You worry about Bears... read this!

[X-Rap]

A hole in the lung and the ensuing minutes of potential life left in whatever animal is charging you is of little use.
You have to break bone or CNS to have much chance of keeping the beast off.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Malamute]

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

Actually, there are known instances of animals recovering from lung injuries.

Though if it is a fatal wound, it may not be, as I believe Tom Givens says in a related context, "not in your lifetime".

 

[splattergun]

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

Yes, that is usually true. But it takes time for a critter to drown in its own blood. And in the time it takes to drown, a large, angry animal with teeth, claws and nothing to lose is certainly capable of destroying the unfortunate soul which made it so angry.

 

[Deaf Smith]

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

True.. It might also take you with 'em. Plenty of cases where both the critter and the person mauled died.

What we want is DRT... Dead... right there!

Deaf

 

[Deaf Smith]

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.

Well it turns out they said their cousin's friend... Post #15.

Agree, the story is suspect. Sounds more like a story told by some guy my friends cousin knows. It is very unlikely that you would be able to get 6 shots off on a charging bear and if you did, get all of them in the head and then not hit an open eye socket or directly into the nose or mouth. Really???

So disconnect happens.

Deaf

 

[Sun Tzu warrior]

I have personally, chased deer with holes in both lungs for 4-500 yards.
Thank God they were not charging me!
Yeah they eventually died, but could have inflicted serious bodily injury before expiring.
STW

 

[JohnKSa]

Well it turns out they said their cousin's friend... Post #15.

First of all, they did not say their cousin's friend did anything.

1. The reference was to "some guy my friends cousin knows", not to their cousin's friend.

2. They didn't say that this "guy" did anything other than tell a story. "a story told by some guy"

3. Most importantly, the whole point was that it sounds like a story someone made up and then attributed to someone else. The quote was: "Sounds more like a story told by some guy my friends cousin knows." In other words, the poster believed the story was made up and didn't really happen at all.

Second, that is not a story about anyone killing a bear by shooting it in the eye.

1. The bear in the story wasn't killed by the person who shot it in the head.

"The bear -- Griz or Black? -- took six rounds of .357 Mag to the noggin, still killed and ate the shooter ... and swallowed his .357 Magnum revolver?!"​

The rangers found the bear, killed it...​

2. The story said nothing about the bear being shot in the eye. In fact, the whole thing about shooting a bear in the eye came up because someone commented on the fact that they felt it was unlikely that the story was true because it seemed unlikely that anyone could shoot a bear in the head 6 times WITHOUT hitting it in the eye.

Agree, the story is suspect. Sounds more like a story told by some guy my friends cousin knows. It is very unlikely that you would be able to get 6 shots off on a charging bear and if you did, get all of them in the head and then not hit an open eye socket or directly into the nose or mouth. Really???​

So disconnect happens.

Palpable irony.

 

[BigBore44]

I want to meet the person who can be charged by a bear (black or brown) and have the ability and brass "you know what's" not to just stand their ground, but to precision aim a handgun or rifle.

If you're attacked (truly attacked) by a bear, and you live to tell about it, you need to hug your family tighter than you ever have, and come next Sunday, you need to be sitting in the front row at church.

We may be the alpha predators on this planet. But only because of technology. You take our bows, guns, and (in the case of Tim Wells) spears away, and we slide WAY down that scale.

 

[X-Rap]

The fact is, many have survived charging animal attacks. Skill, luck, guts and divine intervention all probably played a part.
No one can tell the ratio of the less fortunate but I'm sure it is up there.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Malamute]

Threads with bear in their title sure seem to go south on a regular basis.

 

[OC-Trainer]

You're right about that. Probably because they are almost always filled with bravado and fantasy, instead of fact and reality.

 

[WYO]

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.

I am paraphrasing my thoughts as expressed on another forum. OC spray is like any less lethal use of force, whether one is dealing with bears or people. When faced with a lethal threat, the initial piece of equipment to grab is one that delivers lethal force. Less lethal then gets deployed if circumstances allow it to be deployed, but a lethal alternative always should be available and immediately ready to use in case the less lethal alternative fails. A grizzly bear is more dangerous than a very strong human armed with a knife in each hand. A person who can’t deploy a firearm in a panic is not going to deploy OC spray any more efficiently, and deploying it at ground fight stage is going to be rougher and more incapacitating to the human than using the firearm. How many presentations does an OC carrier practice in a given year, using the gear in its usual carry position, and getting it all lined up for firing with the fingers in the appropriate places? How many are sub two seconds?

Althought skeptical of using OC as the default option, I am prepared to be convinced otherwise. But, I do thousands of presentations a year with my firearm, and run a few thousand rounds through it, and I use a round in the woods that has been proven to work. I also don’t have to worry about the wind direction, which is a 24/7/365 issue where I hang.

 

[X-Rap]

Those who commission studies on sprays have no less an agenda than any others. I bet OC spray studies are heavily funded by the NPS and other governmental agencies who would rather not have to deal with guns in their sandbox.
I carry bear spray grudgingly in jurisdictions that won't allow my guns. It's surprising how many don't even allow the spray.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[OC-Trainer]

Those who commission studies on sprays have no less an agenda than any others. I bet OC spray studies are heavily funded by the NPS and other governmental agencies who would rather not have to deal with guns in their sandbox.
I carry bear spray grudgingly in jurisdictions that won't allow my guns. It's surprising how many don't even allow the spray.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Show me who commissioned the study, X-rap...

 

[sonicmaster577]

I usually carry a 75 round drum in bear country...

As stated the important part is shot placement. But under stress more shots means more likelyhood of getting a good hit

 

[X-Rap]

I said I believed, I have seen enough NPS, USFS demonstrations to know what their view is. A claim was made earlier in this thread that an article was biased toward a certain gun or caliber and I won't dispute that but as has been pointed out, spray has limitations and they should be acknowledged if that is offered as an alternative to a proper firearm.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[OC-Trainer]

I am paraphrasing my thoughts as expressed on another forum. OC spray is like any less lethal use of force, whether one is dealing with bears or people. When faced with a lethal threat, the initial piece of equipment to grab is one that delivers lethal force. Less lethal then gets deployed if circumstances allow it to be deployed, but a lethal alternative always should be available and immediately ready to use in case the less lethal alternative fails. A grizzly bear is more dangerous than a very strong human armed with a knife in each hand. A person who can’t deploy a firearm in a panic is not going to deploy OC spray any more efficiently, and deploying it at ground fight stage is going to be rougher and more incapacitating to the human than using the firearm. How many presentations does an OC carrier practice in a given year, using the gear in its usual carry position, and getting it all lined up for firing with the fingers in the appropriate places? How many are sub two seconds?

Althought skeptical of using OC as the default option, I am prepared to be convinced otherwise. But, I do thousands of presentations a year with my firearm, and run a few thousand rounds through it, and I use a round in the woods that has been proven to work. I also don’t have to worry about the wind direction, which is a 24/7/365 issue where I hang.

Plan and simply. Bear spray give you the best statical odds of escaping a bear attack unscathed. This is the opinion of bear attack experts, based on their case studies of actually events. Not theory. The link above speaks for itself.

A 1990s U.S. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team analysis determined that people who defended themselves with guns suffered a 50% injury rate, but with bear spray avoided injury most of the time.

A 2008 "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska" study stated:

"Red pepper spray stopped bears’ undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears.
Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters.
All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required).
In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases.
In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71).
Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country."


http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf

Again, this case study was done by bear attack experts. The same ones who performed the link I posted above.
Using bear spray is more gross-motor skill based, coupled with the fact that you do not need the accuracy required to hit, and I quote "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." It isn't hard to envision. Using bear spray is easier and faster to use in a high stress situation.

Why not just carry both? I do...

 

[OC-Trainer]

I said I believed, I have seen enough NPS, USFS demonstrations to know what their view is. A claim was made earlier in this thread that an article was biased toward a certain gun or caliber and I won't dispute that but as has been pointed out, spray has limitations and they should be acknowledged if that is offered as an alternative to a proper firearm.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Of course. Nothing is a panacea. And no offense, but what you believe doesn't really matter. You can convince yourself that those groups funded the study, but it isn't the truth.
Those who are experts on the matter did the studies. They objectively looked at hundreds and hundreds of actually case of bear attacks. The two studies I linked are their findings.

Would you rather have a 90% chance of winning the lottery, or a 67% chance?

This sig line I saw earlier in this thread is really apropos:

Most people don't really want the truth.

They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth

 

[Deaf Smith]

Plan and simply. Bear spray give you the best statical odds of escaping a bear attack unscathed. This is the opinion of bear attack experts, based on their case studies of actually events. Not theory. The link above speaks for itself.

A 1990s U.S. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team analysis determined that people who defended themselves with guns suffered a 50% injury rate, but with bear spray avoided injury most of the time.

A 2008 "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska" study stated:

"Red pepper spray stopped bears’ undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears.
Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters.
All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required).
In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases.
In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71).
Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country."

How many were charging and how many were just a nuance or bluff charging? There IS a difference. And with a gun you can only use it if they are attacking. No shooting nuance bears.

Why not just carry both? I do...

Which one will you use in a hurry, gun or spray? You won't have but a few seconds to decide.

Deaf

 

[OC-Trainer]

How many were charging and how many were just a nuance or bluff charging? There IS a difference. And with a gun you can only use it if they are attacking. No shooting nuance bears.




Which one will you use in a hurry, gun or spray? You won't have but a few seconds to decide.

Deaf

I'm not doing your homework for you, Deaf. Read the studies for yourself.

You can keep splitting hairs all you want, it won't change the outcome of the definitive studies ever done on the subject of bear attacks. Unlike the garbage link you posted originally, these are unbiased and based on actual facts, and not fireside yarns. These are THE experts in the field. Believe it, or don't believe.

Looks like more disconnect, coming in three, two, o...

 

[OC-Trainer]

A person who can’t deploy a firearm in a panic is not going to deploy OC spray any more efficiently, and deploying it at ground fight stage is going to be rougher and more incapacitating to the human than using the firearm. How many presentations does an OC carrier practice in a given year, using the gear in its usual carry position, and getting it all lined up for firing with the fingers in the appropriate places? How many are sub two seconds?

I've already address some of your other concerns above. Now that I have more time, I'll address these. First and foremost you seem to be completely ignoring THE most important fact to come out of the study "Efficacy of firearms on bear attacks..."

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

So, this notion that you will be able to fire "up" to stop the attack is sheer lunacy. Not saying it is impossible, it just is extremely, improbable. And the study shows that. A lot of bad has to happen for a bear to be standing over top of you. Unfortunately, once it get to this point, you are pretty much a goner. However, there is a product that does address this concern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nEfba2_ko

Furthermore, this video below shows two things: One, the sheer speed at which these attacks occur. And secondly, it show just how quickly the spray can be deployed while still in the holster. This also lines up with what bear attack expert Dr. Smith says, "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. After watching the video, it is easy to see why someone would not have the time to get the rifle off of there back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsxgH4-2sNI

Lastly, this video shows and actual bear charging, in real time, captured on a GoPro camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOWr9V9JTus

The funny thing is, I'm not hear to even promote bear spray, necessarily. Just hear to promote the facts and truth on the subject matter. I was lead to this thread because of a few members (with probably zero real-world experience with OC spray, in any form) speak negatively about it, when it has been proven (through case study, by experts) to be more effective than there beloved firearms when it comes to bear defense. And if anyone doubts the capabilities of OC on all mammals, I'd be happy to arrange something to help them "see the light."

 

[WYO]

The first two videos are pretty funny.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I've seen this first hand. The rounds glance off the skull and don't do any real damage.

Chances are that such "glancing" (often said to bounce) shots off of bear skulls are likely missing the skull all together. Bear skulls are not particularly tough or thick, but they do make up a surprisingly small portion of what would appear to be the bear's fully furred head.

We hear this about hogs as well quite a bit. Turns out, it is usually just poor shooting...poor as in not hitting where needs to be hit.

I realize that glancing can happen, but it seems to be claimed happen a lot more of the time than seems reasonable to believe. When animals are recovered, nobody ever shows the shot that glanced off the skull, but there may be 3 or 6 shots all over the body, from the top of the shoulder to the rump and you have to wonder how there was one almost perfect shot on the head and so many bad shots on the body.

Nobody ever seems to have saved the skull of a bear where the bullet glanced off. It would leave a mark, no doubt about it.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I have a lot of options, but my woods gun at the moment is my old beater Glock 22, loaded with underwood hardcast 200 grain cartridges. It's my old duty gun, so it won't get any uglier knocking around.

Playing the odds, I'll probably come across a vicious human more often than a black bear. I've seen bears, but they never bothered me. So my 44 Mags are out. I don't like 9mm, even for humans. My 9mms are ankle guns. My 45 ACPs are my preferred duty guns now, good penetration on a thin skinned human. But with an apex predator like a big cat or bear, I want better penetration than 45. So I choose the old 40s, and the Underwoods are pretty hot and heavy. Someday I'll move to 10mm for the woods.

For thick heavy critters, I really like the max penetration for a given caliber. No JHPs, no expansion, the handgun rounds are challenged enough without adding the parachute effect.

 

[TomJ]

As I mentioned in post 24, I know next to nothing about bears. What does concern me about relying on bear spray, however, is the number of times it's failed to stop an attack. A 60 second internet search yielded these 3 instances. The links are below. I did carry bear spray and a Ruger 454 Casull while hiking with my sons in Montana last June. My takeaway from this is that while bear spray has been effective in stopping some attacks, it's also failed. There is absolutely no way I would be without a gun in the event that the spray didn't work. I understand the attacks happen fast and that you may not have time to use one of them, much less both, but I'm from the it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it school.

I attached a third link from Buffalo Bore's web site which addresses some of these issues and gives some pretty good advice.


http://www.greatfallstribune.com/st...r-shoots-bear-glacier-national-park/13231247/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/dean-weingarten/two-more-bear-spray-failures-in-montana/

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=108