Handguns for Grizzly?

[JohnKSa]

Conventional wisdom would have us believe that they are not effective. The Dec issue of American Hunter there is a brief blurb about two separate Grizzly attacks that both took place in Yellowstone on 6 October.

Both attacks were successfully thwarted by handgun carrying bowhunters.

One Grizzly was scared away by a hunter who fired a ".45 caliber pistol" after it had it had "tossed about" a second hunter who played dead.

The other Grizzly was "doused with bear spray" which deterred it only briefly giving the bear spray wielder's buddy time to draw his ".44 caliber handgun" and dispatch the bear with two shots when it charged a second time. The dead Grizzly is thought to have been involved in another attack in September on another bowhunter.

In spite of this, I fully expect to hear the same platitudes about handguns and bears the next time the question is asked on TFL.

 

[The Tourist]

I believe this debate centers around your use of the phrase "conventional wisdom."

As you know, a 7x57mm Mauser has taken most African game. The Inuits use .22LR firearms to kill seals. Most people are killed in the USA using the .22, .25 and .32 calibers. It would appear that trend data is saying that power is of minor consequence.

Then again you read the tale of how Ross Seyfried had a custom .475 caliber lino LBT slug bounce off the back of cape buffalo like a ping-pong ball.

I believe in concepts like the real-world data collected by Evan Marshall. You might find the conclusions don't agree with your opinion. But a consistant bell-shaped curve over decades is a mighty compelling argument.

With my personal hide on the line against a bear, I want the best.

 

[JohnKSa]

With my personal hide on the line against a bear, I want the best.

There's a HUGE difference between "the best" and "good enough". These two cases (and others) demonstrate that a handgun is good enough.

Yes, it does center around conventional wisdom. You can't imagine how many times I've heard or read the old saw about "filing off the front sight of a handgun that's to be used for bear". Well, handguns are far from "the best" for bear, but also they're also far from useless--which is what many would have us believe.

 

[funon1]

First rule...carry a gun

Second... use enough gun
Third... accurate shot placement is key.

In grizzly country, you would do well to carry a heavy rifle like the .45-70 Guide gun with Garrets 540 grainers or a .458 Win. Mag or even a little .375, or failing that, a properly loaded 12 Ga. slug gun. But at some point the long guns get set down to cast or skin a buck or maybe just to take a short walk through camp. So that is where a proper handgun on one's hip is invaluable.

When speaking about handguns for use as defense against grizzly, I am not referring to the .22 kit gun or the Glock 26 you pack around town. You need a gun that will penetrate to the bruin's vitals, but you also need to be able to shoot it accurately and deploy it quickly under stress.

I would not consider anything smaller than a .44 Magnum. Even with the mighty .44, ammo selection is crucial. Randy Garrett makes loads in this caliber for this purpose. If you can handle more gun, the .454 might be better. Or Possibly the S&W X-frames in .460 or 500. The X-frames are a bit big for me though. I like the 4" Ruger Redhawk loaded with 330-340 Grain +p lead flat points. It is powerful, packable and easy to shoot well.

Check out Garretts ammo at http://www.garrettcartridges.com/

Funon1

 

[Abndoc]

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/Articles.asp?a=Fun-Stuff/Bad-Ass&Meida_id=49

If I'm attacked, i want this critter on my side.

But seriously, Chuck Hawk has a decent short article on the subject.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm

 

[williamd]

Carried a 350 Rem Mag as a backup while guiding in B.C. Always felt it was a good gun - heavy loads, carbine and easy to carry, handle, etc. Had no choice a handguns were not - and are not - allowed. But, even if they were I would stick to some carbine capable of handing heavy bullets ... 250g +.

Remember, you'll never lose a gut shot bear!

 

[gvf]

Too Dangerous

Handguns for Grizzly?

I wouldn't think it a good idea to give a handgun to a Grizzly.

 

[wnycollector]

The minimum I would carry is a blackhawk in .45 colt loaded with doubletap 335gr. WFNGC Harcast's...but I would prefer a 12ga loaded with slugs!

 

[IdahoG36]

A S&W 500 would do the trick!

 

[Tom2]

Nice picture-kill em and cook em with one motion!

 

[angeldeville]

Since I no longer own a .44mag I reckon a .454 Casull would have to do....

 

[grymster2007]

I dunno…. either the .454 or a Lorcin L25!

I don’t go to grizz country, I do go to black bear country.

Heard all the stuff:

1. “A handgun won’t stop a bear… any bear”
2. As JohnKSa pointed out - “file the front site off”
3. “An attack would be an extremely rare occurrence”
4. “You’re more likely to get hit by lightening”
5. “If you’re attacked, you won’t have time to react”
6. “The bruin will roll you up in your tent, rendering your firearm useless”
7. “Bear spray is more effective”
8. “Shoot your buddy in the leg and run”

But I still want to carry a weapon because I “feel” better when I’ve made some attempt to mitigate a danger. Just as I don’t ride without a helmet and I watch the sky and get out of the stream when lightening threatens.

 

[44 AMP]

Once again, Elmer Keith's advice....

(paraphrased)

"Any centerfire handgun of medium caliber or larger can defend you against bear attack, if you keep your nerve."

Elmer's advice was to shoot through the mouth to break the bear's neck. The key element was keeping your nerve, and making the shot. All bears open their mouths during attack, and there is your chance. Now, I'm not sure if Elmer was being sarcastic or not, but he was serious about the fact that you could kill the bear this way. He never claimed you wouldn't get a mite clawed or chawed, but you would survive, if you kept your nerve.

I also seem to recall his idea of medium calibers started around the .38-44 Outdorsman (the original .38 Special +P+) and went up from there. I can't recall him ever mentioning the 9mm, other than it was a real poor stopper on jackrabbits. Remember that in those days, the only ammo commonly available was cast lead for revolvers and FMJ for autopistols.

But the bottom line is (like a lot of things), it isn't what you have as much as what you can do with it. Huge monster magnums are quite popular recommendations, but how many people can actually hold and shoot them well, especially under the tremendous stress of an attack?

Personally, for bear attack, I always thought Mr Miyagi's defense was the most sensible. "Miyagi say best defense...No Be There!"

 

[blitzer0101]

 

[357 Plato]

+1 44 AMP :"But the bottom line is (like a lot of things), it isn't what you have as much as what you can do with it. Huge monster magnums are quite popular recommendations, but how many people can actually hold and shoot them well, especially under the tremendous stress of an attack?"

Too much gun is not a good solution.

You just might do better with a "marginal" .357 magnum that you can handle than with a "very good" superdupermagnum that you can not.

Not that I want to try

Happy shooting

 

[Webleymkv]

Webley's advice for Bear-Defence handguns: Choose the most powerful and penatritive handgun that you can shoot accurately and load it with controlled expansion softpoints, FMJ, or hardcast bullets. For me this means a .44 Magnum loaded with 300grn Federal Castcores. No handgun has enough energy to stop a big Grizzly so penetration and shot placement are paramount. Honestly, there's a lot to be said for a .357 Magnum loaded with 158grn hardcast bulletss or 9mm loaded with 147grn FMJs if that's all the more you can handle.

 

[Tom2]

I suppose when you fire one of those two guns of Blitzer's, you can claim that it was the Bear that broke your arm and smashed your forehead!

 

[jhansman]

Handguns for Grizzlies? Shall I make a pun about the right to arm bears? No? OK.

I guess if you run up against one of these brutes, you're better off with a large caliber revolver than not, but frankly the only thing I'd rather have is....wings!

 

[Socrates]

THESE .500 JRH's are pretty much the perfect combination of packable power for such critters:

Depending on your recoil tolerance, you can load a 440 grain lfn at 950 fps that will go through 5 to 6 feet of buffalo, or a 430 grain at 1350 fps, which coes about the same. The first load recoils at about standard 44 magnum levels. Second at about twice a 44, but, in the right gun, it's not bad at all. The snubbie is a 500 S*W, and, I wouldn't want to shoot it with anything but the low level 500 JRH ammo.

I know a couple guys that are converting BFR's to 50-110's, and, Lee Jurras probably is totally right that the .375, and .475 Howdah's, similar to sawed off Nitro express doubles, are the real save your bacon solution.
454's with heavy bullets will go 38" of buffalo, so they, and the .475 are also in the running.

Kodiak bear on display at J C Penneys in Anchorage. This enormous bear weighed 1900 lbs. and stands over ten feet tall. It was shot by my brother Delvan Ard's brother-in-law.

http://www.ard.net/Alaska_Trip/alaska_trip.html#Animals

S esq.

 

[JohnKSa]

In spite of some of the impressive armament pictured so far on this thread, it's interesting that the handgun used to stop the charge and kill the attacking bear with two shots wasn't anything exotic, it was nothing more powerful than a .44 Mag based on the description.

The gun used to scare the other bear away could have been a .454 Casull if we give the rather vague description the benefit of the doubt, but it's not even clear that the bear was shot in that case so it's hard to make an argument that caliber even made a difference in that situation.