Best handgun for a bear attack?

[Guest 10mm4me]

While the chances of being attacked by a black bear are remote in the first place, especially in the Smokies, it happens and people have died, fairly recently I might add, so you won't catch me there without a heater. I am more worried about a rogue emu attack there myself though.

[Guest BEARMAN]

My vote for a bear gun............a "BIG 'UN".....

[Warbird]

I carry a 357 mag revolver in country where there might be anything dangerous, whether it be bear or cougar or even hogs (maybe the meanest of the 3). For me I usually have that as a sidearm as most of my time in the back country is hunting not hiking. So usually I have a rifle as well.

That said if I needed a pistol it would be because the animal was right on top of me. In the past I carried a 454 Casull. But in testing pulling the gun from awkward positions or on my back I found the gun difficult to control one handed and firing quickly. So I went back to the 357. That round will do its job, hopefully, from up close last chance range.

I can tell you from experience as well, that no matter what you have in your hand or on your side, you will feel under-armed, especially with griz.

I black bear hunted in May in Oregon and never had an issue with a bear getting the jump on me. I got the jump on him.

However last year I did have an encounter with a very large griz and her two cubs. Mom stood up on me twice. She could have been on me in a couple of seconds. Fortunately for me she decided to run off in the other direction with her cubs, but it easily could have gone the other way. 2-3 minutes seemed like 20. I wasn't hunting bear on that trip, had no tag for one. So shooting her would have been only as a absolute last resort.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Warbird

[Guest Revelator]

From what I've read bears are extremely fast, so I'd probably opt for a sidearm over a long gun. It could be just a few tenths of a second, but that might well be the difference between life and death. I would think that unslinging a shotgun, shouldering it, maybe racking it if necessary, would take way too long against a charging bear at 30+mph. Even at 75 feet, which seems like a long way, that's nothing. You'd be toast. You could employ a handgun much faster.

[Warbird]

From what I've read bears are extremely fast, so I'd probably opt for a sidearm over a long gun. It could be just a few tenths of a second, but that might well be the difference between life and death. I would think that unslinging a shotgun, shouldering it, maybe racking it if necessary, would take way too long against a charging bear at 30+mph. Even at 75 feet, which seems like a long way, that's nothing. You'd be toast. You could employ a handgun much faster.

Bear are extremely fast. You would never believe how fast they are for how big they are. If you do have a long gun and they charge you likely have one shot, IF your gun is already on them. in my case last year my rifle was on her the whole time. I watched her through my scope. I had one chance with the rifle if she had charged. If I missed or did not get a brain shot that stopped her immediately, then the rifle would have likely ended up as a bludgeon in one hand as the pistol came out in the other.

Bear are worse on the attack that nearly any other north American animal. They have very slow heart beats. Because of this they are often walking dead. This occurs when they are dead on their feet, but it takes a minute or more at times before their body knows they are goners.

[Guest KustomHD]

I personaly would take my Taurus Judge Public Defender with me loaded with the 45 LC and have my Taurus PT 145 Millennium Pro as a back up Because you can never have to much fire power or ammo

[DaveTN]

You would be fine with a .22LR.

I have read on this forum more times that I can count that caliber is not important; shot placement is.

I consider a man with a gun trying to shoot me to be far more dangerous than a bear.

[Guest 270win]

Have you ever seen a black bear in the wild? There is no way I would want to shoot one with a handgun less than 44 magnum and that would be up close. But the up close part would make me kind of uncomfortable and wish I had a shotgun loaded with slugs or a good deer rifle.

If I am somewhere that bears are known to be I'll have an easy to tote lever or pump rifle or short pump shotgun with slugs. I guess if I had to go with a handgun it would be a 44 mag 6 inch barrel. I honestly like my 30-30 winchester and have always figured it would do a black bear in if i ran into one deer hunting back in AR.

The nice thing is most black bears don't come around people, at least where I lived in Arkansas. They try to avoid people. Most killed are shot by deer hunters during the bear season that runs into deer season. Ozarks and Ouachitas have quite a few black bears but they are smart animals.

[Oh Shoot]

....

If I am somewhere that bears are known to be I'll have an easy to tote lever or pump rifle or short pump shotgun with slugs....

Is it legal to carry a loaded long gun most everywhere, regardless of hunting season and/or your license, for "self protection in the woods"?

Certainly it is NEVER legal in Smokies, for example, at least on TN side, don't know NC law very well.

- OS

Edited November 19, 2010 by OhShoot

[Guest BEARMAN]

Grizzly bears have been killed with a .45 acp, fwiw....sure wouldn't be my first choice for a bear defense pistol, however, It did the trick that time.

Backpacker shoots, kills grizzly in Alaska park

Associated Press

Last update: May 31, 2010 - 11:14 AM

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A backpacker shot and killed a grizzly bear with his handgun in Alaska's Denali National Park, officials said.

A man and woman reported that they were hiking Friday evening when the bear emerged from trailside brush and charged the woman, park spokeswoman Kris Fister said in a statement.

The man fired nine rounds from his .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol at the animal, which then stopped and walked into the brush.

The two reported the shooting to rangers, who restricted access to the Igloo Canyon area for fear that the bear was wounded and dangerous.

On Saturday, rangers found the dead bear about 100 feet from the shooting site.

Park officials are determining the justification for the shooting. It's legal to carry firearms in that area of the park but illegal to discharge them.

Rangers said it was the first known instance of a grizzly bear being shot by a visitor in the wilderness portion of Denali, formerly called Mount McKinley National Park.

[Guest Ae-35]

I live in bear country, not more than 5miles as the crow flies from a bear reserve, problem is, no one told the bears. Very easy to be walking down or up the road and run into a little problem, like 2 cubs on one side of the road and mama on the other, believe me she ain't happy to see you between her and her cubs !!!!!! A 357 with 158gn jsp's, one into the ground in front of her and they all scattered!!!! Waited about 2 min. to make sure I wouldn't see them again, then I stepped off the road and took a nice long.... leak !!! I walked out on my back porch one morning and a young sow was laying by the branch about 20 feet from my back door. Of course I smelled her before I saw her, still ...my morning coffee wasn't really needed to wake up. Happens a lot around here, one winter, my buddies grandmother lives up the end of the road, had a bushel of apples sitting on her screened-in back porch, she was awaken bout 4:30 one morning, a bear had ripped the back door off and was having that bushel of apples for breakfast !!

Edited November 19, 2010 by Ae-35

[Gun Smith]

a bear had ripped the back door off and was having that bushel of apples for breakfast !!

The age old question, "Does a bear poop in the woods?". Yes, unless he's eaten a bushel of apples, then he can "barely" make it off the back porch cause he's got a case of the "green apple quick step".

[Mark A]

I'm in for a .41 magnum before my next trip out west. I think that with some buffalo bore ammo will be sufficient.

[Guest Ae-35]

The age old question, "Does a bear poop in the woods?". Yes, unless he's eaten a bushel of apples, then he can "barely" make it off the back porch cause he's got a case of the "green apple quick step".

Funny !!! Try Granny-Smith !! Now, I'd really have to shoot it, if it had eaten MY bushel of Granny-Smiths.

[Guest Revelator]

It's legal to carry firearms in that area of the park but illegal to discharge them.

Huh?

[Oh Shoot]

Huh?

Just because many folks can carry in National Parks now doesn't mean they are allowed to shoot in them, not even for target practice.

- OS

[JReedEsq]

Much like having an HCP grants us an exception to the "Intent to go armed" statute, self-defense would be an exception to the prohibition on shooting in the national parks.

[Guest 270win]

I guess you could carry a deer rifle out in the woods, like paper company land, for target shooting or hiking when it is not deer season. I carried one on my deer lease in TN when it wasn't deer season. I sometimes carried mine out in the woods back in AR but I could carry a long gun loaded anytime in Arkansas without any sort of license.

As far as the National Parks, I've never given much thought to carrying a long gun out of my vehicle for black bear protection. I doubt you could do it. A 44 mag would be quite handy. I always forget about the 41 mag. Those are pretty nice too, especially for people who handload.

I've seen a full grown black bear in the wild and would still prefer my 30-30 to kill one. I'd take a 44 mag for protection while hiking in the parks if i was limited to a handgun.

[Oh Shoot]

.... I'd take a 44 mag for protection while hiking in the parks if i was limited to a handgun.

You can only carry in a Nat'l Park in the manner the state allows you to carry, so no long guns in TN side of Smokies, and I assume same in NC.

There are states out west where you CAN carry a long gun in the National Parks there.

- OS

[ftncityfatboy]

watched the show "I Was Bitten" on cable the other night. Two hikers out in the woods, can't remember where, walked upon a big bear, one dude takes off running, the other not so lucky, bear had him on the ground quickly. Bit the guys head with teeth clamping on sides of eyes. Popped out his eyes, crushed is cheek bones, continued to eat upon him. Guy survives, will never see again, but survived. Better to have dead eyes than dead ass. My point? Anything would be better than nothing. I think OS said to carry for defense of peeps and hope you are a good enough shot in the moment to disable bear. Personally, I do my homework before going to or hiking in places where bears might be present.

Edited November 22, 2010 by ftncityfatboy

[East_TN_Patriot]

You would be fine with a .22LR.

I have read on this forum more times that I can count that caliber is not important; shot placement is.

I consider a man with a gun trying to shoot me to be far more dangerous than a bear.

Yes, and I still say that. Bigger may be better overall, but a .22LR that you can shoot effectively is better than a .44 magnum that you can't aim properly or fire accurately. In this case, a wild bear is a little different than a human target. The anatomy of a bear is quite different since they have more flesh to penetrate, so I would opt for a larger caliber myself. Bears aren't as easily scared off as most human targets - please note that I said most. In any case, here is yet another source that backs up the claim that you are clearly not in support of (be warned that there are some graphic pics in this):

FBI Defensive Systems Unit

The final line in this powerpoint? "Shot placement is everything in a gunfight and always the key to stopping a threat." In the case reviewed, a guy was killed by a .40 handgun after surviving shots from an M4 rifle using .223 TAP ammo. One must make the best decision between several factors including caliber, shooting ability, capacity, ease of carry, reliability, etc. Even cops do this. Following the "caliber is everything" argument, all cops should carry large frame, long barrel magnums. Oh... wait... they used to, but then cops decided to switch to smaller calibers. That's weird...

Edited November 21, 2010 by East_TN_Patriot

[JReedEsq]

One must make the best decision between several factors including caliber, shooting ability, capacity, ease of carry, reliability, etc. . .

Precisely why my "woods gun" is a Glock 22. A .44 or even a .357 may have better terminal ballistics, but they are much harder to carry and my practice time with my EDC Glocks (19 & 26) wouldn't translate well. In the heat of the moment, I want my carry gun to feel as familiar as possible.

[DaveTN]

Yes, and I still say that. Bigger may be better overall, but a .22LR that you can shoot effectively is better than a .44 magnum that you can't aim properly or fire accurately.

No one is saying it isn’t. A spitball from a straw that hits someone in the eye is better than a .308 miss.

In this case, a wild bear is a little different than a human target. The anatomy of a bear is quite different since they have more flesh to penetrate, so I would opt for a larger caliber myself. Bears aren't as easily scared off as most human targets - please note that I said most.

I can’t comment on that. I have never faced a bear. I have faced a gunman that did not run or retreat.

In any case, here is yet another source that backs up the claim that you are clearly not in support of:

I am certainly in support of shot placement. But having experienced real world shootings I think that you are either one bad azz or you are delusional if you think you will be able to reliably use “Shot placement†with absolutely no regard for caliber to stop the threat. I suspect that there are people that could remain as calm as they do at the range while taking fire; my experience tells me I am not one of them. Was your experience to the contrary?

The final line in this powerpoint? "Shot placement is everything in a gunfight and always the key to stopping a threat."

And thinking you will stop the threat placing .380 rounds to center body mass while I am using .357Mag, .40S&W or .45ACP is ridiculous. Of course once you add in your ability to place that .380 round in their eye or ear; you have a valid argument.

In the case reviewed, a guy was killed by a .40 handgun after surviving shots from an M4 rifle using .223 TAP ammo.

What is your point? I would take a .40S&W over a .223 any day if we are shooting people at close range. .223 is a paper punching round.

Following the "caliber is everything" argument,

I’m not making that argument. You are the one that that is saying nothing matters but shot placement. And you could possibly be right…. If you could do it? Can you?

But as I said before the whole bear thing does not apply to me.

If I am going traipsing around in the woods somewhere that I might stumble across an animal that could kill me and eat me I would me carrying my DPMS .308 Panther. Nothing could live through 19 rounds from that.

[East_TN_Patriot]

No one is saying it isn’t. A spitball from a straw that hits someone in the eye is better than a .308 miss.

Yes, people are saying it. People on this forum have said that carrying anythings less than a 9mm (more often than not they say nothing smaller than a .40) is a waste of time and you might as well be throwing spitballs. I've pulled up multiple sources that time and again show that people are just as likely to die from a small caliber round as a larger caliber round assuming both hit center mass. "Stopping power" and "Knock-down power" are a myth.

I can’t comment on that. I have never faced a bear. I have faced a gunman that did not run or retreat.

I also faced an individual who did not retreat, which is why I said most.

I am certainly in support of shot placement. But having experienced real world shootings I think that you are either one bad azz or you are delusional if you think you will be able to reliably use “Shot placement” with absolutely no regard for caliber to stop the threat. I suspect that there are people that could remain as calm as they do at the range while taking fire; my experience tells me I am not one of them. Was your experience to the contrary?

I never actually had to fire at anyone, but came very close in two instances. I recall very clearly that I was scared to death, but very focused. I had always practiced in dynamic training situations, including drills our department required that included methods intended to induce high-stress, high heart rate, and heavy respiration. For instance, running 1/4 mile with full gear and body armor before actually starting the shooting house with strobe lights, sirens, and firearms instructors screaming in your ear while you were under a time limit. And this was a course for patrol officers. I'm not a bad azz, just realistic. Thinking that a larger caliber will give you some magical advantage when you can't hit vital areas of the target is what is delusional.

And thinking you will stop the threat placing .380 rounds to center body mass while I am using .357Mag, .40S&W or .45ACP is ridiculous. Of course once you add in your ability to place that .380 round in their eye or ear; you have a valid argument.

Again, I cited a peer reviewed study in another thread that studied fatal shootings in Chicago back in the early 1970s. They found that caliber was a non-issue when the shots were placed center mass or in the head. Shots that didn't hit center mass were almost never fatal. In previous threads I have also mentioned the Trooper Mark Coates shooting where he was killed by a gunman who was using a North American Arms .22 derringer and fired the fatal shot after he had been shot 5 times with Coates' .357 magnum duty revolver. The magnum rounds hit non-vital areas (arms, legs, stomach) and the suspect fired the single round into the center mass of the Trooper, right above the panel his body armor near the armpit. That bullet struck the aorta and the officer bled to death in less than a minute. Plenty of people die every year from shots fired from .22, .25, .32, and .380 handguns. Many international police and military organizations have traditionally issued .32 and .380 handguns to their members (I strongly suspect that people were actually killed from rounds fired by these folks and they didn't always aim for their eyeball). A study of the New York City Police Department showed that after they switched to the 9mm from the .38, the outcomes of their shootings didn't change at all. Their hit ratio didn't improve, their fatal shooing rates didn't change, and the switch from revolver to Glock did nothing overall except make the officers feel better that they had modern semi-auto handguns. If two shots hit the same area, clearly the larger caliber would cause more damage, but if that area is a vital area, you are going to be just as dead either way. To suggest that a .380 to center mass won't kill a man is simply incorrect and the data shows it.

What is your point? I would take a .40S&W over a .223 any day if we are shooting people at close range. .223 is a paper punching round.

Normally I would agree, but the Hornady TAP ammunition was specifically designed for close-quarters combat. It was originally marketed to police agencies for use in tactical rifles (TAP stood for Tactical Application Police). It's a frangible ammunition that is designed to break apart on impact with the body and inflict maximum damage with no over-penetration. In this case, the rounds did not hit center mass. The point here is that the .40 rounds that hit center mass did the job that the super-duper .223 ammo couldn't do when they didn't hit vital areas. It doesn't matter what super powerful, super cool, super modern caliber you are firing; if you can't hit a vital area, it's virtually useless. To believe that a larger caliber gives you some incredible advantage over being able to aim and fire properly is dangerous.

I’m not making that argument. You are the one that that is saying nothing matters but shot placement. And you could possibly be right…. If you could do it? Can you?

I don't know for sure until I actually had to do it, but I do know that I never even came close to failing a firearms qualification, including the dynamic range exercises. I have qualified on every handgun, long gun, and shotgun placed in my hands while I was an officer. I wouldn't have been a state certified police firearms instructor unless I was exceptionally proficient with my shooting ability because the standards at the time were pretty strict. All that said, I would like to think that my practice, training, and mental preparation would allow me to do it, but one never knows until they get in that situation. And again, if I can't hit the target, it doesn't matter what I am shooting.

I'm not necessarily saying you are making any particular argument except that I am addressing the overall shot-placement vs. caliber debate, which you brought up in a way that was clearly intended as a dig at those who don't agree with your view. I'm challenging it with factual information; sorry if you don't like that. If you can find any combat shooting expert that says shot placement isn't absolutely essential, then I will be more open to giving credibility to the caliber argument.

But as I said before the whole bear thing does not apply to me.

If I am going traipsing around in the woods somewhere that I might stumble across an animal that could kill me and eat me I would me carrying my DPMS .308 Panther. Nothing could live through 19 rounds from that.

Now there is something we agree on...

Edited November 22, 2010 by East_TN_Patriot

[Oh Shoot]

Yes, people are saying it. People on this forum have said that carrying anythings less than a 9mm ...

[novelette supressed]

... If you can find any combat shooting expert that says shot placement isn't absolutely essential, then I will be more open to giving credibility to the caliber argument.

All well said.

But .25, .32, and .380 still suck.

Against bears, they still REALLY suck. :p

- OS