-
Features
tyrranosaurus rex and a gun that would take him down
- Thread starter BH
- Start date
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
First, we are use "effective" differently. If they put it on auto an that kills the elephants before they can hurt the human, that's effective as far as I can tell - effective as a means of killing the elephant.seyorni said:
Second, it was suggested that a GAU-8 would do the trick; even a video was provided. Clearly, they weren't talking about clean shots (even if a single shot from that gun would have done it). I was trying to say that even a much less powerful weapon would likely to it.
Third, the OP asks about a weapon that would bring it down quickly, and talks about a single shot but because "led poisoning" will not work fast enough to avoid being killed by the TREX, so I'm thinking the issue is how to kill it without getting killed (probably in a self-defense fictional scenario). An AK47 is effective against elephants and the elephants cannot successfully counterattack. Even if more than a bullet would have been needed for TREX, my point is it would probably have worked (e.g., TREX is charging from a distance (it's big so you see it coming), AK47 in auto, you fire at will, my guess is that TREX probably doesn't make it to kill you).
fast
Contributor
Speaking for myself, if a Tyranosaurus was charging at me, the instinct I would have is overkill. None of that quack job thinking about doing only that which is necessary to stop the threat. This is no time for being reasonable. None of that Hollywood one shot, one kill bull shit. That's not to say full extremism is smart, as an atomic bomb as weapon of choice would take me out too, but that's not to say some semblance of extremism wouldn't be (for me) a good choice.
DBT
Contributor
That would do the job.
Peez
Member
I actually know someone who was charged by an elephant: he and his partner ran in opposite directions and perpendicular to the elephant's charge, they both escaped.
Peez
Peez
Member
See #37: The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries (#34 is relevant as well).
That would do the job.
Peez
fast
Contributor
If they had a 30% chance of making it without a weapon and a 95% chance of making it with a weapon, and if they chose to chance it without a weapon, then no harm no foul, but if my child was with them and they took the same chance, then don't put me in charge of cooking their next supper. One, I'm taking the largest piece of chicken and I will over salt theirs. Might burn the chicken too.
I remember a hunting magazine article about the 44 Magnum pistol when it first came on the market. Someone asked the question about the utility of the gun. It was very heavy, had a vicious recoil, the and if fired in the dark, the muzzle flash blinded the shooter. All of this made accuracy a problem.
Someone suggested it would be a good sidearm in grizzly bear country. The magazine sought the advice of a well known Alaskan hunting guide. He said it would probably kill a grizzly if you fired directly into his mouth, but he would likely still live long enough to kill you.
Someone suggested it would be a good sidearm in grizzly bear country. The magazine sought the advice of a well known Alaskan hunting guide. He said it would probably kill a grizzly if you fired directly into his mouth, but he would likely still live long enough to kill you.
Peez
Member
My colleague is a biologist who was studying the elephants, he knew what he was doing and didn't have kids with him. I don't know if he or his friend had a firearm, but I know that they did not use one. Personally, I would not have put myself in that situation if I could avoid it.
Peez
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,085
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
Just don't walk off the path and step on any butterflies.
Or have you? That could explain Trump.