Will your deer rifle help you in a pinch in case a bear attacks you?

[buckeyeshooter1]

I deer hunt in bear areas with a lever action 50 Alaskan shooting .510 diameter 450 Barnes originals at 2100 fps or a Ruger 77 in 338 WM shooting 250 grain Noslers. I am not worried about anything smaller than an elephant. As others have said, I do not own anything less than a 30-06.

 

[Paul B.]

About the lightest rifle I would carry when deer hunting is one chambered to the 7x57 Mauser round. I will admit that my hand loads are more at the level or slightly more potent than the 7-08 Remington. Also, I've never hunted in an area where I might run unto a Grizzly or Kodiak Brown/Polar bear so no worry there.
However, quite a few years back I was in the running for a couple of positions in Alaska, Bettles and Kodiak Island. I was at my not so local gun store and was getting components to load mmy .44 mag. Super Blackhawk. AS we talked I mentioned I might get a job transfer to one of the places I mentioned and he asked if my .44 was a new or older model Ruger. I said new model to which he said use it to shoot the bear five times. Save number six for yourself while "Brer Bear" is ripping your insides out. That does give one reason to think and the gentleman had a Kodiak full mount in his store. Told me he used a .375 H&H.
Paul B.

 

[44 AMP]

That does give one reason to think and the gentleman had a Kodiak full mount in his store.

It does give me reason to think...reason to think the gentleman doesn't care for the .44 Magnum. No reason to think it won't work.

I've seen pictures of a standing polar bear mount, the bear is 12' 6", and was taken with a .44 Magnum revolver.

Now, maybe you, or I might not be able to do that, but the cartridge certainly is, in the right hands.

And, I am reminded of advice Elmer Keith used to give, that if you kept your nerve, you could win against any bear attack.

His reasoning was that every bear that attacks opens its mouth, and if you kept your nerve you (and had a "decent handgun) you could break the bear's neck. He never claimed you wouldn't get clawed or "chawed" but that "if you kept your nerve" you would win.

Don't know if he ever did it, and I DO know I'm NEVER going to try and find out personally if it works, but it sounds possible.

 

[HiBC]

A significant question might be : " Are there ANY Brown/ Kodiak/ Grizzly bears where I hunt deer?
I recall reading some story based on the idea of hunting tigers in India. The suggestion was : " When rabbit hunting in India,be prepared to meet a tiger!"

Its a context thing.

You can carry whatever you want. Where I live,and might deer hunt, the biggest meat eaters I might encounter (and don't worry about) are coyotes,mountain lions,and black bears. I'm more afraid of lightning and Lyme diseased ticks.
Under those circumstances, I'd be perfectly happy to carry my .257 AI or a 250 Savage 99. If I was not hunting, my .44 spl Ruger would be fine on my belt,no rifle required.

There is some species of small deer that lives on Kodiak Island. Is it Coos Deer? I don't remember.
If I were hunting those little deer on Kodiak Island, I'd likely carry a 375 H+H or equivalent. In my hands. I might have a sling with me,in my day pack. But not on the rifle. Slings can snag in bush. There are some times and places where there is no "Administrative time out" I'd have lunch ,or drink coffee,crawl in my sleeping bag, or have my pants down with my rifle at hand.

Most of my elk hunts have involved a pack frame on my back with shelter and provisions for a week above 9000 feet . Any weather is possible. No grizzly bears. Packing in, I was not worried about anything biting me. FWIW,it was usually in the dark,Friday night after work, before opening Saturday morning. Whispers and no fires.
I'd carry my rifle in my hands because thats what I do. And,no,I did not carry a handgun when I carry a rifle. Any rifle suited to elk hunting would be fine.

I've never strapped a rifle to the back of my pack. I have had scree/talus rocks roll out from under my feet,or slipped going downhill on icy rocks. Which is to say I've been body slammed onto my back pack. Not too bad,but I would not want my rifle to break my fall,

 

[Paul B.]

44 AMP said, "It does give me reason to think...reason to think the gentleman doesn't care for the .44 Magnum. No reason to think it won't work."

He didn't say it would not work. His reasoning was if you didn't stop it with the first five shots you might need number six to end the suffering. Your's.
The fellow owned the shop with another fellow and both were big bore freaks. To the the .338 Win. mag. was a popgun. The smallest cartridge they'd hunt with was the .375 H&H. The organized a big bore club for those who liked such firearms. darn good people to deal with when it came to buying guns and reloading stuff.
Paul.

 

[reynolds357]

It does give me reason to think...reason to think the gentleman doesn't care for the .44 Magnum. No reason to think it won't work.

I've seen pictures of a standing polar bear mount, the bear is 12' 6", and was taken with a .44 Magnum revolver.

Now, maybe you, or I might not be able to do that, but the cartridge certainly is, in the right hands.

And, I am reminded of advice Elmer Keith used to give, that if you kept your nerve, you could win against any bear attack.

His reasoning was that every bear that attacks opens its mouth, and if you kept your nerve you (and had a "decent handgun) you could break the bear's neck. He never claimed you wouldn't get clawed or "chawed" but that "if you kept your nerve" you would win.

Don't know if he ever did it, and I DO know I'm NEVER going to try and find out personally if it works, but it sounds possible.

I loved reading Elmer Keith's articles and books. Some swear he speaks 100% truth. Just as many swear he is 100% full of crap. I have no idea which is true, but his stuff is entertaining.

 

[44 AMP]

My real world experience is that none of the "old time" gun writers were 100% crap. Some of their opinions, were, but not everything they said was wrong. Just as not everything they said was right....

One thing about Elmer, as far as I can find out, if he said he did something. he did it. Might not have been the "smart" thing to do, might not be something you or I should try to do, but if he said he did it, I believe he did.

Jack O'Connor might argue, they apparently had a long standing feud...

Do remember that the writers of that era often made outlandish claims and had very strong opinions. This was how it was done in those days, to keep reader interest. Not so much different from today, just a bit less subtle, usually....

 

[jmr40]

Elmer Keith was born in 1899, Jack O'Connor in 1902. Smokeless powder was just starting to be in common use when those 2 were still in diapers. It took time for people to figure out just how much of a difference smokeless powder made over black powder.

With black powder velocity is pretty constant regardless of caliber. The only way to get more power, was to shoot larger calibers. Smokeless powder changed that. Elmer was still living in the past, Jack saw the future.

 

[Scorch]

Some swear he speaks 100% truth. Just as many swear he is 100% full of crap

Like everyone else, Elmer and Jack had their opinions and were not shy about talking about them. Does that mean they were 100% right all the time? No, But when you mix a bunch of experience with a spirit of adventure you get results. Not always what you wnat, but you get results. For example, Elmer Keith wrote in one of his books that the .25-35 was a killing machine and the best elk rifle ever. Of course, he said this after relating a story about him and his brother shooting an elk with a 25-35 (because that's what they had) then chasing it for 2 days, shooting it a number of times, until finally it collapsed. Probably not the results Elmer wanted, but they ate elk that winter. The only people who don't get results are the ones who never try.

Elmer Keith was born in 1899, Jack O'Connor in 1902. Smokeless powder was just starting to be in common use when those 2 were still in diapers. It took time for people to figure out just how much of a difference smokeless powder made over black powder.

When smokeless powder was introduced, it obsoleted a whole trainload of cartridges virtually overnight. The 30-30 Winchester and the 30-40 Krag were already in wide use by the time those two were born, and in the 15-20 years following (before they were grown) there were some really awesome rifle cartridges introduced (30-06, 300 Newton, 256 Newton, 250 Savage, 33 Winchester, 348 Winchester, 405 Winchester, etc, etc). Elmer liked to hunt big African animals, and large bullets work best when hunting animals that big. Jack O Conner, OTOH, liked to hunt deer, sheep, antelope, elk, mostly North American big game. Elephants, rhinos, and hippos are hunted close up in heavy brush where you might not get a second shot if you miss. Antelope and sheep are hunted in the wide open and long shots are the norm. Both of these men advocated guns that worked for the way they liked to hunt and what they knew about. Elmer Keith also had the advantage of having worked in researching and developing cartridges while in the Army, while Jack O Conner learned a lot from books and was paid to write by Winchester and promote their products. Both were opinionated and hard to convince of anything other than their own opinions.

I read a lot of Jack and Elmer's stuff (along with dozens of other writers) while growing up and never got the impression that either of them was blowing smoke, they were simply telling a story. I read a lot of other writer's stuff as well because I wouldn't let an outdoor rag get by me without reading it cover to cover. I laughed at the squabbles the different writers would have over unsubstantial issues (220 Swift vs 22-250, .222 vs 223 or .270 Winchester vs 280 Remington, for example), and at other times I would recite the stuff I had read as if it were pure Gospel. So read and believe whatever you want, but take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[reynolds357]

Despite what has been said above, Elmer was also into high velocity cartridges. According to his book "Hell, I was there" he developed both the 338-378 and the .30-378 Wby.
He had an Ackley type shoulder and When WBY chambered it, they went to radius.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Like everyone else, Elmer and Jack had their opinions and were not shy about talking about them. Does that mean they were 100% right all the time? No, But when you mix a bunch of experience with a spirit of adventure you get results. Not always what you wnat, but you get results. For example, Elmer Keith wrote in one of his books that the .25-35 was a killing machine and the best elk rifle ever. Of course, he said this after relating a story about him and his brother shooting an elk with a 25-35 (because that's what they had) then chasing it for 2 days, shooting it a number of times, until finally it collapsed. Probably not the results Elmer wanted, but they ate elk that winter. The only people who don't get results are the ones who never try.

LOL, that just tells me that his caliber endorsements aren't worth spit.

 

[44 AMP]

LOL, that just tells me that his caliber endorsements aren't worth spit.

Never heard the .25-35 story, but it sounds like something that could have happened. It's also possible the part about how great the .25-35 worked was sarcasm. Elmer said a lot of things, and taking a bit out of context can lead to misunderstanding.

I do remember him writing about elk hunters, after spending some time as a guide. At that time, his opinion was that elk hunters should use a rifle of at least .33 caliber, as bigger holes meant better blood trails and easier tracking.

I don't think he was favorably impressed with the marksmanship of the hunters he was guiding, or the "small bore" (under .30) magnums many of them carried.

Of course its also possible some of what he said was said simply to stir people up. That always created readers...to see what he'd say next, if for no other reason.

I still think his advice about bear attacks is rather apt. After all, why go down easy? If it were me, I'd sure try to feed the bear my pistol, if it came to that. Might not work, but I don't see how I'd be worse off trying...if it came down to that....

 

[Drm50]

I hunted Elk in Utah back in my early 20s. Had m70 300mg, 16 extra 300mgs, Ruger 44 SBH
Lawrence belt & holster 25 44s in loops and hunting knife. The next day when I left out of
camp had rifle 3 extra 300mgs and Buck folder. The night before I went through my wallet and threw away business cards I wasn’t likely to use.
If your attacked by big bear rifle will do you better than most handguns.

 

[reynolds357]

If you listen to the "experts", bear spray is the best close quarters bear defense. No experience myself with bear, but from years in L E. I can tell you that good O.C. (pepper spray) instantly turns the meanest Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.
I was serving an arrest warrant and a guy turned his pit out on me. Sprayed him and he ran off. I came back to that house 2 years later, same dog trying to eat tires off patrol car. When he saw the can, he ran to Egypt.
(Thanks to our fast justice system, man 2 years later still had not gone to trial for Ag Assault on peace officer for turning out out on me first time)

 

[HiBC]

Something to consider about Elmer's observations and preferences: We live in a different time.
Not so long ago the 9mm was scoffed at for being ineffective. Bullet technology has evolved, and the 9mm has gained effectiveness.

Bullets of Elmer's time were either cast or they were less sophisticated cup and core jacketed.

Whether justly or not,the reputation of a cartridge was often based on how well a particular factory loaded bullet performed.

In Elmers time, too high velocity might mean bullet failure. I can understand the idea of 33 cal or larger, heavier bullets at 2000 to 2400 + fps being reliable because they were well within the window of reliability for bullets of the day.

Some folks were using optics for hunting,generally in the 2x to 4 x range,but most folks were using iron sights. Ranges tended to be more moderate.

Some folks bash people like Elmer or Jeff Cooper or PO Ackley.

"Hell,they were there!" I respect their contributions.

 

[Pathfinder45]

Furthermore, they did it all without laser-range-finders, GPS, cellphones, etc. Their rifles had wooden stocks and leather slings that they somehow used to steady their rifles, rather than using spring-loaded bipod contraptions that so many are reliant upon today.

 

[reynolds357]

Something to consider about Elmer's observations and preferences: We live in a different time.
Not so long ago the 9mm was scoffed at for being ineffective. Bullet technology has evolved, and the 9mm has gained effectiveness.

Bullets of Elmer's time were either cast or they were less sophisticated cup and core jacketed.

Whether justly or not,the reputation of a cartridge was often based on how well a particular factory loaded bullet performed.

In Elmers time, too high velocity might mean bullet failure. I can understand the idea of 33 cal or larger, heavier bullets at 2000 to 2400 + fps being reliable because they were well within the window of reliability for bullets of the day.

Some folks were using optics for hunting,generally in the 2x to 4 x range,but most folks were using iron sights. Ranges tended to be more moderate.

Some folks bash people like Elmer or Jeff Cooper or PO Ackley.

"Hell,they were there!" I respect their contributions.

Keep in mind that Elmer was NOT an advocate of big and slow. He was an advocate of Big and very Fast. He constantly chased velocity. He chased it with big bullets. Jack O. Chased it with small bullets.
I remember the .25-35 story differently. It was the greatest Elk cartridge of all time because it was the only cartridge he had killed an Elk with. It was a joke. Elmer said repeatedly the .30 was too small for Elk and the .33 or 8mm was the minimum. He developed the .338-378 for an Elk cartridge.

 

[Paul B.]

My only regret is I Never got to met Mr. Keith or Mr. O'Connor. It would have been informative, I'm sure.
Paul B.

 

[HiBC]

My former spouse had a friend we were visiting in Salmon. Elmer came up in conversation. Turns out she was an old friend of Elmers. She picked up the phone and shortly after I was sitting in Elmer's Man Cave/trophy room drinking coffee.
One of the treasures in my mind. I'm grateful.

 

[reynolds357]

My former spouse had a friend we were visiting in Salmon. Elmer came up in conversation. Turns out she was an old friend of Elmers. She picked up the phone and shortly after I was sitting in Elmer's Man Cave/trophy room drinking coffee.
One of the treasures in my mind. I'm grateful.

Would loved to have been there.