Firearms on Ground team

[Ed Bos]

I was pretty sure that was the case.....but you know how those rumors are.....they make it sound like it was last week. 

I actually asked the CAP/DO about this a year or two ago, and was told that while it was a law that CAP and other airman in AK carry firearms in their survival equipment, CAP did a really poor job of maintaining the equipment... Really demonstrated why it wold be a huge challenge to lobby to carry them ever again.

[LSThiker]

Since no one has really hit on it, I figure I will post about the use of guns to prevent animal attacks.  First of all, I like guns and own a few.  With that being said, having a gun to protect yourself from an animal attack is useless despite what Rick Perry and other "outdoors men" will make you believe.  The gun debate for animal protection was brought up again during the NOLS bear mauling a few years ago.  Of course you heard the standard ignorant arguments of "if you are in the wild, you need a gun" or "how could you send teens out without a gun". 

A study conducted by the US Forest Service back in 1983 (I wish they would repeat the study) demonstrated that most firearms fail against bears.  The minimum handgun necessary was a 0.44 magnum and even that was considered marginally effective.  Unfortunately, they did not test any .454 or .50 caliber weapons.  The minimum rifle necessary was the 0.458 Winchester Magnum.  Yes of course you will hear people say they killed a bear with a .30-06 or a .22 rifle (yes I have heard that).  Shotguns with buckshot had zero penetration beyond 15 yards.  12-gauge shotgun with slugs was the only one that passed for bear protection. 

The University of Calgary, lead by Steve Herrero, has conducted two studies examining guns and bear spray for bear protection.  It was found that 98% of people that used bear-spray walked away unharmed, while 56% that used firearms were injured.  Only 61% of bears actually were killed with firearms.  Granted, there are some problems with these studies, which he acknowledges (I won't get into those, but you can look those up).  However, despite that, he still believes bear spray to be better.

If a person is really afraid of animal attacks, then invest in bear spray.  It is pretty much legal in the entire US, even in areas where pepper spray is illegal.  However, certain national parks have banned it use (even though they have bears).  It is actually banned on most of the John Muir Trail for example. 

If a person is worried about bears, then following certain precautions is advised.  The use of bear canisters is more effective than hanging your food.  Actually bears have already figured out the PCT-Style of hanging your food. 

So with that said, the use of a gun for protection is likely just to anger the bear more and cause them to attack you.

[Ed Bos]

That's great info, thanks for sharing it.

[Eclipse]

Do ya feel lucky?



Well do ya? Bear?

[PHall]

RPG's have proven very effective against Grizzlies.

[a2capt]

Since personalities vary, I'd have to figure that NHQ just would rather not have to deal with the perception that we're anything more than volunteers, and have no other authority.. and a firearm might imply otherwise, that we're just not going to go there.

[lordmonar]

RPG's have proven very effective against Grizzlies.

Nahhhh......I find that too often I'm engaging Grizzlies too close for the warhead to arm....I get a hit.....but it just impacts on the surface. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Well, people reported injuries from ticks, bees, and the like. Even a few have been injured by bee stings... And I like the 1903 Springfield even thou I do not own one. So yes, I will become one of those speaking for firearms on missions. It will be a challenge carrying one, the 24-hour pack, and the Ground Team equipment in New York, because most of the missions I envision will be in New York City and Long Island... I did not know how big a risk I took on my 15 missions some time ago...



Flyer

[Sergeant#40]

Since no one has really hit on it, I figure I will post about the use of guns to prevent animal attacks.  First of all, I like guns and own a few.  With that being said, having a gun to protect yourself from an animal attack is useless despite what Rick Perry and other "outdoors men" will make you believe.  The gun debate for animal protection was brought up again during the NOLS bear mauling a few years ago.  Of course you heard the standard ignorant arguments of "if you are in the wild, you need a gun" or "how could you send teens out without a gun". 

A study conducted by the US Forest Service back in 1983 (I wish they would repeat the study) demonstrated that most firearms fail against bears.  The minimum handgun necessary was a 0.44 magnum and even that was considered marginally effective.  Unfortunately, they did not test any .454 or .50 caliber weapons.  The minimum rifle necessary was the 0.458 Winchester Magnum.  Yes of course you will hear people say they killed a bear with a .30-06 or a .22 rifle (yes I have heard that).  Shotguns with buckshot had zero penetration beyond 15 yards.  12-gauge shotgun with slugs was the only one that passed for bear protection. 

The University of Calgary, lead by Steve Herrero, has conducted two studies examining guns and bear spray for bear protection.  It was found that 98% of people that used bear-spray walked away unharmed, while 56% that used firearms were injured.  Only 61% of bears actually were killed with firearms.  Granted, there are some problems with these studies, which he acknowledges (I won't get into those, but you can look those up).  However, despite that, he still believes bear spray to be better.

If a person is really afraid of animal attacks, then invest in bear spray.  It is pretty much legal in the entire US, even in areas where pepper spray is illegal.  However, certain national parks have banned it use (even though they have bears).  It is actually banned on most of the John Muir Trail for example. 

If a person is worried about bears, then following certain precautions is advised.  The use of bear canisters is more effective than hanging your food.  Actually bears have already figured out the PCT-Style of hanging your food. 

So with that said, the use of a gun for protection is likely just to anger the bear more and cause them to attack you.

That depends on the caliber. If all you have is a 10-22, you're very likely to just agitate him. However if you have a .357, that's a different story.
 

[GroundHawg]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

[Eclipse]

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

900-3 already has that allowance, they can and do every day.

[Garibaldi]

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

900-3 already has that allowance, they can and do every day.

Wow. I did not know that.

[Eclipse]

"(1) A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law
provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing
commander."

The nuance being "required" vs "allowed".

I've personally noticed a trend in that people who have to carry a firearm on-duty are much
less excited about carrying one off-duty.

They also seem much more clear on the term "concealed" in the context of carry.

[Sergeant#40]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

[lordmonar]

As an avid outdoors man.....there are almost NO animals you can't "get away from" if you take even the basic precautions.....and I have had a run it with a bear or two (and a bunch of sharks, snakes, ells, jellyfish, mountain lions, bobcats, deer, sheep, goats, llamas, camels, dogs, cats and a particularly mean raven once).

The idea that CAP GTs are running around armed scares me way way way more then anything I'm likely to run into in the field.

[Storm Chaser]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

Minors will never be allowed to carry weapons on an ES mission. If you're so concerned about animal attacks, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in GT sorties or any outdoors CAP activity, for that matter.

[Spaceman3750]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

Minors will never be allowed to carry weapons on an ES mission. If you're so concerned about animal attacks, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in GT sorties or any outdoors CAP activity, for that matter.

Who said anything about arming minors? The minimum concealed carry age anywhere I've cared to look is 21.

[Storm Chaser]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

Minors will never be allowed to carry weapons on an ES mission. If you're so concerned about animal attacks, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in GT sorties or any outdoors CAP activity, for that matter.

Who said anything about arming minors? The minimum concealed carry age anywhere I've cared to look is 21.

I was replying to Sergeant#40, who happens to be 14.

[LSThiker]

That depends on the caliber. If all you have is a 10-22, you're very likely to just agitate him. However if you have a .357, that's a different story.

Are you for real?  Actually it depends a lot on other factors than simply the caliber.  It depends on the grain, length of the barrel, distance between you and the target, and your ability to shoot a moving bear while in a frantic situation.  Remember, Natives were killing bears with sharp sticks long before guns.

If you are really worried about raccoons on a ground team, then ask your parents and your doctor about a rabies vaccine.

Otherwise, if you are following the proper precautions and making noise while walking as you should, animals will never bother you.  If you are still worried, then buy bear spray, which is also effective against other forms of animals to include humans.

[stillamarine]

"(1) A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law
provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing
commander."

The nuance being "required" vs "allowed".

I've personally noticed a trend in that people who have to carry a firearm on-duty are much
less excited about carrying one off-duty.

They also seem much more clear on the term "concealed" in the context of carry.

The way things are now it's less and less common to see an off duty officer NOT carrying. I won't go out without carrying. Plus my dept is a required to carry off duty.