 2:00 pm)
With the K98k you can do everything there is in animals on our planet!
Regarding the question of where to hit, it should be said that there are some critical areas for you
Mammal there.
The head is a good target with a corresponding effect, a shot at sight has a similarly good effect.
Lungs are probably not as suitable and would not kill the animal quickly enough. In this case it would be
a second shot is appropriate!
Care should be taken when choosing ammunition. It is not advisable to use too soft ammunition, there
Bears are quite powerful. Even pure full jacket (military ammunition) is only suitable to a limited extent.
As I said, the most suitable ammo for me would be the Torpedo Universal Projectile (TUG) and
for "close combat" it is best to use a 357 mag. revolver with full jacket ammunition.


I wonder a little how an attacking bear can get a gunshot and then hitting the brain is more of a luck - the thing is not that big. If you mention your experience, you should also know that such hits are quite difficult even with native game species. Against a bear, a .357 wouldn't really be my first choice as a backup.

Even a "small" self-loader would not be my choice. There are also good hunting self-loaders, fore-end or lever action rifles in calibers larger than .308
QUOTE (EK 89/2 @ 2. Mar 2008, 6:30 pm)
How likely is it to have an eerie encounter of this kind up there?
Some of them almost pretend that there is a polar bear lurking behind every container.
The critters will probably not be that often there either.
The weapon of any kind can also be seen as moral support for the tourist, a kind of suspender to the belt.
I cannot imagine that they would let every affluent citizen stalk into the wilderness without shooting training if there is a very likely threat to him.



The polar bears are attracted to human habitation, that's the problem.
People's litter, and perhaps their pets too, are tempting prey

Since the topic now revolves around the K98k, I went into it.
And only mentioned Rande once; the rifle shot does not only stand for side hits but is a general term
for fatal shots in the heart / lung area!
But when the question came up, my first choice is a 9.3 x 62 caliber SLB with named ammunition
in a crisp 10 box.
And as a backup a robust LAR Grizzly in caliber 45 WinMag, although the 357 Mag revolver would also suffice.
The safest is probably a Marder AFV.


...


My God, the loud bang will probably drive the cattle away right away. Also, Svalbard is not now famous for constantly eating people, so the K98 seems to be doing its job.
QUOTE (Boron @ Mar 3rd 2008, 9:40 pm)
And only mentioned Rande once; the rifle shot does not only stand for side hits but is a general term
for fatal shots in the heart / lung area!


Äääääääääääh wrong! Unless you use it as a synonym and that's not general. A blade shot involves shooting the shoulder blade. Usually this is only possible from the flank - which one doesn't matter
QUOTE (goschi @ Feb 29th 2008, 11:59 am)
I think the reasons for the K98 could also be:
....
-proven to work reliably in this climate
...


I wanted to take it up again briefly. I once read that there were problems with the cold in the K98k during the Russian campaign. Due to the high manufacturing quality (low tolerances) and the effect of cold, which is known to cause metal to shrink, problems often arose. With the Russian models this should not have happened (as often) due to the larger tolerances.

Is that correct? Can someone confirm or even prove that? Unfortunately, it's been too long for me. I am of the opinion that it was a contemporary witness report.
I think that shouldn't be the problem with the repeater. This is more related to automatic weapons, which in fact have a problem with that. Also with the MG3, for example, the regulation in cold temperatures from so many degrees must be completely de-oiled.
It is also a problem with a repeater, i.e. all weapons must be de-oiled when the temperature is below zero.

The only thing is that the slide does not move when firing.
But the lock, and if you want to shoot again, the bolt should move too
Hardly believe that it is worth fooling around with the trigger and greasing the closure is always smarter than oiling. Incidentally, the K98 is much simpler and accordingly less prone to failure than an MG42 and it is also less likely to break.
So a lever action rifle in .450 Marlin isn't really expensive either and actually a better choice
Then let us all share your wisdom on how to come up with such a calculation.

Simply making a statement like that in the room is not.

Large caliber, heavy projectile - will probably achieve faster blood loss and a better stopping effect than a smaller, lighter, but faster projectile of the 8mm.
I don't even begin to calculate
QUOTE (SoldierofFortune @ Mar 10th 2008 1:41 pm)
So a lever action rifle in .450 Marlin isn't really expensive either


I want that explained. How do you come to such a "statement"?
This is a simplified representation of our main content. To see the detailed full view with formatting and images, please click here.