Hunting Lions can be hazardous to your Health!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Oh my gosh! Don't make me laugh so hard that I start spewing tea all over the place! I can't read this thread anymore because my stomach is going to rip apart from laughing!

A 16" rifle is easier to manuaver than a 30" sword is a small enviro, and a hell of a lot more effective. I remember reading aco**** of Samurai in close quarters such as this and their difficulty in attacking in confined quarters like that.

By the way, sign up and help out the US Military since according to you, we should re-outfit all our Marines doing house to house in Iraq since they would be way more effective with a sword instead of a bullet. Maybe let them change out their rifle for a bow too, no? Crap! We can take down all those insurgents this way and they won't know what hit em! And that is considering you are not using a handgun!!!

Anyway, want to know the outcome of rifles in the woods vs bow and arrows? Go ask your local Native American. I'm sure he can set your record straight, regardless how he outnumbered the white man when the battles were waged! I think Custard is the only idiot to lose to them, and that was purely by his stupid arrogance.

Lets put it this way, one rifles bullet = way more damage than an arrow that peirces straight, especially the way a 5.56 explodes when hitting flesh from a 14.5" barrel (min length for the phenominon to occur) or longer (Why do they even bother making 12" M4's? Might as well have a .22). It is easier to train and fire a rifle. Firing more than one shot is near instant. Someone with a rifle can hide as easily as someone with a bow. Need I go on? Quit watching too many Rambo movies.

-S

Wer zuletzt lacht, lacht am besten! Träum du nur.

the original starting point for this discussion was a setting of hunters with hunting rifles, and that very much is what I refer to. You may assume that a hunting rifle in a house is superior a weapon, but I know it better. Have you ever handled a sword yourself? I have, a Katana. It is not as light as Samurai-movies gives the impression, it requrires quite some strength to move it fast and precise. That'S why I said "gunner and sword fighter of equal strength". A hunting rifles weights how much? I don't know, but I am sure it is more than just one kilogram, that is a mass that needs to be swung. If you hold it ready at your shoulder, you need to move your whole body to aim and to swing it - a sword is faster, believe me, a short sword even more so. And that you assume that narrow space is necessarily an obstacle for a sword only shows that you do not know much about technical sword fighting technique. a Katana primarily is used to hack - not to slice and not to stab. But using it to stab and to slice (not preferred, it wears the sharp side of the blade) is possible, and training should and could focus on that. It is not the preferred scenario, but it is possible to use a Katana in narrow space (although a shorter Wakizashi would be the better choice - but that sword was not meant as a fighting weapon). The blade is led closer to your body then, almost in full body contact, and with focussing on the tip as the lethal part of it, not so much the broad blade. Well, I can't explain that in a few words, i would need to demonstrate it. however, believe me, that such an opponent would be more faster and agile in movement and body control than you with your hunting gun.

The US military is not interested in adopting swords, believe me. Because learnign to use it should be measured in decades. I started with that when I was 12, and that already is considered to be very late. Do you have special units of any kind willing to spend 15 or 20 years in training before they reach combat-ready-status? and why should they, when they have no need for that? House-to-house in Iraq is not done versus Iraqis with swords. You also don't hunt lions in Iraq. Or hunters.

That is what I meant with "educating", August. Going into a store, buying a pistol or rifle, and spend two hours in the woods with somebody explaining to you where the trigger is and where the bullet is coming from is easy. It mujst not affect your character. It does not tech you discipline, self-regulation, control. It may need some practice to hit anything at useful ranges, but you must not spend a liftime with that. That'S why firarms became popular in acnient times, as you poijnt out. It does not need so much training. It is the easier, the cheaper, the less worthful way. Do you think I learned all this stuff to become a fighter? It was a tool for my teacher, to change me. and it has. Going for airpistols are rifle shooting never would have acchieved that - for it wouldn't have demanded so much. For hunting purposes, and even military purposes, you must not change your life, your attitude, your will, your mind. But if you want to make use of bows or swords in a serious meaning, you need to do invest a whole lot of yourself, of your time, of your life. It chnages you, and it will become part of your life. It requires disicipline of an degree that rifle-shooting does not (as long as you do not go to the Olympics, or spoecialised military: snipers or whatever, and here the intention is a fully destructive one). You need to train more, and harder, and more diverse, than you need to lean how to operate a pistol for self-defense. the first year of my sword training was - muscle traning exclusively, five days a week, additonally to meditation and the beginning of Wing Tsun. The first two years of my training with the bow was mental training exclusively - my muscles alone were not and still are not strong enough to use that bow to any useful effect beyond 30m. In short words: pistol shooting and rifle shooting, and sword fighting and archery of the kind I mean simply do not compare. It is art versus industrial mass output (of killing effect, in this case). for the first you need to adopt all your life. For the latter you need to push a button. It's like smoking a cigarette while rushing down the stairs to get the bus, compared to having a "gemütliche" session with your tobacco pipe where you spend ten minutes alone or more just to get the pipe ready - a ritual that you even enjoy.

I already have admitted that the gunner is depending on having the weapon already at ready and fixed on the target. In that scenario, as August describes, the sword cannot win by it's own effort, only when the gun makes a mistake. but when the gun has no target in sight, needs to search in high grass, or a narrow house, the story is a complete different one. And as August says, the individual competence of the fighter with his choosen wepaon is a factor, but I exclusively talked about a competent one.

what it comes down to is this: in open savannah and high gras, with a bunch of sunday hunters having stupid heads under their caps, a competent archer using silence and camouflage very probably will outclass them and kill them from ranges of up to 100m. and if they manage to approach his location where he lies in ambush and the archer also being competent in sword fighting, they again have very bad chances. Tactics and camouflage and stealth are very powerful weapons. Individual competence with a weapon is a key variable, of course.

An Subman, if you ever come with an M16 (do you hunt lions with an M16...?) to me and I have a sword and you step through the door at armslength - I for example could easily doom your weapon to inefficiency by stepping towards you so that you have no more room left to manouveur your M16 - while I can still use my sword to full effect If I emrbace and kiss you, how do you point an M16 at me, then? I also don't believe you that you swing a rifle as quickly by a 90° as I hack or stab with a sword from any position and even backwards when going for you serious and in anger. You would gain in movement speed by using a small pistol, for example. But such a small and agile weapon again is something different.

If the scanrio is different, and comes to military grounds, of course I wouldn't not limit myself to bows and swords, and would use mor emodern weapons as well. Which does not mean that I would rule out my ancient relics in all imaginable situations.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wer zuletzt lacht, lacht am besten! Träum du nur.

the original starting point for this discussion was a setting of hunters with hunting rifles, and that very much is what I refer to. You may assume that a hunting rifle in a house is superior a weapon, but I know it better. Have you ever handled a sword yourself? I have, a Katana. It is not as light as Samurai-movies gives the impression, it requrires quite some strength to move it fast and precise. That'S why I said "gunner and sword fighter of equal strength". A hunting rifles weights how much? I don't know, but I am sure it is more than just one kilogram, that is a mass that needs to be swung. If you hold it ready at your shoulder, you need to move your whole body to aim and to swing it - a sword is faster, believe me, a short sword even more so. And that you assume that narrow space is necessarily an obstacle for a sword only shows that you do not know much about technical sword fighting technique. a Katana primarily is used to hack - not to slice and not to stab. But using it to stab and to slice (not preferred, it wears the sharp side of the blade) is possible, and training should and could focus on that. It is not the preferred scenario, but it is possible to use a Katana in narrow space (although a shorter Wakizashi would be the better choice - but that sword was not meant as a fighting weapon). The blade is led closer to your body then, almost in full body contact, and with focussing on the tip as the lethal part of it, not so much the broad blade. Well, I can't explain that in a few words, i would need to demonstrate it. however, believe me, that such an opponent would be more faster and agile in movement and body control than you with your hunting gun.

The US military is not interested in adopting swords, believe me. Because learnign to use it should be measured in decades. I started with that when I was 12, and that already is considered to be very late. Do you have special units of any kind willing to spend 15 or 20 years in training before they reach combat-ready-status? and why should they, when they have no need for that? House-to-house in Iraq is not done versus Iraqis with swords. You also don't hunt lions in Iraq. Or hunters.

That is what I meant with "educating", August. Going into a store, buying a pistol or rifle, and spend two hours in the woods with somebody explaining to you where the trigger is and where the bullet is coming from is easy. It mujst not affect your character. It does not tech you discipline, self-regulation, control. It may need some practice to hit anything at useful ranges, but you must not spend a liftime with that. That'S why firarms became popular in acnient times, as you poijnt out. It does not need so much training. It is the easier, the cheaper, the less worthful way. Do you think I learned all this stuff to become a fighter? It was a tool for my teacher, to change me. and it has. Going for airpistols are rifle shooting never would have acchieved that - for it wouldn't have demanded so much. For hunting purposes, and even military purposes, you must not change your life, your attitude, your will, your mind. But if you want to make use of bows or swords in a serious meaning, you need to do invest a whole lot of yourself, of your time, of your life. It chnages you, and it will become part of your life. It requires disicipline of an degree that rifle-shooting does not (as long as you do not go to the Olympics, or spoecialised military: snipers or whatever, and here the intention is a fully destructive one). You need to train more, and harder, and more diverse, than you need to lean how to operate a pistol for self-defense. the first year of my sword training was - muscle traning exclusively, five days a week, additonally to meditation and the beginning of Wing Tsun. The first two years of my training with the bow was mental training exclusively - my muscles alone were not and still are not strong enough to use that bow to any useful effect beyond 30m. In short words: pistol shooting and rifle shooting, and sword fighting and archery of the kind I mean simply do not compare. It is art versus industrial mass output (of killing effect, in this case). for the first you need to adopt all your life. For the latter you need to push a button. It's like smoking a cigarette while rushing down the stairs to get the bus, to having a "gemütliche" session with your tobacco pipe where you need ten minutes or more just to get the pipe ready - a ritual that you even enjoy.

I already have admitted that the gunner is depending on having the weapon already at ready and fixed on the target. In that scenario, as August describes, the sword cannot win by it's own effort, only when the gun makes a mistake. but when the gun has no target in sight, needs to search in high grass, or a narrow house, the story is a complete different one. And as August says, the individual competence of the fighter with his choosen wepaon is a factor, but I exclusively talked about a competent one.

what it comes down to is this: in open savannah and high gras, with a bunch of sunday hunters having stupid heads under their caps, a competent archer using silence and camouflage very probably will outclass them and kill them from ranges of up to 100m. and if they manage to approach his location where he lies in ambush and the archer also being competent in sword fighting, they again have very bad chances. Tactics and camouflage and stealth are very powerful weapons. Individual competence with a weapon is a key variable, of course.

An Subman, if you ever come with an M16 (do you hunt lions with an M16...?) to me and I have a sword and you step through the door at armslength - I for example could easily doom your weapon to inefficiency by stepping towards you so that you have no more room left to manouveur your M16 - while I can still use my sword to full effect If I emrbace and kiss you, how do you point an M16 at me, then? I also don't believe you that you swing a rifle as quickly by a 90° as I hack or stab with a sword from any position and even backwards when going for you serious and in anger. You would gain in movement speed by using a small pistol, for example. But such a small and agile weapon again is something different.

If the scanrio is different, and comes to military grounds, of course I wouldn't not limit myself to bows and swords, and would use mor emodern weapons as well. Which does not mean that I would rule out my ancient relics in all imaginable situations.

Wow! Talk about a long response!!! Won't help change the facts though.

If you step towards someone armed with an assualt rifle, they can move the gun in a similar fasion as your sword, and still shoot you, from the hip or even one handed if need be! Any scenario where a sword can be weilded, a gun of similar length can be more efficiently weilded as well. Weight is light at about 3 kilo's for an AR. Recoil is nearly non existant due to the long recoil spring into the stock to absorb it, plus other enhancements such as the gas line feeding the block directly. Trust me - no matter how much you write, someone with a sword is 'always' the looser. Unless you are Hollywood of course. So basically, I will laugh last and best if you even think of trying to go after someone in that manner!

The only way a sword can win anything is with the element of surprise against an unprepared enemy - ie - no clip inserted, etc. Still, the weapon can also be used not only as a club, but will do fine in blocking any sword strike, especially since the typical M-16 has a heavy steel barrel (My AR does). The bad part is, the element of surprise also works for the weilder of the gun just as easiliy.

The old addage - never bring a knife to a gunfight! Old cowboy saying.

-S

PS. I would hunt Lions with an M-16. The 5.56mm round with the steel penetrator is incredibly effective if it achieves disired velocity - which results from firing from an acceptable length barrel. Personally, I don't think anything less than 16" should be used, but apparently, fragmentation can still occur from a 14.5" barrel. Basically, use a 16" barrel, and everything will be good.

PPS. I know you have watched too many Ninja movies though and I am probably wasting my breath. Saw one Ninja movie where the Ninja disappears through chenneling his Chi! WoW! Wish I could do that! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Some info from this site:

http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php

The 223 ammunition it uses. The rifle has enough power to kill humans or deer if not bears and cape buffalo, is accurate out to several hundred yards and, with heavy (75 - 95 grain) bullets and quick-twist barrels, can shoot to 800 - 1000 yards. It is accurate and allows rapid, well-aimed fire.

That might answer your questions on whether or not its good to shoot lions with. Bears have thicker skulls and are more dangerous!

They should technically call it 5.56mm since .223 is a lower powered round for varmit hunting with sporting rifles, not M-16's/AR-15's which use a more powerful round.

[Skybird]

I think you suffer from this old american BIB-syndrome (bigger is always better)

Okay, you and me, and a house between us. I know what you have, any kind of 3kg assault rifle, and you know what I have, a 1.2 kg Katana. I assume that you can aim precisley, and you assume that I can handle a sword precisely, and fast. We both enter the house from different directions. You ammo is limited, mine is not. I am used to move in the way that is needed to maximize my weapons efficiency, while you are probably much slower in your movement. You would prefer open space, large rooms and gangs, so that any approach by me gives you enough reaction time, and long viewing sights. You would avoid close infight, I would seek it. I would prefer a more covered area and would depend on more conceilment and stealth, but do not depend on wether I have enough space for traditional fighting, or not. I know if you spot me without me being in combat range, I'm dead. You doubt that I could pose a thread no matter if at long range or short range or hand-hand-range. We both have no doubt that my job is much tougher. But is it impossible?

Could become interesting, and a long waiting game.

Not that this has anything to do with the idiots-hunting-lions-and-get-bowed-down-by-me-scenario. hunting for food is one thing. Hunting for trophies or sick pleasure si something different. A camera-gun would be the better option for that kind of hunt, I think. I find needless killing and making a hobby of it disgusting.

Oh, and just this, a triple-blade arrowheads makes a huge and terrible wound if fired with enough compression strength (?), say everything beyond 60 lb at 80m (just a rough estimation), braking bones in it's path instead of getting deflected, so that the archer even does not depend on shooting a soft spot in your anatomy. You better consider every hit in your body, not just limbs, to be lethal. Such an arrowhead does not stamp a clean, surgical hole in your flesh, but really tears your flesh and bones apart around the impact area, like a knife that gets put in your body, and then turned and twisted. Of course, such arrowheads are illegal, but you can find them if you want to. The arrowheads of the english longbows also are good enough to brake through the heavy plate-armour of the knights they were designed for to take out, also chainmail. Not bad when considering that chainmail can prevent penetration from the smallest pistol callibre rounds under optimal conditions (according to a testing they showed in a docu on TV some time ago - i didn't believe it before, but I saw it).

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think you suffer from this old american BIB-syndrome (bigger is always better)

Okay, you and me, and a house between us. I know what you have, any kind of 3kg assault rifle, and you know what I have, a 1.2 kg Katana. I assume that you can aim precisley, and you assume that I can handle a sword precisely, and fast. We both enter the house from different directions. You ammo is limited, mine is not. I am used to move in the way that is needed to maximize my weapons efficiency, while you are probably much slower in your movement. You would prefer open space, large rooms and gangs, so that any approach by me gives you enough reaction time, and long viewing sights. You would avoid close infight, I would seek it. I would prefer a more covered area and would depend on more conceilment and stealth, but do not depend on wether I have enough space for traditional fighting, or not. I know if you spot me without me being in combat range, I'm dead. You doubt that I could pose a thread no matter if at long range or short range or hand-hand-range. We both have no doubt that my job is much tougher. But is it impossible?

Could become interesting, and a long waiting game.

Not that this has anything to do with the idiots-hunting-lions-and-get-bowed-down-by-me-scenario. hunting for food is one thing. Hunting for trophies or sick pleasure si something different. A camera-gun would be the better option for that kind of hunt, I think. I find needless killing and making a hobby of it disgusting.

Oh, and just this, a triple-blade arrowheads makes a huge and terrible wound if fired with enough compression strength (?), say everything beyond 60 lb at 80m (just a rough estimation), braking bones in it's path instead of getting deflected, so that the archer even does not depend on shooting a soft spot in your anatomy. You better consider every hit in your body, not just limbs, to be lethal. Such an arrowhead does not stamp a clean, surgical hole in your flesh, but really tears your flesh and bones apart around the impact area, like a knife that gets put in your body, and then turned and twisted. Of course, such arrowheads are illegal, but you can find them if you want to. The arrowheads of the english longbows also are good enough to brake through the heavy plate-armour of the knights they were designed for to take out, also chainmail. Not bad when considering that chainmail can prevent penetration from the smallest pistol callibre rounds under optimal conditions (according to a testing they showed in a docu on TV some time ago - i didn't believe it before, but I saw it).

Nothing is impossible. Just that surprise is mandatory in your situation to even have a chance. And you forget that people move and don't stand still waiting for you to do something, and that your enemy could also be the one with the surprise on you! And if someone who has a 30 round clip in their rifle can't hit you with the first or second shot, (let alone 30, and since you are probably carrying another 90 rounds worth of clips, and probably another handgun as backup) deserves to get hit! Missing with an assault rifle (well, an AK maybe not, but missing with an AR/M16 is unacceptable) at less than 100 feet is a hard thing to do, let alone less than 100 yards! That is why it is an offensive weapon, not defensive such as a handgun.

Besides, if you want to use this rifle as a handgun, it can be employed somewhat reliably with one hand if need be, though that does get tiring after a while, and suffers from less accuracy.

Basically, everything about your situation is at an disadvantage. Not a good thing. Get yourself a rifle. You'll live longer! :p

-S

[lesrae]

Originally Posted by STEED

Hunting any big wild cats is sick, just another sad reflection on the world we live on.

In this day and age I have to agree.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by lesrae

In this day and age I have to agree.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by lesrae

In this day and age I have to agree.

Nuisance animals sometimes have to be dealt with.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Nuisance animals sometimes have to be dealt with.

Humans are a nuisance and could probably be considered animals, but who's dealing with us?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Humans are a nuisance and could probably be considered animals, but who's dealing with us?

The bad scenario is if its the cats dealing with us. Then all the farmers out there will go on a cat killing spree themselves and you'll have hundreds of them dead instead of one.

But I agree with your assesment.

-S

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The bad scenario is if its the cats dealing with us. Then all the farmers out there will go on a cat killing spree themselves and you'll have hundreds of them dead instead of one.

But I agree with your assesment.

-S

Touche, but at the end of the day, who put the cats in the position that they are hunting livestock? Go back a century or two and they had the plains, occasionally they'd still attack humans, mainly when they got in the way, or if you had a flipped out cat (happens to the best of us) but eventually we took control of their landscape and began trying to shape it to suit us. What goes 'round, comes 'round.
Same thing is happening in some parts of India with Elephants. You kick the beast, it's gonna bite back.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Touche, but at the end of the day, who put the cats in the position that they are hunting livestock? Go back a century or two and they had the plains, occasionally they'd still attack humans, mainly when they got in the way, or if you had a flipped out cat (happens to the best of us) but eventually we took control of their landscape and began trying to shape it to suit us. What goes 'round, comes 'round.
Same thing is happening in some parts of India with Elephants. You kick the beast, it's gonna bite back.

This is exactly why I said I agree with your assesment - as I stated above. THe humans have also become a nuisance to the cat.

-S

[Oberon]

Cool You know me, I tend to ramble on abit...especially when it comes to animal welfare...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Nothing is impossible. Just that surprise is mandatory in your situation to even have a chance. And you forget that people move and don't stand still waiting for you to do something, and that your enemy could also be the one with the surprise on you! And if someone who has a 30 round clip in their rifle can't hit you with the first or second shot, (let alone 30, and since you are probably carrying another 90 rounds worth of clips, and probably another handgun as backup) deserves to get hit! Missing with an assault rifle (well, an AK maybe not, but missing with an AR/M16 is unacceptable) at less than 100 feet is a hard thing to do, let alone less than 100 yards! That is why it is an offensive weapon, not defensive such as a handgun.

Besides, if you want to use this rifle as a handgun, it can be employed somewhat reliably with one hand if need be, though that does get tiring after a while, and suffers from less accuracy.

Basically, everything about your situation is at an disadvantage. Not a good thing. Get yourself a rifle. You'll live longer! :p

-S

If this... if that... well, if i got strapped down to the ground and can't move and the enemy knows where I am and have positioned a GPS beside my head and has called in an airstrike to hit that coordinate, then my situation is not rosy. But that is not the situation I was talking about. I was talking about opponents made of sunday-hunters armed with hunting guns in that kind of environment as to be seen in the video. And there i would consider a rifle for myself even a disadvantage, for the first shot would give away my position, while I have several enemies to face - not good. A mixture of stealth tactic and silent weapons would always be the option that I prefer in that situation. Just that a good bow in capable hands has a better range for precision fire than a silenced pistol, and also adds an extra psychological shock to the enemy, and with according arrowheads is more lethal than a silenced pistol.

You are right about surprise. But who said that surprise hasn't been part of my agenda from the first post on? Of course, if you have a bow, you would use different tactics than if you would have a rifle. i would use a rifle as a club as long as they are not aware of my exact location.

[Oberon]

If this... if that... well, if i got strapped down to the ground and can't move and the enemy knows where I am and have positioned a GPS beside my head and has called in an airstrike to hit that coordinate, then my situation is not rosy.

Depends who's bombing