A bunch of cunts, mostly in the Australian sense. Except that one guy.

Can you kill a fully grown male lion with an AK?

I'm just wondering.
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 7:20am
Probably - but you'd want to do it before he charged at you.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
September 8th, 2006 7:22am
Could you do it with one shot?
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 7:30am
Planning the new anti-terrorist tactic?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 8th, 2006 7:35am
You know, exploding lions could become a threat.
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 7:36am
Yes you can. Depends on where the bullet goes of course, but it's not like lion skin is made of kevlar. Sever a big enough blod vessle and it's goodbye kitty.

Come to think of it, I think a round froma n ak47 would go clean through a kevlar vest anyway.
Permalink Send private email Rock Hardbuns 
September 8th, 2006 7:44am
Head or heart would do it easily, body shot with time from blood loss...but if he was charging it's entirely possible that you could remove the head and he'd still hit you at speed.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
September 8th, 2006 7:52am
How long does a lion take to feel the blood loss? If he was charging and you hit a major vessel he probably had time to maul you before collapsing.
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 7:54am
"Could you do it with one shot?"

Stop it in its tracks - quite possibly not. The skin isn't made of kevlar, but it's still pretty damn tough. I suspect the vital organs are protected well enough by the ribcage and muscle tissue (otherwise it would be too exposed to enemies).

And an AK-47 isn't all that powerful. An AK-74 is less powerful still - the 47 is actually considered more humane because its 7.63mm round makes a clean piercing wound, while the 74's 5.56mm bullet tends to tumble.

Pub fact: the Western .303 rifle round that mutated into the 7.62mm NATO round is close enough to be used in an AK-47, but not the other way around. So Soviet forces could've used captured munitions, but NATO forces couldn't have.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
September 8th, 2006 7:54am
> So Soviet forces could've used captured munitions
Since when do lions carry rounds?
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 7:56am
"Head or heart would do it easily, body shot with time from blood loss...but if he was charging it's entirely possible that you could remove the head and he'd still hit you at speed."

Exactly. Empirical evidence shows that a 9mm round at point blank does not penetrate the skull of a fully-grown bull. A smaller 7.63mm round at range may very well not crack a lion's skull. For the heart you'd need to fire directly at the chest - sideways, it would get stuck in the ribcage.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
September 8th, 2006 7:57am
"Since when do lions carry rounds?"

It's Africa. Everyone carries an AK-47. The posh blokes carry Lee-Enfields.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
September 8th, 2006 7:57am
And lion being the king of the jungle... right, got you.
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 7:58am
You could 'drop' a lion with a single shot. Whether you could kill it is another story.

On most hunts I have been on, the trick is to 'drop' the animal with a rifle (typically a .303), and then finish it off with a pistol.

Given that lions are sprinter, and so do not charge until they are pretty close, if you only have one bullet, you are pretty much fucked, as even a mortally wounded lion has enough steam to really screw you.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 8th, 2006 8:06am
Right. Whenever I go on my next safari I'll pack an RPG instead.
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 8:08am
you are normally safe when on safari.

for starters, +1 for landrover
for seconds, by the time most tourists get to see a lion, the hunt is over, the lion is fed, and all the animals are playing nice at the watering hole.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 8th, 2006 8:10am
My dad is talking about going back to Africa, so I might experience a different type of safari. More realistic.
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 8th, 2006 8:22am
I dunno.

But I know for a fact that shooting an alligator in the head with one just makes it mad. (*)





(*) My brother in law has some land by the coast, and had a problem with an alligator hanging around near where the kids play.  The local game warden said to go ahead and take it out.  So there's my brother in law with his brother, both in a boat with a semi-auto AK-47, hunting this alligator.  They managed to hit it once in the head, but only scared it off.  Later they found it again, and emptied the clip into the body, which seemed to have done the trick.

The skull turned up a few months later after having been picked clean by the crabs, and there was a half-inch divot in the skull where the bullet had been deflected.  It *did* *not* *penetrate*.

Alligators are freakin' prehistoric monsters.
Permalink xampl 
September 8th, 2006 8:52am
Flasher - that particular pub fact is wrong I'm afraid. The 7.62 NATO & old .303 rounds are significantly longer than the Russian 7.62 (the nato round is 51mm long as opposed to 39mm). Also the 7.62 NATO was a rebadged .308 Winchester not a .303.

I believe there were artillery pieces where that was the case - the Russian calibres being 1mm larger than the equivilent Nato ones.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
September 8th, 2006 9:01am
I understand that in the bad old days of Empire the hunting parties often used to carry both .303s and a .577 express.  The professional would use the .577 if anything charged.

They even made a pistol version for emergences...
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
September 8th, 2006 9:06am
Comparing a 9mm pistol round to a 7mm rifle round is not an especially valid comparison.  The 7mm rifle round is almost always a lot more powerful, owing to the much larger powder charge and the longer barrel which allows a lot more force to be applied.

But seriously, if you can afford to go on safari you can afford a nicer gun than anything the russians or chinese ever built.  Sako comes immediately to mind, but even the Enfield would be better.

The other point is that the male lion isn't the one you should worry about.  Female cats are the more skillful hunters, and if you see the lion first, bully for you.  If the lion sees you first, the defensive value of the rifle will probably be in giving the cat indigestion.  Or a nice toothpick.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 8th, 2006 9:12am
I dunno about that male vs female thing. The females might be more skilled hunters, but from the discovery channel it seems that the males are more hard-core when it comes down to it.
Permalink BigJigger 
September 8th, 2006 11:39am
males are larger, stronger and will fight off intruders to their harems more ferociously. especially if their bitches are in heat and he mistakes you for a male lion.
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 8th, 2006 12:34pm
I was just thinking about the effectiveness of my two cats, and my size in relation to an adult lion.  I'm probably half the size of an adult lion at 183 pounds, maybe a little less.  My cats kill things that are half their size and bring it to me.  Of the two cats, who are from the same litter, the male is much larger and very strong.  But his sister, at 2/3 his size, brings home a lot more game, and a lot more big game.  Things like rabbits.

The obvious corollary his is that if I was a rabbit, or rabbit sized, I'd much rather have the male on my ass than the female.  The odds are that even though she's smaller, she's a lot more likely to kill me, and strength is unlikely to enter into the equation.  Mostly just the fact that she's got mad cat skillz.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 8th, 2006 4:36pm
>Flasher - that particular pub fact is wrong I'm afraid. The
>7.62 NATO & old .303 rounds are significantly longer than
>the Russian 7.62 (the nato round is 51mm long as opposed to
>39mm). Also the 7.62 NATO was a rebadged .308 Winchester
>not a .303.
>I believe there were artillery pieces where that was the
>case - the Russian calibres being 1mm larger than the
>equivilent Nato ones.

How do you know all that?
Permalink Colm 
September 8th, 2006 8:51pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: September, 2006 Other topics: September, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics