Interesting article

Is this linked in the “what gun for bears” sticky?

Seems like a borderline drive by.

Another related article in a link from the above article.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2018/01/pistols-for-defense-against-bears.html

This and another similar study showing the results of 70+ bear attacks stopped by handguns suggests that handguns, any handgun, does a lot better job on bear than most give them credit for. Virtually all have been successful even with much less powerful rounds.

There was an article posted on another forum that stated just that. I can’t seem to find it but the jest of it was the charge came out of nowhere and the first thing that went through the guys head was “I’m going to have to kill this bear on top of me.” He did just that. Bear knocked him down and he shot the bear from underneath with his service pistol. Sorry wish I could remember all the details. There are some people in Alaska that say a pistol is useless. Their view is if a brown bear can soak up multiple hits with a center fire rifle what’s a pistol going to do. Carry what you have and be comfortable with it. Practice shooting instinctively. I’ve never been charged but I’m sure that if I ever have the misfortune I won’t be trying to line up sites.

jmr40 said:

Another related article in a link from the above article.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2018/01/pistols-for-defense-against-bears.html

This and another similar study showing the results of 70+ bear attacks stopped by handguns suggests that handguns, any handgun, does a lot better job on bear than most give them credit for. Virtually all have been successful even with much less powerful rounds.

Click to expand...

Also don’t forget, the handgun you have is infinitely better than the rifle you don’t have at the time of the attack.

jmr40 said:

... another similar study showing the results of 70+ bear attacks stopped by handguns suggests that handguns, any handgun, does a lot better job on bear than most give them credit for. Virtually all have been successful even with much less powerful rounds.

Click to expand...

That would be by Weingarten in an Ammoland article. While generally correct, he has definitely biased his data. He is anti bear spray, pro gun. Any bear attack where bear spray is used and a person still gets injured and bear spray is deemed a failure, even if the bear is driven away. When the same circumstances happen with a pistol, person is injured, but bear driven away, it was deemed successful. When a pistol is used, but the person fails to connect with the bear and still gets injured, it isn't considered a failure of the pistol. Or, when a gun is deployed but the person doesn't know how to use it, it is still not a failure of the gun. With that said, the overwhelming information he presents indicates having a pistol is certainly a good thing.

There have been plenty of posts on this forum that a handgun is useless and you need a long gun. I myself have 'discussed' the matter at length with several other members (I'm pro handgun). Whenever you see this pic. you can assume satire:

daniel craig said:

Also don’t forget, the handgun you have is infinitely better than the rifle you don’t have at the time of the attack.

Click to expand...

....and where were their rifles? From the linked article it doesn't seem the revolver was the weapon for the dead moose. Hunting moose in Alaska, one would think even if the revolver was the primary weapon that one of the two would have had a rifle along as back-up, not just for bear, but for moose. More folks are killed every year from moose in Alaska than bear. Why wasn't the revolver on the person and not hung on a tree. Wasn't the shooters gun, he didn't even know how to remove it from the holster. Whole lot of stupid went on before the attack and a great deal of luck during.

I have never claimed that handguns are not effective against bear.....they are. It's the folks holding them that are the weak link.

SharpDog said:

There have been plenty of posts on this forum that a handgun is useless and you need a long gun. I myself have 'discussed' the matter at length with several other members (I'm pro handgun). Whenever you see this pic. you can assume satire:

View attachment 949235

Click to expand...

LOL, she sniped a bear in the head at short distance.
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/LandOwner/misc/Grizley1.html

Bella Twin, an Indian girl, and her friend Dave Auger were hunting grouse near Lesser Slave Lake in northern Alberta. The only gun they had was Bella’s single-shot bolt-action .22 Rimfire rifle. They were walking a cutline that had been made for oil exploration when they saw a large grizzly following the same survey line toward them. If they ran, the bear would probably notice them and might chase, so they quietly sat down on a brush pile and hoped that the bear would pass by without trouble. But the bear came much too close, and when the big boar was only a few yards away, Bella Twin shot him in the side of the head with a .22 Long cartridge. The bear dropped, kicked and then lay still. Taking no chances, Bella went up close and fired all of the cartridges she had, seven or eight .22 Longs, into the bear’s head. That bear, killed in 1953, was the world-record grizzly for several years and is still high in the records today.

buck460XVR said:

....and where were their rifles? From the linked article it doesn't seem the revolver was the weapon for the dead moose. Hunting moose in Alaska, one would think even if the revolver was the primary weapon that one of the two would have had a rifle along as back-up, not just for bear, but for moose. More folks are killed every year from moose in Alaska than bear. Why wasn't the revolver on the person and not hung on a tree. Wasn't the shooters gun, he didn't even know how to remove it from the holster. Whole lot of stupid went on before the attack and a great deal of luck during.

I have never claimed that handguns are not effective against bear.....they are. It's the folks holding them that are the weak link.

Click to expand...

Yup