[Matrix187]

So, I realize this topic has been discussed numerous times previously. I'm looking at buying a 10mm, or .44 mag most likely unless I can be convinced otherwise. I already know 12 gauges, .45-70's, and high powered rifles are better. I really want something lighter than a rifle though. Are there any doubts about 10mm 200 gr hardcast hot loads doing the job if the need arises?

In 44 magnum I would probably use 300-320 gr hardcast bullets loaded hot.

[saturno_v]

From what I hear, I would absolutely not go under 44 Mag for grizzly country.

My yogi revolver is a 8 3/8" Mod 29 44 Mag. loaded with 310 gr. Garrett Hammerheads or Buffalo Bore or Grizzly Cartridges, all 300 grainers

More power would be even better but the issue of controllability arises....especially in a charge situation...

IMHO, if you want to go more powerful than a 44 Mag, carry a rifle or a shotgun....however the problem is that the long guns cannot be with you all the time....and incidents have the bad habit to happen when they are less expected....

Yes some people were able to fend off an attack with very stout 357 loads or, strange but true, even a 9 mm in some instances...however I would not bet my life on it...as much as I love the 10 mm, it is too light for Mr. Brown....

[TAB]

The smallest I'd go with is a very heavy and hot 44 mag. 454, 460 500 would be a much better choice.

[Oro]

I have seen and participated in a HUGE number of bear threads over the last few years. I spend a fair amount of time in both black bear habitats year round, as well as grizzly habitat yearly but much less frequently. My bear count this year (that I've encountered in the wild) is already up to "2" and that's still just through June. So I pay attention.

I will summarize the general concensus I've read over the years as:

10mm/.357 magnum loaded hot and hard: OK if you must.
.41 Magnum: Better choice.
.44 Magnum: An even better choice.
.454 and up: Still an even better choice.

When I am in grizzly habitat, I take at least a .44 magnum. In black territory, .357 suffices for me. With all the vagaries of size and type of bear, and loading of the gun, shot placement, etc., it's just impossible to make a flat rule. I know of AK huting/fishing guides who make a 10mm their sidearm of choice. And have put down grizzlies with that caliber. Others say stick with .44mag.

I will say this as a general rule - anyone who tells you that only a 12 gauge will do has never tried to work/live/ride or recreate in wilderness grizzly habitat. You just can't carry a 12 gauge with you everywhere. You will need to set it down to split wood, carry water, relieve yourself, etc. The gun on your person is the only one you can trust to be there 100% of the time. Even with a rifle in my saddle scabbard, I still keep a large-bore handgun on my waist or shoulder. X-frames and Freedom Arms type guns are just to much for me to lug everyday all the time, so a smaller S&W N frame in .44magnum is my choice.

[wyocarp]

The Ruger Alaskan is a nice revolver for woods carry in grizzly country. I shoot the 10 mm a lot and carry it most of the time while in the woods except for when in grizzly country.

[saturno_v]

I agree totally with Oro


In bear country you want a sidearm with you all the time

That doesn't mean that you should not also bring a rifle or a shotgun with you...but always have that piece on you all the time.

If you mantain your calm and aim in the right spot, a hardened 300+ gr. 44 Mag slug at ~1200 ft/lb of energy it will do some serious damage, no matter how big the bear is...

But overall avoidance at all costs is the best way to go...

[Clifford]

As much as I like the 10mm, in Grizz country I would take a .44 with a 4"+ barrel. I normally carry a .357 over my .45 in bear country, thou black bear don't get to big in Arizona.

[Matrix187]

Well, it looks like a revolver chambered in 44 mag is looking like a better choice over the 10. I thought the 10mm could be good due to high magazine capacity and decent power.

I live in NW Montana, and there is definitely quite a few grizzlies (besides the football team) and black bears around here. Some of my families' friends own a ranch. Two grizzlies broke into some of their empty cabins (luckily, since basically no one is armed up there much) and were later trapped and relocated. Also, My dad was gopher hunting years back and came across a grizzly sow and cubs, and was charged before getting into his truck. All he had was a .22 LR. He now carries a 44 mag most of the time.

Added: I definitely want a double action revolver. Is a 5 inch barrel a good compromise? Since I do alot of river fishing I will need a stainless steel gun.

[Rembrandt]

It's pics like this that make you realize the smaller calibers are not the best choice....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Rembrandt51/Wildlife/claws.jpg

[saturno_v]

Yep...the 44 is a wise choice...just practice a lot with the loads intended for bear defense..you do not want to be "scared" of discharging your weapon when the times come (hopefully not).

A reliable full house capable 10 mm autoloader with stout loads is a fantastic wood pistol where Mr. Brown is not an issue....up to a Mountain Lion or a small blackie is perfectly up to the job.

Myself, I'm still waiting for the "ideal" 10 mm, DA/SA full metal, full SAAMI spec capable, double stack 10 mm...I can't wait for the Fortis to come out at the end of the year.

In the meantime I'm on the prowl for a used S&W 1006....I know is single stack but I can deal with it :D:D:D:D

If you like Glock, the Mod. 20 is a highly respected wood defense autoloader.

[saturno_v]

Rembrandt

I would like to see that bear reaction if you put a 300+ gr. 44 Magnum slug in that big open mouth!!! :D:evil::p

I'm pretty sure he would not be too pleased....at almost point blank range I would not be surprised if the back of that bear's skull would fly away like a freesbee!!! LOL

[Big Z]

I was a Montana guide, bush pilot, and chief pilot for big sky outfitters for many years I spent a lot of time in the bush, the S&W 29 is the only way to go. The problem with larger, 460, 500 ect is weight.

[Matrix187]

I'm actually pretty good with shooting hot 44 magnum loads. I can hit a ~5 inch wide by 2 foot tall metal target every time in the same area at 25 yards. Under pressure is a different story probably...

It sounds like a smith 629 stainless 5 inch is in order... Just a question: How do the ruger double action 44's compare?

[Big Z]

good but more weight

[saturno_v]

... Just a question: How do the ruger double action 44's compare?

They are definitely stronger than the Smiths, including the more recent "reinforced" ones.
They can comfortably fire some really nasty loads, just a hair below the performance of a 454 Casull....one Buffalo Bore heavy 44 Mag +P+ load yield well over 1600 ft/lb out of a Ruger!!!
You cannot shoot that stuff with a Mod. 29 or 629

That said, they are definitely more ugly looking and, on average, IMHO they have way worse triggers.


For loads up to ~1200 ft/lb (about the original full SAAMI spec 44 Magnum performance) the S&W 29 is good to go.

An other cheaper alternative to S&W is the Taurus Raging Bull..after some initial reliability issues (some lemon here and there) they got their act straight and nowdays they are very reliable....the frame is very strong on par with the Rugers....they can fire the super nuclear loads as well where the Smiths can't.
Triggers, IMHO are even worse than Ruger.

Both Ruger and Taurus Raging Bull come in 454 Casull chambering as well.

[sophijo]

You could probably make a persuasive case that there isn't a handgun adequate for Griz; one that you can shoot effectively anyway.

[Oro]

It sounds like a smith 629 stainless 5 inch is in order

Keep in mind the caveat about always having it on you. 5" guns may or may not be totally packable to you depending upon size and weight. Don't be afraid to go down to 3" if that's going to be a lot easier to carry. S&W has had great success with 3" "Back Packer," "Trail Boss" and similar models. The velocity loss is pretty small compared to the added ease of carry.

If you budget has you in a new gun price bracket, I think S&W has a new 629 out that is an Alaska 50th commemorative model. That seems kinda cool. (Funny, I didn't see a "Hawaii" 50th commemorative. ;) )

[SaxonPig]

The word "numerous" doesn't even begin to describe the number of times this topic has been brought up.

[harrygunner]

Any new gun owner hitting the forums would exclaim: Darn, I'm not prepared for a bear attack :eek:

A future culture digging up ancient Internet archives would be convinced bears were the biggest threat we faced.

But, bear threads are fun. I've got my .44 Mag Ruger Redhawk, I'm ready. :D

[ArchAngelCD]

A 4" S&W .44 Magnum Mountain gun will probably be your best bet. Those ultra-light .44's scare me because the recoil is extreme and I'm sure you will need a accurate follow-up shot or 2 if you have the misfortune of having a grizzly charge you.

[Grey Morel]

Damn Grizzle' bears are at it again. The state should start spraying for them.

[MMCSRET]

Our local game warden carries what looks like a medium frame semi auto in 40, IIRC. Last week she loaded a wandering grizzly boar in her stock trailer and hauled it back over the divide. She figures it had traveled 175 miles down the Teton river. Only one sheep kill before she got it loaded and on its way to its new home.
So, I guess its all in how you handle your equipment. I've been around a few of the big bears and never had a problem, as we all moved away from each other. First time was in 1959 and I was horse back looking for huckle berrys, HE found that big patch first.
NO PROBLEM!!!!

[RatDrall]

grizzly boar

?????

[Oro]

First time was in 1959 and I was horse back looking for huckle berrys, HE found that big patch first.
NO PROBLEM!!!!

If you change the date, that was my first experience EXACTLY! Except I wasn't looking for the berry patch, just riding between him and it. We have about two of these type encounters a year, sometimes more (this year looks like headed for "more").

What scares me isn't a daytime encounter like this. They always end abruptly and peacefully as everyone turns and goes the other way. It's with the horses on a high line at night, sleeping in the mountains. I don't do this very often (wish me luck next week), but those are not restful nights.

[Towboater]

Just got my Redhawk .44 last month for backup in Alaska, man what a nice shooter!!

[Redhawk1]

My 4 inch 500 mag would be my choice, easy to carry and balances well in my hand, and enough fire power.

[ArchAngelCD]

Redhawk1,
Do you really think a 3lb. 8oz. revolver is "easy to carry?" I don't think so. If you have a gun that heavy you will leave it at some point, and probably when you most need it. (like when having to 'go" in the middle of the night)

[MMCSRET]

Ratdrall: Grizzly boar= male grizzly!!!!!!!!

[Redhawk1]

ArchAngelCD,
for someone that does not know me from Adams house cat, you sure think you know me. Assuming I went to the bathroom in the middle of the night, if I would leave my 4 inch 500 Mag, now wouldn't I leave any other gun behind as well?

As for my 3lb. 8oz. revolver is "easy to carry?" Maybe you are not man enough to carry your revolver all day, but I sure as heck have never had a problem with it. That may be the difference between you and me.. I have done it with no problem. So if you can't do it, don't assume others can't.

I have lived out of my tent for 10 days in the Arctic circle in Alaska and yes I had my handgun on my hip any time I left the tent, while in the tent, it was right next to me. . Never had to leave the tent to go to the rest room in the middle of the night either. I used my P bottle in the tent, no need to go out side in the middle of the night, I guess some of us know how to prepare for living in the outdoors and some have things to learn..

[ArchAngelCD]

ArchAngelCD,
for someone that does not know me from Adams house cat, you sure think you know me. Assuming I went to the bathroom in the middle of the night, if I would leave my 4 inch 500 Mag, now wouldn't I leave any other gun behind as well?

As for my 3lb. 8oz. revolver is "easy to carry?" Maybe you are not man enough to carry your revolver all day, but I sure as heck have never had a problem with it. That may be the difference between you and me.. I have done it with no problem. So if you can't do it, don't assume others can't.
I made a simple post about what I thought was an overly heavy revolver and you come back with an insult like "Maybe you are not man enough to carry your revolver all day" You are correct, I don't know you but now I know a little more about you and it doesn't look good. You don't know me either yet you assume "I'm not man enough..." There was no reason to act like that but I've come to expect such poor behavior from people on the Internet.

I have no ill feeling towards you but seriously, you act like that because I feel a 3.5lb revolver is heavy? wow... :rolleyes:

You can come back with another nasty post but you will be talking to yourself because I'm done here. Have a nice day...

[The_Shootist]

What about the Ruger in .45 LC? Does it have to be a .44 Mag?

Kind of an academic question for as I am unlikley to get bounced by a griz taking out the trash here in Houston (maybe a swamp monster in the bayous tho) . But it would be nice to know if this calibre could be considered an "all round" type.

[MMCSRET]

I live and have lived in grizzly country a good portion of my life, 45 Colt is carried by some, pepper spray is carried by others. I know 2 that carry 41 Mags loaded with 250 gr. Cast performance bullets. I know several others that won't carry a handgun but always have a rifle. Every one develops their own preference based on their own perceptions.

[Antihero]

What about the Ruger in .45 LC? Does it have to be a .44 Mag?

The 45colt can be loaded to above 44mag levels in Blackhawks and Redhawks.

My personal 5.5 barrelled Blackhawk is loaded with Buffalo Bore' 325gr hardcast at nearly 1350fps. I had a Redhawk for awhile that didnt approach that much power with any load i fired thru it.

[Isher]

All -

Ya know, I've probably read ten thousand of

These threads, and I have yet to read

An actual account of shooting a griz with a handgun.

I certainly wouldn't, just likely to piss him off.

Takers?


isher

[Redhawk1]

Isher, look up Alaska, there are a few that were killed with handguns. 44 Mags...

[bearmgc]

I carry a Ruger Alaskan 44mag with hardcast in grizzly country. Northwest Wyoming is my major hunting and recreating area, and I live in northcentral Wyoming. I keep a 12ga shotgun with Brenneke Black Magic slugs nearby, but as mentioned, you certainly can't keep that anchored to your hip wherever you go. Whatever you get, practice shooting with it, so your response becomes as automatic as possible. I do also carry bearspray.

[bearmgc]

Isher, so if ya don't want to carry a handgun, carry a stick if ya want. Come on. You must not read much. There have been more than just a few killed with a handgun.

[Bill B.]

Go ahead and get a .460 S&W and be done with it! If it turns out to be too much handgun you can shoot the .454 or the .45 LC from them and match your needs to the round. I think of them the same way I do about using .38 Specials in a .357 as they give a broad range of options in what they can be used for.

[PX15]

JMOfartO:

I don't have an answer to the thread question, but I have an answer for ME..

I'm scared to death of Grizzly bears, I don't intend to go anywhere around them, and the ONE time I did (Yellowstone Nat'l Park) I was convinced there was one just over the crest of the boardwalk waiting for dinner, and my son and I were on the menu..

My fear is irrational because I live in S.E. Ga., and the last time a Grizzly bear was sighted around here was... Well, never. I'm still afraid of them.:barf:

IF I were in a situation like some of you folks and lived in an area where there was the possibility of running into one of those suckers I wouldn't be lining up the different calibers trying to decide which one I preferred.

I already know it would be the biggest caliber man has designed to shoot out of a pistol small enough to actually be carried by man without the aid of a wheelbarrow, or personal servant.

When I was a little boy I developed a fear of:

1. Frankenstein
2. Alligators
3. Gorillas
4. Grizzlys

Now I'm an old senior citizen over the years I have come to understand that:

A. Frankenstein was a figment of Ms.Kelly's imagination.
B. Alligators while dangerous do not look for trouble and if you get eaten by an alligator you've probably gone swimming in the Okefenokee Swamp or similar body of water while on pcp or some other mind altering drug.. (I was raised in Waycross, Ga, located just at the edge of the swamp, so alligators I know about pretty well.)
C. Gorilla's? Seeing all the Tarzan/Jungle Jim movies as a youth created a great fear of these gentle creatures, and only as an adult did I come to realize they are vegetarians, and wonderful creations of God.. If one got lost and knocked on my door I'd welcome him/her in and offer it a salad.

D. Grizzly's? Just an unreasonable, unexplainable, overriding fear of them.. I'm convinced that unless you are brain dead and or just plain old stupid (as was the "Grizzly Man") the chances of your being killed and providing a meal for a rogue Grizzly are extremely low, even where they do roam the countryside. Probably if you see Grizzly cubs and run for the hills at the first sighting of those lovely little critters you reduce whatever chances you might have had of offending a Mama bear, and if you happen to run up on a big male Grizzly then finish your unintended bowel movement and "hasta la vista" the crap over the horizon.

Nope, Frank, Alligators and Gorillas don't cause me to break a sweat anymore, but the mention of the word "GRIZZLY" :what::what: still strikes fear in my old heart and starts my innerd's to churning...

So, IF I had a suggest as to what pistol to carry in Griz country, it would be BIG, BIG, BIG, and shoot MANY, BIG, BIG, BIG projectiles..

Yeah, I'm a woose.

Good luck tho to all you good folks who might actually run up on one of those critters in the woods one day.. Keep a salt and pepper shaker in your britches, because if you're gonna feed the bears you might has well make yourself tasty as possible.

Jesse

[Cohibra45]

1) Bullet placement in times of GREAT PANIC!!!

2) Bullet type...........hard cast only need apply!!!

3) Bigger IS BETTER, but up to a point.....see weight and willingness to carry.

4) Practice, Practice and Practice some more. Oh by the way, did I mention PRACTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!

5) If you are really serious about going in Big Bear Country, talk face to face with the people that guide there. They are the ones that have the most experience. Talk to as many of these as possible, then form your opinion.




I have a 45 Colt and don't feel under gunned at all. You see, if you hit what you are shooting at, you don't need large capacity guns. I had one of the first Para Ordnance P-14 45acp pistols and talk about HEAVY when loaded with all 14 rounds of ammo.........you actually felt the gun get lighter as you unloaded the gun at the range!!!:what:

I use Corbon or Buffalo Bore hard cast. They can and will shoot length wise of a bull elk, so they will penetrate enough of a bear if needed. Could I go with a larger gun?????? Sure, but it's my choice and I'm willing to live or die with it.

Let's face it, if you are out in the woods and find yourself between a bear and her cubs or a surprised grizzly, even 40-50 yards can be covered in 3 seconds or less. Think about that!!!!!! Can you really draw, aim, and shoot in that time and HIT WHAT YOU ARE AIMING AT????? Remember, only hits count!!!

Good luck and remember, all you get here is someone's opinion and their personal choice. It will only be you in the woods. As my favorite beer commercial guy says....."Choose wisely, my friend"!!!:evil:

[Redhawk1]

Well said Cohibra45

[jimmyraythomason]

If you read the SD/HD threads it seems that the consensus is that a handgun bullet will bounce off of a 200lb man at point blank range(I'm being a little facetious). So a grizzly is 600-1000lbs of bad attitude and vulnerable to a handgun. Isn't that ironic? I hope a grizzly doesn't decide to break into my Alabama home. I'm sure not going to break into his.

[Steve H]

If I'm close to any bear country I carry my Anaconda in 44. 6" SS

[Mr.510]

I have a question for Oro and others with actual bear experience: Do "bear bangers" or similar work? Obviously these would be used long before a bear got close. I'm probably thinking more in terms of deterring a curious black bear. For those that don't know what they are, here's a vid:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKpUhMXG38 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKpUhMXG38)


On the original subject: If I were in Grizzly country I'd carry an S&W 460V and keep a rifle as handy as practical. The 460V is a little over four pounds loaded. Yeah, it's a brick..... but we're talking about GRIZZLIES here. For reference the XD45 Compact I carry every day is somewhere around 3 pounds loaded 10+1. If you are used to wearing a 3 pound gun all the time I can't see another pound or even two being a deal breaker. As with all other handguns get the right holster and the right belt. Man Up and carry the right gun for the job at hand! I believe any gun chambered smaller than .44 Magnum carried for Grizzly needs the front sight ground off.... :eek:

[EnsignJimmy]

I figure if men in the late 1800s could stop charging grizzlies with black-powder .45 Colt loads out of the Single Action Army, (and what a 'brown alert' moment that must've been,) I'm not going to feel under-gunned carrying my Ruger Redhawk .45 Colt in bear country. I'm especially not going to feel under-gunned once I load it with 335 grain hard-cast WFN lead bullets.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

Carry whatever handgun you want, but make sure you take along some pepper spray. Pepper spray is much more effective at terminating a bear attack than a handgun...

[ArmedBear]

I'm convinced that unless you are brain dead and or just plain old stupid (as was the "Grizzly Man") the chances of your being killed and providing a meal for a rogue Grizzly are extremely low, even where they do roam the countryside.

They're pretty dense in some parts of Alaska. Brownies, anyway.

In Georgia, you'd have to be a real idiot, though. You'd have to climb into an enclosure at the zoo.

My concern about pepper spray is heavy wind and other conditions that make it not-so-great. That doesn't mean I wouldn't carry it. But definitely look at the instructions to see what "when used properly" means. It may not be too encouraging.:)

[bad_aim_billy]

Pepper spray is much more effective at terminating a bear attack than a handgun...


This makes too much sense. This was a perfectly good "I carry a .50 BMG for grizzlies even though I live on the East Coast" thread before this. Why did you have to ruin it?

[Tequila Mockingbird]

This link http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/pepperspray/pepperspray.htm provides some good info on the use of pepper spray vs. firearms.

[ArmedBear]

The bear really doesn't want to have anything to do with you. They can be all around, and you'll never encounter one.

That said, if I'm out in the wilderness somewhere with the big bears, I'd want a gun anyway. Bears aren't the only deadly things in the woods. Pepper spray is on the equipment list. So is a gun -- but if I really thought I'd encounter a big bear I had to shoot, it'd be a long gun with heavy slugs in it.

[Oro]

I have a question for Oro and others with actual bear experience: Do "bear bangers" or similar work? Obviously these would be used long before a bear got close.

I have never used one, and I think these would work pretty well for defending a static base you are pinned to, like a campsite in a National Park, where guns were banned. Unless you had just grilled up some steaks, in which case the smell of food might keep the bear interested. Otherwise, I'd much rather pop-off a round of .44 magnum into the dirt and let them react to that - much faster and quicker than the "banger." I've seen Civil War Parrot 9lb cannons that were quicker and simpler to discharge than some "bear bangers." I do no have as much "bear experience" as say, a real wilderness guide or many Rangers, etc. I have just studied everything I could for the last few years, and I have talked in person and via email to a few real experts to learn as much as I could. Then, I just started bumping into bears all the time - six in the last 2.5 years. I think partly it's the area - the Cascades are pretty heavily populated with them. Secondly it may be our horses - maybe the bears smell them and come closer or expose themselves to check it out, but given the distances I am not so sure about that. I think the main reason is the trails we use, which tend to be along natural watercourses in the valleys/passes of the mountains. This is of course where the bears are going to travel/feed, so it's just natural you will bump into them. Of the bears, only one was possibly a grizzly - he was quite big and brown, but I did not stick around long enough to ID him via the hump or go back to look at prints. Color alone is not enough to guarantee an ID and that size range can overlap the two species, especially springtime as that encounter was. The others were clearly black bears in the 200 to 450lbs range.

I have never encountered a bear in the wild that made me feel threatened. We just both keep going on our own way. The only time I really worry is sleeping at night, with livestock (prey animals) tethered near by. I think most people who DO get in trouble, get in trouble because they violated the annoying precautions you need to follow: Cook WELL away from the sleeping area, "tree" the food and cooking utensils after eating AWAY from the tents/sleeping area. Also "tree" clothes saturated with cooking smoke/scents, and don't sleep in those clothes. The USFS and NPS have pamphlets on traveling in bear country at their ranger stations, too, which cover these practices.

I am hoping to spend at least one night maybe two this week on a remote trail in the mountains in the Cascades. I am just taking sealed dry food and not cooking since it's only me.

Pepper spray is much more effective at terminating a bear attack than a handgun...

I have tried very hard to track down the source of that information and verify it. Unfortunately, the only thing I could find is a study done by a pepper spray maker that stated when "properly deployed" their spray was in the realm of 85 to 90% effective. This brought up a few questions:

1) What does the caveat "properly deployed" mean? A: it means that you have had time and favorable wind conditions to spray a circular area 20' in radius around you and your camp/party, and that you stay within it during the period of the bear attack, AND you confront the bear with the can and spray more at his snout at each approach. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to gurantee I can always set up a defensive perimeter or possibly even the nerves of steel for that.
2) If you have the cojones for that, you then will only be mauled 10% of the time. IF you do everything by the book.
3) If you don't manage to pull off all of those requirements, you are out of the sample and therefore not part of the "properly deployed" statistics. They don't publish those numbers, oddly.

I would LOVE to see some honest, scientific statistics about "had a can of bear spray" vs. "had a loaded .44 magnum" in a bear attack! basically, when I hear "bear spray works better," what it tells me is the arguer has not actually studied the issue, but is just drinking the "kool aid" of the anti-gun crowd, and on a matter that could cost them their life.

This is a study with some decent science behind it by an expert:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF12/1245.html

If I can find the laughable industry study with the outlandish claims, I'll post a link to that, to. The major fault with the government touted studies is that they compare pepper spray-mediated bear encounters vs. gun-mediated bear attacks. For example, one study I found used data on sprays where bears were routing in garbage, then maced them. Hey, the bear was having a snack, not defending territory or cubs. So it skedaddled. These tend to run in the 90% or so effective category: non-angered/attacking bears are deterred. Then these statistics are rolled out and compared to situations where a gun was used to defend against an actual attack, which shows about a 2/3 rate of avoiding injury overall (no control for type of gun, experience of user, situation e.g. - they had a gun, but they happened to be asleep in their tent at the time).

I've spent much of my adult life working with statistics, research, or science of one type or another - mostly social science, biological science or epidemiology. The science in most "bear attack" studies is so sloppy as to be complete "junk science."

[Tequila Mockingbird]

I would LOVE to see some honest, scientific statistics about "had a can of bear spray" vs. "had a loaded .44 magnum" in a bear attack! basically, when I hear "bear spray works better," what it tells me is the arguer has not actually studied the issue, but is just drinking the "kool aid" of the anti-gun crowd, and on a matter that could cost them their life.

Here's a couple of sources:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/pepperspray/pepperspray.htm

and

Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance by Stephen Herrero.

The latter is probably the definitive study on bear attacks. It should be read by anyone venturing into bear country.

[ArmedBear]

That study is a good read. Thanks for posting the link. I'd been looking for it (poorly apparently).

[Oro]

ere's a couple of sources:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/br...epperspray.htm

and

Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance by Stephen Herrero.

Tequila, go back and read my last two paragraphs. I have checked these out - too often bear encounters are compared to bear attacks. These are not at all equivalent.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

Tequila, go back and read my last two paragraphs.

I think you edited your post to include the last two paragraphs after I'd submitted my previous post...

If you're not sufficiently impressed by the Ph.D. at the USGS who's studied bears extensively, you should read the Herrero book...

If you feel more comfortable with your 44 Magnum, by all means rely on it. If you follow a few simple rules while in bear country, you should never need to use it anyway. Personally, based on what I've read, I'm convinced bear spray is the better option, although I might be tempted to carry a 454 or 475 as a backup...:D.

[Mr.510]

Thank you Oro for your reply to my question. I've read multiple reports of young, curious bears hanging around at a distance and "testing" people before deciding to attack. I remember in one case some hikers tried throwing rocks, yelling, waving branches, backing away slowly, etc. but after an hour or so the bear finally attacked and killed a woman. This is the kind of situation I was thinking of with the bangers: The pesky bear that won't go away and may eventually attack. I'm sure you are correct that a shot into the ground will likely have the same effect.... and I'm already carrying a gun anyway! :) Bangers might be a viable option along with bear pepper spray if you go unarmed in a Nat'l Park. Looks like someone ought to make a bear banger launcher that can be carried "cocked and locked" as that would be an obvious improvement.

Tequila: Thank you for the link to the Bear Pepper Spray article, it's the best I've read on the subject so far.

I think bear pepper spray backed up by an S&W 460V and/or rifle sounds like the best possible combination.... if air support isn't available. :evil:

[Oro]

If you're not sufficiently impressed by the Ph.D. at the USGS who's studied bears extensively, you should read the Herrero book...

I have. And I'm still not convinced by selective use of data, or indiscreetly grouping non-comparable data into one pool. I don't accept any other persons credentials flatly if their methodology isn't sound. I'll let my own doctoral credentials in social and life sciences give me the background to evaluate the collection and presentation of data, and I make no judgment of anyone based on credentials alone. I examine data and see how rigorously it was collected, sorted, and interpreted. I have found nothing that sets up an honest comparison of situations where the bear was the one attacked by the human with peppery spray vs. ones in which a handgun was used to defend against bears attacking humans.

I have not stated that I believe guns to be superior to spray. I have stated I have looked for the data and it is lacking in completeness and honest treatment in the cases where I can even find details about it's collection and analysis. If I can get my hands on a data set of this, it might be a fun project this summer. I'll look into that.

[Readyrod]

Bear bangers are cool to watch and very impressive. When I worked up north we use to blast them at the outhouse when someone was taking a dump. It was the outhouse from hell, had a target spraypainted on the side. But I digress, bangers go off at a distance so if the bear is close it won't go off between you and the bear but on the other side of the bear which will drive him towards you. Be careful about that one.
I'm sure that bear spray is effective but it's also short range. I'd use it, but it would depend on how the bear was acting. It's funny but a long time ago I thought that pepper spray would be good for bears but when I checked they said it didn't work. Now it's great. Could there be some politics involved?
I'd go for the integrated approach, take them all,(including the gun) it is your life after all.
As for the Phds, gotta tell you a lot of them are very smart but a lot of them also have their heads up their you know whats. There are also a lot of ways to trick up statistics so they say what you want.

[ArmedBear]

And I'm still not convinced by selective use of data, or indiscreetly grouping non-comparable data into one pool.

I noticed that, too, and I'm not a researcher by profession.

The USGS guy also noted that "firearms" were not separated, and "possessed a firearm" included "was carrying a .22LR while hiking." Then he proceeded to use a meaningless graph to illustrate a point.

Reading his piece did make me want to go get a can of bear spray before venturing into big bear country. It just didn't make me want to leave the .44 at home when alone in the wilderness, whether or not I'd ever use it for bear defense.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

I have found nothing that sets up an honest comparison of situations...

I'm not sure you ever will. There are too many variables involved, e.g., the caliber of the handgun, the skill of the shooter, time of day, size of the bear, etc., to establish a reasonable base case.

Although I consider myself nominally proficient with a revolver, I'm just not sure how well I would be able to draw, aim and fire accurately within the 2 or 3 seconds I might have following a sudden, unexpected encounter with a bear. I suspect that I would have better luck with a can of bear spray, since pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary, and the spray typically lasts for 6 to 9 seconds, which gives time to adjust one's aim. And, if you use non-lethal means to repel the bear, you don't have to deal with DLP issues (in Alaska anyway) and (worst case scenario) wounding a bear which enrages it even more.

[Oro]

Although I consider myself nominally proficient with a revolver, I'm just not sure how well I would be able to draw, aim and fire accurately within the 2 or 3 seconds I might have following a sudden, unexpected encounter with a bear. I suspect that I would have better luck with a can of bear spray, since pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary, and the spray typically lasts for 6 to 9 seconds, which gives time to adjust one's aim.

Those are VERY good points. Again, I'm not arguing a revolver is better, just the stats are useless and the studies that "claim" they have an answer are laughable by any objective statistical measurement.

Here's my test of using a handgun effectively: Have you ever seen the wonderful film Glory? Do you remember the scene were the colonel (Matthew Broderick) starts shouting in a recruits ear to "Load, ram, aim, fire" etc.? And he has him into quivering jelly in 20 seconds of concentrated yelling in his ear? That's the measure of stress and reaction. A person learns to deal with that, which is much less prevalent in our modern age of reduced military service or intense situations encountered in childhood/early adult hood. So it's a highly subjective thing of who can handle either a spray can effectively or a firearm. Couple that with the fact those studies include pepper-spraying bears that were not attacking, just grazing for food and not at all enraged and adrenaline-enabled, and you have a messy data set!

As an avid shooter, animal lover, and nature enthusiast, my 1st response to a bear is to go the other way. This has ALWAYS worked. If pinned to defending others in camp, then next would be the step of like a "bear banger" - a discharge into the ground to frighten them away. But I'll use a gun for that, not the troublesome and awkward "banger" itself. But as a last gasp, I am not making the pepper my "last stop" defense." I think that if you have time to use it, the pepper makes a great tool to use against a circling/contemplating bear as it will dissuade him/her from further attack.

If it's night, in a camp site, i want a gun.

My most telling Grizzly attack story was from E.F. Pott's (the legendary Alaska bush Pilot) 1st wife's story. She was jumped by a grizzly out of the blue while walking out of her house. She's a pacifist soul, but thankfully one who had a S&W 29 on her hip at the time and the will to use it. This is a great story:

http://www.fepco.com/bear_attack.html

Now this is 1) from the late 60's, 2) a crazy/hippy chic painter/artist who had no qualms about protecting her life. It was before the era of bear spray, but still, it's a nice psychological insight. (I told you I have been collecting stories and data for years!).

[Sport45]

Are there any doubts about 10mm 200 gr hardcast hot loads doing the job if the need arises?

Of course there are doubts. Otherwise there wouldn't be much sense in threads like this one popping up weekly.

[Sport45]

It's pics like this that make you realize the smaller calibers are not the best choice....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Rembrandt51/Wildlife/claws.jpg

That picture was obviously photo-shopped. If it was real there would be a puddle in the fork of the tree. Not just a few drops on his shoes....

[alaskanativeson]

Hmm, the question of which pistol to use against Griz attacks seems like the question of which lie to tell your wife so she doesn't find out about your girlfriend: Either can get you killed. :D

From one who in a Native Alaskan, lives and travels in Alaska, and intends to stay that way, my forays into the wild contain two things: A 6" Super Redhawk in .454 with 330 grain Cor-Bon penetrators in my left side shoulder holster and a crack-shot wife with a 590 Mossberg stoked with 9 Brenneke slugs. Of course of even more importance is my German Shepherds to make sure I don't get startled.

[Tiomoid]

S&w 500

[m_kirk2001]

The .44 Magnum is proven effective on large bears. It is less expensive to buy and shoot than the .454, .460, or .500. The recoil is more reasonable. (I am not recoil sensitive but you can't tell me that a .500 has about the same amount of recoil as a .44 Magnum in a reasonbly sized stainless frame). You don't have to carry it in a sling or risk looking like a horse with a saddle holster on. You aren't going to be in a firefight with a bear so you don't need a hi-cap magazine to blast off like a hollywood movie scene. If it isn't finished by the time you empty your cylinder with well placed shots you are going to be done anyway. Some people try to be so prepared for a situation that could arise that they are weighed down with gear and forced to participate in an undesireable situation because they can't "get out of the way." If you are in grizzly country and someone asks you what you carry when out and about and you say .44 Mag, they aren't going to look at you like people do if they ask you what your preferred concealed carry gun is and you say a two shot derringer in .22LR.

[Gungle George]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/Gungle_/163504_large.jpg

Cheers,

Gungle George

[Skillet]

the ammo picks the gun, the gun does not pick the ammo.
what you need to do is looks at ballistics and bullet expansion of different calibers. if you want to have a bullet that expands and mushrooms enough to stop a bear in one or two shots, i would not pick anything below a .45acp. if you want very quick follow up shots and something that will not only hurt a bear bad, but scare it away, even a 9mm would work.
because with bears, it is shot placement, not necessarily shot size that is the deciding factor. i have heard stories of guys shooting bears with 300 winmags in the head and it just bounces off. i have heard of people killing bears with 9mm handguns because they shot them straight through the vitals and was able to get quick follow up shots after the first initial shot. what gun would i get? a taurus judge. even a .410 00 buck can hurt a bear really really bad, and it also shoots .45 long colt, which is big enough to take down an angry bear.
but i still would like an even bigger 12 guage shotgun with either slugs or buckshot in it.
that is just devastating.

[Shadow 7D]

Personally I like my howitzer, but as it is a tow behind, I find it a little slow to get in action, and these ammo prices are killing me.

DOG, as in moving alarm system, keeps you from from getting surprised, what I take hiking, and a can of bear spray, and my pistol.

Not gonna tell what caliber it is, as if I have to use it, it don't really matter.

[BMF500]

Have you considered the Mosberg 12ga JIC with 00 buck or slug, afront your torso?

[bearmgc]

Alaska Game and Fish Dept did a study on bear spray, and it was shown to be effective in like 89% of the time on Grizzly and like 60% of the time on black bear. So it was less effective on black bears. They have yet to find a reason why.

[ArmedBear]

So it was less effective on black bears. They have yet to find a reason why.

Maybe because the only Black Bears left alive in Alaska are meaner than Grizz?:D

[jhco]

.44mag would be good but .460 would be the better choice

[kanewpadle]

I grew up hunting and fishing Alaska. One of us always has a 12 guage with slugs. Everyone that has one carries at least a 44 magnum.

10MM, 40SW or smaller is not near enough. I agree with the guy who suggested the S&W 460.

I've been chased by bear and moose. It ain't fun. Once you have seen these animals up close, you too will carry a large gun.

As far as dogs go. No thanks. Seen too many dogs bring mamma bear back to camp pissed off. Dogs are great until they think they're going to get eat'in. Then they come back to you for protection.

[sigsteve]

It's pics like this that make you realize the smaller calibers are not the best choice....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Rembrandt51/Wildlife/claws.jpg
****! That's one mad bear! Was that a momma protecting it's young or did you have a bag of candy you were teasing it with?

[sophijo]

Recently read an article by jeff Cooper re defensive rounds, in which he said something like;" it's not the gun that kills it's the bullet". So assuming the bigger the pistol the better (for Griz); what kind of "round" are we talking about.

[Dogbite]

I was born and raised in Alaska, and spent months and months straight in the bush(longest was three solid months), and have had many encounters with big bears.

44 magnum revolver should be the least(power wise) you carry period. Load with Garrett cartridges, (hard-cast bullets). 454 casull or 500 mag is preferred in a sidearm.
I love the 10mm, leave it at home. We used to carry 44 mag with hot loads and a 12 gauge with slugs. Get a small bell for your pack/shoes. When you get close to a bear,if it sees/smells you raise your arms and shout at it. Most of the time they will run off, but if they don't, be ready. They can outrun you easily. They can out walk you easily. Anything you have in you hands will seem small if you run into a real big bear. Keep your eyes open! Be alert! I have had a large bear sneek up on us like a house cat. Be careful.

[MCgunner]

I like my .45 colt Blackhawk and hot 300 grain handloads. Ain't any griz anywhere near me, though, and I've not spent any time in griz country. Where I've done most of my outback adventures, the griz were killed off years ago.

[GregC]

I knew an old forestry professor that did a lot of research in the NW in his younger years. He says their standard "bear protection" was a short barrel shotgun with bird shot. The theory was that anyone could handle a shotgun and a round or two to the face of the bear would blind the bear and would also cause so much blood in its nose that there was no way it could see or smell you to be able to continue to come after you. At this point the shooter would escape and let someone else worry about finishing off the animal. I know this does not sound humane for the bear, but if it is down to my life or "just" wounding a bear.......it would be an easy choice for me.

[Dogbite]

Wounding a bear, and leaving it to come upon some other poor guy in the woods is a very very bad idea. A wounded animal, especially a predator, will even attack people it would not have if its in pain. That's just crazy advice. Not to mention, bird shot has a hard time stopping a man sometimes. It is ridiculous for bear defense. I have personally seen a bear take two 300 win mag rounds-well placed, to stop it. A buddy of mine killed a big bear with three rounds of 30-06, and he was crapping his pants thinking it was not going to go down before it got to him. Hell, I have hunted birds that were not killed with shot and had to be killed by hand once found in the brush.
I don't mean any offence to you at all, its just that the old forestry professor doesn't know anything if that's what he told you. Many fishing guides in Alaska carry a pistol grip 12 gauge with slugs. You have to stop the bear. Break bones, penetrate to vitals, that sort of thing. No one I have ever seen carried bird shot in the bush, except to hunt birds and rabbits, and they always had something else to handle bears.

[kd7nqb]

I kinda like the Serbu super shorty for this job. Paired with some good 3in slugs you got a hell of a gun.

http://www.serbu.com/top/super_shorty_870.jpg

[Cosmoline]

I have a trimmed-down Puma 92 in .44 Mag that carries lighter than any handgun. It rides in a backpack scabbard and I hardly notice it's there. Big bear-size handguns tend to carry like bricks.

Paired with some good 3in slugs you got a hell of a gun.

Paired with 3" slugs?! That thing!? Ouch ouch ouch. You have to at least have a shoulder stock or you'll get seriously banged up before the bear even gets to you. And from the look of it that would be a felony. So stick with a Mossy or Rem pump with a slug barrel and rifle sights. Load with Brenneke magnums and get ready to rock, because even with a 5 or 6 lb. shotgun those things are bruisers. $300 plus ammo will set you up just fine.

It reminds me of the time I saw a fellow at Rabbit Creek range trying out his new bear gun, a 18" stockless kneecapper. He loaded with the Rottweils and brought it UP TO HIS EYE!! Now I had the devil on one shoulder telling me it's his gun and he needs to learn for himself, but I listened to the better angels of my nature and stopped him. I believe he would have lost that entire eye socket.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/Gussick/shotstupid.jpg

[Evergreen]

IF I was in grizzly country, I woudl probably carry a .500 Magnum handgun with ported barrel, maybe 5" or 6".. Thats if I was to carry a handgun. Personally, I think I'd carry a lightweight 12 ga shotgun with pistol grip preferably and slugs. Another option may be a 30-06 or even mroe powerful rifle.. However, since bear charges can happen at close distances, a shotgun would be a better bet.

Oh by the way, if you do end up carrying a handgun in grizz country, make sure to file off the front sight, so it doesnt hurt as much when the bear shoves it up your #@* :D:D:D

[Redhawk1]

At short distances, most people would never get anything they are carrying up in time to shoot a charging grizzly.

But in my thinking, if you were knocked to the ground, and a grizzly is mauling you, you stand a better chance getting to a handgun that is on your hip than a rifle or shotgun that was knocked out of your hands and is who know where.

Sure a rifle or shotgun would be best, if you had time to prepare for the shot or know you are in a dangerous situation. But not when it happens so quick that you don't have a second to think about it.

But never being in that situation, no one can say how they are going to react in the first place.. We can all talk about it, and say what we would hope we would do, but until that happens it is all speculation...

[MCgunner]

Carry a .32. I hear it's all about shot placement. :rolleyes:

[gmhamilton3]

Matrix, we also do alot of stream fishing in the summer up in Lincoln County primarily the Yaak river and tributarys. This is black and grizzly country so we always carry protection, mostly S & W's. SW M29 is good heavy gun but SW M329 Airlight is amazingly light for 44 mag and is my choice because it is so easy to carry. Recoil is not bad using 44 spl just for shooting paper, 44 mag recoil is a different story but then again its a big bullet in a very light gun. Never needed to use it so far.

[ar10]

I saw a bunch of these posts over a long period of time, and I've been up close and personal with a couple of black bears. What I do know is a pissed off bear can do about 25mph and getting hit by a 300lb bear traveling at even 10mph is going to put the victim on the ground. I really don't care what kind of gun or shooter anyone is, shot placement is probably the last thing on a persons mind. you have less than 10 seconds to react, and bears aren't stupid either.

[MCgunner]

10 seconds? 10 seconds is an eternity in IDPA. :D You can shoot a whole scenario in less, depending on the scenario. I don't recall any bear scenarios, though. :D

[Yosemite Sam]

All these bear threads make me think I need one of these:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/mrjickles/THR/flamethrower.jpg


Sure are heavy though.

[Leanwolf]

Yosemite Sam has the right idea!! ;)

L.W.

[ArmedBear]

That would give a whole new meaning to "smokey the bear."

[ar10]

10 seconds? 10 seconds is an eternity in IDPA. You can shoot a whole scenario in less, depending on the scenario. I don't recall any bear scenarios, though.

Your right, They don't, and I've been in a lot of IDPA matches also. The big difference is you're not shooting at live targets, and the last I heard no animal likes to be shot at. I'm just saying that no matter how big the gun or how accurate the victim is, the bear has the distinct advantage over the victim. In fact I've not heard of one verifiable account that a victim ever came out unhurt in any bear attack. The only cases I have read about where a victim did have some chance are ones where the victim was using the bear spray.

[lefteyedom]

A hand grenade wrapped with bacon would work....