Bears in the woods....

Mr.BadExample said:
I was thinking of the same thing, arguing with myself between .44 and .454
.44 is more readily available and cheaper, but every bit of punch you can get is nice. I wonder what the lightest, reliable .44 is?
I think Taurus makes a titanium model. I like the Alaskan a lot, but hiking with it is like carrying 2 extra khukuris!
Click to expand...
Having fired most of the calibers mentioned except the S&W .500, I can reliablly suggest that you do not want the lightest handgun available... the wrist wrenching recoil plays hell with the nerves and ligaments, preventing aimed repeat fire. Since many parts of a bear's anatomy can absorb more punishment than us mere mortals can deal out, your target area on a charging bear is relatively small and moving at that. At 6'5" and 300 lbs, I am not exactly a shrinking violet, yet I personally and routinely carried reduced loads (1,100 to 1,200 fps instead of 1,450 fps factory loads) in my S&W .44 mag while doing 4 to 5 search warrants a day in Detroit (and for 17 of the 28 years of service with DEA). No handgun of greater power will give you the accurate repeat shots you're going to need.

Moving to a shoulder weapon, even a 30/30 (or .308) in carbine form would protect you much more efficiently...even without using the sights, looking down the barrel, you have a better chance, both in accuracy and damage delivered. Personally my vote goes to a short barreled 12 guage, .......must have hands free? Then a 4" to 7" standard weight revolver in .41 mag, .44 spl or mag, or .45 LC. 10mm or .45ACP in semi auto only if you practice LOTS. I can tell you a couple real world stories about guys who forgot to manipulate safeties under stress.

Drdan....must have been a were-bear :D
 
I always enjoy these threads because they appeal to my paranoia.

I disagree with N2- the 41 mag would be on any reasonable list of handgun defense. We are talking about penetration. For that matter, there are some knowledgable shooters who will stick with their 357's with 180 gr bullets.

Faced with a bear I'm sure even the Smith 500 will seem inadequate. There is indeed a difference between what will stop an enraged Grizzly and what you could hunt one with. There is a difference between a Grizzly and a Coastal Brown, though the the inland grizzlies are getting pretty big since we stopped hunting them and put them on the endangered species list. Ditto for Black bear in the East- the same effect with the hunting bans.

I think luck has a lot to do with it. I'd want the biggest cartridge I could handle. But I don't think I want to carry a Smith 500 around with me all the time.

If you traveled in a group you could back each other up. I don't like the recent deaths of the two in Alaska- their firearm unused in the tent. Do we have to take turns on guard now?


munk
 
I can't resist in telling a story now..................Once upon a time...........









My wife was hunting in Florida with me. We stopped for a luch break. I told her in the regular military, your weapon is always within an arms reach...did I mention?............. ALWAYS!!!!!!!!!!

So after my nagging she picked up her Ruger .308 M77 Intenational Mannlicher stock, and set it down next to her.


Next thing, here came a black bear, wanting to share lunch. Of course my rifle was next to the pu truck. :D
 
sams said:
Next thing, here came a black bear, wanting to share lunch. Of course my rifle was next to the pu truck. :D
Click to expand...
Don't you hate it when that happens... :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

Rep for Sams, gave you a set of buck teef.;) :D
 
Ruger Alaskan. So far as I know the only reasonably sized handgun designed for the purpose. It "only" weighs 41 oz, is fairly compact and is fires your choice of two good cartridges. No handgun is ideal for bear defense, but this little bulldog is probably the best compromise for carry vs the intended use. Plus it's cute as a Rottweiler puppy.
 
The way you guys keep talking up .41 mag I'm probably going to get one instead of another ol' reliable Ruger GP-100 .357 I once cut my teeth on.
That or a .44 ... :D
 
Ron,

After reading the reviews on the Alaskan, I have to agree. It looks to be about perfect for its intended use. Plus you can shoot .45LC out of it too (something I didn't know). Very cool.

Alan
 
Mr.BadExample said:
The way you guys keep talking up .41 mag I'm probably going to get one instead of another ol' reliable Ruger GP-100 .357 I once cut my teeth on.
That or a .44 ... :D
Click to expand...
Thought I read ruger is doing a limited run of there old " flat top " .357 SA, this year
Is it time to "cowboy up" lol
tom
 
you can use a .45 Colt if you handload for a ruger frame. You want the heaviest hardcast bullet you can get to reach that magic threshold of 1200 fps. You want at least 300 grains and even then there is no substitute for shot placement. If you do your part those bullets will do theirs. Are you a good enough handgunner to reliably disable or instantly kill a charging bruin with only a few seconds to react? Double action seems preferable to manually cocking between shots.
 
In the old days and in those parts of the Earth that are still "wild", people used a thing called a "stick."

The "stick" or "spear" is used to keep the animal at a distance while inflicting damage.

I suggest that this would still be the best way to go, only add-a-piece with your pistol.
Always have that stick in your hands. When Mr. Bear tries to pull out your liver, you keep that stick in his face and draw your weapon at the same time.
Even if the bullets dont kill him fast, youll still have you stick, which could be enough to save you if the animal has several bleeding injuries.
Thats just my theory.

Of course, the German knights used to go bear hunting in armor with a dagger. They'd wrestle the bear and cut its throat, their bodies protected by their jousting armor....
 
Grizzlies break sticks pretty easily.

They could always use the spear as a toothpick.

n2s
 
get a good stick. dont let him grab it, just poke like a lion tamer does.
(not a European lion tamer)
 
Danny, one thing all survivor accounts of Grizzly attacks have in common is that the bear was so darned fast the human rarely knew what hit him, and if lucky would have time for a single shot at a blur of fur. A lot of survivors get mauled real bad and when the Bear is licking his chops after the battle is over manage to get ahold of their firearm and kill or wound the bear. That is when he is not in full attack mode. They aren't the brightest animals, when they bury a human under some twigs and leaves the human is supposed to stay dead, darnit.

The stick attack would be better than hitting him on the nose with my hand. But I think he could break either in a half second. You do understand the amount of power we're talking about, right? I know Japan had bears but they weren't grizzlies or Coastal Browns.

If it was a Coastal Brown I think I'd burst out laughing at the stick in my hand.

I did see a movie once where the guy hid in a deadfall and impaled the bear when he rushed him. But that's hollywood; if you impale a grizzly, he's still going to kill you.



munk
 
Well, I dont know about bears, really. All of my "stick" theory comes from the experiences of the native people of Africa in dealing with lions and leopards.

The europeans also fought bears with spears, but they were special spears, strong shafts with crossbars behow the heads.
 
Weren't there generally a lot of folks armed with spears attacking the cats together?

I think a stick might work against a Cougar. I think a Grizzly is just going to knock it out of your hand.


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top