How effective are military arms/ammunition against dangerous animals?

[Sistema1927]

.303 and 7.62x54R have killed a lot of moose and bear (and Moose and Squirrel) in the north.

.303, 8mm Mauser, and 7.62x39 have taken every animal in Africa. Optimum? Of course not, but that has not stopped those with military weapons from hunting (or poaching) with them.

 

[Speedo66]

The scene I watched that was posted here, the bear was killed by multiple rounds that basically tore it's brain out from the side. Regular .22's would probably do that.

All you would have to do is get within a few feet of a dangerous animal and have it point it's head away from you and stay there while you pour small caliber fire into it. Easy-peasy. Happens all the time.

 

[Speedo66]

Bell's famous .275 Rigby was nothing more than a 7mm Mauser in British terminology. He was known to have taken a few large animals with it.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

and then a crazy mutated bear with a face like a human skull

That's just supposed to be a zombie bear, where a bunch of the flesh has been stripped away from the face. It is a scary looking beast.

Is any of this realistic?

Hollywood.............. so nope.

Would an M4 on full-auto (or any gun in 5.56) have killing power out of proportion to the individual rounds? Could (presumably) FMJ 5.56 penetrate as portrayed, even a notoriously tough animal like an alligator?

With enough rounds of 5.56, you will bring down a bear, or alligator, or whatever. Let's assume the way it tore through that they were green tipped rounds.

In answer to your overall question, a lot of little bullets have a cumulative effect for bleed outs. Close fire full auto of 5.56 would likely kill anything, and would certainly repel anything, that lives in North America. However, I have no desire to cary an M4 around the woods or into a dome thingy. I'd rather carry a 10mm, or big bore revolver.

 

[Gtscotty]

This question is based on a specific situation. In the movie "Annihilation" a small squad of 5 female soldiers/scientists is sent into this weird, dome-like thing to see what's inside. At various times they are attacked first by a large alligator, and then a crazy mutated bear with a face like a human skull (I still have nightmares about that thing). In both cases they handle these critters with full-auto fire from what appears to be M4s. It looks like it takes about half a magazine to kill each animal. The alligator charges with its mouth open wide, and the shooter is firing right down the animal's open gullet. In the bear's case, the shooter is about 10 feet away firing from the side, and it shows most of the rounds traversing the entire width of the animal and going out the other side. It appears that at least one round goes through the animal's head and that does it in, but it's a bit unclear.
Is any of this realistic? Would an M4 on full-auto (or any gun in 5.56) have killing power out of proportion to the individual rounds? Could (presumably) FMJ 5.56 penetrate as portrayed, even a notoriously tough animal like an alligator?
BTW, "Annihilation" was a pretty good movie, but a serious mind bender.

I just watched that movie this weekend and when I saw your thread title I was thinking about how M-16s didn't seem to work that hot on the creepy bear mutant in that movie.

I'm sure in real life it depends what you hit with the .223 bullets, and how they perform. A half mag into a bear where some of the bullets fracture/expand and destroy CNS, the heart, etc would probably appear to work quite well. A half mag into a bear where none of the bullets destroy any structures immediately necessary is probably going to turn out quite differently.

All bets are off when defending against alien-mutated, exposed skull bears that mimic the screams of their victim's though....

 

[Sav .250]

As you noted it`s a ......movie.

 

[rodinal220]

I saw a 16mm film (remember those?) in college of Elephants being culled in Kenya by persons equipped with FN FALs in 7.62x51. A big bull was dropped like a hot rock with a head shot and then a few more " insurance shots". I can only postulate that it was some kind of M80 ball. In my readings of African game hunting, many big 5 were taken by locals with 303 Brit and 7x57 Mauser back in the day.

As has been pointed out, its common today for poachers to use 7.62x39.

 

[rodregier]

The Canadian Rangers will be using their new bolt-action C19 service rifle in 7.62 NATO (aka .308 Win)
for predator defense and hunting way up North, incl polar bears. I haven't been able to find a source that comments on ammunition type for that usage. Such usage is part of the mission statement for the C19. The C19 is a version of the Tikka T3 made under license from Sako by Colt Canada in a production contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C19

 

[bassjam]

Really, the use of M4's makes some sense in these types of movies. I haven't seen Annihilation, but often in these types of movies you'll have a scientist or 2 protected by military or ex-military. And if your military guys have spent their adult lives carrying and using an M4, you don't rip that out of their hands and give them a Mossberg 500 and a bandoleer of slugs and send them into a dark cavern or remote island. You let them use the tools they've trained with and are comfortable with.

Heck, if I was going into some unknown world with unknown creatures I'd probably rather have an AR15 and a bunch of loaded magazines over a 3 shot .416 Rigby bolt action. Although if I had a choice, I'd opt for a SCAR 17.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Easiest job you can have in Hollywood is being a firearm technical consultant. Because no one listens to that guy anyway.

Clearly, that guy said "each M16 is not like a hand wielded mini-gun with a 4000 round magazine".

 

[Dain Bramage]

Willard easily dispatches a tiger in "Apocalypse Now" with a full-auto M16.

Also, Yosemite Sam can briefly levitate by firing his sixguns into the ground.

I mean, it's not like our cites have to pass Frank Ettin's scrutiny in "Legal", right?

 

[RA40]

In Aliens the weapon fire in that movie blasted parts off those critters. Zombies are tougher than those acid blood flowing Aliens.

 

[mcb]

In Aliens the weapon fire in that movie blasted parts off those critters. Zombies are tougher than those acid blood flowing Aliens.

But that was 10mm explosive tip caseless. If I get to fire rounds with HE as a payload you can bet I wouldn't be afraid of no xenomorph with acid for blood or zombie bear.

 

[JohnBiltz]

For those who have not seen the movie. Essentially a zone opens up and is expanding. Several expeditions were dispatched into the zone, some heavy hitting military people among them. They just disappeared. The real problem was the zone mutates every thing that is in it including people already there and people sent into it. Of course no one knows that because no one has ever returned. The last group that goes in is a group of female scientists. A last minute addition is a female scientist whose husband was an elite soldier who went in and suddenly appears at their home after months missing, incoherent. He is dying from mutations. She and her husband are quickly shuffled of to a secret location. And that is about the first 15 minutes of the movie. Its a very good and disturbing movie.

 

[MedWheeler]

If this stays a "movie guns vs. zombies/critters/mutants" thread, it will get closed.

Just sayin'.. is all..

 

[WVGunman]

A last minute addition is a female scientist whose husband was an elite soldier who went in and suddenly appears at their home after months missing, incoherent.

That would be Natalie Portman ... who looks hot as hell in the slo-mo closeup gunning down the alligator in full auto, I might add.
Thanks to the guy who posted the clip of the bear scene. The urge to **** my pants was not nearly as strong the second time watching it. It also revealed that my memory was faulty. The animal was shot from no more than 5 feet away, with a full magazine emptied directly into its ear. I think that kind of settles the debate.

 

[WVGunman]

I'm surprised no one brought up the Zanesville incident.

Though bullet types are not discussed, hundreds of rounds of .223 are used on dangerous animals, and much of the ammunition is reloaded stock donated to police when they run low on their own. Round for round, the .223 comes across as woefully ineffective in this case, at least against the biggest cats.

https://americanhandgunner.com/lions-and-tigers-and-bears-for-real/

I think this is good info. If it took 30 rounds of .223 into the chest of a tiger at an unknown distance to kill it, then ~15-30 rounds into the ear of a bear at 5 feet being instantly lethal makes sense. I now believe the movie's portrayal of that particular shooting to be in line with reality (other than, you know, the utter impossibility of the beast as portrayed existing in the first place!)

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"7.62x39 is probably the most popular military round in the world. In the AK47 it is quite potent, and is the favored weapon for African dangerous game poachers."

I think poachers tend to use what is available. In Africa AK47 is commonly available and dirt cheap.

During the 1930s Depression, .22 LR and 12 ga cut birdshot shells were used to decimate the deer population in my neck of the woods. When I visited the mountains with my Dad in the 1950s, there were no deer sign on the property. After deer population made a rebound, I suppose some mountain farmers might use .22 LR or cut birdshot shells to harvest venison for the winter. But serious deer hunters make other choices: compound bow, caplock or inline ML BP rifle, "deer caliber" centerfire rifle.

Weapon used by poachers (or other criminals) does not make it the best weapon for the job. I grew up in a poor neighborhood during local option alcohol prohibition 1953-1968; street hoods favored the police .38 and the Army .45 handguns. Most who carried had .22 RG10, .25 Titan, .22 rifle sawed-off pirate pistol style. In a poor neighborhood, the weapons available to be stolen and fenced were what poor people had in their homes. Favored criminal weapons were S&W M10 or Colt 1911A1 but were harder to find with the local fence than RG10 and Titan.

I would not base choice of weapon for dangerous game on what poachers use.

Back to opening post question: How effective are military arms/ammunition against dangerous animals? using the movie with soldiers with M4s versus mutant crocodile and zombie bear as an example. Looking at my Yugo M70AB2 and M1 Carbine I suppose with a 30 shot magazine and FMJ military ammo I could wear down a large predator shooting center of mass. I would favor a weapon more powerful with a quicker stop with the one COM shot I might have against a charging predator.


(Aside on the movie itself: the plot device of an anomalous structure or zone where unknown perils have left no survivors of previous explorers reminds me of Algis Budrys' Rogue Moon.)

 

[Robert]

I think we have pretty much covered the bases on this one.