You worry about Bears... read this!

[Leanwolf]

Malamute - " Ive seen eye sockets mentioned a number of times in regards to bears. I have to ask why its deemed a viable target other than possibly blinding the bear in that eye.

The concept seems rooted in a mistaken understanding of bear skull construction. The eye sockets are entirely outside the brain box. Nothing at all like human skulls, which seems to be the impression that bear and human skulls are similar."

I agree 100%. All I have to do is look at the skull of the Black bear I killed. It is on my desk as I write this. Trying to stop a charging bear by shooting it "in the eye" is not going to do anything but make the bear more angry than he was and even more intent on making you his lunch.

Into the nose or mouth and the bullet goes right into the brain. Dead stop.

L.W.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Trying to stop a charging bear by shooting it "in the eye" is not going to do anything but make the bear more angry than he was and even more intent on making you his lunch.

Wouldn't that depend on the angle of where the eye was at the moment of the shot? You know, if the head was cocked a bit to one side and a bit up, and the line goes from the eye to the brain.

Deaf

 

[buck460XVR]

Trying to stop a charging bear by shooting it "in the eye" is not going to do anything but make the bear more angry than he was and even more intent on making you his lunch
Into the nose or mouth and the bullet goes right into the brain. Dead stop.

L.W.

Wouldn't that depend on the angle of where the eye was at the moment of the shot? You know, if the head was cocked a bit to one side and a bit up, and the line goes from the eye to the brain.

Deaf

Probably things that the " two-day class on Predator Defense " would teach us.........

 

[shafter]

I can at least see in my mind's eye six .357's not working. They skid off the skull and graze under the skin. You see that in human shootings sometimes. The bear has comparatively more skull and less brain.

I've seen this first hand. The rounds glance off the skull and don't do any real damage. With a better angle they would easily go through the skull and kill a bear instantly. I've also seen a 22lr fired from a pistol drop a bear in it's tracks. The round went through the top of the skull. He had been solidly shot by a rifle but he was still on all fours a few yards away.

It goes to show you accuracy is far more important than caliber and you will need to be fast.

 

[Malamute]

Wouldn't that depend on the angle of where the eye was at the moment of the shot? You know, if the head was cocked a bit to one side and a bit up, and the line goes from the eye to the brain.

Perhaps, and understanding where in the head the brain lies, it may be valid, though I think that's diverting from the point that some people think an eye shot is straight into the brain as it is in humans. The sides at an angle as you mean may give a thinner amount of bone to try to get through, it also may be a glancing shot off the side of the brain box and not be lined up with the center of the brain.

I had a picture of a bear skull saved, but I'm a couple computer failures away from then.

This will serve.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bea...2&ved=0ahUKEwiIhq3q__jOAhVGwWMKHfxgDQQQsAQIGw

I think it would be wise to understand bear anatomy somewhat, and keep in mind the comments of one of the prolific elephant hunters of the past. He said one should understand where in the head the brain lies in an elephant, and try to intersect your shot to go through the center of the brain from whatever angle you are presented with. I believe he said the brain in an elephant was between an imaginary line between the ear holes, then the center point of that line was your target, however it was presented in the heat of the moment.

 

[jmr40]

Some photos of a 260 lb black bears skull. The brain is enclosed in a very narrow, long skull. The eye sockets would most likley not put the bullet in the brain. In the nose would. Even a hit to the forehead could very well glance off because of the sharp angle of the bones.

I have long believed that penetration, placement and lots of holes are more important than a magnum revolver. I started carrying a 10mm Glock with 200 gr DoubleTap hardcast ammo years ago in bear country. Seeing how well Phil Shoemaker did on a much larger bear with a 9mm loaded with 147 gr Buffalo Bore hardcast bullets leads me to believe I made the right choice.

 

[Malamute]

Good pictures, thanks!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Now turn the head 30 degrees and put the pencil back in the skull. Note it points into the skull toward the brain.

See the critter might not have their head exactly facing you as they run toward you (or someone else near you.)

Simple, no?

Deaf

 

[jmr40]

I admit, I've never been charged by a bear or any other dangerous game. But I have had dogs and other animals charge me and seen dangerous game charge on video. They don't turn their heads, they focus directly on the person they charge. Another person who is nearby may be presented with a shot from the side. That is the way it went down when Phil Shoemaker killed the brown bear in Alaska. It was straddling his clients who were on the ground. He fired into the bears head from the side at a range of 2-3'.

You never know exactly what will happen. Just posted the photos to show that it is quite likely that a shot into the eye may not have any real effect. Human anatomy is much different and a shot into an eye will very likely enter the brain.

 

[Haywood]

It sounds to me like a shot to the neck of the bear is better than the head. When camping in PA I'll carry a 357 4" with JFP but PA bears usually run away and are on the small side.

 

[X-Rap]

I wonder why you wouldn't want to react similarly to a human attack and work to "get off the X"

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[X-Rap]

It would give you a different sight picture to include more of the shoulder and spine.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Deaf Smith]

I wonder why you wouldn't want to react similarly to a human attack and work to "get off the X"

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No doubt a better idea than to back peddle or run!

Deaf

 

[blarby]

I think that it all depends on Bears size. 9mm might work for little Black bears but the more substantial Griz, browns and Polars you would best be advised for bigger guns. Low end I would think 44 mag. When I roam the mountains Im thinking 45-70. Bad and mad bears can ruin your day.

sHOT PLACEMENT IS EVERYTHING.

https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...ishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol/

 

[horsey300]

I've never shot a bear, nor have I fired this specific weapon, what would be the fallacy of a .410 revolver loaded with slugs? I've used single and double barrels and once a bolt gun with those slugs..... but please educate me on this one... a .410 slug is nowhere near the 500 magnum, nor would I plan on using this revolver for excessive range practicing. But at a threatening distance, would the ability to discharge 5 slugs in rapid succession with heavier impact than 9mm (though you do get 18 with some 9's) provide an advantage? Truly curious and am without the bear AND revolver required to learn from experience.

 

[JohnKSa]

Now turn the head 30 degrees and put the pencil back in the skull. Note it points into the skull toward the brain.

See the critter might not have their head exactly facing you as they run toward you (or someone else near you.)

I like the way you think. If I ever have to deal with a bear attack, I've decided I'm going to be attacked by a bear that looks away while charging towards me or, better yet, by one that is attacking someone else entirely who is off to the side of me.

My original plan had been to only be attacked when I had a crew-served .50Cal machinegun available to respond to the attack, but this new strategy is more realistic.

 

[Malamute]

I've never shot a bear, nor have I fired this specific weapon, what would be the fallacy of a .410 revolver loaded with slugs? I've used single and double barrels and once a bolt gun with those slugs..... but please educate me on this one... a .410 slug is nowhere near the 500 magnum, nor would I plan on using this revolver for excessive range practicing. But at a threatening distance, would the ability to discharge 5 slugs in rapid succession with heavier impact than 9mm (though you do get 18 with some 9's) provide an advantage? Truly curious and am without the bear AND revolver required to learn from experience.

I think you would be better off shooting the 45 Colt loads rather than 410 slugs. I don't know want the velocity of the slugs are in a revolver, but the bullet weight is less than half what a 45 Colt bullet is.

Edit: I was just looking for ballistics info on 410 slugs from a revolver. The shot loads are pretty low velocity (700-ish fps), the buck loads a bit better at 900-ish fps. I haven't seen actual pistol data for the slugs yet (other than the weight is about 100-109 grs), but I think its going to be in the power range of a 380 auto or below. Probably not a great idea as a bear gun.

 

[horsey300]

Fair enough!

Moving slower than I expected! Thank you!

 

[JohnBiltz]

12 Gauge vs .454 Casull
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2KhI7aHLqU

 

[JohnBiltz]

An incident happened at a NYC zoo back in the 70s.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19710606&id=l4QsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bc0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2869,806965&hl=en

A drunk climbed into the polar bear enclosure and as could be expected by anyone with any sense was promptly attacked. A cop, Patrolman Charles Dlugokecki then climbed into the enclosure to rescue him. Yes, big brass ones. He was clubbing the bear to get him off the guy which the bear ignored, finally he drew his .38 and shot and killed the bear with a single shot to the chest. Bear in mind, that was old style 1960s .38 ammo Proving a bear could be killed with a relatively small hand gun but you have to ask is it really a good idea.

About every 20 or 30 years in New York someone climbs into a bear enclosure at a zoo. Probably not a good idea either going by history.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I like the way you think. If I ever have to deal with a bear attack, I've decided I'm going to be attacked by a bear that looks away while charging towards me or, better yet, by one that is attacking someone else entirely who is off to the side of me.

My original plan had been to only be attacked when I had a crew-served .50Cal machinegun available to respond to the attack, but this new strategy is more realistic.

Well thanks, but I think you don't understand what I think, or posted.

See if the one (as posted above in the thread) who shot the bear through the eye did such a deed, then the eye socket had to either line up with the bear's brain or the bullet hit the edge of the socket and ricochet inside toward the bear. It was not a tactic to wait for the bear to move it's head one way or another but merely that is what had to have happened.

Think you got that right?

Deaf

 

[WYO]

Before Phil Shoemaker shot the grizzly with the 9mm stoked with Buffalo Bore 147 grain +P hard cast Outdoorsman round, he posted on another forum that he tested the rounds against grizzly bear skulls using a Glock 43 and determined that it could reach the brain from any angle. He also said at the time that he would not be scared to go up against any black bear with that round. Of course, he later got to prove his theory with a grizzly, although with a different 9mm gun.

That pretty much squared with what I figured from testing against gallon water jugs that I have referenced in other posts on this forum. The tests, coupled with Phil Shoemaker's validation, have made me more than comfortable that a Glock 19 loaded with 15 of the 9mm +P Outdoorsman rounds is just as good, if not better, than my heavier Glock 30SF .45 ACP using Buffalo Bore 255 grain hard cast +P. The 30SF round went straight through 10 jugs, the 9mm Outdoorsman through a Glock 19 went straight through 8 jugs and had a more dynamic effect on the jugs, and the 9mm Outdoorsman from the Glock 43 penetrated six jugs, with more dynamic effect than the .45 ACP, before veering too far to the right to hit the seventh jug.

I was carrying the Glock 19 loaded with the 9mm Outdoorsman rounds while bowhunting this weekend. We do not have grizzlies in my hunting area, just black bears, mountain lions, moose, elk and deer. I would carry it in grizzly country if I was going to bring one gun to cover both on-pavement and off-pavement activities. I would bring both on-pavement and off-pavement ammo.

 

[JohnKSa]

See if the one (as posted above in the thread) who shot the bear through the eye did such a deed, then the eye socket had to either line up with the bear's brain or the bullet hit the edge of the socket and ricochet inside toward the bear. It was not a tactic to wait for the bear to move it's head one way or another but merely that is what had to have happened.

Think you got that right?

That's probably part the disconnect. I didn't see (and still can't find) anyone on this thread who posted that they had killed a bear by shooting it through the eye or who posted that they knew of someone who had killed a bear by shooting it through the eye.

What I did see is a discussion about whether shooting a bear in the eye is a viable method of reliably stopping an attacking/charging bear that's coming at the shooter.

 

[OC-Trainer]

Seriously, all of this conjecture and hair splitting and not one mention of the facts and data of the actually studies on the subject?

How many of you practice "Hitting a target the size of a baseball, especially when the target’s coming at you at 30 miles an hour and swaying side to side"...
Because that is exactly how it's described by bear biologist and bear attack expert Dr. Herrero. Oh, and you have to do in under 2 seconds while the bear is covering 44 feet per second.

And if that wasn't a tall enough order to accomplish, without fine-motor skills, because a 900lb behemoth is rushing towards you there's this...

“firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not,”

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/efficacy_of_firearms_for_bear_deterrence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf

“A bear attack is a surprise encounter,” Smith says. “Most charges start from only a few yards away. A hunter with his rifle slung is nothing more than a hiker with a stick of steel on his back.”

That quote is from Dr. Tom Smith, a professor and research wildlife biologist who analyzed 600 Alaskan bear- human encounters from 1985 to 2006. From the same study- “The reason guns are less effective than bear spray is the difficulty of making an accurate shot during a split second chase. Smith’s data shows it take an average of four hits to stop a bear.

 

[Paul7]

If you poke a hole in an animal's lung, it will die.