I am also comfortable with what true professionals like forest rangers, wildlife biologists and game wardens use.
The question is, why do they use what they use? Just because professionals use something, doesn't necessarily make it the best tool for the job. They usually use whatever their government agency has issued them. Even if they've killed several bears, if all they've ever used was whatever they were issued, how relevant is their experience? Or lack thereof? Same with Africa. You'll find no shortage of PH's who'd say that handguns are a joke against game like Cape buffalo but just because they're a "professional" does not make them an authority, if they have zero experience with handguns or handgun hunters.
I am not generally inclined to share any personal details of my life here for several reasons, but I'm one of the professionals mentioned in cheygriz's post.
So I wanted to clarify a few points here.
"Park Rangers" work for the National Park Service under the Department of the Interior. Their knowledge base is highly variable, and a lot of the young people you meet at park entrances and working behind the counter at visitor centers have no knowledge of the resource in question, because the Park Service is a preservationist agency not a conservation agency. They preserve special places, which is great, but you can't assume they know anything relevant to wildlife. The BLM is under the Department of the Interior as well.
Game Wardens work for state governments.
Wildlife biologists is an appropriate term, and state and federal agencies both employ them for their expertise.
"Forest Ranger" is a widely misused term. In the National Forest System (Department of Agriculture), there is a Washington Office, Regional Offices, and then there are Supervisor's Offices on each National Forest. There are over 140 National Forests. And within each National Forest there are several Ranger Districts. The District Ranger is the boss on that district, and answers directly to the Forest Supervisor. The individuals most people encounter in the woods are Forestry Technicians of one kind or another, or they are a professional specialist. Foresters and silviculturists make timber sales and implement veg management projects. Other "ologist" like biologists and hydrologists are involved in specialist review and planning. So if you live near a National Forest, and want to know about timber harvesting activities, ask to talk to the Timber Staff Officer, or the Forester, not the Forest Ranger, unless you have a complaint. By all means, call the boss then.
CraigC's post is spot on. What many people don't understand is that everything the government does is approached from a liability and risk management standpoint. Why do people working in griz country get issued bear spray? It's because it is a lot cheaper to buy bear spray for your employees than to buy everyone a S&W 500 magnum, an appropriate field holster, and enough ammo to keep them certified. Every piece of potentially dangerous equipment the government uses requires a certification process that needs to be maintained. Think about that cost. Think about the liability and potential lawsuits that would occur if one gov employee accidentally killed another with a firearm. The bottom line is that the risk and upkeep are much lower with bear sprits than with firearms. However, when you talk to people who work in areas with large predators, they typically acknowledge that bear spray can be effective, but many of them express that they would like to have a firearm on hand as well. Never assume that what the professionals use is what they want. It's what their employer allows them to have. If they don't like it, they can look for another job. Bear spray has also been effective enough that they can avoid lawsuits when someone gets mangled, though their affidavit covers that really. It's why there aren't lawsuits when firefighters get burned up (which very sadly happens every year almost). They signed on, so good luck.
Also, think about the image that would be portrayed by agencies if lots of their employees were armed. They are trying to increase use and provide a good experience. "Sir why do you have a gun?" "That's in case Smokey needs an attitude adjustment mam." It wouldn't go over well. That doesn't change the fact that many of us would gladly provide our own equipment and ammo to stay qualified and certified. But that opens another liability door.
We also don't have Jason Borne type computers to work with. Most of us have PCs that are easily 5-8 years out of date, using operating systems that are two versions behind everyone else.
Another point that is often lost on people is that grizzly bears and brown bears are the same species, but they are better thought of as subpopulations exhibiting different traits. There is a big difference between inland grizzlies in the Rocky Mountains, a coastal brown bear, inland Alaskan grizzlies, and a Kodiak bear. The differences can be measured in hundreds of pounds of difference, and feet of length. I worked with a guy who was stationed in Thorn Bay Alaska for a few years. It was a requirement that someone on the crew there had to be certified and carrying a long gun of some kind.
If dealing with inland grizzlies, I would be confident with a 10mm auto as a minimum if loaded with proper bullets. A 357 is really pushing it if you ask me on anything bigger than a black bear. For coastal browns or Alaskan grizz, I would want a 44 magnum or bigger. For Kodiak, I'll view them from a helicopter thank you very much. I mean we are talking about a bear that can weigh 1500 lbs and be ten feet tall. The record is over 1600 lbs.
As CraigC and several other hunters have pointed out large and dangerous animals can be harvested with a 44 magnum if a proper loading of powder and a well constructed bullet is used. So I am going to repeat my first assertion, that if the OP can hit accurately and more quickly with the 44 than the 454, I would carry that. There's a big difference between a carefully aimed hunting shot and a panic driven survival shot. Speed and marksmanship is going to be key. Bring a change of underwear also.
Edit: I worked alone in the woods, in predator country, for 12 years, 3-6 days a week, for 8-12 hour days. I have spent more time alone in the woods than most people will spend in a group in the woods in their lifetimes. Bear spray is something everyone should have along, but I STILL want a gun. I've been chased by domestic bulls, bit by a dog, charged by a coyote and two white tail deer bucks in the rut. I have been confronted by an angry person with gun in hand as well, and have come across multiple predators. Redundancy is a good thing when it comes to safety. However, I have never, nor will I ever bring a firearm into my workplace. The chances are slim that it would ever be needed, and my career would end right there. I'd also face prosecution. So the professionals are just doing what they are allowed, and the willingness to take on risk is usually part of the passion of what we do.
Second Edit: I apologize if I came off as preachy. I just want good info out there in regards to my professional field, and since I've been in it for awhile, I have strong feeling on the matter. Inaccurate info and misconceptions don't do anyone any good.
