Bear spray vs a gun

My inexperienced self says you need penetration, so I would carry something (rifle) that will handle heavy solid cast bullets or a magnum. I don't think it is likely to un-holster and use a revolver while being eaten, so it comes down to a rifle shot within close range.

I've seen videos of guides protecting clients/themselves by shooting bears and they always took close range shots. I'm sure these are high adrenaline situations and you get one or two shots. With heavy cast bullets, pushed at high(er) velocities, in a revolver you have to be GOOD to shoot them where you want the second time at speed. I think you'd do well to carry a rifle if you're going to carry a firearm. A revolver wouldn't be much use, in my opinion, on a large bear. And in that case, you'd have to hit the central nervous system or it's just going to keep eating you anyway. A lung or heart shot may kill it, but not before it finishes eating you.
 
Ramblinman said:
have read that profession Ials wait until a charging animal is in close before discharging a firearm


... I have always played in out in my head that the charge MAY occur from another direction other than in front of me which MAY require a draw from the holster to address a more dynamic situation i.e.: left or right ...


A revolver appeals to me because I shoot regularly and there MAY be an opportunity to engage the bear while it is eating you- drawing and shooting in the torso or head. Hopefully their is some muscle memory that will let me draw and shoot.

BTW I agree keeping the spray in the holster is an excellent technique in so far as situation permits ... but we should prepare for all eventualities.
Part of the issue of waiting is, you never know if its a bluff charge until the last minute. Theres metric boatloads of testosterone fueled, uninformed comments about people saying they plan to shoot any bear that looks crossways at them or comes within a half mile, but those folks tend to end up in federal prison or wherever they throw you for shooting animals on the ESL without good reason. The feds or state use THEIR critera, not yours, to establish if it was neccesary. Bears often bluff charge. Learning their body language and habits helps. Still, no guarantees either way whats going to happen until it does,...or doesnt.



Ace! said:
My inexperienced self says you need penetration, so I would carry something (rifle) that will handle heavy solid cast bullets or a magnum. I don't think it is likely to un-holster and use a revolver while being eaten, so it comes down to a rifle shot within close range.

I've seen videos of guides protecting clients/themselves by shooting bears and they always took close range shots. I'm sure these are high adrenaline situations and you get one or two shots. With heavy cast bullets, pushed at high(er) velocities, in a revolver you have to be GOOD to shoot them where you want the second time at speed. I think you'd do well to carry a rifle if you're going to carry a firearm. A revolver wouldn't be much use, in my opinion, on a large bear. And in that case, you'd have to hit the central nervous system or it's just going to keep eating you anyway. A lung or heart shot may kill it, but not before it finishes eating you.
Yes, penetration is king when shooting charging bears. Many hunting rifle loads dont penetrate as well as heavy handgun loads with solid, non-expanding bullets.

Rifles are great if you are in the open or have time and chance to use them, once contact is made, which is sometimes the first indication you have a bear problem, they arent much use. People have been broadsided by bears and lost their rifle, or had them unavailable. If the bear is standing on you, its pretty unavailable even if its under you or in your hand. That is the moment a handgun shines. You wear a pistol, you carry a rifle/shotgun. You can lean a long gun against a tree and not have it in hand when life gets interesting. A pistol can live comfortably on your belt full time when out (though some defeat the purpose of a pistol by buying huge, heavy, awkward, long barrel mostrosities and end of not wearing them) There was a guy in Wy that killed a bear right after it broadsided him out of the blue and chewed him up badly, then acting like it was coming for more. He fired 3 rounds with a 41 magnum single action, made two hits, complete pass throughs, and killed the sow grizzly on the spot. Another guy in Alaska was mugged by a bear and managed to shoot it several times with a single action 44 mag as it was on top of him. These are only two that come to mind off the top of my head.

CNS hit is the only sure way to shut down a bear or large animal. Breaking down large bones can buy you a few seconds of time. Some bears have been shot with pistols and had the bullet shoot all the way through and break a hip, turning it or slowing it and allowing finishing shots. I've seen a number of comments on various forums about shooting bears in the eye to make a brain shot. Bears eye sockets are outside the brain pan, they are not like human skulls at all. Skulls arent armored either. A shallow angle can skip a bullet off, a heavy bullet at a steep angle isnt so likely to. Read up on Ralph Emory (believe thats correct), he wrote a book, Crusoe of Lonesoime Lake. He lived in BC in the early 1900s and built a homestead out of wild country. He said he stopped counting at 50 the number of grizzlies he killed. Most were head shots, and most with either a 30-30 Winchester 94 carbine or a Remington 35 cal model 8 automatic. Just saying, bears dont require artillery to kill, or ninja skills.

Yeah, it can get scary, just like car wrecks, earthquakes, people having heart attacks and other things that happen in life sometimes. It doesnt take superhuman abilities to cope. Many people do just fine when things go south. Thinking things through and having some idea wha to do, or some rough plan gives a start to dealing with it. Unofrtunately, many get the silly idea its hopeless if something bad happens, they have effectively defeated themselves before it ever starts.
 
You probably realize I was responding to the comment about shooting a bear while being eaten. I don't think there are many unholstering and firing while being eaten.

The Forest Service did a study, although it was some time ago. The largest caliber handgun (included in the study), a .44M ranked 32 for effectiveness. It was the highest ranked handgun.

You wear a handgun in a holster, usually with a retainer of some sort. If you carry a rifle it takes no more time, maybe less, to shoulder and fire a first round.

The study suggested carrying a rifle, almost any medium/heavy rifle over a handgun, not slung, but carried was better than a handgun. The study suggested a handgun from a few feet away was better than a rifle, but it requires even more practice than a rifle. It also pointed out that in a situation with a charging bear that the rifle is pointed, not aimed.

The study also suggested any other handgun caliber was much poorer than the .44M. I carry a 44M on my hip and a .45-70 "guide gun."
 
Ace! said:
You probably realize I was responding to the comment about shooting a bear while being eaten. I don't think there are many unholstering and firing while being eaten.

The Forest Service did a study, although it was some time ago. The largest caliber handgun (included in the study), a .44M ranked 32 for effectiveness. It was the highest ranked handgun.

You wear a handgun in a holster, usually with a retainer of some sort. If you carry a rifle it takes no more time, maybe less, to shoulder and fire a first round.

The study suggested carrying a rifle, almost any medium/heavy rifle over a handgun, not slung, but carried was better than a handgun. The study suggested a handgun from a few feet away was better than a rifle, but it requires even more practice than a rifle. It also pointed out that in a situation with a charging bear that the rifle is pointed, not aimed.

The study also suggested any other handgun caliber was much poorer than the .44M. I carry a 44M on my hip and a .45-70 "guide gun."
I missed the part about being eaten, though if that was the case, a pistol is much easier to use than a rifle. Rifles are much easier for most to use well, but as noted in a previous post, once it gets to contact, any advatange a long gun may have had suddenly goes away. The part about how easy it is to always have the handgun on you is lost on many that havent lived with a gun on for extended periods of time. A long gun is a bloody nuisance to have with you all the time, actually in hand (as it should be), or slung. A handgun, I forget I have it much of the time, but its always there when out. I often carry a long gun when out, but never ever go out without a handgun. When bears are around the neighborhood, I take a pistol when i go out in the yard in the morning to feed the birds. Long johns, slippers, warm hat, pistol belt.

I'm somewhat familiar with how handguns are carried, I've done it regularly if not daily for about 35 years. Most often a 4" Smith & Wesson 44 magnum, other times a variety, but mostly 44 magnum, 44 special or 45 Colt calibers, such as the Ruger single actions capable of using high performance loads when desired. Most holsters have a snap strap or thumb break to keep the gun in place. Depending on the type of strap and the user, there isnt any appreciable slowing of the draw. The newer Kydex holsters often dont have a strap, but hold the gun by tension of the holster material hot formed around the gun. They hold well, but the gun comes free when drawn.

I've seen the old Forest Service report. I dont recall the details, but recall questioning their choice of loads. The loads used make a world of difference in the outcome. John Linebaugh has done some penetration tests* and heavy caliber handgun loads regularly outpenetrate most rifle loads, often by quite a bit. Reports from people that hunt with them report similar results. Rifles are great, just not very handy. First choice would be a rifle, for ease of use, range if needed (I like to have some reach when out with my dogs) I see no need to not have a handgun though. Its plan B, or C, or D or whatever.

I like the 44 or 45's mentioned above, and a 348, 45-70 or sometimes a bolt action in 30-06 or 35 Whelen.



* No artificial media bullet tests are perfect, but they seem to be fairly consistant in some regards, and the differences seem to be comparable to use on animals.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/linebaugh.penetration.tests.asp
 
You're right about the loads, probably what they had at the time. As an example, the .44M would have had much better penetration had they used Buffalo Bore or Garrett Cartridges. A 45-70 ranked "ok" but would have outperformed some of the magnums with the right bullet.
 
Yes, with the right loads, the 45-70 can do some surprising things. One guy shot a Cape Buffalo in Africa and killed another one behind it. Cape Buffalo are very large and very tough animals. I believe he was using some sort of premium grade cast bullet loads with hard bullets and a stout load from one of the companies making such loads, much like what many handloaders load for their Marlins and 1886's.

12 gauge slugs are often mentioned, but theres a difference in them also. The common American deer slugs are soft,expand and break up on light framed animals or even people (in police use they say they often break into 3 pieces and stay in the bad guy. Not really the best type of perfomance for large dangerous animals), though the Brenneke slugs seem to just keep going when used on large animals. The design is about 100 years old, and has been used in Africa quite a bit, they were considered effective against lions. Theyve become more well known in the states the past couple decades.
 
We met a BLM field worker from Alaska while hiking and talked. He said the BLM/National Forest recommended gun for dealing with bears was a shotgun loaded with pellets aimed at the bear's face. He got tired of carrying the weight of a shotgun in the back country and so carried bear spray. He spends a lot of time in the wilds of Alaska.
 
There is some talk about single actions - is it novelty? I love revolvers - but for this topic I am thinking something in a 4" double action on my hip . What am I missing?
 
Ramblinman said:
There is some talk about single actions - is it novelty? I love revolvers - but for this topic I am thinking something in a 4" double action on my hip . What am I missing?
Single actions are more comfortable to shoot with heavy loads than double actions. More comfortable to shoot means people are more likely to shoot them well with heavy loads. They also tend to have less quirks regarding timing and things of that sort. You also cant get unburnt powder under the extractor star, have the extractor rod unscrew and tie up the cylinder rotation,or bend the yoke. There are no perfect guns. One makes their choices based on their level of competence, understanding, or simply individual preference. I'm fine with either a single action or a double action.
 
Under pressure, what can you shoot well, better?

I carry a .44M single-action in the woods. It's the gun I have and I practice with it. I also carry a .357 double-action (five days a week, in town), but not when I'm concerned with significant penetration. If I was going to spend time in brown bear country, I would own and practice with a double-action .44M. I live in black bear country and really enjoy shooting my single-action .44M. I also really enjoy (and carry almost every day) my double-action .357.

I don't know that you can say a single-action is more comfortable than a double. I don't think the action makes the comfort. There are plenty of other factors. My single-action will fire hot and heavy all day long. My double-action will fire hot and heavy all day long. My hands get beat up with either one. So, in a life and death situation (IMHO) it's more about what you feel more comfortably will get you on target, not comfort (although, they may be the same if you practice more based on comfort).

If you're in a situation where a bear is within a few feet, pointing and squeezing the trigger is probably more a concern than setting the hammer.
 
Ace! said:
Under pressure, what can you shoot well, better?

I don't know that you can say a single-action is more comfortable than a double. I don't think the action makes the comfort. There are plenty of other factors. My single-action will fire hot and heavy all day long. My double-action will fire hot and heavy all day long. My hands get beat up with either one. So, in a life and death situation (IMHO) it's more about what you feel more comfortably will get you on target, not comfort (although, they may be the same if you practice more based on comfort).

If you're in a situation where a bear is within a few feet, pointing and squeezing the trigger is probably more a concern than setting the hammer.
I can definitely say in my case a single action is more confortable to shoot heavy loads in. I tore the ligaments in my right thumb in about '90*. It took a couple years before I could shoot anything right handed, a couple more before I could shoot more than a 22 right handed, a couple more before I could shoot a DA centefire with any load, but a single action with standard level 45 Colts was OK. By the time I could shoot heavy loads in the single action, I could only tolerate medium loads in the DA (250 gr bullet @ 1000 fps in 44 mag), and a couple more before I could shoot heavy loads in a DA. I had been shooting the 4" Smith & Wesson 44 pretty regularly since '81 (and Ruger SA 44's for a few years before that, starting when I was 14, when I got the first one).

Most people seem to feel that similar loads in a single action thump their hand less. The hump in the grip of a DA slams into the web of the hand, a single action rolls in the hand, unless you negate most of the advantage of an SA by using rubber grips.

Two handed, there isnt a lot of difference in how well or quickly I can shoot either. I've shot a couple steel plate shoots of 5 and 6 plates, my score with a single action 45 and a DA 38 were pretty similar. One handed, the DA can be a little easier, but with heavy loads, the recoil slows you down, losing some of the assumed speed of a DA. In a contact situation (such as the bear standing on you while you feed it your left arm while shooting with the right), the DA would seem best, though if one is used to the SA, you just run it without having t think about it.

* Tore the ligament shooting one of Mr Linebaughs 500 Maximum revolvers, a 440 gr bullet @ 1550 fps vel)
 
Loved that video, except for the voice.


d452df3df962b663802d6212c18bfaa0.jpg
 
Interesting conversation but I have to respond to this post..

"... Yes, penetration is king when shooting charging bears. Many hunting rifle loads dont penetrate as well as heavy handgun loads with solid, non-expanding bullets...."

As with any dangerous game penetration is important but so is the size of the wound cavity.
Bears, wether black or brown are considered soft game as opposed to something like a Cape buffalo and as such the proper built for a bear is one which expands upon impact, creates the maximum wound cavity and does not penetrate completely through the animal.

So if you compare a hollow point round in a pistol to that of a rifle I'll take the rifle any day of the week. The energy released with a rifle round, even a moderate one, is significantly more than any handgun.
 
smlobx said:
Interesting conversation but I have to respond to this post..
"... Yes, penetration is king when shooting charging bears. Many hunting rifle loads dont penetrate as well as heavy handgun loads with solid, non-expanding bullets...."
As with any dangerous game penetration is important but so is the size of the wound cavity.
Bears, wether black or brown are considered soft game as opposed to something like a Cape buffalo and as such the proper built for a bear is one which expands upon impact, creates the maximum wound cavity and does not penetrate completely through the animal.
So if you compare a hollow point round in a pistol to that of a rifle I'll take the rifle any day of the week. The energy released with a rifle round, even a moderate one, is significantly more than any handgun.
Ok now I'm going to muddy the waters - Many an African Professional Hunter advocates solids for through and through Penetration - I subscribe that 2 holes are better than one. A standard practice for a large number of African Hunters - is to load a quality bonded bullet followed by solids to deal with the animal when things become dynamic. With this, the bonded bullet is utilized when shot placement can be achieved - solids are used when shot placement is unlikely. Bad shot placement on a frontal shot on a Griz with a solid could result in a broken hip which in turn might turn the animal - or at least allow him to bleed out quicker if through and through penetration we're to occur. I mention Africa because this is where we have the most experience dealing with Dangerous Game.

However, modern bonded bullets are exceptional at holding their weight - I have personally been witness to a frontal on an a Dugga Boy where the bullet was located in the rear of the stomach after penetrating heart lung spine - and the Bear Claw held 93% of its weight. It was actually the contents of the stomach that slowed the bullet. I would argue that through and through penetration is very important - Perhaps an Barnes TSX would be a happy comprise.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    93.5 KB · Views: 74
smlobx said:
Interesting conversation but I have to respond to this post..

"... Yes, penetration is king when shooting charging bears. Many hunting rifle loads dont penetrate as well as heavy handgun loads with solid, non-expanding bullets...."

As with any dangerous game penetration is important but so is the size of the wound cavity.
Bears, wether black or brown are considered soft game as opposed to something like a Cape buffalo and as such the proper built for a bear is one which expands upon impact, creates the maximum wound cavity and does not penetrate completely through the animal.

So if you compare a hollow point round in a pistol to that of a rifle I'll take the rifle any day of the week. The energy released with a rifle round, even a moderate one, is significantly more than any handgun.
I was agreeing/following with you in general until you got to the part about a hollow point handgun bullet, which most people that use a handgun to hunt large game, or use for defensive purposes dont use. Nothing I said about handgun bullets or loads had anything to do with hollow point loads. I believe their use as a defensive load in a handgun is a handicap.

Hunting and stopping are also both different things. Hunting is generally shooting either unaware or unexcited animals. Stopping something large like a bear often requires breaking bones down. African professional hunters (guides) use different rifles to back up their clients than the clients use to make the first shots. Different purposes.

I disagree about "energy release" being the actual measure of effectiveness. Energy is a convenient way to compare similar loads and bullets, but doesnt tell the entire story (compare a 22-250 and 45-70 400 gr factory load energy figures, which one do you think would be better for bears or moose?). It's tissue damage that causes wounds. If a bullet can damage tissue and cause deep wounds, great. Often when high velocity bullets expand, they lose penetration, the all copper bullets and things like Nosler Partitions have the best of both. The larger calibers like 375 got by with older bullet technology because of mass, the bullets dont break up or lose integrity like smaller ones often do. Weight also means momentum, which begets penetration. Handguns dont have enough velocity to cause the same type of wounds high velocity rifle bullets do with expanding bullets, but its not entirely left behind because of its ability to penetrate deeply and do damage with a flat point bullet. The ability to break large bones is generally better with solid handgun bullets compared to expanding handgun bullets also.

Whatever energy is supposedly released by rifle loads in comparison to handgun loads means little, its the tissue damage and ability to penetrate deeply and break large bones that matters. In breaking down large bones in large animals, velocity isnt always the best thing.
 
jackattack said:
If I had a gun... I wouldn't shoot the bear.
I agree, she'd probably get into a lot of trouble for shooting a bear for trashing her kayak. I would want a big gun in case the bear decided on something softer and better tasting.

IMO she would have been better served by using an air horn. My close encounters with black bears (two times, one that could have been serious), a blast from an air horn scared them away (and didn't hurt anything except our ears).

jim
 
Back
Top Bottom