On handguns and bears

[Zack]

looks like you need one of these "assault rocket lancher sniper gun take down jets 500mph" oh its a .50bmg

 

[sonier]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.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]

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]

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]

I think I have it! It's short, light, and swings around fast..........................

[/IMG]

 

[KodiakBeer]

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.

 

[saturno_v]

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]

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]

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...

 

[mikana]

How to fish while carrying a shotgun for bear defense.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

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]

Hard shot

First of all take a basket ball have some one bounce at you at 35MPH and try and shoot it that’s 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]

Is this the same lodge that had a television series, I think it was "Our Five Sons - Alaska"?

Name sounds familiar.

 

[DenaliPark]

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]

Denali, do you work in Denali??? If so, do you have any insight into that other recent bear shooting?

 

[CraigC]

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]

First of all take a basket ball have some one bounce at you at 35MPH and try and shoot it that’s 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

 

[Cosmoline]

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.