What Caliber For Dangerous Grizzly Bear, Open & Read This Link You Won't Believe This

[cwpayton]

http://www.bear-hunting.com/tactics?ID=6FD66CD5-9198-440F-B517-A71C6D1F8748

 

[Firebird]

Extremely cool story and a serious “girlboss” as my daughters would say. Thank you for posting!

 

[revturbo9967]

Cool story. I’ve been in bear hunting magazine a few times

 

[leslie hetrick]

two things i would take on a big bear hunt, my cz .375 H&H with the right shells and very fat friend with a limp.

 

[grand veneur]

Interesting story, but nothing new. The older hunters should have known the story for decades. I myself in Europe have known about it for more than 50 years and it is regularly quoted when it comes to which cartridges are suitable for hunting bears.

 

[Ryan]

I swear I'd read an article somewhere of a native in Alaska killing a polar bear in a similar way with a .22. it can be done if you're spitting distance and the shot is in the eye. If you aren't, you're now bear food because a bad shot didn't even slow it down.

 

[grand veneur]

Maybe there are several stories about bears killed with the 22 Rimfire, but I always heard of a native woman who did that.

 

[Certus]

I was thinking of brown bear cartridges and how they’ve suffered the power creep like most game. Having just purchased a 356 winchester - if basically matches the 348 factory loads with 250gr bullets, surely suitable brown bear round. Looks small in hand, but trust the ballistics I guess.

Funnily enough whilst deer need bigger and bigger cartridges elephant rounds have stayed the same

 

[HankBuck]

http://www.bear-hunting.com/tactics?ID=6FD66CD5-9198-440F-B517-A71C6D1F8748

View attachment 598576

Cwpayton: I certainly believe it and have read studies about Success Rates on Bear attacks defended with a Handgun - ALL calibers (even .22) have worked and .44 mag has a 100% success rate which is not surprising. But even 9mm and .357 and many others worked very well. I wish I was more “tech savvy“ and could post a comprehensive study that was done - involved over 50 Bear attacks (black & grizzly) defended against using handguns….. I would never worry about “which one” to carry - whatever one you can shoot and don’t mind carrying could prove very helpful

 

[Ryan]

Cwpayton: I certainly believe it and have read studies about Success Rates on Bear attacks defended with a Handgun - ALL calibers (even .22) have worked and .44 mag has a 100% success rate which is not surprising. But even 9mm and .357 and many others worked very well. I wish I was more “tech savvy“ and could post a comprehensive study that was done - involved over 50 Bear attacks (black & grizzly) defended against using handguns….. I would never worry about “which one” to carry - whatever one you can shoot and don’t mind carrying could prove very helpful

Alaska Magazine had an article 10 or so years ago on bear protection weapons compiling data from every incident they could. Their data did not agree with yours. In terms of handguns the 357 Mag faired better than a 44. Not that the round couldn't do it, but the person behind the gun couldn't. Basically you're average person can shoot a 357 better, and get more than one shot off. Most people only get one shot off with a 44, and not always a good shot. They emphasized whatever you use be competent with it. Sadly I have seen far too many people with 44s, and even worse a 50 S&W, on salmon streams I could tell probably didn't take it to the range much.

 

[Namagiqa]

Alaska Magazine had an article 10 or so years ago on bear protection weapons compiling data from every incident they could. Their data did not agree with yours. In terms of handguns the 357 Mag faired better than a 44. Not that the round couldn't do it, but the person behind the gun couldn't. Basically you're average person can shoot a 357 better, and get more than one shot off. Most people only get one shot off with a 44, and not always a good shot. They emphasized whatever you use be competent with it. Sadly I have seen far too many people with 44s, and even worse a 50 S&W, on salmon streams I could tell probably didn't take it to the range much.

This is very true. I've seen too many people move up here, buy a .44 and snort that they are now 'ready for bear'. No, you aren't. It's why Alaskans say if you buy a .44 for bear, file off the front site so it won't hurt as much when the bear sticks it up your ass. I know of 2 cases in which .44s purchased for bear cases instead wound up shooting people because the owners didn't know what they were doing or were mis-handling the firearm.
If you get a firearm for bear protection, take it to the range and become familiar with it. (BTW, this is one reason I'm not a huge fan of bear spray - its really difficult and expensive to adequately practice and become familiar with the spray.) Also, realize that situational awareness and smarts in bear country is going to be far, far more useful than any firearm that you have. You are much better off not getting into a bad situation with a bear than trying to use a firearm to get out of a bad situation. True, sometimes bad stuff just happens but bad stuff happens far more often because people are being stupid and not paying attention than some accident that brings them into contact with an angry bear.

 

[HankBuck]

Alaska Magazine had an article 10 or so years ago on bear protection weapons compiling data from every incident they could. Their data did not agree with yours. In terms of handguns the 357 Mag faired better than a 44. Not that the round couldn't do it, but the person behind the gun couldn't. Basically you're average person can shoot a 357 better, and get more than one shot off. Most people only get one shot off with a 44, and not always a good shot. They emphasized whatever you use be competent with it. Sadly I have seen far too many people with 44s, and even worse a 50 S&W, on salmon streams I could tell probably didn't take it to the range much.

Ryan, I’m only citing the most comprehensive bear attack study I could find and it was later revised after they added another 15-20 attacks - believe the final total was over 60 attacks where a handgun was used for defense. The study cover years and had many calibers used, I believe .22LR was used 4 times and then .380, 9mm. .38, .44 etc.. What surprised me was the variety that were effective. I agree with you that a .357 could be used accurately by more people then a .44 mag but “accuracy” at 5-10-25 feet might not be as much of an issue. The emphasis was that defending against a bear attack differs from hunting - you don’t need to Kill it, just deter the attack. I will do some google searches and see if I can find the name/date of the published study.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan, I’m only citing the most comprehensive bear attack study I could find and it was later revised after they added another 15-20 attacks - believe the final total was over 60 attacks where a handgun was used for defense. The study cover years and had many calibers used, I believe .22LR was used 4 times and then .380, 9mm. .38, .44 etc.. What surprised me was the variety that were effective. I agree with you that a .357 could be used accurately by more people then a .44 mag but “accuracy” at 5-10-25 feet might not be as much of an issue. The emphasis was that defending against a bear attack differs from hunting - you don’t need to Kill it, just deter the attack. I will do some google searches and see if I can find the name/date of the published study.

Fair enough. We're all after the same thing, how to best keep from becoming bear food.
I wish I could track down the article I'd read. I had a copy for years. It convinced more than one friend to get off his duff and get to the range more.

 

[HankBuck]

Fair enough. We're all after the same thing, how to best keep from becoming bear food.
I wish I could track down the article I'd read. I had a copy for years. It convinced more than one friend to get off his duff and get to the range more.

Published by “Dean Weingarten” in AMMOLAND around January 2018 or 2019. He reviewed 37 cases going back to 1937 and later added another 25 cases for a total of 62 or 63. His criteria was that a gun had to be actually “used”. He goes on to list some details of every attack/encounter including the end results. I found it very comprehensive. Many of the studies/recommendations published for “Bear Spray” include encounters that never manifested into an actual attack therefore it is unknown if the bear would have fully attacked. Bear spray appears better to intervene “early” in a bear encounter before an attack takes place - it is preferred by Park Rangers for this reason and a Ranger in Yellowstone & Glacier told me they “prefer spray” because its safer for the “bears”….no accidental kills from hikers that overreacted.

 

[R.M.C.]

I've heard that story quite a bit in reference to hunting calibers, definitely a lucky shot on her part but it does demonstrate how a .22 can kill anything if you can get the bullet in the right place.

 

[cwpayton]

Interesting story, but nothing new. The older hunters should have known the story for decades. I myself in Europe have known about it for more than 50 years and it is regularly quoted when it comes to which cartridges are suitable for hunting bears.

good stories never die. ever hear of Custer in Europe ?

 

[C.W. Richter]

I swear I'd read an article somewhere of a native in Alaska killing a polar bear in a similar way with a .22. it can be done if you're spitting distance and the shot is in the eye. If you aren't, you're now bear food because a bad shot didn't even slow it down.

a good deal of inuits/eskimos only have .243s or .22 centerfires, lol and these guys are your backup. (they go through a fair amount of ammo AND TP.)

 

[cwpayton]

Ryan, I’m only citing the most comprehensive bear attack study I could find and it was later revised after they added another 15-20 attacks - believe the final total was over 60 attacks where a handgun was used for defense. The study cover years and had many calibers used, I believe .22LR was used 4 times and then .380, 9mm. .38, .44 etc.. What surprised me was the variety that were effective. I agree with you that a .357 could be used accurately by more people then a .44 mag but “accuracy” at 5-10-25 feet might not be as much of an issue. The emphasis was that defending against a bear attack differs from hunting - you don’t need to Kill it, just deter the attack. I will do some google searches and see if I can find the name/date of the published study.

i hope to see that article, post it if you find it, more interesting to me is the hard ,fast rule the parks push for bear spray, they act like it never fails but we all know it does sometimes, myself I'm always carrying a fly rod or horse rein's ,ect in one hand so its either or on gun vs, spray .I had a grizzly'" wolf" at me and I could smell him while I was in a canoe on a small stream just sw of yellowstone. always feel under gunned with my 44 mag , would rather have a 12 gage with 00 and slugs,

 

[cwpayton]

a good deal of inuits/eskimos only have .243s or .22 centerfires, lol and these guys are your backup. (they go through a fair amount of ammo AND TP.)

Ive watched several russian hunters carring AK and sks style weapons in brown bear country.

 

[grand veneur]

good stories never die. ever hear of Custer in Europe ?

If you mean the general George Armstrong Custer, sure !

My great-grandfather born in 1856 is even said to have talked about Sitting Bull and the Battle of Little Big Horn.