What would you choose for brown bear and polar bear defense?

[goon]

I once again find myself in a situation where a brown bear or polar bear could potentially be a threat to my welfare. Less likely the polar bear, more likely a brown. Right now I've got an SP-101 with 180 grain Buffalo Bore hard cast rounds. It's not really enough, but it was paid for, I shoot it well, and it's something. Better than just dying I guess - at least it gives me the chance to get lucky.

I think I'd like to acquire a 5.5 inch Redhawk for this purpose though, but I was wondering what others have chosen. I've shot .44 magnums before and am confident I could master it. Any other suggestions? I'm looking to buy next time I get to a populated area with a gun store.

 

[silicosys4]

Personally I would opt for a long gun if you have that option.
On the cheap,
A 12 gauge pump with brenneke slugs,
Or an sks or AK, reasonably powerful and capable of fast multiple follow up shots.

Handgun wise, I would not rely on any .357 load immediately stopping a bear attack. From what I've read, even big bore hand cannons are marginal.
If a handgun is a must, .454 or bigger with hard cast heavy loads would be my choice.
Hot 300gr. or heavier .44 mag loads would be better than a .357, and 180gr. .357 loads are better than a sharp stick.

Don't forget about bear mace as a deterrent as well

 

[ku4hx]

Personally I would opt for a long gun if you have that option.
On the cheap,
A 12 gauge pump with brenneke slugs,
Or an sks or AK, reasonably powerful and capable of fast multiple follow up shots.

Handgun wise, I would not rely on any .357 load immediately stopping a bear attack. From what I've read, even big bore hand cannons are marginal.
If a handgun is a must, .454 or bigger with hard cast heavy loads would be my choice.
Hot 300gr. or heavier .44 mag loads would be better than a .357, and 180gr. .357 loads are better than a sharp stick.

Don't forget about bear mace as a deterrent as well

This. I'd trust my 30-06 with appropriate bullet, likely a 220 grain mondlithic of some sort. Interesting info and comments here: http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2008/10/30-06-ultimate-grizzly-cartridge

If my only choice were to be a handgun, I go with my .454 Casull (again with deep penetrating bullet) since I don't shoot larger bore hand cannons very well any more.

 

[sauer1911]

just be faster than those around you.

be safe

 

[Art Eatman]

In the numerous threads on this subject, the consensus from those who live in big-bear country is for a long gun as being far superior to any handgun.

Consider: In hunting, the hunter has some control over the situation. It's a completely different deal when "defense" is the issue: That of stopping a charge, which is separate from killing a bear who's unaware of the hunter's presence.

It is felt that the .30-'06 is marginal at best. Power on the order of the .375 H&H is much better. It's more likely to break the heavy bones and to not glance off a skull.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Lucky for me the worst threat I have faced outdoors in Tennessee has been a rabid skunk or feral dog pack. There are black bears around here. When we were ATVing on the family mountain property, it was preferred to be on the lookout and actively practice bear avoidance. They are awesome to watch from a safe distance.

I was tempted to quip "Brown bear or polar bear defense? They are capable of defending themselves without my help." It is an interesting theoretical, though. I have heard 12ga with slugs recommended as minimum for defense against large bear. Of guns that I own, I think I would keep my 7.62x54R Type 53 Mosin at hand. I think my Yugo 7.62x39 or Marlin .30-30 rifles would be rather light for brown or polar bear and my scope-sighted Enfield .303 too slow for defense against attack. If bear attack were a daily threat, I would consider investing in a .45-70 guide gun.

 

[TimSr]

M14

 

[H&Hhunter]

I once again find myself in a situation where a brown bear or polar bear could potentially be a threat to my welfare.

We need more information. You are obviously in the polar regions if polar bears are a possibility. So are you in Northern Alaska, Russia, Canada, Norway, Greenland, Iceland? The first issues is what is legal to carry where you are?

Secondly there is no handgun round that will reliably stop a large bear. The good news is that if you are in fact in the arctic you are not in big brown bear country. In the arctic you are going to run into a smaller variety of brown/grizzly bear than you would further south. Your big bears up north are going to be polar bears. The .44 mag with the proper ammo is a sensible minimum. But it doesn't matter what you are shooting if you can't make a CNS hit your chances of stopping even a smallish tundra grizz with a handgun is almost zero.

If you are going to be using a .44 mag look into the Garret 310 or 330 gr hammerhead. If you choose to keep your .357 look at Buffalo bore. If the GP 101 is something that you are comfortable with and shoot well I wouldn't discount it. A smaller more compact pistol is more likely to be with you when you need it. A 180 gr .357 round through the spine or neck is just as effective as a .44 or a .454.

 

[phil dirt]

20mm cannon

 

[anothernewb]

Many of the alaskan guides use the good ol 12 ga. The guy that led us fishing said that's what he's used - successfully. but he did have a large revolver on his person as well.

 

[buck460XVR]

For a primary, I'd go with a long gun or bear spray over any handgun. I'd back those up with a .454 or bigger.

 

[jack44]

45/70 loaded with 500gr pile drivers

 

[Patocazador]

I'd hang out with 2 fat slow guys.

 

[goon]

Curious why this was moved to hunting - I'm not planning to hunt bears.

Unless the mods are planning on the bears hunting me...

Anyhow, lots of valuable insight. I've considered a 12 gauge pump with slugs and will probably get one and load it with Brenneke slugs. I'll be seeking out a hunting rifle and will probably go with the '06. Again, it's not ideal... But it is practical.

On the handgun, I could master a .44 magnum, but a .454 might be beyond what I can take. I'm off the road system in NW Alaksa, so everything has to be flown in. Ammo is expensive and reloading is difficult because of this, so mastering a .454 would be even more challenging.

And yep, a .375 or something like that would be better, but I'll actually carry a handgun. I can travel more easily with it too, put it in a pack or suitcase in more populated areas to keep a low profile, etc. A long gun is more effective, but a handgun is more useful.

Like H&H Hunter points out, I'd kind of be relying on CNS hits and luck to survive with a handgun anyhow - maybe a lot more .357 ammo in the luggage and more practice with what I have is a good idea too... Eh?

 

[jmr40]

The Alaska fish and game dept. has done a lot of research on the topic. Their conclusion is that a 458, 375 or 338 mag is preferred.

Their next choice was 30-06 if loaded with 220 gr bullets. Actually 30-06 and 300 WM tied, but they gave the tiebreaker to 30-06 based on less recoil. Finn Aagard an African guide and writer conducted similar tests on African game and reached similar conclusions. The Alaska tests didn't include Nosler Partitions, Aagards did and he found those bullets in 30-06 actually beat 338 mag.

They both felt that overall 30-06 was a sensible minimum and a good choice for anyone who either didn't have or couldn't handle 375 mag recoil. Both studies concluded that 30-06 beat 338-06, 45-70, 444, 35 Whelen, 350 mag, and 12 ga slugs among several others too. The larger calibers didn't get enough penetration.

The Alaska study. I don't have a link to the Aagard tests.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

None of the hand guns tested came close. But... this was done before the introduction of guns such as the 460 and 500 S&W revolvers. Not sure where they'd rank. But I'd personally rather carry a short barreled carbine in 375 than lug around one of these handguns.

If I were choosing a gun just for this purpose it'd be the SS Ruger Guide gun with 20" barrel in 375 Ruger.

http://ruger.com/products/guideGun/models.html

If limited to what is in my safe it'd be one of the 30-06's loaded with Nosler Partitions. But I don't see myself ever going there.

 

[ewlyon]

From everything you are saying it sounds like a redhawk would be a good way to go. Ammo availability in 44 is better than in 454 or anything bigger so you will be able to practice more and be better with it. and if it comes down to it it is far better to have a 44 on your belt than a 12ga at home.
I am going to alaska to do some camping and backpacking in a few days and since i cant afford a more suitable gun i am bringing along my blackhawk in 357 and some heavy bullets. Not a guarantee of safety but a lot better than playing dead

 

[Cee Zee]

A 12 ga. pump with Brenneke Black Magic slugs would be a good choice. They make different levels of slugs and the Black Magic slugs are among their most powerful.

The only better options would be the so called elephant guns. Some of those rifles are insanely powerful. But remember that you may want to shoot more than once. It could be that you won't have time to fire more than once but if you can you don't want a broken shoulder cramping your style.

 

[goon]

Yeah - I'm comfortable with 12 gauge 3" level of recoil.

I like the Ruger, but not in some goofy proprietary cartridge that I can only get from a limited number of sources...
Come on Ruger, what were you thinking?

The FWS document has been shared before, but it's over 30 years old. I wonder if they even had Brenneke slugs or very hard cast handgun loads then. Not a bad guide, but I'd bet some improvements have been made.

 

[caribou]

If you have to stop a Bear, any Bear, a 12 gauge with slugs is the only round that will. a slug is best, but #2 shot from 2 feet is still a viable round

If your hunting them, a 30-06 ( or ballisticly close) is pretty near ideal and bullet placement is everything.

I live where theres the 3 kinds of Bears White, Brown and Black, and Bears mauling locals is pretty rare. Maybe the last Eskimo I knew killed by a Polar Bear was Carl Stalker of Point Lay, back in teh early 90's. I dont know any that were mauled.

Avoid Bears, be loud, play a radio, leave a loose dog (mutual; hate), cook away from where you sleep,and store food there too.

Best defence? Piss a fence. No kidding, Bears have NEVER crossed our fresh piss fences, no matter how many Salmon or meat was on the rack. They know we hunt them, and they leave when given a chance, every time.

No Park Bears or Urban Bears that know humans are a different additude allright, but most of the North Alaska Coast is still wilderness, and Bears give folks a wide berth.

Have fun whatever you doo, dont worry too much, more pople are killed in accidents and by other people in AK than Bears. Would be cool to bump into you out there

 

[Bobson]

I can understand a preference for something like a 375, 458, other wmd (a la the studies provided by jmr40), but toting around a scoped bolt action rifle for defensive use against a charging animal when you're on foot? The caliber may be very desirable, but the platform seems like a horrendous choice.

I'd take a reliable semi-auto shotgun with quality slugs. Second choice would be a .45-70 lever gun. Granted, we're talking about a last-ditch option here that's not likely to save you anyway, should you find yourself in that situation, but that said... even if these calibers are less preferable, I think these options will give you a higher probability of successfully landing shots against a fast-moving target than trying to get a sight picture through a scoped bolt gun.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I suppose if I lived somewhere where brown and polar bears were a real threat I'd get a 44 magnum. As for the long arm, I'd go with my 45-70 Marlin lever action and go with the Garret cartridges that are typically carried by the agencies up north.

 

[goon]

Caribou - you have a very well qualified opinion on this. Of course you're right - I got to thinking about the statistics of bear attacks and they're relatively rare. And I'll keep my eyes open for ya' buddy - never know when paths might cross.

 

[torchroadster]

The Alaska fish and game dept. has done a lot of research on the topic. Their conclusion is that a 458, 375 or 338 mag is preferred.

Their next choice was 30-06 if loaded with 220 gr bullets. Actually 30-06 and 300 WM tied, but they gave the tiebreaker to 30-06 based on less recoil. Finn Aagard an African guide and writer conducted similar tests on African game and reached similar conclusions. The Alaska tests didn't include Nosler Partitions, Aagards did and he found those bullets in 30-06 actually beat 338 mag.

They both felt that overall 30-06 was a sensible minimum and a good choice for anyone who either didn't have or couldn't handle 375 mag recoil. Both studies concluded that 30-06 beat 338-06, 45-70, 444, 35 Whelen, 350 mag, and 12 ga slugs among several others too. The larger calibers didn't get enough penetration.

The Alaska study. I don't have a link to the Aagard tests.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

None of the hand guns tested came close. But... this was done before the introduction of guns such as the 460 and 500 S&W revolvers. Not sure where they'd rank. But I'd personally rather carry a short barreled carbine in 375 than lug around one of these handguns.

.

Thanks for posting that - haven't seen it before. Good info, even though it is over 30 years old. Of course many newer cartridges are missing from the evaluation but still it is very informative. Thanks again.

 

[Pilot]

I am no expert, but if I were going I'd carry a .30-06 rifle AND a handgun in .45 Colt (hand loaded) or .44 Mag. I know I can handle, and shoot both well.

 

[Manny]

IMO a handgun on your belt would be lots more useful than any rifle or shotgun leaned against a tree or not immediately at hand for whatever reason. Not arguing about what is potentially more effective, but about the practicality of keeping a long gun on your person at all times as you move about doing normal activities.

As to which handguns to be wearing on that belt, a short barreled Ruger Redhawk or Super Redhawk would be my choice. Since you won't be hunting, no need for a long barrel, 4" would be the longest I'd choose and shorter would work nicely too. And though I greatly prefer a .45 caliber, given the logistics of supply and the OP's comfort level, the venerable .44 mag should work well with proper bullets.

Ruger has 3 choices that would all serve well in .44 mag;
-4" Redhawk
-2.5" Alaskan
-2.75' Talo edition Redhawk, still relatively available if you can order.

Personally the Talo would be my pick of the litter if you can source it, but all should work equally well. I would stay away from the longer 5.5" Redhawk mentioned in the initial post as it's just too much of a good thing. I had one and it shot wonderfully well, but the size just pushed it over the line IMO. The shorter barreled 4" shoots just as well IME and makes for a far better belt gun.