On handguns and bears


PDA






KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 12:52 PM
Comments?


http://www.adn.com/2010/06/22/1334988/bear-mauls-geologist-near-rainy.html


Bear mauls geologist near Rainy Pass Lodge

(06/22/10 06:58:10)

A geologist who was mauled by a bear near Rainy Pass Lodge is reported in fair condition at Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage.

The Anchorage Daily News reports 54-year-old Bob Miller was attacked Sunday afternoon as he was walking to a helicopter picking up a Millrock Exploration survey crew. The lodge is 125 air miles northwest of Anchorage in the Alaska Range.

Lodge owner Steve Perrins helped provide first aid.

"He stayed conscious with us the whole time, was coherent, even had a sense of humor a couple times, which is pretty tough to do because he was in rough shape," Perrins said. "It was good, it was the perfect scenario for something like that to stabilize someone until we could get him in the medevac."

Tony Kavalok with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game says Miller tried to defend himself.

"He was charged by the bear - he had a .357 Magnum revolver, fired at the bear," Kavalok said.

It's unknown if the bear was hit. Perrins and others couldn't find it Monday.

"There had been a sow and yearling cub spotted by one of the crew members," said Kavalok.

If you enjoyed reading about "On handguns and bears" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DoubleTapDrew
June 22, 2010, 01:16 PM
Apparently wasn't Henry Bowman.
I would definitely be packing something in .454 up in bear country, or a shotgun with slugs if a long gun was permissible. That and a lot of situational awareness, especially with cubs spotted in the area.

KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 02:10 PM
My opinion (and it's just that since details are sparse) is that a bigger handgun would have made little difference. He either missed, or shot the bear in a non-vital (non-CNS) spot.

You have to hit them in the face or the odds are you're going down.

Mitch from LA
June 22, 2010, 02:14 PM
I've always found it best to defer to the Alaskans when it comes to big bears.

sonier
June 22, 2010, 02:28 PM
A 357 magnum factory load 158 grain lead cast from remington has a velocity of 1235FPS it also penetrates 27.5 inches of ballistics jell. so this whole 357 mag isnt worth a poop is BS 27.5 inches from a MODERATE FACTORY LOAD IS AMAZING, now let me go out and load my 158 grain leadcast and some H-110 powder I have loads that are aproching over 1600 fps with 900 foot pounds. this is more than enough to crack a grizzs skull and go through, so this whole talk of 357 mag not being worth a .... is total BS, Just because you went out and bought your 12 guage or your 460 supperduty magnum ultra pistol, dosnt mean you have to then consider everything else not practical. the 357 magnum was one of the most powerful cartridges for years. so stop dissing it and these bear threads are just an excuse for flame wars.

KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 02:42 PM
A 357 magnum factory load 158 grain lead cast from remington has a velocity of 1235FPS it also penetrates 27.5 inches of ballistics jell... yadda, yadda yadda ... so stop dissing it and these bear threads are just an excuse for flame wars.

The only flamer in these threads seem to be you.

The point is not the ballistics as much as it's hitting an object the size of a softball (a bears brain) approaching at 40 mph while bounding up and down. Any good handgunner should be able to drill a softball sitting on a fence post at 20 yards. However, that's not the situation in a bear attack.

To hit a rapidly moving object (whether a rabbit or a bears brain), a shotgun is the better choice. This may be all theoretical for you down there 500 miles from the nearest grizzly, but it's a very common occurrence here through much of the year.

sonier
June 22, 2010, 02:45 PM
you knew making this thread would open a can of worms lol, and if i recall your thread is "on handguns and bears" not shotgun vs bear ;)

KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 02:58 PM
you knew making this thread would open a can of worms lol, and if i recall your thread is "on handguns and bears" not shotgun vs bear

Is there a shotgun in the linked story? There's no can of worms to be opened here, unless a flamer shows up. The guy used a handgun to stop a bear and it failed. Period. If you have a story about a shotgun with heavy buck or slugs failing to stop a bear, then post it.

sonier
June 22, 2010, 03:19 PM
no theres not a shotgun in the story and the thread title is handguns and bears. thats all.

Zack
June 22, 2010, 03:20 PM
the 357 magnum was one of the most powerful cartridges for years. so stop dissing it and these bear threads are just an excuse for flame wars

1+ I like this. If he had a 357 it was probly 5-6 shot revolver. He could have missed and paniced, nothing talks about the gun or if the bear was hit. If a bear if charging you it would be hard to hit it. 5 or 6 shots you run out quick... I would have been packing something with 10+ magazine cap. Or a .44 mag

Haifisch
June 22, 2010, 03:21 PM
I would trust my BFR .475 Linebaugh for any bear.

KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 03:25 PM
OK, can you guys hit a bouncing softball approaching at 40 mph with your handguns?

If not, then it's a poor choice.

Lee Roder
June 22, 2010, 03:28 PM
yeah .357 against a bear will most likely just make it angrier. men have bigger brains. :D

ArmedBear
June 22, 2010, 03:29 PM
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/comics/2008/11/art_badbear.jpg

Water-Man
June 22, 2010, 03:34 PM
A bear's skull is not the place to aim for when being charged as some might think.

Zack
June 22, 2010, 03:36 PM
ROFL @ArmedBear.... Did you make that?? I about died laughing.... The bear is like angry and blue LOL... with duel weilding!

What program if you did make it?

DoubleTapDrew
June 22, 2010, 03:38 PM
That's an awesome picture!
I don't know if I could hit a 40mph bounding softball with a handgun, especially with a blast of adrenaline pumping through the veins.

A bear's skull is not the place to aim for when being charged as some might think.
I was always told shoot/break the front shoulders to stop the charge (with something pretty hard hitting) since it'll be on you before you know it.

Greg Koziol
June 22, 2010, 03:39 PM
.357 magnum will not have enough power to penetrate or do any damage to a bear intent on killing you. Maybe if you held it up to his eye ball or under his throat and blew out his neck vein while he was mawling you.

Vonderek
June 22, 2010, 03:49 PM
KodiakBeer, since you are an Alaskan I respect your opinion and knowledge in this subject matter. However, after reading your initial post and subsequent follow-ups I'm not sure what your point is. I guess it's about handguns being a lousy option for SD in bear country. So why not just post the story by itself? Why invite others comments?

Your initial post linked an article on a failure to stop with handgun and your one word addendum "Comments?" When others commented you take them to task for their comments. You brought up shotguns being more appropriate and when another member followed up on your shotgun reference you chastize him for being off-topic since your article was about handguns, and then challenge him to produce articles on shotguns stopping bears...??? So what exactly is your whole point? Do you want others comments or only comments that agree with your point of view?

Bob_P
June 22, 2010, 04:08 PM
My opinion (and it's just that since details are sparse) is that a bigger handgun would have made little difference. He either missed, or shot the bear in a non-vital (non-CNS) spot.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/node/45538:

FIGHTING BACK

The biologists darted the grizzly from the helicopter, then landed. Approaching the bear to take blood samples, they sensed something wasn't right. The bear moved, and moved again. Suddenly, from just 19 feet away, the bear charged the two researchers.

One biologist pulled a .44 and fired four shots at the bear, which quickly beelined for the brush. The pair ran for the safety of the helicopter cab. From the air, they noticed the bear still wandering around, so they darted it again. Upon examining the bear, they found that even at close range not a single bullet had hit the bear.

SharpsDressedMan
June 22, 2010, 04:22 PM
I guess we'll have to wait to find out A) if he hit the bear B)if the shot hit or repelled the bear 3) or if the bear laughed and mauled him for shooting at the bear ineffectively. Then there is the camp that advocates not shooting a bear UNTIL mauled, and then only with a nearby rifle of sufficient power and bore, or a suitable shotgun with slugs.:rolleyes::D

KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 04:27 PM
A bear's skull is not the place to aim for when being charged as some might think.

The tip of nose is the aiming point. Nothing behind there but some sinus cavities and a thin shell of bone in front of the brain.

KodiakBeer
June 22, 2010, 04:33 PM
However, after reading your initial post and subsequent follow-ups I'm not sure what your point is. I guess it's about handguns being a lousy option for SD in bear country. So why not just post the story by itself? Why invite others comments?

It's kind of an ongoing story over a number of threads. Bear maulings/attacks are pretty common here and average perhaps one a week at some times of year. And then we get these threads where somebody thinks their handgun is a the best choice to carry on their upcoming Alaska trip.

On one level I find it amusing, but on another level it's deadly serious. Most people would be best served by a can of pepper spray, with a shotgun as back-up.

dagger dog
June 22, 2010, 04:59 PM
Some times a well placed shot with a .357 won't stop an enraged man, so how in the world could it be counted on to stop a 500 pound meat eating 4 legged carnivore with its' mind set on damaging a GEOLIGIST. It didn't say the fellow was a grand master revolver champion. The guy was probably like everone else that works for a living in the backcountry, and had that revolver strapped on his hip for peace of mind and was in the same mind set as most thinking IT COULDN'T HAPPEN TO ME.

I don't know about others, but if I had an CLOSE ENCOUNTER of the FANGED KIND, I would wager to bet I couldn't hit the bear on the head with A BASS FIDDLE when we were nose to nose,and I shoot quite a bit, and most reading this post would fare the same.

Awareness of your situation is the best defense against this type of attack, and being armed with and trained with the firearm or bear deterrent of choice. You are putting yourself in jeopardy when you enter this type scenario and you better be darn sure you can walk the walk.

General Geoff
June 22, 2010, 05:21 PM
Apparently wasn't Henry Bowman.

I laughed :)

As for handguns against bear, hey, it's better than a pointy stick. Sure a rifle or shotgun is better, but run what ya brung.

Zack
June 22, 2010, 06:31 PM
looks like you need one of these "assault rocket lancher sniper gun take down jets 500mph" oh its a .50bmg

sonier
June 22, 2010, 07:16 PM
heres a link to some 357 mag info
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/357magnum.htm
it was one of the most faous and powerful pistol cartridge in its time and it was used with great results.

Vonderek
June 22, 2010, 07:16 PM
It's kind of an ongoing story over a number of threads.
Ahh...I understand. I'm coming to the party a bit late I guess. I agree with your assessment in principle but from a practical standpoint, how would one work or fish in backcountry and still be able to carry and access on a moment's notice a shotgun? Not stirring the pot, I honestly don't know.

Disclosure: I am a neophyte on this subject and stand little chance of encountering brownie or griz here in S.FL. so have zero experience in gun vs. bear encounters.

dmazur
June 22, 2010, 10:55 PM
...how would one work or fish in backcountry and still be able to carry and access on a moment's notice a shotgun?

I have absolutely no experience with being attacked by a bear, of any color variant.

As I understand this rather complex problem, the recommendation is to carry a bear-type pepper spray. The large size that shoots 15 to 20 ft. Carry this on a cord around your neck. This has to be immediately available.

While the bear is trying to deal with the pepper spray (which hopefully will be a retreat), you may have a few seconds to get your shotgun unslung. Or .45-70 carbine. Or something else suitable for putting the darn animal down.

I can see the logic. It doesn't matter how compact or light the handgun is, it is still a poor choice if it's all you have to avoid being dinner...

Cosmoline
June 22, 2010, 11:51 PM
While the bear is trying to deal with the pepper spray (which hopefully will be a retreat), you may have a few seconds to get your shotgun unslung. Or .45-70 carbine. Or something else suitable for putting the darn animal down.

If the spray works, there's no need to "put the darn animal down." And if the spray doesn't work, there's not going to be time to get to something else. These guys move really really fast when they have a mind to. And around these parts they're tough to see until you're on top of them or visa versa. The undergrowth is very thick.

BLACKHAWKNJ
June 23, 2010, 12:02 AM
I am not a hunter, the ones I know who have encountered bears have told me a bear's skull is well armored, like shooting at the front of a tank-if you don't have a powerful enough weapon, you have problems. Drawing on my military experience, were I to encounter a large enough bear, I would try for a
"mobility kill"-aim at a hind leg and slow it down enough that I could run away. I recall reading in my youth that African Pygmies would hunt dangerous game using spears-they would lure the game into range, if it charged they would brace the spear on the ground and let it impale itself.

MachIVshooter
June 23, 2010, 12:08 AM
My opinion (and it's just that since details are sparse) is that a bigger handgun would have made little difference.

Maybe, maybe not.

However, his .357 might have made the difference between life and death. If he wounded the bear, perhaps it began to feel the pain and changed it's mind. Pure speculation on my part, of course. We'll never know if he hit it or not.

MTMilitiaman
June 23, 2010, 12:29 AM
I don't think some of you people realize how fast these critters can be. Bears are like crazy fast defensive ends--their ability to cover close distances very fast is exceptional. At the ranges most of these encounters occur at, only having 6 rounds isn't going to matter because you'll be lucky to get half of them off before the bear is on top of you, esp if you do any aiming to make them count.

I've seen black bears casually lope sidehilling at 25+ mph next to my truck. At close range, a grizzly can chase down a horse. If you aren't situationally aware enough to catch the bear before it is within 40 yards of you, and it sees you before you see it, you'll be lucky to draw and get a single round off--that's how fast these animals close distance.

So if you only have one or two rounds to get the job done, it makes sense to make them as effective as possible. If it keeps you from going unarmed completely, a handgun will have to do. I carry a Glock 20 loaded with full power 10mm, which is ballistically similar to full power .357 Mag. While I consider this adequate for two-legged predators as well as cougars and possibly black bears, I never considered it proper grizzly medicine, and that is just the lil' guys we have in MT, not the big bruins they have in Alaska. Handguns are convenient, but they are marginal at best in skilled hands against aggressive bears. I'd rather have a .338+ caliber rifle, or a shotgun loaded with Brennekes.

If I had to load a handgun for bear, my choice would be a 4" Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum with some 300+ gr hardcasts. This would be about the most I could hope to get accurate follow up shots off in with any sort of rapidity. I'd aim for the head/upper spine bear the back of the neck and the shoulder hump. But more than likely, even then, against grizzlies, I'm probably not even drawing unless I have a longarm.

Drawing on my military experience, were I to encounter a large enough bear, I would try for a
"mobility kill"-aim at a hind leg and slow it down enough that I could run away.

If you get a shot at a bear's hind legs, chances are it's already facing the right direction and you don't need to shoot it. If a bear is coming at you, the hing legs are going to be an even more difficult target than its head.

HorseSoldier
June 23, 2010, 12:43 AM
.357 magnum will not have enough power to penetrate or do any damage to a bear intent on killing you. Maybe if you held it up to his eye ball or under his throat and blew out his neck vein while he was mawling you.

Probably worth noting that also this year we've had a bear charge stopped by a mag dump from 45 ACP 1911 (with the bear later dying as well). I'd personally consider 357 light, and 45 ACP stupidly light, for bear defense, but they can work, but going zero to sixty on drawing and engaging a charging bear makes the usual "if the shooter does his part" issue a real trick.

MachIVshooter
June 23, 2010, 12:51 AM
Probably worth noting that also this year we've had a bear charge stopped by a mag dump from 45 ACP 1911 (with the bear later dying as well). I'd personally consider 357 light, and 45 ACP stupidly light, for bear defense, but they can work, but going zero to sixty on drawing and engaging a charging bear makes the usual "if the shooter does his part" issue a real trick.

I personally knew a felllow who had killed a sow with 9mm FMJ. He was wader fishing in a wide stream in MT, and she approached from behind. She wasn't exactly charging, but wasn't "just curious", either. Lucky shot; one of the bullets entered the neck and hit a vertibrae, damaging the spinal cord. Again, pure luck.

For me, it'd be my 3" 629 at minimum. That would be as a sidearm while hunting with a rifle. If the handgun were to be my only weapon, my SRH .454 would be it.

KodiakBeer
June 23, 2010, 02:09 PM
I agree with your assessment in principle but from a practical standpoint, how would one work or fish in backcountry and still be able to carry and access on a moment's notice a shotgun?

Well, if you take into account that coastal Alaska has about one grizzly per square mile, carrying a shotgun becomes extremely practical. It's not just a theoretical possibility - you will encounter bears. A shotgun slung from your shoulder is just as quick to bring into action as a pistol on your belt, and far more effective.

The big cans of pepper spray are generally sold with an elastic band so that it rides on your chest. This is what you need for most encounters. Sometimes they just "woof" at you and sometimes they just walk or run away and sometimes they play a game I call "Let's pretend we don't see each other." If they act aggressive and won't back down you can blast them with spray. When they attack, they just attack in a full speed run and you almost never see them first. That's when you'll want a shotgun.

SharpsDressedMan
June 23, 2010, 02:13 PM
I think I have it! It's short, light, and swings around fast.......................... http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05558.jpg

KodiakBeer
June 23, 2010, 02:21 PM
I am not a hunter, the ones I know who have encountered bears have told me a bear's skull is well armored, like shooting at the front of a tank-if you don't have a powerful enough weapon, you have problems.

Bear skulls are not tough at all. Grizzlies have a pronounced forehead, but there's no brain behind that forehead. If you shoot him there it does nothing, yet because people don't understand the anatomy that's a tempting shot to take and leads to the myth.
The brain is low in the head behind the nose. So, if you shoot him in the nose he'll fold like a house of cards.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/Grizskull-1.jpg

saturno_v
June 23, 2010, 02:26 PM
Bear skulls are not tough at all. Grizzlies have a pronounced forehead, but there's no brain behind that forehead. If you shoot him there it does nothing, yet because people don't understand the anatomy that's a tempting shot to take and leads to the myth.
The brain is low in the head behind the nose. So, if you shoot him in the nose he'll fold like a house of cards.


+1

I heard of a grizzly shot at his nose during a charge with a 44 Magnum...it took the nose and the back of the skull off and the bear folded like a lifeless marionette...

sonier
June 23, 2010, 02:33 PM
Ive noticed one issue ive read, is that you want to aim between the shoulders, there is no time to aim and many bear charges that are real charges, the bear has its "armored" head down low blocking the frontal shot. Heres a clip of how serious it can be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbnmLLnsfw

In that amount of time the idiot who wouldve tryed to search around for his shotgun or 45/70 wouldve gotten mauled, there is just no time for a long rifle, unless you have your shotgun or rifled shouldered ready to go, you would be forced to draw your pistol and try your best. The muzzle blast may be good enough to deter the bear and just like pepper spray if you injure the bear it should deter the bear enought to make it leave, google bear attacks and a lot of bears were shot and not killed instantly and it made the bear run away, and leave the people alone.

KodiakBeer
June 23, 2010, 02:54 PM
In that amount of time the idiot who wouldve tryed to search around for his shotgun or 45/70 wouldve gotten mauled, there is just no time for a long rifle,

There's no reason to be calling people idiots. Why would unsnapping and drawing a handgun be quicker than raising a shotgun or rifle that (in this case) would be lying at hand in the boat, or in another case would be slung from your shoulder?

Ive noticed one issue ive read, is that you want to aim between the shoulders, there is no time to aim and many bear charges that are real charges, the bear has its "armored" head down low blocking the frontal shot.


Bears heads aren't armored - and what lies "between the shoulders"? Oops, the head...

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/BearCharge.jpg

mikana
June 23, 2010, 03:16 PM
How to fish while carrying a shotgun for bear defense.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2912034463_5579894a00.jpg

cassandrasdaddy
June 23, 2010, 03:41 PM
and what lies "between the shoulders"? Oops, the head.

quite a large head bet a feller could get a bit focused on it if it was coming at you and miffed. might be hard to shoot at anything other than head

frankd4
June 23, 2010, 06:51 PM
First of all take a basket ball have some one bounce at you at 35MPH and try and shoot it thatís what its like shooting at a charging brown bear plus keep in mind the if you are not successful that the bear is going to have his way with you.

Justin Holder
June 23, 2010, 08:25 PM
Is this the same lodge that had a television series, I think it was "Our Five Sons - Alaska"?

Name sounds familiar.

DenaliPark
June 23, 2010, 08:42 PM
My opinion (and it's just that since details are sparse) is that a bigger handgun would have made little difference. He either missed, or shot the bear in a non-vital (non-CNS) spot.

You have to hit them in the face or the odds are you're going down.
Depending upon ANY handgun for primary defense in a situation where you are being charged by a bear is a really, really bad idea! Its better then no idea at all, however most every documented encounter I've run across(and its been many)has the bruin shot from underneath by the MAULING victim, thats if they've been shot at all!
As to caliber, a .357 at contact range is as good as anything else is likely to be.

KodiakBeer
June 24, 2010, 02:12 PM
Denali, do you work in Denali??? If so, do you have any insight into that other recent bear shooting?

CraigC
June 24, 2010, 03:34 PM
Firstly, simply living in Alaska doesn't make anybody a bear expert any more than being a police officer makes you a gun expert.


My opinion (and it's just that since details are sparse) is that a bigger handgun would have made little difference.
We need details and lots of them. To conclude that because someone armed with a .357 was mauled by a bear indicates that the result would be the same regardless of what handgun was used is silly beyond measure. We have no idea what load was used or where shots were placed. No idea if the bear was even hit. No idea of the level of the geologist's training. In other words, none of the important details that would make for constructive discussion.

I see a recurring theme that YOU think that handguns are useless against bears. The handgun is a weapon of convenience. It can ride safely out of the way on our hip until you need it. It can be worn while doing most anything, including many tasks that would require you to put a long gun down, whether it has a sling or not. So there is absolutely no reason to NOT have a sidearm.

Some of the posts I've read about the effectiveness of revolvers, particularly the .44Mag and bigger, have been completely silly and false. Indicating that some may not have done their homework. IMHO, using muzzle energy as an indication of a cartridge's effectiveness on dangerous game is an instant red flag telling me that the person making the statement doesn't really know what he's talking about. Energy is almost completely dependent on the most rapidly diminishing factor, velocity. Very little creedence is given to bullet weight and caliber. If you need a number, use the TKO factor. Which, before someone takes it out of context, is intended to be used to compare big bore, heavy slug cartridges to each other. Here bullet weight and caliber take precedence. As I said in the previous thread, heavy hardcast bullets from big bore handguns penetrate like a freight train. On par with many classic stopping rifles. Jacketed bullets from a .357, not so much. If you think a 170gr .30-30 is a better choice than a 330-355gr .44, 335-360gr .45 or 430gr .475 then you need to go back to school because you are dead wrong.

DoubleTapDrew
June 24, 2010, 03:40 PM
First of all take a basket ball have some one bounce at you at 35MPH and try and shoot it thatís what its like shooting at a charging brown bear plus keep in mind the if you are not successful that the bear is going to have his way with you.

And make sure to have that person get out of the line of fire before you start shooting :eek:

Cosmoline
June 24, 2010, 04:13 PM
If you think a 170gr .30-30 is a better choice than a 330-355gr .44, 335-360gr .45 or 430gr .475 then you need to go back to school because you are dead wrong.

The energy doesn't matter if you don't hit the animal, or don't hit in a good spot. So a 170 Partition from a levergun is a better choice than a B Bore from a .44 revolver because you're more likely to be able to get a solid hit with the levergun. Much more likely. That's why the target stands are at 10 yards (or 10 feet) on the pistol range and at 50, 100, 200 or more yards on the rifle range.

Believe it or not, the .30 WCF was considered almost magical bear medicine when it first came out. And that was back with heavy big-bore lead rounds were the standard hunting rifles. Not that I'd want to rely on it, but I'd take a .30-30 levergun over a handgun of any caliber.

General Geoff
June 24, 2010, 04:17 PM
If you think a 170gr .30-30 is a better choice than a 330-355gr .44, 335-360gr .45 or 430gr .475 then you need to go back to school because you are dead wrong.

Sectional density? What's that?

saturno_v
June 24, 2010, 04:26 PM
We need details and lots of them. To conclude that because someone armed with a .357 was mauled by a bear indicates that the result would be the same regardless of what handgun was used is silly beyond measure. We have no idea what load was used or where shots were placed. No idea if the bear was even hit. No idea of the level of the geologist's training. In other words, none of the important details that would make for constructive discussion.

I see a recurring theme that YOU think that handguns are useless against bears. The handgun is a weapon of convenience. It can ride safely out of the way on our hip until you need it. It can be worn while doing most anything, including many tasks that would require you to put a long gun down, whether it has a sling or not. So there is absolutely no reason to NOT have a sidearm.

Some of the posts I've read about the effectiveness of revolvers, particularly the .44Mag and bigger, have been completely silly and false. Indicating that some may not have done their homework. IMHO, using muzzle energy as an indication of a cartridge's effectiveness on dangerous game is an instant red flag telling me that the person making the statement doesn't really know what he's talking about. Energy is almost completely dependent on the most rapidly diminishing factor, velocity. Very little creedence is given to bullet weight and caliber. If you need a number, use the TKO factor. Which, before someone takes it out of context, is intended to be used to compare big bore, heavy slug cartridges to each other. Here bullet weight and caliber take precedence. As I said in the previous thread, heavy hardcast bullets from big bore handguns penetrate like a freight train. On par with many classic stopping rifles. Jacketed bullets from a .357, not so much. If you think a 170gr .30-30 is a better choice than a 330-355gr .44, 335-360gr .45 or 430gr .475 then you need to go back to school because you are dead wrong.



Evidently you never heard of Sectional Density.

Energy is the capability of doing work...speed kills...period....momentum proponents conveniently forget the frontal area drag equation.

Comparing a hard cast bullet to a jacketed bullet, even fired from a high powered rifle is comparing apples to oranges...

Have you ever seen how far a 170 gr. 30-30 partition bullet penetrate?? I did.....

The TKO factor it's just a theory..never proven and no ballistic manual ever mention it.

Fire a 170 gr. solid pill from a 30-30 and a solid (hardcast or whatever) 300+ gr. from a 44 Mag and see who penetrates more....apples to apples

Shadow 7D
June 24, 2010, 04:37 PM
Wow, not again.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

encounters with a bear..........
Bear spray, survivable, mostly
pistol survivable, maybe
shotgun/rifle survivable mostly
Not walking around oblivious in bear country, helps, but, realize this guy was walking to a heli, which probably was already spinning up the engines (not blades) so hearing is shot, as for why a bear would be there

Sometimes it's just not your day.

speaksoftly
June 24, 2010, 04:56 PM
There's only one defense that I can think of for bears. This is the only secret weapon I'd trust my life with in bear or beet country.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://spasticsyira.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dwight_schrute1.jpg
Fighting bears with beets using skills learned form Battlestar Galactica!

KodiakBeer
June 24, 2010, 05:09 PM
To conclude that because someone armed with a .357 was mauled by a bear indicates that the result would be the same regardless of what handgun was used is silly beyond measure. We have no idea what load was used or where shots were placed.

It is that "where shots were placed" that is the key so many people keep missing. The only guaranteed stop is a hit on the nose. What's the best tool for hitting a small object (a nose) approaching at 40mph - a handgun or a long arm?

Go back to this link Sonier posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbnmLLnsfw

That is what a grizzly attack looks like. These people were luckier than most because they saw the cubs first and had a moment to ready themselves for trouble. That's usually not the case. This bear turned because of the noise of the warning shot, but that also is not always the case.

Your best option is that nose shot. Your second best option (a very distant second best) is a missed nose shot with something very heavy. I won't argue penetration of a heavy .45 Colt vs a .30/30 - you may well be right about the penetration, but that's missing the point because only hits count.

I've been shooting handguns for 35 years. I've got a very nice 5" Ruger Bisley in .45 Colt and I shoot it quite well, but it wouldn't be my first choice for shooting running rabbits because getting a hit would be mere chance. I'd use a shotgun. And for taking a bear running directly at me I'll also choose a shotgun. My second choice would be a long gun like a Marlin .45/70. My very last choice would be a handgun.

Firstly, simply living in Alaska doesn't make anybody a bear expert any more than being a police officer makes you a gun expert.

What if I've actually successfully dealt with hundreds of bears? What if I've shot attacking bears? What if I've been mauled by a bear? Would that make me competent enough to have an opinion?

CraigC
June 24, 2010, 05:53 PM
Comparing a hard cast bullet to a jacketed bullet, even fired from a high powered rifle is comparing apples to oranges...
Exactly! I was referring directly to statements made by the OP that "A .44 mag has about 2/3rds the muzzle energy of a .30/30 and 1/3rd the energy of a .45/70. Carrying a .44 for bears is comparable to carrying a .22 for protection against people." which is only a viable position if you believe that energy is everything. More and more, we are coming out of that cloud.


Sectional density, yeah, I think I've heard of that. I went round and round in the previous thread about the importance of sectional density, especially with regards to 12ga slugs. Sectional density is one of the most important factors, along with bullet construction and weight. Fact is, the OP stated unequivocably that a 170gr .30-30 is superior to ANY .44Mag. This is nonsense. Yes, the 170gr has a high sectional density (.256) but it is also designed to expand. So once your 170gr bullet contacts flesh your SD changes, it decreases rapidly. Now you have the momentum of a 170gr pill pushing a half inch expanded mushroom. So no, it is NOT going to penetrate anywhere near as much as a heavyweight cast solid of equal or higher SD. Regardless of velocity. This is well proven. The big bore punches a large hole without penetration-robbing expansion. This is why they work and work they do.


...speed kills...period....
Energy and velocity do not kill. Blood loss and CNS damage kills, period. Conventional bottlenecked rifle cartridges kill differently than big and slow, this is a given that should not need to be repeated. Big and slow obviously lacks speed but makes up for it in bullet diameter and momentum. Energy, while widely accepted as a measure of a cartridge's effectiveness, is a highly overrated and vastly overused number. It looks good in gun books and armchair ballisticians use it to tout their personal favorite but in the real world it really has no place. In the realm of big and slow, it is completely meaningless. If you believe in energy, then a .22-250 would be a better cartridge than the .44Mag for any game in town. Problem is it obviously is not. You would have no problem booking a hunt in Africa to take the big six with a heavy sixgun but no PH will take you after them with a rifle lighter than the .375H&H.


Fire a 170 gr. solid pill from a 30-30 and a solid (hardcast or whatever) 300+ gr. from a 44 Mag and see who penetrates more....apples to apples
The results might surprise you. Not only will the .44 penetrate just as far or further but it will also leave a larger hole. You can't have it both ways with a bottlenecked rifle cartridge. You either get deep penetration at the expense of expansion or you get expansion at the expense of penetration. The big bore does not need to expand so penetration is all we need or want. Range and a shoulder stock (the importance of which cannot be discounted) is what is given up.


The TKO factor it's just a theory..never proven and no ballistic manual ever mention it.
The TKO factor was developed by John Taylor while in Africa. He needed a way to compare the effectiveness of big bore rifle cartridges in their ability to render an elephant unconscious with one shot because muzzle energy was severely lacking. These big rifles sport the same advantages our heavy sixguns do, bullet diameter and mass, without the advantages of small bore rifle cartridges. Namely, velocity. TKO places importance where it is needed, diameter and mass. No, it ain't perfect but it's the best we have because muzzle energy is inherently useless in comparing the big and slow sixgun cartridges to each other. I emphasize "to each other" because it is just as silly to compare the .44Mag to the .22-250 using TKO as it is using energy.

CraigC
June 24, 2010, 06:02 PM
What if I've actually successfully dealt with hundreds of bears? What if I've shot attacking bears? What if I've been mauled by a bear?
Have you?


What's the best tool for hitting a small object (a nose) approaching at 40mph - a handgun or a long arm?
This is not and never has been in question. However, as I said before, the handgun is a weapon of convenience. Stake your life on a rifle and a rifle alone and you better never lean it against a tree to take a dump, cut firewood, go fishing, put up your tent, or any myriad of things one would do in the bush that would be difficult to impossible to do with a rifle in your hands or slung over your shoulder. The sidearm is ALWAYS there.


My very last choice would be a handgun.
Mine too, as it should be. That is, of course, unless you are hunting said bear with a handgun. I might point out Dustin Linebaugh's 175yd shot on a grizzly as discussion material. But also as I said before, hunting and stopping a charging bear are two different things.


The "up the nose" shot is commonly pushed in African circles as the best way to put down a charging Cape buffalo because they charge with it held high. With the horn boss protecting the brain. However, it is an exceedingly difficult shot to pull off and requires icewater in the veins on the part of the shooter. Busting a shoulder is a far easier shot to make and proven effective. Point being, pushing the nose shot as the only solution lowers your credibility considerably. Not to mention that a bear's nose is a much smaller and narrower target than a big Cape buffalo's.

saturno_v
June 24, 2010, 06:17 PM
Craig

I let you read one scientific study conducted by the US Forest Service about cartridge effectiveness on Big Beras..the results may surprise you...

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

We did talk about here

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=485872&highlight=forest+service

Conventional bottlenecked rifle cartridges kill differently than big and slow

They kill the same...they disrupt tissue and penetrate

Fact is, the OP stated unequivocably that a 170gr .30-30 is superior to ANY .44Mag.

The 170 gr. pill fired from a 30-30 will always outpenetrate a 300 gr. 44 Mag slug fired from a revolver assuming same bullet construction

If you believe in energy, then a .22-250 would be a better cartridge than the .44Mag for any game in town.

Actually a 300 gr. 44 Mag slug has a much higher SD than a typical 55 gr. centerfire 22 cal bullet and the 22-250 is a ~1500 ft/lb cartridge...not far from a full power 44 Mag cartridge fired from a long barreled revolver (~1200-1300 ft/lb)....bullet diameter alone, has nothing to do with the capability to penetrate..on top of that I never heard, AFAIK, od 22 cal. solid (means non deformable) bullets.

Problem is it obviously is not. You would have no problem booking a hunt in Africa to take the big six with a heavy sixgun but no PH will take you after them with a rifle lighter than the .375H&H.



They will let you hunt even an elephant with a bow or a revolver backed by an army of PH with heavy rifles behind you....that means nothing....between a 44 Mag (revolver or rifle doesn't matter) shooting solids and a 30-06 rifle shooting heavy solids against an Elephant, the -06 is the vastly superior weapon...period.

The results might surprise you. Not only will the .44 penetrate just as far or further but it will also leave a larger hole. You can't have it both ways with a bottlenecked rifle cartridge. You either get deep penetration at the expense of expansion or you get expansion at the expense of penetration. The big bore does not need to expand so penetration is all we need or want. Range and a shoulder stock (the importance of which cannot be discounted) is what is given up.



I never tried a 30-30 shooting solids but we compared a 303 British shooting 150 gr. FMJ against a 44 Mag revolver firing 300 gr hardcast (Buffalo Bore).

It wasn't even a context, the 303 bullet vastly outpenetrated the 44 Mag (the medium was wood)

it will also leave a larger hole

That is true but remain to be seen how important in that particular situation the larger diameter matter is, how much difference does it really make....however I admit that a large meplat in a flat nosed bullet may inflict a much worse wounding profile than even a round nosed one....but, again, this has nothing to do with weight, energy or caliber....

Elephant guns have yes large caliber but they fire very heavy for caliber bullets and very high level of energy

You cannot consider a 44 Magnum or a 45-70 to be an elephant cartridge because of its caliber....again, elephant cartridges fire big pills at high energy

You may bring as an example many Cape Buffaloes thunderstruck by 45-70 hardcast....I can bring the same Cape Buffalo example thunderstruck by 240 gr. Woodleigh bullet fired from a 30-06....

In some African countries when they set the limit they do not only establish the minimum caliber but they establish the minimum energy as well (H&Hhunter, correct me if I'm wrong...)

Ask to H&Hhunter, which has been in Africa quite often, how adequate a 45-70 is against Dumbo and see the answer....

KodiakBeer
June 24, 2010, 06:38 PM
Have you?

Yes.

What's the best tool for hitting a small object (a nose) approaching at 40mph - a handgun or a long arm?

This is not and never has been in question.

It's the only question.

Busting a shoulder is a far easier shot to make and proven effective

See picture: http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/BearCharge.jpg

What shoulder? This thing is a blur coming at you at high speed. The reality is you've got one or two seconds to make a shot and the nose is the center of mass - you're probably going to aim at the center of the face no matter what you've thought about in advance.

If you ever come up and actually confront a grizzly, I think your next stop will be at the sporting goods store to buy a shotgun. And considering the density of bears in many areas here, you won't find it too inconvenient to carry that shotgun with you at all times in the bush.

JDoe
June 24, 2010, 06:40 PM
Turns out that the subject geologist may have grazed the bear when he fired his single shot. My money is on him having missed by a mile.

Geologist describes double attack by grizzly (http://www.adn.com/2010/06/24/1339528/alaska-geologist-survives-2-attacks.html)
Miller managed to pull out his .357 Magnum revolver and squeeze off a single shot, possibly grazing the animal. Then his survival training kicked in: He fell onto his stomach, dug his face into the dirt and covered his neck with his hands to protect it from the grizzly's claws and teeth.

Even a 9 mm Luger is a good enough round for bear defense, provided that the shooter actually hits the target.

ETA: The following from THR's archives...

I've done quite a bit of research on bear attacks in Alaska. (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-148122.html)
It appears that there are a number of traits common in the successful repulsion of surprise bear attacks with a firearm:

1. The person had a gun. :) . Seriously, the most important factor in surviving the attack was that the person had a gun they could reach instantly, i.e., in a holster, not propped up against a nearby tree, in the truck, in the cabin, etc.
2. The person had a handgun. Some of the attacks were repelled by one buddy with a handgun when the other buddy could not raise his longgun fast enough. This occurs more often than you would think.
3. Smaller calibers are effective. This is the one that shocked me. Although some of the successful folks used .44 mags or .45 LC's, a number of them used 9mm's and .40 cals (and some were using ball ammo). In one account in particular, two buddies were fishing. A brown bear charged one buddy so fast, he couldn't raise his shotgun to fire, so he through it at the bear and dove into the water. His companion shot the bear with a 9mm pistol (ball ammo), and one of the shots broke the bear's shoulder. Once the bear was disabled, other fishermen joined in with their handguns and killed the bear.
4. The handgun appears to be effective because it is always there. The hunter/fisherman draws and shoots in an instant. The handgun might night kill the bear, but it often disables the bear sufficiently for the hunter/his companion to procure another handgun/long gun and then the bear is killed. Some local's have said "use the handgun to fight your way back to your rifle".
5. One last surprise. Urban legends aside, I found no documented evidence where an outdoorsman was able to shoot the bear (regardless of caliber) but was unable to repel the attack. There were some close calls, but nobody who got off a shot died. Not saying it hasn't happened, just saying I haven't seen it.
6. Final recommendation. If it were me, I'd bring something like a Glock/XD etc that is light enought to carry with me everywhere I go. I'd load something hot and non-hollow point.

KodiakBeer
June 24, 2010, 06:49 PM
Geologist describes double attack by grizzly


By MARY PEMBERTON
The Associated Press

(06/24/10 13:58:26)

The bearded, sandy-haired geologist was on a job in the remote Alaska wilderness when a grizzly bear suddenly emerged from the brush just yards away.

So Robert Miller did what he was trained to do -- he fell to the ground, clasped his hands around his neck to protect it and played dead.

The bear wandered away and Miller thought he was in the clear. Pulling himself to his knees, he found out how wrong he was.

The bear charged again, and "this time he didn't want me to move. He was really thrashing me around," the 54-year-old said Wednesday from his hospital bed, his right arm and leg swathed in bandages, his left ear criss-crossed by stitches.

Miller had been out scoping possible mining projects Sunday for his employer, Millrock Resources Inc., in a remote valley of the Alaska Range mountains near the Iditarod Trail. He'd finished for the day and was waiting for a helicopter to pick him up.

Miller was clearing brush with a handsaw so the helicopter could land, when the bear appeared about 25 feet away.

"When he stepped into the clearing he didn't snarl and stand up and show me how big he was. He just came for me," Miller said.

Miller managed to pull out his .357 Magnum revolver and squeeze off a single shot, possibly grazing the animal. Then his survival training kicked in: He fell onto his stomach, dug his face into the dirt and covered his neck with his hands to protect it from the grizzly's claws and teeth.

The bear went for his exposed right arm, gnawing and clawing it and chipping the bone off the tip of his elbow. The attack lasted 10-15 seconds, then the animal lumbered away.

"I thought it was over, I thought he was gone," Miller said.

He rolled over and was getting to his knees when the bear, which was only about 40 yards away, came at him again.

"As soon as I turned, he was running already. It was shoot, shoot and roll back over," Miller said.

He managed to fire two more shots, but with his right arm badly injured he thinks he missed the bear. Then he lay still as the animal gnawed and clawed at him.

"It was no problem to lay there with my neck covered and let him chew. It was actually painless at that point," Miller said.

After the second attack, Miller played dead again, lying still for three to five minutes as thoughts raced through his mind. Was the bear still around? How bad was he bleeding? Where was his gun?

He tried to move and realized he couldn't. He was too badly injured.

"I was just hoping my radio was still in my vest pocket and it was," he said. "I got it out and started radioing mayday, which nobody answered."

He tried calling for help about every 20 seconds; about 20 minutes passed before a voice came over the radio.

It was the helicopter pilot. Not knowing there had been a bear attack, he was calling in to let Miller know he was within five miles and needed to know the exact pickup spot.

"I told him what had happened. So he came in low, just doing outwardly expanding circles to make sure there was no bear around," Miller said.

Reassured the grizzly was gone, the pilot flew to the next valley and picked up geologist Ryan Campbell, who was trained as a wilderness medic.

Campbell cleaned Miller's wounds and applied pressure bandages to stem the bleeding. That's when Miller really began hurting.

"When he was cleaning out the wounds with this spray bottle ... it was a mixture of fire and electricity," Miller said.

He was flown to a nearby air strip where an emergency medical technician was waiting, then taken by medical helicopter on the more than hour-long trip to Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage.

Miller was fortunate to have survived, said Rick Sinnott, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist.

He should have been packing a more powerful gun, Sinnott said. "You have to be a very good shot or very lucky to stop a brown bear with a .357 Magnum."

Miller did the right thing to play dead with the grizzly, Sinnott said.

"Most of the time they just want to neutralize you and if you are playing dead after they swat you or hit you, you are pretty much neutralized. But if you try to run or stand right up or are screaming or waving your arms around, then they think you are still a danger," he said.

Propped up in his hospital bed Wednesday, Miller gingerly touched what he thought were bite marks just above his buttocks on his left side. His right arm was heavily bandaged from bicep to wrist; another bulky bandage encased his right thigh, which the bear had chewed from the back of his leg to the front.

Miller's face was unscathed except for a few scratches, but the bear nearly ripped off his left ear. Using his finger, he traced where it had been reattached with two rows of stitches.

Still, the geologist, who until five years ago worked as a roofer, said he holds no grudge against the bear.

"The bear was just doing what bears do," Miller said.






Copyright © Thu Jun 24 2010 14:47:44 GMT-0800 (Alaskan Daylight Time)1900

Zack
June 24, 2010, 06:53 PM
Miller managed to pull out his .357 Magnum revolver and squeeze off a single shot, possibly grazing the animal. Then his survival training kicked in: He fell onto his stomach, dug his face into the dirt and covered his neck with his hands to protect it from the grizzly's claws and teeth.


He had time to dig his face into the dirt? heck He coulda popped off all 6 rounds..... Hes lucky the bear didnt eat his body ....

CraigC
June 24, 2010, 07:03 PM
The Forest Service site is down for maintenance at present but I would like to read the results. I am highly interested in what bullets were tested for which cartridges.


They kill the same...they disrupt tissue and penetrate
No, they do not. Small bore rifle cartridges depend heavily on velocity for expansion to produce their broad wound channels. Big bores depend on their weight and diameter for penetration and large wound channels. Two very different schools of thought.


The 170 gr. pill fired from a 30-30 will always outpenetrate a 300 gr. 44 Mag slug fired from a revolver assuming same bullet construction
Moving right along from above, one cannot assume same bullet construction, it is not fair to either. For a deep penetrator the rifle cartridge must utilize a non-expanding bullet which pretty much nullifies its effectiveness on game. Two different schools of thought, two different bullet designs. So yes, I would expect your 150gr FMJ to penetrate deeper. I also expect it to leave a very small wound channel. Useless. HUGE difference in effectiveness on game.


They will let you hunt even an elephant with a bow or a revolver backed by an army of PH with heavy rifles behind you
Wrong. PH's typically have minimum requirements for their clients. The PH with a heavy rifle is intended as backup for when the client fails, not as a secondary shooter for the client to use an underpowered weapon.


I admit that a large meplat in a flat nosed bullet may inflict a much worse wounding profile than even a round nosed one
"May"? It certainly does and to be so neck-deep in this discussion you should already know that.


....but, again, this has nothing to do with weight, energy or caliber....
Weight/diameter (sectional density) determines how deeply it will penetrate. The wide diameter with a wide meplat determines the amount of tissue destruction as it penetrates.

Here's a better article comparing our big sixguns and cartridges with many rifle cartridges. The results are interseting to say the least.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/Linebaugh.Penetration.Tests.asp?Order=5

CraigC
June 24, 2010, 07:14 PM
It's the only question.
It is absolutely NOT in question for all the reasons I described. A rifle is a better tool but I'd love to see a picture of how one flyfishes with a rifle in your hands. Your credibility dwindles with every post.


What shoulder?
Is there something magical about bears that when they charge their shoulders disappear??? Something that differentiates bears from every other critter that bites back, that EVERY authority on the subject will tell you to break a shoulder??? No. Break the shoulder and he will at last change direction, if not change zip codes. Break the shoulder and you have hindered his ability to move. Break the shoulder on the first shot and you have a chance. Break the shoulder and he will die in short order. Break his jaw because you went for his nose and missed and you will have a bear on top of you. He still weighs 800lbs and still has claws several inches long. You have hindered only his ability to bite and have not inflicted an immediately fatal wound. No sir, as with anything, head shots are beyond stupid.


I think your next stop will be at the sporting goods store to buy a shotgun.
We've been through this and I think you know that I'll not put my faith in a projectile with as poor a sectional density as a patched round ball. Shotguns are plentiful and cheap but far from the best stoppers. Regardless of what legends indicate.

Cosmoline
June 24, 2010, 07:25 PM
Who can reliably nail the shoulder on a charging bear? Aim at the center of the furry blur. If you have time to aim.

The run-ins I've had fishing and hiking haven't involved a bear slowly and methodically approaching. They pop out of tunnels and are RIGHT THERE. Smack dab in front of me. Thankfully none so far have opted to tackle me and hopefully none ever will. But the suckers fly around in there like huge furry torpedoes. They're lower to the ground than some seem to imagine, and pretty hard to see. In fact other than once or twice on a Susitna tributary (where the water is noisy) I've always heard them before I've seen them. The bears make a distinctly different kind of sound than moose. Sometimes all I've ever done is hear them, they remain hidden in the undergrowth. Couple that reality with an animal that can out sprint Jesse Owens, and the arguments about head vs. shoulders vs. nose become moot in a hurry. Heck even spray vs. guns may become moot. It's lucky they're not really predatory against people except in extreme situations. Most of the time they're amiable and tolerate the trail monkeys well.

For carrying when things are really closing in, I use a quick release:

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

saturno_v
June 24, 2010, 07:26 PM
Here's a better article comparing our big sixguns and cartridges with many rifle cartridges. The results are interseting to say the least.


I bet the rifles were firing expandable bullets...

Wrong. PH's typically have minimum requirements for their clients. The PH with a heavy rifle is intended as backup for when the client fails, not as a secondary shooter for the client to use an underpowered weapon.



PHs back ypu up regardless of the rifle you are using yes...but I bet that if you show up with a 44 Mag you will have even more backing and at closer distance....the fact that I cannot hunt lions, legally, in some African countries with a 30-06 but I can hunt elephant with a 44 Mag revolver (or a bow) it's plain stupid...I know but it is still stupid...however I suspect that where caliber and cartridge limitations are in place (for example minimum of 375 H&H for the big 5) you cannot hunt an elephant or a cape buffalo with an handgun....I wait for the expert's report on this...

So you really tell me with a straight face that a 44 Mag revolver is the better choice against an elephant than a 30-06 rifle??? (assuming solids for both)
I would LOVE to hear H&Hhunter comment on that....

No, they do not. Small bore rifle cartridges depend heavily on velocity for expansion to produce their broad wound channels. Big bores depend on their weight and diameter for penetration and large wound channels. Two very different schools of thought

They still disrupt tissue and penetrate....that is the work of a bullet...if one expand and the other doesn't it's a different story..

Moving right along from above, one cannot assume same bullet construction, it is not fair to either. For a deep penetrator the rifle cartridge must utilize a non-expanding bullet which pretty much nullifies its effectiveness on game. Two different schools of thought, two different bullet designs. So yes, I would expect your 150gr FMJ to penetrate deeper. I also expect it to leave a very small wound channel. Useless. HUGE difference in effectiveness on game.


Why is not fair?? it is, and here the entire bullet weight/momentum argument for penetration collapses like a house of cards....yes the larger wound channel may make a difference or it may not....if a smaller caliber solid "nullify" its effectiveness on game why companies sell hunting solids as little as .243 cal?? Evidently they do work and they have a purpose....you know that a 6.5x55 Swedish cartridge firing a partition bullet (so it does partially expand) can almost pass through a Moose from brisket to butt?? Because of the fenomenal SD (even with a partially expanded bullet) of the 160 gr. bullet used to the task.

Randy Garrett claims in its website (Garrett Cartridges) that their 44 Magnum Hammerheads bullet provides more penetration than a 300 gr. 375 H&H partition bullet...again, apples to oranges..comparing an expandable bullet with a solid....

KodiakBeer
June 24, 2010, 07:35 PM
A rifle is a better tool but I'd love to see a picture of how one flyfishes with a rifle in your hands. Your credibility dwindles with every post.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what we in the gun world refer to as a "sling". This is a leather or nylon strap which connects to the stock and forearm of a rifle or shotgun. One can use this device to hang a long arm from the shoulder.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/fishing.jpg

We've been through this and I think you know that I'll not put my faith in a projectile with as poor a sectional density as a patched round ball. Shotguns are plentiful and cheap but far from the best stoppers.

Again - you have to hit the target no matter the projectile used. The target is moving and incredibly fast. A shotgun is designed for quick point shooting.

SharpsDressedMan
June 24, 2010, 07:40 PM
Gosh, guys! The issues I see presented in this topic, and the older ones, are 1) There ARE better guns to hunt or ward off bears; i.e. shotguns with appropriate slugs, big bore & fast handling rifles. The question always presented, which often acknowledges those facts, asks 2) what HANDGUN might be adequate to have on oneself when just IN bear country, just in case/as a last resort. Not looking to shoot or piss off a bear, but better than nothing, or better than a knife or big stick. It is often not PRACTICAL to lug a shotgun or rifle when fishing, exploring, working, etc. It sometimes isn't even practical to have a handgun, but...... I think many good ideas have been presented, especially the effectiveness of pepper spray, etc. I think one would not be TOO burdened to have spray at the ready, and a big bore, powerful handgun ALSO at the ready. Still collectively lighter and more compact than any rifle or shotgun, and gives the trekker options. It may even enable the person carrying spray AND a handgun to effectively arm anyone else on the scene, so that the bear has two people to worry about, and whom MAY be able to mount a defense. As much as any bear acting out towards me would scare the crap out of me, I think I'd now (after all the info on this site) attempt to dust the bear with pepper first, if possible, and use a gun as a the very last resort. I'm also thinking a reinforced, kevlar covered jumpsuit with a catcher's mask might be good, too, but could get warm in the summer.:D

KodiakBeer
June 24, 2010, 07:46 PM
Is there something magical about bears that when they charge their shoulders disappear???

I'm sure with your vast grizzly experience in west Tennessee and uncanny ability to hit a 40 mph running animal anywhere you choose with your revolver in 2 seconds time, you'll have no problems. Us mere mortal men will aim at the center of his face and blast away with shotguns or rifles.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/BearCharge.jpg

Karl Hungus
June 24, 2010, 07:48 PM
Like I've said in many other Handguns & Bears threads: The best handgun to carry in bear country is whatever you can stick in your mouth the fastest.

K-Beer's posts are dead-on. Carry a Stinger missile if you want - you still have to hit an enraged killmachine charging you at 40 mph while simultaineously crapping your pants. Maybe all you guys can explain your in-depth knowledge of ballistics while the bear's chewing on you.

cisco11
June 24, 2010, 08:17 PM
I hunt Alaska . Last sept. jet boat hunt on Chinsana River. Have shot a couple growly bears...... with rifles. It is one thing to HUNT bears with a handgun.. another to have one for bear protection. My advise would be to file off the front sight .... so when the bear shoves it up your ass it doesn't hurt as much.The fun thing is sleeping inna tent in bear country. Barren ground grizz in the Brooks range are about the worst.... they are always very hungry.
Chuck

CraigC
June 24, 2010, 09:20 PM
I bet the rifles were firing expandable bullets...
The report tells exactly what bullets were utilized and at what velocity.


So you really tell me with a straight face that a 44 Mag revolver is the better choice against an elephant than a 30-06 rifle???
Only a fool would argue that with proper projectiles, a handgun is better than a rifle. Although a .44Mag on the hip is a hell of a lot better than any rifle 20' away leaned up against a tree. My ONLY point in comparing rifles to handguns is to rebutt KodiakBeer's assertation that the .30-30 is vastly superior to the .44Mag based on muzzle energy.


Why is not fair?? it is, and here the entire bullet weight/momentum argument for penetration collapses like a house of cards....
Can you really with a straight face say that the size of the hole is unimportant??? The fact that component manufacturers sell .243 solids somehow indicates that a .243 solid is better than a .44 solid???


Because of the phenomenal SD (even with a partially expanded bullet) of the 160 gr. bullet used to the task.
What is it exactly you're telling me that I'm not supposed to already know?


I'm sure with your vast grizzly experience in west Tennessee...
You should assume very little based on a person's current location. Although it is interesting that you would use this as a personal attack.


Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what we in the gun world refer to as a "sling". This is a leather or nylon strap which connects to the stock and forearm of a rifle or shotgun. One can use this device to hang a long arm from the shoulder.
So how exactly did you conclude from my posts that I just fell off the turnip truck???


A shotgun is designed for quick point shooting.
So you choose a platform based on this??? In that case, I'll bring along my little 5lb Merkel 28ga because it swings so beautifully. Uh, yeah.


Us mere mortal men will aim at the center of his face and blast away with shotguns or rifles.
Again, I don't know where this comes from, nobody is saying that a handgun is better than a rifle for anything but portability. I'm saying that your assessment of the two cartridges in question based on muzzle energy is bogus.

You may "blast away" as you wish but I would choose to actually stop the critter, as untold numbers of dangerous game hunters have preached about for years.

Hawthorne2k
June 24, 2010, 09:55 PM
Speaking of handguns and wildlife, I saw a news report today that said a mountain lion had been spotted near my suburban Arizona home.

Would 124gr 9mm Speer Gold Dots be enough to dissuade a mountain lion for making me (or my children) his next entree?

ArtP
June 24, 2010, 10:18 PM
I have something to add to this never ending debate...

I know a hunter who I respect a lot. He's very experienced and knows his stuff. He was hunting boar in Georgia with a Marlin 1894 using Hornady 44 mag 270 grain Leverution (however they spell it) ammo. His target wound up being a 500 pound boar, which I think might represent the construction of the average grizzly. It took five rounds to dispatch the boar, some of those rounds were well placed.

-----------
Quote from friend:

He decided to make a left turn and walked the edge of the swamp off my right shoulder at maybe 45-50 yards. As he passed behind two good-sized trees, I made my move, standing, turning right and cocking the hammer on my Marlin .44 carbine. As he passed behind yet another tree, I raised the rifle and as he came out the right side, I placed the crosshairs square on his neck, just behind his right ear. The crosshairs settled and I pulled the trigger. He immediately went down, but was thrashing and chomping his jaws as the shot echoed through the woods.

I quickly fired again, with the crosshairs on his right shoulder, but he continued his wild thrashing and chomping. A third shot to his exposed belly seemed to have little effect, so my fourth shot was very slow and deliberate. I aimed mid-body as he thrashed, his right side on the ground and his belly now facing me, having turned a full 180 degrees. That seemed to do the trick and soon he was quiet. It had been over 20 minutes since sunset, so although there was still enough light to see, there was no time to spare.

I sat for maybe half a minute calming myself and then climbed down from my stand. I had already loaded three more 270 grain Speer Gold Dot soft points before descending and now I was ready to claim my big boar. I approached slowly. Just before prodding him with my gun barrel, I stopped and whistled. There was no reaction. Then I picked up a small stick and tossed it, hitting him in the ribs.

The chomping and thrashing immediately began again. I raised my rifle and shot him one more time in the neck at 10-15 feet. His thrashing continued for perhaps another 20 seconds or so, but after seeing that last SP plow through his big neck, I held fire, listening to those jaws snapping and very glad I had decided to toss that stick. His commotion finally ceased and I figured that he was completely spent. If not, he would be when we got back in 30 minutes or so to get him out.
------------

I was mistaken - he used Gold Dot 270 grain.



Regardless of all the talk on here, I would feel adequate, defended by a 44 mag.

Shadow 7D
June 24, 2010, 10:22 PM
Vastly different animals, and Vastly different tactics

The funny thing for me is how people who's only experience with bears, let alone brown bear, is the TV or maybe the zoo as a kid, want to jump on people who live in bear country, work in bear country, and hunt in bear country.

So, Alaska guys, what type of pocket pistols do you use to pop feral hogs, I was thinking a .25 bauer behind the left ear, the trick is quickly side step and give them your walking stick on the charge to line up the shot......

about as silly, should we start talking out crocodile hunting, maybe even mountain lion...

ArtP
June 24, 2010, 10:31 PM
Vastly different animals, and Vastly different tactics

The funny thing for me is how people who's only experience with bears, let alone brown bear, is the TV or maybe the zoo as a kid, want to jump on people who live in bear country, work in bear country, and hunt in bear country.

So, Alaska guys, what type of pocket pistols do you use to pop feral hogs, I was thinking a .25 bauer behind the left ear, the trick is quickly side step and give them your walking stick on the charge to line up the shot......

about as silly, should we start talking out crocodile hunting, maybe even mountain lion...
The reason there's so much debate is because none of us have had to defend against a brown bear. It's all speculation, even from those in AK. I think a large boar is built similar to a griz, they're both tough to put down, what I related had nothing to do with tactic.

What was your point anyway?

Shadow 7D
June 24, 2010, 10:40 PM
Actually you posted while I was typing, I was responding to the mountain lion question

The rest is for the more vocal people who have, over the course of a few threads, consistently argued for the use of handguns against bear, even when people like me from Alaska explain alot of the reasons not to.

I understand that your friend was hunting the hog, but

Now say your friend had fish and game up his rear end about shooting the hog, making him explain why he shot it so many times, why he used that ammo, OH and he has to dress it out and haul it into their office. That is what happens when you shoot a bear defensively (or at least in Alaska) and F&G takes POACHING very seriously, plenty of stories about people loosing their nice big truck over too many kings, or a lack of king stamp.

I was attempting to point out the ABSURDITY of what they advise, really even with hog, you don't go out with a pistol, unless you are hunting it with the pistol, that is different, but why would you tell a fireman to use a garden hose, or a fighter jock a paper airplane, you suggest the best tool for the job.

ArtP
June 24, 2010, 10:51 PM
I see Shadow....

A person is apt to put a rifle down after enough time, while a pistol will likely remain immediately available in a holster if needed.

I like the pistol idea, not because it's a more effective weapon, but because it almost certainly will get used.

SharpsDressedMan
June 24, 2010, 11:01 PM
I guess cops should carry a rifle or a shotgun on them at all times, too, when in the "field", and might possibly engage a human charging them at any time at 40mph in a car, or armed with AK's or shotguns, which they sometimes do, without warning. Well, I may not be from those sub-zero places that get so cold it affects one's though processes:neener::D, but I can tell you a cop is not going to carry a shotgun or rifle all the time, and, thus, WILL MAKE DO with what he will carry. I'll bet it's the same with outdoorsmen, wherever they are, when near large bruins. Be it Wyoming, Alaska, or Idaho. Yes, a RIFLE OR SLUG GUN IS SUPERIOR TO A PISTOL (most of the time), but to each, their own. My pistol gives up nothing to a .45-70 rifle. Can I hit a bear charging at top speed and stop him in time? Probably not, but I could get lucky. Hopefully, none of us will ever have to do that. If I don't get but one shot off, and then only as the bear is wrapping his jaws around my hand with the revolver in it, I hope the fireworks and concussion of the .500 S&W will give him a sore throat..................

PH/CIB
June 24, 2010, 11:34 PM
I am no expert, I have hunted bears and moose in Alaska and I carry my bolt action .458 Winchester with 510 grain soft points, although I would not have any problems using the 500 grain solids. It is a comfort to carry that rifle in boulder piles or brush where you might encounter a short range charge. For Grizzly bears you have to hire a guide who will be backing you up with a heavy rifle, for black bears and moose you can hunt without a guide or used to, back when I hunted in Alaska.

Of course you can encounter a Brown or Grizzly at any time doing anything outside, as a large caliber handgun is big and heavy while hunting I prefer a heavy rifle. For fishing a handgun and hopefully a guide with a rifle backing me up, if I was working for the forestry department or fish and game hopefully would have a partner with a second rifle or handgun.

I have a friend who retired from Alaska Fish and Game and is now a commercial fisherman and brown bear guide on a boat hunting Admiralty Island, he started out with a 300 Win Mag, went to a 338 Win Mag, then a 375 Holland and Holland and now uses a 458. A friend of his who also guides on Admiralty, had a client who wounded a brown bear, he went in after it alone, he killed it with a shot from his 416, but the bolt jammed when he tried to get in a quick second shot and while the bear was dying it mauled him practically to death. After he got out of the hospital he went back to being a guide but bought a Mauser Action bolt action rifle in 458 Lott, and then thought what the heck and bought a double rifle in I believe 470 Nitro Express. Of course these guys do it for a living and the rifles were probably a tax write off, I don't do it for a living, but I sure like my 458 Winchester!

cassandrasdaddy
June 25, 2010, 12:10 AM
because none of us have had to defend against a brown bear. It's all speculation, even from those in AK


er no use the search function and see how "misopinioned" you are

saturno_v
June 25, 2010, 12:10 AM
Only a fool would argue that with proper projectiles, a handgun is better than a rifle. Although a .44Mag on the hip is a hell of a lot better than any rifle 20' away leaned up against a tree. My ONLY point in comparing rifles to handguns is to rebutt KodiakBeer's assertation that the .30-30 is vastly superior to the .44Mag based on muzzle energy.



I may agree with you on that (a pistol to the hip it's better than a rifle 20 feet away) but that was not the point of our discussion....my understanding was that you meant to say that a larger caliber bullet kills better than a smaller one, regardless of energy and SD..clearly that is not true going back to my 44 Mag revolver vs. 30-06 rifle against an elephant or, simply, a grizzly bear.
And yes, a 30-30 is a significant superior cartridge in killing power than a 44 Mag fired from a revolver...much higher energy, higher SD....but, again, you fire hardcast bullets with the 44 and slugs made of butter with tha 30 WCF it's a different story....


Can you really with a straight face say that the size of the hole is unimportant??? The fact that component manufacturers sell .243 solids somehow indicates that a .243 solid is better than a .44 solid???


I can say with a straight face that in some circumstances the size of the hole does not matter much.....then we have to consider the size difference itself.....if we are talking about the difference between a 22 cal. solid versus a 45 or 50 cal. solid is one thing...but, for example, I do not believe that between a 308 cal. and a 338 cal bullet, just to make an example, there is all the difference that some people may think...

Again.....yes the wound channel difference between a round or spitzer nosed nosed 30 cal solid bullet and a .73 cal blunt edged 12 ga. shotgun slug would be significant...but remember you need wound channel AND penetration....if against your hypothetical elephant charge your 45-70 fail to reach the brain and my 30-06 gets to the gray matter, wound channel size difference does not matter much....

ArtP
June 25, 2010, 12:19 AM
[B]


er no use the search function and see how "misopinioned" you are

I'll be the first to admit I haven't read this entire post, but I have read most of it from the start.

I read your shorthand as, you have experience with brown bears - defensively. If that's really true (I'm guessing because your post is nonsensical), I'm surprised you'd give a limp wristed response and not TOUT your experience. If you don't have first-hand experience, just what are you implying?

cassandrasdaddy
June 25, 2010, 12:43 AM
not me but if i were you i'd check a bit you might feel silly but it might be worse if you don't check try looking for just the threads that have pics and are on this topic

CraigC
June 25, 2010, 12:56 AM
And yes, a 30-30 is a significant superior cartridge in killing power than a 44 Mag fired from a revolver...
Based on what, meaningless energy??? I opine that no, it is not. The .44Mag has a significant advantage, with the proper bullet. I also do not know where you get that the .30-30 has a higher sectional density. For from the start I have proposed a 355gr LBT which has an SD of .274 compared to .256 for the 170gr .30-30. The 355gr is comparable to the bullet that penetrated the deepest in the Linebaugh tests, the 430gr .475. Which penetrated more than TRIPLE what your precious 220gr .30-06 did. Also bearing in mind that those high SD rifle bullets only start out that way. The hardcast starts and ends the same. So one cannot say that jacketed and cast bullets of the same SD will penetrate similarly. For they will not, the cast slug will penetrate much deeper.

Do you really have any knowledge of big bore pistols or are you just a rifle shooter with an opinion???

saturno_v
June 25, 2010, 01:01 AM
Based on what, meaningless energy??? I opine that no, it is not. The .44Mag has a significant advantage, with the proper bullet. I also do not know where you get that the .30-30 has a higher sectional density. For from the start I have proposed a 355gr LBT which has an SD of .274 compared to .256 for the 170gr .30-30. The 355gr is comparable to the bullet that penetrated the deepest in the Linebaugh tests, the 430gr .475. Which penetrated more than TRIPLE what your precious 220gr .30-06 did.

Do you really have any knowledge of big bore pistols or are you just a rifle shooter with an opinion???

I was talking about 300 gr. 44 pill not 355 gr. (I do not even know how many firearms chambered for 44 Mag would feed a 355 gr. bullet...definitely not my Mod. 29 or the Marlin lever action rifles).

Do I have any knowledge?? Well I'm the very happy owner and shooter of a S&W 29 with an 8 3/8 barrel....and , as I told you, I witnessed a comparison between a 44 Mag hardcast and a cheap 303 Enfield FMJ....it wasn't even close...

...the 220 gr. 30-06 bullet was SP or solid??

Do yourself a favor...buy a box of Grizzly Cartridge 30-30 170 gr. solids (a bit spendy) and see for yourself how far these babies go....

Then I challenge any of your pistol bullets, coming fro the most powerful cartridges, including a 500 S&W, to outpenetrate a 300 gr. solid .338 fired from my 338 Win Mag.....

Look at the penetration test made with commercial 30-30 ammo (expandable bullets)....through 940 lbs. steer leg bones, 8 layers of carpet and into a solid oak door....

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/model94_3030.htm

ArtP
June 25, 2010, 01:08 AM
I'm not clear on your challenge.

You mention 170g, 30-30 stuff then go on to challenge via a 338 mag??

You've been touting the 30-30 all along and now switch to a 338 mag? What gives?

saturno_v
June 25, 2010, 01:11 AM
I'm not clear on your challenge.

You mention 170g, 30-30 stuff then go on to challenge via a 338 mag??

You've been touting the 30-30 all along and now switch to a 338 mag? What gives?

I'm not touting anything..and I wasn't the one mentioning the 30-30 first...read the entire thread...

With a 338 WM I meant to say that no handgun round in this planet will even come close to a a 300 gr. solid coming from a 338 WM....or a 375 H&H for that matter...handgunners love to mix expandable bullets with hardcast...

sonier
June 25, 2010, 01:14 AM
This thread makes me want to draw some brown bear tags and bring an ole 30/30 and 357 mag for sidearm and try to get a record bear lol

ArtP
June 25, 2010, 01:25 AM
I understand.

I think it's common knowledge that a rifle offers a better solution than a handgun, especially when 338's and 375's are brought to the table. But when you're busy fishing or working, you're likely to leave that killing machine away from your person. For this reason coming equipped with a 44 mag makes a lot of sense to me. Ideally, a big rifle, and I'm not a proponent of 12 gauge slugs (becaude they lack SD like hand gun cartridges), AND the big pistol make sense.

I'm in the handgun camp only because if I were there, I'd die (or survive) trying to use it instead of running for my rifle only to be caught be the prey instict of a wild animal.

Background... I camp once a month, rain or shine, in a remote place. I am lazy and frequently leave my rifle 10-20 yards away - but I always have that pistol on my side.

saturno_v
June 25, 2010, 01:35 AM
I understand.

I think it's common knowledge that a rifle offers a better solution than a handgun, especially when 338's and 375's are brought to the table. But when you're busy fishing or working, you're likely to leave that killing machine away from your person. For this reason coming equipped with a 44 mag makes a lot of sense to me. Ideally, a big rifle, and I'm not a proponent of 12 gauge slugs (becaude they lack SD like hand gun cartridges), AND the big pistol make sense.


Art

I agree with you on that....what I do not agree is that some people think that a larger caliber "magically" will give them outstanding penetration.....it is not the case..you need SD and energy....you need "horsepower" to do the job.....no 44 Mag will ever outpenetrate a 30-06 if solid are used in both...

ArtP
June 25, 2010, 01:45 AM
Art

I agree with you on that....what I do not agree is that some people think that a larger caliber "magically" will give them outstanding penetration.....it is not the case..you need SD and energy....you need "horsepower" to do the job.....no 44 Mag will ever outpenetrate a 30-06 if solid are used in both...
The larger calibers do offer a larger "frontal" impact - please excuse that I can't come up with the name for that at the moment.

But penetration is key with dangerous game or we ALL wouldn't be touting round nose or ball ammo in our pistols. No one here is suggesting hollow points for large bear. So it IS all about penetration.

Personally, I switch ammo from solid to hollow point when I camp vs. when I am at home.

CraigC
June 25, 2010, 02:02 AM
I was talking about 300 gr. 44 pill not 355 gr.
Then you need to get with the program. You're talking about one thing and arguing against statements and points I have not even made. Why do you keep bringing up the .30-06 and .338Win Mag???


Well I'm the very happy owner and shooter of a S&W 29 with an 8 3/8 barrel....
Congratulations, I've been a student of this sport for nearly over 20yrs and have been shooting big bores since age 16. This is what I do, what I study, what I lust after and what I spend my money on. I'm unmarried and have no children. I work from home and shoot in my backyard. I shoot nearly every day. If I remember right, I own three dozen sixguns, most of them big bores, several customs and a handful of big bore carbines. So you 'could' say I 'might' know a thing or two but you never know. I'm no expert but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either.


I witnessed a comparison between a 44 Mag hardcast and a cheap 303 Enfield FMJ
This is to be expected. Like I said before, there will be very little tissue damage with the FMJ. Not so with a good .44 cast bullet. So you're majorly handicapping your .303 by using an FMJ just to say it penetrates deeper than the .44. Penetration without tissue damage is useless in stopping a fight. This is external ballistics 101.


...the 220 gr. 30-06 bullet was SP or solid??
You have the link but have obviously not even looked at the chart.


Look at the penetration test made with commercial 30-30 ammo
I'm well versed on the .30-30 and the man that wrote the article. He's now on mission in Mozambique. He would also tell you that you're wrong. I have a 1901 vintage 1894 standing in the corner behind me as I type this, loaded with.....you guessed it, 170gr Remington CorLokt's. I need to load up some more 165gr RNFP-GC's because I like to be gentle to the old gun's rifling.

T2K
June 25, 2010, 02:13 AM
I have zero firsthand experience with bears, although I did hold a Koala once in Australia (not a bear, but often mistakenly referred to as one).

However, this article is another recent experience. Armed and it still didn't help, he lived though:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jun/25/training-saves-geologist-mauled-by-grizzly/

saturno_v
June 25, 2010, 02:35 AM
This is external ballistics 101.



It is Terminal ballistics not external ballistics.....wounding profiles, as we discussed, depends mostly the bullet shape.....you admit that a 303 FMJ outpenetrate a hardcast 44 Mag (it is a given) but then you sargue that a 430 gr. .475 bullet outpenetrated tre times a 220 gr. 30-06..so what is the story???

I did actually read the test you linked...for the 30-06 220 gr. they mention this:

30-06 Mt. Baldy RNGC
30-06 Cor Lokt

Now, Core Lokt is the cheapest commercial ammo you can possibly find, VERY soft point....I do not know the Mt. Baldy bullets but either is 1) An expandable bullet or 2) fired from a well reduced load...I suspect it may well be the second because usually hardcast bullet cannot take the beating of leaving the barrel at ~2500 fps, which is just about the velocity for a full house 220 gr. 30-06 bullet.....so that test you posted actually does not really say anything..
The same test shows a poor showing for a 375 H&H firing the same Mt. Baldy bullet (290 gr.)....outranked by what...a 45 Colt?? So what material are these bullet made of...butter??

Now, let me tell you about MY test with a Mosin Magant firing cheap surplus FMJ.....what about passing completely through a live well sized oak???

This is to be expected. Like I said before, there will be very little tissue damage with the FMJ. Not so with a good .44 cast bullet. So you're majorly handicapping your .303 by using an FMJ just to say it penetrates deeper than the .44. Penetration without tissue damage is useless in stopping a fight.

FMJ can be different...they do not come only in spitzer nose fashion (the "easiest" on the tissue, which allow it to "flow" around)...a round nosed is much more damaging....flat nosed even worse...

...He would also tell you that you're wrong.

I'm wrong in what regard?? I just read his test...and a cheap soft point 30-30 bullet went through massive bones, 8 layers of carpet and ended deep in a solid oak door....there is nothing to debate about....

Your handgun rounds can outpenetrate high powered rifle rounds only when they fire solid non deformable bullets....end of the story.....

Cosmoline
June 25, 2010, 02:40 AM
So it IS all about penetration.

I'd say it's about having a firearm first, knowing bear behavior second and hitting the the bear third. Penetration, sectional density, etc. all come after those points. And if you get those points right, you can bring down a lot of bears with some surprisingly minimal hardware. Conversely, having the biggest baddest uber magnum big bore shooting hardcasts means nothing if you can't hit the thing charging you. And the fact is most shooters are simply not good enough with big bore sixguns to hit a charging bear with one. Some are, and some get lucky. But many flat out miss or catch only fur and gristle.

So you're majorly handicapping your .303 by using an FMJ just to say it penetrates deeper than the .44.

With the .303 I'd suggest using the Woodleigh 215 SP's for bear. They're good medicine all around.

ArtP
June 25, 2010, 03:06 AM
Can we just all get along?

Can we just say that going out into bear infested woods to do what one loves is respectable enough? Even if that person only brings a 44 mag?

For fooks sake, I'd say a person armed with a good 357 mag putting muzzle to hide in a life/death situation deserves our praise, wouldn't you say?

If it makes anyone feel better, you both have a point, okay? Bring whacha got - even if its pepper spray!

Personally, I have a big mean-ass german shepherd dog. But when we camp guess who's looking after who? He's the alarm and I'm the muscle. I hope he can be a distraction while I fight in his defense. Dreaming? maybe.

(I always say, between the bitchy girlfriend, the athletic dog and capable weapons - you're done) For clarification I'm 42 w/ a long-time girlfriend.

New thread - bring your dog remote camping - who's looking out for who?

Shadow 7D
June 25, 2010, 03:48 AM
welcome to the fur ball,

Most of this is "my idea of a good gun is better than yours"
people who say live with the bears
they explain it more along "your idea will get you killed and this is why"

see it's whats in your head, or out of it when the bear gets done with you, best bet is just not to get started, second is to know what you are doing, third is how to survive when it all goes wrong, and last is what you are carrying.

ArtP
June 25, 2010, 03:54 AM
Love the "last part"!

cisco11
June 25, 2010, 08:46 AM
My bear rifle is a Win. M 71 in 450 alaskan.A very old cartridge .I load various bullets 500 grs, or so. Pick it apart all you over "Ballisticated" wannabees.
Cisco

Ronsch
June 25, 2010, 12:12 PM
I have read all through the various posts. My favourite brush guns in bear country are: 12 Gauge Winchester 13. I have a mixed load of slugs and buckshot. It can be unwieldy at times, but slung properly, I can get it into action rather quickly. I back that up with either my 1937 S&W .45ACP or my Uberti Cattleman in .45 LC.

I have been bluff charged twice, and have not had to fire on a bear recently. Please bear (bad pun...sorry) in mind that bear hunting is the deliberate stalking to kill the animal, therefore the armament is going to be different than a "grab and go" trip into the woods.

In addition, I went to the triennial Hunter Education conference in January here in Juneau. One of the presenters was a late 20-early 30-ish young lady who has hunted all of the major species of bear (including polar bear) with her compound bow. On that particular hunt, her backup was two guides, one carrying a .45-70 Marlin Guide Gun and the other had some nondescript sporterized Mauser variant in 8mm.

So, basically the lesson was and is shot placement in hunting, and a kind of pray to hit with good shot placement in the near in a self-defense situation.

Just my $.02 worth.

Tacbandit
June 25, 2010, 12:25 PM
Quote by cisco11:
"My bear rifle is a Win. M 71 in 450 alaskan.A very old cartridge ..."

Sounds adequate to me.....

Quote by cisco11:
"I load various bullets 500 grs, or so. Pick it apart all you over "Ballisticated" wannabees."

That's funny...:)
Tac

KodiakBeer
June 25, 2010, 12:58 PM
You should assume very little based on a person's current location. Although it is interesting that you would use this as a personal attack.

You're the one sneering at those of us who live in Alaska and have actual experience of the subject. If our experience of actual grizzlies (rather than your TV bears and ballistics charts) is barely worth consideration, then your complete lack of experience is worth far less.

Again, I don't know where this comes from, nobody is saying that a handgun is better than a rifle for anything but portability. I'm saying that your assessment of the two cartridges in question based on muzzle energy is bogus.

Muzzle energy only comes into play if you miss. If you get that CNS shot, muzzle energy is almost meaningless. Just about any centerfire round will take down a bear if you hit the center of the face. If you miss that shot and hit him elsewhere, you'll wish you had a .458.

You may "blast away" as you wish but I would choose to actually stop the critter, as untold numbers of dangerous game hunters have preached about for years.

The quote was "aim at the center of the face and blast away." As for your "untold legions of dangerous game hunters" well, why are you arguing with a bunch of experienced dangerous game hunters? We're just the tip of the iceberg, because the real experts are a bunch of nameless field biologists who go out and deal with these animals routinely, and they all carry shotguns or iron sighted big bore RIFLES.

KodiakBeer
June 25, 2010, 01:14 PM
I have a friend who retired from Alaska Fish and Game and is now a commercial fisherman and brown bear guide on a boat hunting Admiralty Island, he started out with a 300 Win Mag, went to a 338 Win Mag, then a 375 Holland and Holland and now uses a 458.

That's a pretty typical story. The longer you live here and the more experience you get with these animals, the more you step up in power and bore size. Also, if you ask your friend you'll probably find that his .458 has iron sights or a scope that dials down to 1X. People all seem to come to similar conclusions when they gain experience.

I came here in the late 80's and carried a Weihrauch Bounty Hunter .44 for "bear protection" and several mid bore rifles for general hunting. After encountering a few aggressive animals the light began to dawn and I stepped up to a GG in .45/70 for summer carry. After getting mauled and fully realizing how fast these events unfold, I switched to a shotgun for field carry and a .350 Rem Mag for general hunting.

It isn't about fear, it's about recognizing the reality and adapting.

Tacbandit
June 25, 2010, 04:48 PM
My brother that lives in Kodiak is here, and we've been planning a brown bear hunt up there, for next year. While I may have seen bears in the woods, at the zoo, and on the hunting shows on television, I am by no means an "expert". You can bet that I will listen to his advice. I also realize that there is no "magic caliber" that guarantees all is well...what it takes is listening to, and then heeding the advice of those guys that live there with and around those bears. It's the bears world when you're in his territory, and only he knows what he will do for sure...but it's been proven over and over that it has a lot to do with how you react to the bear, as to whether or not you provoke him further. Listening to the stories of my brother and his buddies on their hunting/fishing/camping trips...I'm amazed at the restraint they've shown at times. Where they have eventually fired to scare the bear after a false charge, I probably would've been trying to kill the bear at that point. Point being, I'll be in good hands, and I'll do what I'm told while in bear country. If you're not familiar with bears, you probably shouldn't be out there with them, at least not without someone who is.

shotgun-2
June 25, 2010, 05:39 PM
Why would someone that lives in a southern state want to argue with a resident of Kodiak AK., about how to protect against a bear attack while in the bush working?
All the internet fantasies about what .658 Super Mag. rifle or what ever giant handcannon should have been used by the unfortunate surveyor in the bear attack, and how he should have placed two well aimed shots into the bear's left nostril and right eye while being charged is pure BS.

I am not an Alaskan (I live in the Pacific Northwest) but spent several years working in the Alaskan Bush in the mid 70's thru the early 80's and had many encounters with both black and brown bears. It is my experence that people that are working in the bush can't normaly pack a large rifle on their person while working and that most encounters with bears are unexpected and up close with almost no time to react.

A large canister of bear spray is probably the best first defense and then if necessary and you still can, go for the gun. I think a short barreled shotgun is best and then the largest handgun you can handle well next.

Working and living in the Alaska Bush is a lot different than going out hunting there. Most bear encounters go without incident other than a little pee in the pants.

Most of all listen to the locals about what protection you need instead of some dude sitting at his computer in his air conditioned house thousands of miles from Ak having a day dream while reading Field & Stream.

Just trying to be real! :cuss::evil:

racine
June 25, 2010, 07:09 PM
Anyone see that video? It was a parks and wildlife officer on top of the cage releasing this grizz that came after him. He unloaded 6 rounds of 357 and the bear kept coming. He got away with the thinnest of margins. I've never encountered browns or grizz but a few blackies in So. Colorado. Given a choice of what to carry in grizz country like Montana I'll bring the biggest shotty slug gun I can/am allowed to carry or at the least a 44 mag with big buffalo bore slugs and a couple of pepper spray. You're not allowed shotties in natl parks but now allowed CCW pistols (can you carry a CCW shottie in you pack???). I'm chiming in because I want to ask if anyone has ever attached a laser to their 44 mag?

mjyeagle
June 25, 2010, 07:39 PM
the 460 and 500 smith and wesson will drop any thing except an elephant or cape buffalo and mabey they would if banded solids were not illegal to manufacture for hand guns the 475 linebah would have no trouble with anthing in the americas i would not feel comfortable carrying a my 357 for bear protection that would be stupid that is a plain as i can put it i would carry my 460 S&W for protection anywhere except mabey on a dangerious game hunt I'm chiming in because I want to ask if anyone has ever attached a laser to their 44 mag? no but it sure sounds like fun

PH/CIB
June 25, 2010, 07:52 PM
Quote: "After getting mauled and fully realizing how fast these events unfold, I switched to a shotgun for field carry and a .350 Rem Mag for general hunting. "

Always enjoy your posts KodiacBeer! That took some real guts to get mauled and go back out in the field again! Would love to hear your story about the mauling if you would care to share it!

Alaska is some of the toughest hunting I have done in the US.

saturno_v
June 25, 2010, 07:55 PM
KodiakBeer

I respect your experience and knowledge, however many same Alaskan residents tell you that you do not need anything more than a 30-06 (loaded with proper bullets, heavy for caliber) for grizzly defence...

As you said, during a charge only a CNS shot counts.....if you miss it, even a 458 is useless....

KodiakBeer
June 25, 2010, 08:25 PM
however many same Alaskan residents tell you that you do not need anything more than a 30-06 (loaded with proper bullets, heavy for caliber) for grizzly defence...

A 30.06 would be just fine. Bigger is better, but any long arm trumps a handgun by a considerable margin.

I carry a .350 Rem Mag, but that's not much of a step up over a 30.06. It's kind of an obscure cartridge that most people aren't familiar with. It's not really a "magnum" so much as .35 Whelen in a short stubby case that fits in a short action carbine. I chose it more for it's compactness than its bore size, though I appreciate being able to use heavier slugs.

When I'm not hunting, I carry a Baikal coach gun that fits in my pack with the butt hanging over my shoulder.

kgpcr
June 25, 2010, 10:01 PM
Its really funny how many people here can tell us all about Grizzly guns but have never seen a Grizz. Its funny how many people have never been to Alaska and yet they know all about how to deal with a PO'd bear. You are right living in AK does not make you and expert but i will damn sure tell you living in TN and such you know NOTHING about it. Listen to Kodiak and people who have spent hours in Alaska. I have never had a problem with a bear in AK. I got chased by a cow moose that just made it to the truck in time. That was a hoot! I have spent lots of time on the rivers in AK and seen plenty of bear and thank God i have never had a problem. I carry a Ruger Alaskan .454 with Double tap cast bullets and hope i never find out how good they work.

kgpcr
June 25, 2010, 10:09 PM
by the way all the FPS and TKO an all that crap does not mean much. I know for a fact bear cant read. The bigger the better

Manco
June 25, 2010, 10:44 PM
Anyone see that video? It was a parks and wildlife officer on top of the cage releasing this grizz that came after him. He unloaded 6 rounds of 357 and the bear kept coming. He got away with the thinnest of margins.

On the other hand, a single round could have killed the bear with the right placement. It's just hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from a single incident. There are even people who have taken that much or nearly so and kept coming. For instance, Trooper Mark Coates put five .357 Magnum rounds into an obese bad guy's COM with no immediate effect. The bad guy shot back with two .22 LR rounds from a puny NAA derringer, and one was stopped by Coates' ballistic vest, while the other passed through a gap in the vest near his left armpit, inflicting a fatal wound. :( Unfortunately, the perp survived his wounds. :fire: With the supreme importance of shot placement being a given, what conclusions can we draw from this incident regarding caliber? Without more detailed information, not a whole lot, I'm afraid.

I've never encountered browns or grizz but a few blackies in So. Colorado. Given a choice of what to carry in grizz country like Montana I'll bring the biggest shotty slug gun I can/am allowed to carry or at the least a 44 mag with big buffalo bore slugs and a couple of pepper spray.

In my opinion, use a big canister of bear spray first if you want to have the best chance of surviving. This is because it requires far less precise placement to be effective than bullets, and its effects can be felt more quickly by the bear in the vast majority of cases (except for direct CNS hits). The only argument against this that I can think of is that the sound of gunfire can often deter or even scare off bears, but I wouldn't count on it (spray, then shoot).

I'm chiming in because I want to ask if anyone has ever attached a laser to their 44 mag?

I think that lasers are fine for indoor environments, and even have some advantages that no other sighting system has (e.g. being able to aim without holding the gun up to your eyes), but in the outdoors I think that a red dot sight would work better for rapid sight picture acquisition (and it had better be rapid when a grizzly is charging! :eek: ).

EDIT: Regarding the red dot sight, I was thinking of models that could be left on continuously for extended periods of time, not ones that have to be switched on right before they can be used. :uhoh:

sonier
June 26, 2010, 01:39 PM
I thought this thread was a excuse for a flame war lol and ive seen some of these people act the same way in just about every bear VS. thread
I have just agreed to disagree at this point i trust my 357 mag python with my handloads to do what it needs to on a bear,
I wont try to hammer my beliefs into anyones thick headed skull. cause apparently ill need a sledgehammer at the least to do so ;)

KodiakBeer
June 26, 2010, 01:58 PM
I have just agreed to disagree at this point i trust my 357 mag python with my handloads to do what it needs to on a bear

Well, if you ever come up to Alaska in July, August, September (when it's easiest to see bears), email me and I'll take you out to see some grizzlies at close range. I'll even buy the first beer afterward.
You may change your mind about that .357, but even if you don't I'll still buy the first beer.

sonier
June 26, 2010, 02:07 PM
When a few funds get untied i may be headed up there for a guided hunt, It probally will be next year but i will make it a lifelong goal to take a grizzly with a 357 magnum, it may be hard to find a guide who will be willing to let me but it has been done and i will show it can be done again.

KodiakBeer
June 26, 2010, 02:31 PM
Hunting one with a .357 is surely possible. Keep in mind that your guide is morally and legally obligated to put the animal down if it doesn't drop right there. But, if you take your time and make the right shot, there's no reason it can't be done.

A far less expensive hunt would be SE Alaska black bear. On some of those islands you can see 50 or 60 bears a day, especially in the Spring when the brush is down. No guide required.

kgpcr
June 26, 2010, 04:40 PM
Untill you see up close and personal the size, speed and power of a brown or grizz you just wont understand. Personally i would not use a .357 on them but then again i want clean kills.

KodiakBeer
June 26, 2010, 05:21 PM
In Alaska there will be a guide present to put it down if he doesn't drop it instantly, which would be kind of a shame after investing 15k in a hunt. But, if he's good with a revolver, he could put one down easily enough with a head shot. It wouldn't be my cup of tea either...

PH/CIB
June 26, 2010, 08:58 PM
There is an old saying,,,"When hunting Field Mice in Elephant Country,,,always carry a .460 Weatherby!"

Robert Ruark said,,,"Use Enough Gun" and the old adage of shoot the biggest gun you can shoot accurately,,,surely applies to anything that can kill you,,,whether it be animals or men.

If I remember right I read somewhere long ago, that an Eskimo or Indian a Woman I believe killed either a Polar Bear or a Brown Bear with a 22 rifle, I have read another account of a man in Africa killing a lion with a knife. However I am not inclined to try either, although I will be the first to admit carrying a heavy caliber handgun in a good holster is much easier than carrying a heavy rifle. Karamojo Bell killed scores of Elephants with a 275 rifle, men died trying to duplicate his feats.

However I was trained in Nam never to let my rifle out of arms reach whether sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom or working, and I will take a heavy big bore rifle over any handgun anytime.

I love Alaska, noone thinks twice about anyone carrying a rifle or a handgun anytime!

Tacbandit
June 27, 2010, 01:41 PM
Quote: by KodiakBeer
"In Alaska there will be a guide present to put it down if he doesn't drop it instantly, which would be kind of a shame after investing 15k in a hunt....."

Regardless of the expense of the hunt (and I won't be paying that much), the value of having that guide/back-up will be equally as valuable and important to me. I probably won't make many trips up there to hunt and fish, so I plan to make the most of the opportunity I'll have. I'll probably go with a 300WM or 338WM, as I agree with kgpcr, in that I want to make a clean and humane kill. (It also gives me an excuse for a another new rifle.) A lesser caliber may work, but I'll feel more comfortable with either of those. Personally, I appreciate the insight from KodiakBeer, and you other folks that live there with the bears, and for helping us to see it for what it is, and keeping it real...

KodiakBeer
June 27, 2010, 02:12 PM
I'd certainly go with the heavier rifle as long as I shot it well. Good luck on your hunt! Do you know what part of the island you're hunting?

geologist
June 27, 2010, 02:19 PM
I work in brown and white bear habitat. If weight is no object I have a .375 H&H, 45-70 Guide Gun, 14" 12 ga pump and a LE No. 5 in .303.

All of these long guns are too heavy and ackward for a geologist to carry on traverse. So we compromise by carrying bear spray and a revolver instead. In my case and for many other Canadian geologists, a .454 Casull. I know that even a .454 Casull is marginal but it is after all a compromise.

kgpcr
June 27, 2010, 04:37 PM
Geo
you bring up a good point what to carry. I woudl prefer an MA-2 for a PO'd brownie but then again you really cant carry one of those around so when i am out and about in AK its a .454 with Double Tap hard cast bullets. Not perfect but its quick to bring in to play. a 45-70 on your back is a bit slow and a pain to carry around when fishing.

SharpsDressedMan
June 27, 2010, 05:18 PM
Geologist: I'm glad you still have access to handguns in Canada. I had always heard that that was a lost right up there.

Tacbandit
June 27, 2010, 06:05 PM
Quote: by KodiakBeer
"I'd certainly go with the heavier rifle as long as I shot it well. Good luck on your hunt! Do you know what part of the island you're hunting?"

Not yet. Still working through the preplanning. My brother is working on a lot of it there, and there are three or four really special places he loves and knows like the back of his hand. The names elude me right now, as I'm not familiar with them anyway. Travel and access in/out is covered, regardless, so that's a big plus. They go bear watching a lot, and he says there are some really great places to get a really large brown bear. As to the rifle, I've been a .308 guy since the military, and haven't really shot the larger ones much. I'll get one soon, and be proficient with it by hunt time. He says he's got access to anything I want to use, but I want to use my own rifle, and be totally in tune with it. It'll definitely be stainless, whatever it is. I've heard plenty of stories about how tough the weather is on 'em...This one will be done right, as I don't want to be the topic of one of these threads, lol...
Tac

KodiakBeer
June 27, 2010, 06:14 PM
I don't use any stainless or plastic stocked rifles and I've never had a problem. You just wipe them down in the evening and they're fine.

We've got some great deer hunting here also, so if you get your bear early you'll have plenty to do. Bring a good camera because it's an amazingly beautiful place.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/deer-2.jpg

Tacbandit
June 27, 2010, 06:40 PM
:what: Wow, Kodiak..I'd hard several stories of how fast rifles try to corrode over there. I'm not a stainless fan at all anyway. The tactical military side of me, I suppose... I take good care of all my firearms, anyway...my brother has both, and didn't suggest it, but I thought I'd protect my investment by going stainless...adding a little insurance of sorts, I suppose. I may reconsider that. I didn't figure on hunting anything else, but I want to fish too. The deer might be something to think about if I get a bear early...Not shooting the first one that I see. Not shooting the first big one I see, either. (Yeh,right) Now, the first REALLY BIG one...may be a different story. All about the guide...lol...Thanks,
Tac

Norb
June 27, 2010, 06:51 PM
It's kind of an ongoing story over a number of threads. Bear maulings/attacks are pretty common here and average perhaps one a week at some times of year. And then we get these threads where somebody thinks their handgun is a the best choice to carry on their upcoming Alaska trip.

On one level I find it amusing, but on another level it's deadly serious. Most people would be best served by a can of pepper spray, with a shotgun as back-up.
I wonder how that 25' hornet spray would work....

kgpcr
June 27, 2010, 08:18 PM
Hornet spray would be good for killing Hornets but so much for bear. If you have ever been tear gassed or maced you will know there is a huge difference

General Geoff
June 27, 2010, 08:24 PM
KodiakBeer, that last picture you posted is breathtaking. I've been wanting to move to Alaska for years, and that picture just gives me more motivation to get there. Thank you.

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 12:03 AM
+1 on the picture, KodiakBeer...I meant to mention it earlier...can't wait to get there...
Tac

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 12:04 AM
Where was that shot taken, if you don't mind me asking? Beautiful view...!
Tac

kgpcr
June 28, 2010, 12:10 AM
Tac
Being a Marine i take really good care of my weapons but i did fall in love with stainless. It started with a Colt Anaconda and King Cobra. Now my hunting rifles are stainless. If you want to move to AK and have one rifle do it all i would go with a 300WM A little extra punch never hurts. I carry a .338WM and i love it

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 12:29 AM
Thanks for the advice, kgpcr...That's the way I'm leaning...the 300WM. Not sure how it will compare to shooting 168's in a heavy barreled bolt 308, but as long as I don't go with a light rifle, it shouldn't be too tough of a transition. On the stainless issue...I've bought a couple (S&W 642, S&W 3913) but not because they're stainless. They were on sale, and I took advantage of that. Not against "stainless", just don't care for shiny except for bores, showing they're clean... (Come to think of it, I would like to have a 686 S&W...)
And thanks for your service...

Cosmoline
June 28, 2010, 12:36 AM
I wonder how that 25' hornet spray would work....

Useless for bears, but not a bad idea. The absolute worst and most damaging encounter with Alaskan wildlife I've had was with wasps. I was walking through thick spruce woods when I noticed a wasp stinging my left wrist. In the time it took to swat it, a dozen more were on my arms and face. Got stung many times and just had to run away. On certain wet cold days they kind of lose their minds and get really psychotic. They absolutely scare me more than moose or bear.

KodiakBeer
June 28, 2010, 12:43 PM
The picture was taken here in Kodiak. A nice dawn shot where the deer on the ridge is catching the first sun, but the sea behind and below him is still in shadows.

mothermopar
June 28, 2010, 01:55 PM
Kodiak, what's your occupation up there?

Another question: don't you folks feel like prey animals on Kodiak? I mean... with what, 2000 lb bears running around all over the place... its almost premordial in a sense, like the first mammals scurrying and hiding under logs... those huge bears... man, they're just dang HUGE!

*What's the biggest one, anyway?!?

KodiakBeer
June 28, 2010, 02:26 PM
I'm retired Coast Guard and do security work.

Nobody knows how big they get because the biggest bears are at the south end of the island 100 miles from the nearest road. How would you weigh them? The biggest weighed specimen (that I know of) was one shot in "defense of property" at a summer salmon processing plant about halfway down the island. They attached a sling scale (accurate and used to weigh salmon offloads) to a front end loader and it went over 1600 pounds. If that same bear had been weighed in fall, it would have been much heavier.

It's not as hard as you'd think to live around grizzlies. Stay OUT of the brush would probably be rule number 1. If you don't surprise them they give very few problems. And of course, if you encounter them in the open you aren't surprised either - you have time to get ready, snap the tab off the pepper can, etc.

If you've watched any of my bear vids, you'll note they're all taken in wide open areas and in summer when the bears are gorged with salmon and fairly docile. I don't fool around with them at other times of the year.

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 03:11 PM
Quote: by KodiakBeer
"If you've watched any of my bear vids, you'll note they're all taken in wide open areas and in summer when the bears are gorged with salmon and fairly docile. I don't fool around with them at other times of the year."

Exactly what my brother says...Still, I would find it very difficult to relax around them any time of the year...My adrenaline is already pumping just thinking about hunting them...
Tac

KodiakBeer
June 28, 2010, 03:36 PM
Tac, just to wet your appetite! ;)

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/DawnBear3.jpg

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/aaabear.jpg

sonier
June 28, 2010, 04:08 PM
beautiful pictures kodiak :)

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 04:22 PM
Kodiak..Oh man.. Dude, those are awesome...My brother just left here to visit other family, but while he was here we watched some video of some really beautiful bears, from really small, to really L A R G E browns. One was over nine, with a big ole noggin...I can't get enough of 'em...Just a rookie, but already a bear junkie...They're so majestic and powerful at the same time. It'll be an honor just to get to hunt one .
Thanks, Kodiak...
Tac

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 04:41 PM
Hey, Kodiak...are you familiar with that really old(25-30) small blonde-ish female (bear)
that is somewhat of a legend, I believe...Some remote area, and I don't remember the name...saw video of her, and I thought it was a young-un at first. As it got closer, you could tell she was older, but she's really small...

KodiakBeer
June 28, 2010, 05:00 PM
I don't know of any blond females. Blond bears are kind of rare on Kodiak - probably less than one in ten are blond.

The blond above is a 5 year old male that I've been watching for several years. He spends most of the summer near my house and I first saw him and a female sibling two years ago when they got kicked loose by a sow. I thought he'd starve that first year, but both he and his sister have learned how to survive and return every year.

He'll be six this year and should be pretty impressive in size.

This is him as a hungry three year old.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/BearEagle-1.jpg

mothermopar
June 28, 2010, 05:14 PM
Kodiak... thanks for the responses.

I don't know... living around the largest predators on the planet earth seems a bit, unnerving.

Anyway, I'm not a hunter and I'd only shoot a critter if it was posing a threat to me of some sort or I needed to eat... but I base my zombie gun(s) off of what caliber would be good to stop one of these fellas! LOL

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 06:03 PM
Hey, Kodiak...Just talked with my brother...Karluk, or something like that, is where that bear is...That's a cool pic...two of America's greatest creatures...
Tac

KodiakBeer
June 28, 2010, 06:12 PM
Karluk is at the south end of the island, very wild and remote, about a 100 miles from where me and my blond bear buddy live.

mothermopar
June 28, 2010, 06:37 PM
BTW: That Eagle looks like it could eat the bear (optical illusion in pic)!

kgpcr
June 28, 2010, 07:53 PM
I would rather deal with the bear up here than the snakes you deal with down south.

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 11:40 PM
Yeh.. The snakes can be a little annoying. I'm good as long as I see them first. The worst experiences for me have been copperheads while squirrel hunting in Louisiana... Had a couple of close calls...shotguns work great on 'em, though... Probably would've traded for a bear a time or two, lol

Tacbandit
June 28, 2010, 11:49 PM
Really looking forward to experiencing the brown bears in Kodiak. I've followed black bears in the woods in Tennessee...Ran up on a momma and two cubs in the Smokey's once.She wasn't happy about it, either. She gave me the look, and I gave her the whole park...backed out slowly, made sure she was ok with that, and scooted on back to the jeep. I realize that the browns are a whole different critter, but you've gotta respect 'em all.

KodiakBeer
June 29, 2010, 02:50 PM
Be prepared for some really grueling hunting. The weather will be bad on most days in Spring and Fall during hunting season They're up high in some very vertical terrain and very spooky. You can't really use an ATV or anything like that because the noise will clear them for miles. You have to do it on foot - pack in from sea level up to a high valley or ridge and then spot and stalk from there. You can't bait and they don't really have a territory (at that time of year) or habits you can use to set up a blind as you would with deer. You have to just spot them and try to stalk in, and they cover ground a lot faster than you can. Still, there's plenty of them so if you're persistent and in good shape you'll eventually connect.

Tacbandit
June 29, 2010, 03:47 PM
I'll be as ready as I can be...just being out there will be a thrill in itself...beautiful country, beautiful animals. No doubt...it'll be a challenge...one worthy of many memories, and stories, I'm sure...Thanks for the heads-up, Kodiak.
Tac

Tacbandit
June 29, 2010, 03:48 PM
Deleted...Double post...sorry

If you enjoyed reading about "On handguns and bears" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!