Rethinking 357 magnum for backwoods carry.

[stubbicatt]

Typically I carry a 44 magnum Ruger Blackhawk when in the backwoods.

Here lately I have been rethinking 357 magnum for this use.

Here's my thinking-

Hereabouts there are some griz, or at least some have been sighted. Black bear are about. Wolves have been reintroduced.

As I understand it, the 44 magnum is preferred due to its ability to penetrate deeply, which is supposed to be important if one is talking about griz. So, I never really thought too terribly much about it, but followed the recommendation. As I understand it, sectional density is a very important aspect of penetration. What if one loaded 180 grain 357 magnum bullets? Would those penetrate as deeply as a 44 magnum?

If they would penetrate as deeply, would they serve as a backwoods sidearm as well as a 44?

Like I said, I'm just thinking about it a little bit more critically, and this has been on my mind.

[376Steyr]

So you're thinking about going toe to toe with a grizzly bear, but you don't want to use your 44 because that would give you an unfair advantage? You, sir, are indeed a manly man.:kidding:

[thegatman]

Bear spray much more effective than guns. But I would stick with a 44 over a 357.

[pls1911]

Think air and daylight transfer .
Toe to toe with anything higher on the food chain and lower on the evolutionary ladder means BIGGER IS BETTER.. maximum air release, maximum daylight transfer.
Never wrestled Griz myself , not planning to either.
Numerous close encounters with blacks, and only one filled my shorts.
Lucky for me and the bear, it was a draw and concluded with a peaceful end after a few rocks and trading hoops and growls.
I wasn't carrying.

[jmort]

"Bear spray much more effective than guns."

Yes. But bear spray and a gun is better. And, no, the .357 will not out penetrate the .44 with similar bullets and the .44 will have a larger wound channel. But, the .44 mag is less than ideal. The .45 Colt is a step-up in penetration as are the .475s and .500s with less recoil. The .44 mag would be the bottom end for me if I were going to encounter a grizzly bear, but all I have is .357 mags so I would go with a 200 grain bullet and go for the head. There was an article in Handloader about a year ago, something like "357 mag for Bear Country/Defense" and the 200 grain LBT at around 1000 fps was the clear winner in terms of penetration and wound channel. I would step up to a 200 grain bullet. Penetration is not all about speed. Linebaugh has this to say:

"But why create a new handgun at all? The .44 Remington Magnum had been around since the 1950’s. Why not just use that?
The .44 Magnum is like a small V-8. What’s wrong with it? Nothing. It’s a small block Chevy. Going up and down the road, it’s fine. But you put a trailer on it? It can’t do it.
Can’t do what?

From the shooting and testing I did, I found the .45 Colt, even though it has a lot less velocity, would outperform the .44 Magnum. Now, you plug the numbers in from the ballistics tables and mathematical models, and it all comes out in favor of the .44 Mag. But we just couldn’t get it to work on the range or in the field. The problem is, the faster you push a bullet, the faster it decelerates. It builds up a block of air in front of the bullet. Ultimately, less speed creates less resistance, creates more penetration. So with the .45 Colt and the .500 Linebaugh, you have about 25 percent less chamber pressure than the .44 Mag., less recoil and more control. All the testing I’ve done also found deeper penetration than the .44, too. My big bores run best at 1,200 to 1,300 feet per second. After that, you’re just gaining recoil and noise."
What’s your favorite, every day handgun?
A .500 Linebaugh with a 4 ¾ inch barrel. That little gun doesn’t kick at all."
http://www.gundigest.com/the-gun-digest-interview/gun-digest-interview-with-john-linebaugh

Brian Pearce says this:

A good example of this took place on June 24, 1987, when Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Officer Louis Kis was relocating a 400-pound male grizzly, a known aggressive bear. The cage containing the bear was in the back of a pickup, and upon releasing him, the mad grizzly turned and bit the cage, pulling it from the pickup bed along with Officer Kis, who was on top of the cage. The bear instantly pounced onto Kis and locked onto his leg, shattering bones.
Louis was carrying a Smith & Wesson Model 66 .357 Magnum loaded with department-issued 158-grain jacketed hollowpoint (JHP) ammunition. In discussing this attack, Louis told me things happened so quickly that one instant he was on top of the cage and the next instant the bear (with a head that appeared to be three feet wide) was on top of him! He was in a tough position to place a bullet in a vital spot, but with the bear biting and shaking him, he knew he must act instantly to survive. His first four shots were placed above the bear’s eye, but the soft bullets were turned by the thick skull and angled over the zygomatic arches, rather than penetrating to the brain. In the ruckus his sixgun was knocked muzzle upwards and the fifth shot went into the air. His sixth shot was placed under the throat wherein the bullet managed to penetrate up to the axis joint (where the neck attaches to the skull) breaking it and the spine, killing the bear instantly. His gun continued to “click” several times after the bear fell dead!
It is difficult to say without examining the skull and recovered bullets, but I suspect that if Louis would have been using a heavy, hard cast bullet, the first shot would have likely killed the bear. Using the 173-grain Keith bullet (Lyman mould 358429) in .357 Magnums, I have killed many head of livestock, which have much thicker skulls, with a single shot to the brain. In fact Louis commented that he thought his .22 Magnum revolver, loaded with 40-grain solids would have had enough penetration to do the trick.

Ken also relates another story, wherein a man and his wife were sleeping in a small trailer house in logging camp. A bear broke into the house during the night and attacked the man, who managed to grab his .44 Magnum near the bed and shoot the bear three times as it mauled him and dragged him into the front room. His wife followed with her .357 Magnum revolver and managed to kill the bear, likely saving her husband’s life. - See more at: https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=627&magid=48#sthash.5IMFNIVG.dpuf
Generally it is best to put a bullet under the chin, going deep into the chest, reaching vitals. A shoulder shot is also a good possibility as it is large, and if we use a powerful enough gun to break structure, it will likely turn the bear, at least long enough to get another shot from a quartering angle or possibly from the side. If the caliber/bullet is up to the job, a shoulder can be broken and the bullet can still penetrate deep into the vitals. If the bear turns to any degree, take advantage of this quickly and put a slug through his lungs, which may not be instantly fatal, but death is not far away. - See more at: https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=627&magid=48#sthash.5IMFNIVG.dpuf
While it is suggested to carry as powerful a revolver as can be mastered, because of the need to reduce recoil, some will find favor with the .41 and .357 Magnums. If the right bullet is used and shot placement is correct, they will work. Another good choice, that is strictly a handloading proposition, is the .44 Special. In a heavy N-frame Smith & Wesson or a postwar Colt Single Action Army, a 250-grain Keith bullet can safely be driven to 1,200 fps, making it a more effective cartridge than either the .357 or .41 Magnums. - See more at: https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=627&magid=48#sthash.5IMFNIVG.dpuf
- See more at: https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=627&magid=48#sthash.5IMFNIVG.dpuf

[Maximumbob54]

Bear spray much more effective than guns. But I would stick with a 44 over a 357.

Have you seen the woman spray the bear in the face and the bear proceeds to eat her canoe? This is just a guess but I'm thinking if you spray bullets in a bear's face you won't get the same kind of reaction.

[NSB]

The .357mag has been my favorite pistol cartridge for almost fifty years now. I've killed over fifty white tails with it and it's worked perfectly as long as the bullet is put on the right spot. That being said, I'd NEVER consider it even reasonably acceptable for a carry gun in griz territory. I've shot several deer with the 180g bullets driven to the highest velocities and they perform "OK" on deer, but don't even always pass through on an average size whitetail. The 44mag would be my minimum choice for a large bear encounter. By "large", I'm talking grizzly bears. Black bears are a completely different animal in both size and personality.

[Sean357]

I carry Buffalo Bore 180 gr gc hardcast in my 3" SP101 and don't feel undergunned, although I would like to have the extra velocity from another inch of barrel. That may change if I have to use it. Been thinking of trying some 200 gr hardcast from doubletap or underwood though.

[reed1911]

This is all rather interesting, and I honestly have no experience with Griz. I do have a lot of experience with ballistics both in paper (mathematical) terms as well as real world testing. My overall results show that #1 shot placement is paramount to everything #2 yup, bigger is better, #3 heavier is better. So, in you case, OP, provided you can shoot well with a 300g or 320g WFN in the .44 Mag you are much better prepared than running a 180g or 200g WFN in the .357. In terms of SD is indeed important to penetration, but in the real world shots to a Griz. close in, in an emergency, play very little into it. Chances are you would not have enough time to properly place the shot to begin with, so everything else tends to go out the window. Carry a gun you are comfortable with, that you use on such a regular basis that muscle memory is automatic and leave the rest to the "fates". A large bore heavy slug will do what it needs to do, you just work on accuracy and muscle memory.

[Greg S]

If you are, go with at least a 170+ tough bullet. I consider a 10mm with 180-220 being minimum inland and a 44 or 45 with a heavy @ 1200-1250 min for coastal/salmon stream areas. Immanate danger, 12 ga or 375+ rifle.

If it is a weight issue, go with S&W 329. Just realize that it'll have to go back to the facory periodically for service to replace the stainless steel blast shield.

Bear spray is unreliable from what I've read and in the predatory attacks useless. In the use of force scale, once it goes hands on go straight to deadly force.

Probably about ten years ago now, reportedly a guy was attacked & killed by a bear up near the park. Several attacks during this time occurred. Apparently, someone shot the bear 3-4 times with a 38 and wounded it and the bear survived but went the easier route for its food source after being injured. As I recall, a remote abandoned tent site was found later. Further investigation revealed some remains and a 38/357 handgun. Still looking for the artcles.

[jmorris]

Yes. But bear spray and a gun is better.

I would say that depends on which one you put in your hand vs which on should have been in your hand. I guess these days you might have to worry about the Bears name and public outcry if you shot it...

[Mica_Hiebert]

I believe the old saying is first rule to winning a gun fight, is have a gun! I would rather have a 22 pistol than the closest rock I can pick up off the ground with that being said the best gun for self defense if the one you are comfortable with both shooting and carrying, a light 357 on your hip beats a heavy 44 mag left in the truck any day of the week! Here in north central Idaho 357 is plenty for cougar, wolf and black bear I am 105% confident i will never run into a Grizzly and the only time I ever felt like I didnt have enough gun was when I walked up on a teritorial bull moose the size of a VW van!

[Greg S]

I think with bears, on a chance encounter, black bears are more aggressive than browns and if they commit to a charge, don't wait to see if it is a bluff or not. In a predatory situation I'd consider both the same. The main thing with bear attacks up here are common sense, loosing situational awareness and surprising a bear or getting sucked in close for pictures. Folks see pictures in mags all the time and want to duplicate the 'experiance'. A friend who has provided meals for a few NatGeo sponsered bear photo shoots in Katami Nat Res has been out in the blinds with these pro pic takers and what looks close is actually ground blinds and telephoto lenses. Some of the pics she has look so up close and personal you could feel the hot breath but as I said were actually taken from a distance.

[therealhitman]

Bear spray much more effective than guns. But I would stick with a 44 over a 357.

Do you name your guns too? In an odd coincidence, I named my 45-70 "Bear Spray". [smilie=s:

[Piedmont]

The .357mag has been my favorite pistol cartridge for almost fifty years now. I've killed over fifty white tails with it and it's worked perfectly as long as the bullet is put on the right spot. That being said, I'd NEVER consider it even reasonably acceptable for a carry gun in griz territory. I've shot several deer with the 180g bullets driven to the highest velocities and they perform "OK" on deer, but don't even always pass through on an average size whitetail. The 44mag would be my minimum choice for a large bear encounter. By "large", I'm talking grizzly bears. Black bears are a completely different animal in both size and personality.

Was that a cast 180 gr. bullet? If not, your comment doesn't mean much. It is hard for me to imagine a 180 grain hard cast bullet not penetrating enough at the velocities possible from a .357 Magnum revolver.

[Scharfschuetze]

I usually carry a 41 Magnum Model 58 that's an old service revolver that I shoot well from several years of use on the PD. No doubt bigger is better though, but boolit placement is important too. When not in Grizzly country the J Frame S&W 3" Model 60 is my carry gun.

I imagine that being in a fracas with a grizzly would be kind of like being in a gun fight with a bad guy. You will always want a bigger gun than the one you have.

I also carry bear spray and this summer I had the can out ready for use and I was also thinking of grabbing my revolver too when this bruin showed up while on a hike with my wife and daughter in Montana. It wasn't too interested in us and was actively digging up ground squirrels. When it showed no hostile intent, I decided on snapping a few photos. Had we been a few minutes earlier or a few hundred yards further down the mountain and surprised this big guy, it could have been quite a different story.

Bottom line? Glad I had both my revolver and bear spray with me. As we were just below the timber line, the sub-alpine fir trees were stunted and small so climbing a tree was out of the question.

[DougGuy]

If you could get a .357 to do what a .44 will do they would have never invented the .44 so on paper all of it looks convincing. In the real world, even a man stopper needs to start with a 4 so for a bear? There is even a question about less than a .44? If I am in bear country I'm thinking a small shoulder mounted howitzer.

A .357 is NO MATCH for a bear. It's measurably better than nothing but you are really cutting down on the killing ability of your sidearm by even choosing the .357 for woods carry.

[paul h]

Bear spray much more effective than guns. But I would stick with a 44 over a 357.

A couple things to consider with pepper spray. It is not 100% effective and there is no way to know if the bear you encounter will be detterred or not. If the wind is in your face it will incapacitate you. I am not personally willing to let a bear get close enough to me to find out it is not deterred by pepper spray as by that point it will be too late to bring a gun into action.

Properly used, a suitably powerful gun with proper ammunition is 100% effective.

My primary barr gun is a Ruger SRH 480 loaded with 400 gr cast @ 1200 fps.

When I don't want to pack that weight and consider bear encounters unlikely I pack a blackhawk 357 loaded with 200 gr hardcast clocking over 1200 fps. A strong 357 loaded to the gills is no popgun. The issue with 357's is many of the guns aren't strong enough to handle such loads and most 357 bullets are unsuitable.

[NSB]

Was that a cast 180 gr. bullet? If not, your comment doesn't mean much. It is hard for me to imagine a 180 grain hard cast bullet not penetrating enough at the velocities possible from a .357 Magnum revolver.
You're free to imagine anything you want. Hard cast bullets aren't magical, just the thinking that goes along with them.

[paul h]

And bears aren't bullet proof

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/081902/ala_081602ala0040001.shtml#.VjJd4Lf2Bpg

[Cornbread]

Personally I carry a 2" 454 Casull for bear protection and I live smack in the middle of Montana grizzly country but I'll always try bear spray first if possible, extensive studies in the US and Canada have shown that when used in 98% of the cases it was deployed the bear never bit the person even once. Firearms only have a 60 something percent chance of preventing any bites during the attack no matter if the bear dies or not. I've only ever had to kill one bear with that snubby and it was a black bear and it worked just fine but they don't drop on the spot(unless you get a CNS hit) even with end to end penetration which is what I got with my load on that bear (I shot it in the chest and it came out its back leg). I was using 255grn hard cast and after what I saw performance I moved my loads up in weight to 350grn. Grizzlies here are about the same size as a big black bear, we don't have any Alaskan coastal size monsters size wise that I have ever seen or heard of but 600lbs of angry anything coming at you is going to make you wish you had brought the 45-70 or 12ga with slugs. If had a choice of only the two calibers you mentioned I would definitely go 44 mag.

[flyingrhino]

1911 460 Rowland conversion. Mine is on a Kimber Classic Gold Match. Johnny's 255 grain hard cast dangerous game loads. Sweet shooter, low recoil.

[tradbear55]

So you're thinking about going toe to toe with a grizzly bear, but you don't want to use your 44 because that would give you an unfair advantage? You, sir, are indeed a manly man.:kidding:
That's funny stuff right there!:-D

[paralaska]

I carry bear spray and my .454 Ruger Toklat . . . Before I got the Toklat . . . It was a .44 mag Blackhawk . . . Forget the .357 for bear . .

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm always amused by people that try to find some super-giant-hand cannon that will do what a long gun will do. A handgun is a poor substitute for a long gun. I understand that long guns are not always practical but if I really thought I was going to end up in a gun fight or toe to toe with a grizzly - I would 1st, try to avoid the situation all-together and if that wasn't an option; arm myself with a long gun and bring as many friends with long guns as I could find.

Handguns are way better than harsh language in a life or death struggle but if I think the threat is real, I'm bringing a big gun.

[dragon813gt]

I see you missed the threads about handguns out shooting rifles on the regular ;)

[tazman]

I have a friend who occasionally goes fishing in bear country in the northwest. He carries either a 12 gauge with slugs or a 458 Win Mag strapped to his back. He said he would rather put up with the inconvenience than the hospital/funeral bill.

Years ago, I read a story in one of the gun magazines about a bear hunt in the northwest area. The hunter took a large bear, not certain which species. When they cleaned it, they found 6 recent bullet holes in the hide. Upon further dissecting, they came up with 6 slugs apparently fired from a 38 special at very close range. They never did find out what happened to the shooter but the bear was healthy enough it showed no signs of injury when they were stalking it.
You have to respect the big bears.

[Piedmont]

You're free to imagine anything you want. Hard cast bullets aren't magical, just the thinking that goes along with them.

I guess I have to imagine because you won't tell me whether the 180s you used that wouldn't shoot through a deer were cast or jacketed.

[Petrol & Powder]

I see you missed the threads about handguns out shooting rifles on the regular ;)

Didn't miss them, just ignored them [smilie=s:

[Thumbcocker]

I am asking tis in all seriousness having never shot a .454 or a .500. Do they actually recoil less that a .44 SBH loaded with say 310's at 1250 or so?

[35remington]

No they do not. Bigger heavier bullets at equivalent speeds mean more recoil.

[dragon813gt]

I am asking tis in all seriousness having never shot a .454 or a .500. Do they actually recoil less that a .44 SBH loaded with say 310's at 1250 or so?

I'd like to type a four letter word that begins w/ a H before the word no but the word filter will censor it. They are a lot more to handle. They are a lot more to handle no matter what people say. Gloves are a must for the biggest hand cannons. A 44 is a handful but is still manageable. Above that and all bets are off.

[Cornbread]

I've never had a problem shooting my 2" 454. It's stout and isn't a ton of fun to shoot but I shoot it at least once a week to make sure when the time comes I hit what I am aiming at. It seems to work because I did hit exactly what I was aiming at when I shot the bear with it. I have never shot a 2" 44mag but my regular length 454s in 6.5" kick a LOT harder than the only 6.5" 44mag I shot. I think it is really about practice, if you aren't going to practice with it, it's not going to do much good no matter what you carry. You might get lucky, you might not, but I do know that the more you practice the "luckier" you will get.

[9.3X62AL]

My Bear Gun is a rifle--in 9.3 x 52 caliber, with 286 grain NosParts departing at about 2425 FPS. Rifle beats both sideiron and spray all hollow. No griz/browns where I live, but the blackies are enough of a PITA without assistance from their larger relatives. The 44 or 357 Mags go along for the ride, but aren't in the lead role. I've had a bear close enough to smell him but still out of view, occurrences like that skew your perceptions a bit. The Redhawk 44 didn't seem big or heavy at the time, and something belt-fed would have been deeply treasured......a GAU, maybe.

[Three44s]

"A handgun is for fighting your way back to your long gun" .......... Clint Smith makes that point as I recall ........ and I subscribe to it!

That said ......... it might be too many steps back to your long gun and the situation may well not allow you to make those steps ..........

........... SO, I maintain that your side arm ought to be up to the task!

We can delude ourselves into buying into the smaller gun theory ........ but I'll pass ...... I won't even bite.

And the arguement that a handgun is not worthy is empty ..... the premise that if we knew there would be bad things we were about to run into ........ we'd bring a long gun ........

Well, I for one knowing there was bad around that corner ............

......... would not go there! I would not take a long gun .......... if I was required to go ......... I'd enlist the services of an Abrams Tank!

All that said, I have about the gamuout of handguns save for the .454 and the .475 and 500 lineage.

My choice sidearms are my .44's and my .480 Ruger.

The pepper spray makes sense for arguement purposes once you are in a court room ......... heck, maybe you have to spray the bear after you drop him if you have to ........... cause it's my understanding .......... you have to SHAKE them to get the good stuff off the bottom of the can ......

................. you got time for that? ........... Maybe and maybe not

It always amuses me that some folks argue there is no time to fight off a bear with a handgun .........and yet others are expousing using a can of stuff that must be shook before using.

The truth is you may well not have time for ANY of the described methods .... but I for one at least like to have an option of taking the "nasty" with me ...... to hadies! .......... (or there abouts)

Best regards

Three 44s

[MtGun44]

The handgun is essentially a power drill in this kind of service. Hole diameter is nice but much
less important than depth.

I think a Federa Cast Core 180 gr LBT style would be good commercial ammo and a LBT 180 handloaded
with a max charge or Keith 358429 cast and also over a max charge would be good choices if one does
not want to carry a .44 Mag.

Pepper spray is likely to be effective. But recognize that the effects are temporary. I spoke with a
timber worker years ago in Alaska who told of using pepper spray on an attacking griz while a long
way from his truck. He started back, walking and the griz came at him repeatedly as he traveled,
being driven off successfully each time. After a couple of attacks, he was getting worried and wondering
how many more squirts were left in the large canister. He shot the last of the canister not too far
from the truck and ran for it.

The pistol is a more permanent deterrent if the pepper spray isn't convincing the bear.

[shoot-n-lead]

jmort...a 45colt is NOT a step up in penetration...at the same velocity and bullet weight, a 44mag out penetrates a colt...honest to GOD...you colt guys just will not tell it, straight...and I include Linebaugh in this...the colt is his preference...he makes his living building them.

Also, like you, I have shot a few 45colt rounds and with the same velocity and bullet weight...the colt has JUST AS MUCH recoil as the 44mag...recoil is not determined by chamber pressure.

[Suo Gan]

We gun collectors use many means to justify a gun collection. Bear protection being a nifty way to buy and try out a few more. After all, what woman would want their man to die in the jaws of a blood thirsty grizzly bear?

I have been known to use this angle.

Never taken mine out of the scabbard in fright of death by bruin in my life. The recoil of that sumbitch with full house loads bout kills any apetite for shooting it beyond six times.

[Greg S]

Scharfe, those were my thoughts to during a conversation with a biologist out in his office. He said if it was a black bear, don't be surprised if it's waiting for you at the top of the tree, they can climb alot faster than you.:shock:

[Scharfschuetze]

Greg S,

Yes, your biologist friend was right. Black bears can and do climb trees. I've been around them many times, once as close as four or five feet at dusk. We both went our separate ways after the surprise wore off without much argument about it. I used to see them quite often in close proximity while hunting blue grouse in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming or the Medicine Bow Mountains of Colorado. The berries that attracted the grouse also attracted the black bears, but they never posed any real threat. A sow with cubs is certainly to be taken seriously though.

I've been told that grizzly bears cannot climb trees and I believe that is so. For that reason, it's always in the back of my mind when in grizzly country (like a bush pilot always looking for a place to land his plane in case of engine failure in the boondocks) to always keep an eye out for a climbable tree as a possible option (time allowing) with an onerous Ursus Horribillis.

[9.3X62AL]

In the local mountains near where I now live (and grew up), a rather unique situation has existed regarding the black bears that inhabit the area. Commencing after WWII and continuing into the 1970s, it was the policy and practice of the U.S. Park Service and U.S. Forest Service to not eliminate pest bears from Sequoia/Kings Canyon/Yosemite NPs or the forest lands surrounding these parks--this was pre-3-Strikes, I suppose. The "resolution" to the problem was transfer of the bears habituated to human food and ursine recalcitrance to the San Bernardino National Forest. Primary release point was at the north/top end of Whitewater Canyon Road, and the bears sallied forth to continue their freebooting in a new playground. (This is reminiscent of how Los Angeles authorities encouraged Crips and Bloods to leave the Big City and emigrate to Palmdale and Moreno Valley, thus further despoiling already-marginal communities into gladiator academies.......but I digress).

What took place was the concentration of pest bear behaviors and tendencies in one area and a generational transfer of these traits to bear cubs for many years, and a moratorium on black bear hunting toward the end of this timeframe aggravated an already bad situation. What resulted is a population of resident bears without much fear of humans--some shagnasty dining and destruction habits--and genuine danger to mountain residents and visitors. Only in recent years has it become policy to destroy habitual pest bears, so slowly the problem animals are getting winnowed out. Conditions are far from ideal, though. So--a long arm goes along on ALL mountain excursions with any chance of leaving the pavement.

[Grump]

And bears aren't bullet proof

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/081902/ala_081602ala0040001.shtml#.VjJd4Lf2Bpg
Hmmm, no comment yet on this story being of a bear succumbing to 9mm FMJ.

Yup, 9mm "popgun".

Sounds like it went down to two shots center of mass. Survivor then put three more into the head.

The "Mozambique" for two-legged predators might now be supplemented by the "Kenai" for bear: Two COM and then THREE to the head. Still not sure I would trust one magazine of 9mm to three attacking bears (15+1, gotta save that last shot for bullet-kari if the first 15 are unsuccessful?).

Gotta be prepared for those gangsta bears.

[rintinglen]

"Ya dance with the gal ya brought."

The fellow who killed the grizzlie with a 9mm joins the fellow who dropped his bruin bad boy with an AK a few years back. They used what they had to do what needed to be done. I dare say that's how I'd try to go about it, were things to alter so that I might be grizzly bait. But I don't own a dedicated bear defense handgun.

I do have a 44 Taurus Tracker that sort of does "bear body-guard" duty for me. It's more of a revolving multi tool than a dedicated bruin buster. I don't have many grizzlies hereabouts--I believe they killed the last one about 109 years ago, but I have run into a black bear a time or three, and I'd have no concern about being undergunned. They simply aren't that big. I carry the 44 while photo-stalking snakes, because of mountain lions or two legged varmints. If a bear came into the picture, I suppose that it might work there too.

I don't carry it if I am hunting, cause then I'll Have a bigger gun.

[stubbicatt]

Thanks fellas for the insights. I really don't want to carry my 12 gauge with slugs, but I suppose I could. It's not all that heavy, I don't suppose. Or I'll just keep on doing the 44 in the holster approach. Like I said, I was just thinking about the effectiveness of 180 grain bullet, and one of you had recounted his deer hunts with the 357 magnum and a 180 grain bullet which didn't penetrate the deer.

ETA: I hadn't really thought of bear spray. I'm still thinking I would rather blast an aggressive bear than squirt him. He would have to be awful damn close to be affected by spray. I'd rather not have one that close.

[outdoorfan]

I would just about have to see it to believe it that a .35 caliber 180+ grain bullet at 1100-1300 fps at enough bhn to not deform much (or at all) will not fully penetrate a deer every time.

[Airman Basic]

Bear spray much more effective than guns. But I would stick with a 44 over a 357.
I know I've put this here before, but dang, it fits so well.

[Scharfschuetze]

Ha, ha! Yes, that pretty well covers it Airman. Love the last sentence and it applies to one of my outdoor adventures this last summer.

While up in Alberta, Canada earlier this year, we made the climb up to Crypt Lake. This is a strenuous trail hike and I saw (and heard) a few hikers with bells on. The current thinking is that the bells actually do more harm than good when it comes to Grizzlies. As I was in Canada, I was sans revolver which was a bit unusual for me. Not sure I want to place all my faith in bear spray.

[rondog]

I just wanna know where these "grizzly bears" are in Colorado.....

[Greg S]

I consider bear spray a feel good device. Have you ever seen a police -bad boy situation where the bad boy is arguemenative and non-compliant. The mace comes out, he is warned, he is maced then looks at the cops as if thats all you got and the melee starts. Mace is a false security, it allows folks to feel to confident that it'll work and instead of a slow tactical retreat before it becomes confrontational they stand their ground as the bear closes the distance. Bears can run deer down within a short distance. Its like a guy with a knife in an armed encounter, how close are you going to let in before he can beat your reaction time. If you are going to spray, you beter fill both hands and be ready to drop the hammer or get a Hell Mary started before he bends you over...

[pls1911]

+1 on the .45 Colt, loaded with 250 grain lead bullet over 10 grains unique. It's a Ruger only load but penetrates through two good sized hogs broadside.

[9.3X62AL]

I have biases and preferences just like everyone else has, and that extends to handgun calibers. I have great respect for the field capabilities of the 44 Magnum and 45 Colt--in the latter caliber, its 1873 levels and its Ruger-intensity both do fine work in their intended niches.

My longtme favorite handgun caliber remains the 357 Magnum, though. It was approved for carry by my agency during the latter third of my career, at the same time the 40 S&W was added as an option. Better late than never, I suppose (~1994 IIRC). The load approved at that time was the W-W 158 grain JHP, and it stayed on until a few years ago when it was replaced by the much-touted Federal #357B loading--featuring a 125 grain JHP that sets out at 1440 FPS per the ad copy. (Real work from my S&W 686 x 4" shows chrono speeds of 1425 FPS +/- 20 FPS, so the paper claims seem accurate).

I had no objections to the old classic 158 JHP load for felon-hunting. As far as perp-blasting goes, no 357 Magnum load is a "bad" choice--they all do good work. There was an impression that the 158 JHPs didn't expand reliably when fired into mediums, and I suspect these results were derived from 2"-2.5" barrels and likely smaller/lighter platforms like the J-frame S&Ws. Another unemphasized factor was recoil, I'm sure--the Federal load has perceptibly less subjective recoil than do the old-school cartridges. The FBI-approved Federal 357B load did a lot of good things in the view of onlookers.......it gave a lighter bullet the velocity of "original" Doug Wesson 357 Magnum loadings--1450 FPS or thereabouts--at lowered pressures (new SAAMI MAPP standard of 36K PSI vs. old standard of 42.5K PSI), more reliable expansion at those speeds (supposedly), but still did (and do) bad things to K-frame S&W 357s over time. The L-frame S&Ws came out c. 1980 to address these pressure issues, just in time to have SAAMI render them largely moot.

Is the 357 Magnum adequate for bear protection? Generally, I don't favor handguns for that chore--but a 357 Magnum beats hell out of throwing rocks or pepper spray. As I said in private correspondence with a poster in this thread, my primary use for sideiron in the backcountry isn't bears, it is upright bipeds with malignant intent. At this work the 357 Magnum excels--shoots harder and flatter than the other authorized options I have available--and in a pinch can be pressed into service versus shaggy freebooters on four feet (thanks to John Muir).

[FN in MT]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h274/montanaguy375/965678_10151977112242296_1189293507_o_zps6b849b7f. jpg (http://s66.photobucket.com/user/montanaguy375/media/965678_10151977112242296_1189293507_o_zps6b849b7f. jpg.html)

Here's a wild, Western MT Grizzly. They get THIS large.

What do Ya think? .357 or .44 mag? LOL.

[jmort]

For that ^^^ creature, I would step it up .454 or .460 or .475 or .480. or better yet .500. I get nervous just sitting in my arm-chair when I think about running into something like that.

[dualsport]

My Bear Gun is a rifle--in 9.3 x 52 caliber, with 286 grain NosParts departing at about 2425 FPS. Rifle beats both sideiron and spray all hollow. No griz/browns where I live, but the blackies are enough of a PITA without assistance from their larger relatives. The 44 or 357 Mags go along for the ride, but aren't in the lead role. I've had a bear close enough to smell him but still out of view, occurrences like that skew your perceptions a bit. The Redhawk 44 didn't seem big or heavy at the time, and something belt-fed would have been deeply treasured......a GAU, maybe.
There you have it. Until you've 'been there' it all seems interesting. Living thru an encounter changes everything. You will forget all about things like weight, inconvenient, bulky, etc. When it goes down you will wish you had a bigger gun. .357 for grizz?! Good luck.

[tazman]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h274/montanaguy375/965678_10151977112242296_1189293507_o_zps6b849b7f. jpg (http://s66.photobucket.com/user/montanaguy375/media/965678_10151977112242296_1189293507_o_zps6b849b7f. jpg.html)

Here's a wild, Western MT Grizzly. They get THIS large.

What do Ya think? .357 or .44 mag? LOL.

How about 460 Weatherby Mag--preferably at 100 yards or better. Maybe from the inside of a bunker.

[gray wolf]

I would find a good nature museum and and look up a full size taxidermy Grizzly.
Take the 357 bullet out of your pocket and hold it up next to the Griz.

Go and have a hot Coffee and ponder it

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h274/montanaguy375/965678_10151977112242296_1189293507_o_zps6b849b7f. jpg

https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth% 3Fid%3DOIP.M96336c9fd79d44377490c092c3e8c71fH0%26p id%3D15.1%26H%3D120%26W%3D160&sp=16942fe5f73419961f59fba40ecc4ebf
But that's just what I would do ---just saying

[stubbicatt]

Yes. That photo does put things into perspective, doesn't it?

I've never seen one of those critters up close and personal, and have no desire to do so.

So... 12 gauge and round ball you say?

[Thumbcocker]

Something belt fed and crew served comes to mind. May be a tough to find a shoulder holster though.

[9.3X62AL]

Something belt fed and crew served comes to mind. May be a tough to find a shoulder holster though.

THIS was my thought in 2002 when that black bear got the bulge on Marie and I in the berry patch. The Redhawk felt as light as a 3-weight fly rod, and seemed just about as effective as a counter-measure. All went well, and discretion was the better part of valor.

[Lonegun1894]

As much as I love the .357 (and carry one on and off duty), I don't think there is a right answer that fits everyone. Here is my theory on dealing with any threat that needs to be dropped RIGHT NOW. Use the biggest and most powerful weapon that you have and can handle quickly and accurately. If that is a .357, so be it. If it is a .44, even better. Just use the best you have that you shoot well, cause ammo is much cheaper than medical bills or a funeral.

[9.3X62AL]

Lone Gun summed things up nicely.

One of the projects in queue for the past year+ during my shooting/reloading hiatus has been some R&D on the re-bored Win 94 I have in 38-55. My goal is 1750-1800 FPS with a gas-checked 250 grain-class cast bullet, and I have a 1# coffee can full of 92/6/2 castings of the RCBS 37-250 FNGC thanks to the loan of said mould by Urny a while back. The intent is to develop some Black Bear Medicine for the local mountains, where lead alloy bullets will remain kosher until 2019. The "serious" bullets for this app will be cast as BruceB Softpoints, but homogenous-alloy bullets have shown in 4 calibers to shoot to the same POI as their soft-pointed counterparts with the same powder amount, so this mode will be a viable short-cut to learn by.

[Char-Gar]

Down here in Deep South Texas the only critters that can prove dangerous is the rattlesnake and the two legged pendejo. A 357 magnum is plenty of handgun for these critters. Where you live might be different. I have never seen a bear in Texas, although there are some I am told.

[Three44s]

My thinking to the OP is this:

If you have a .44 why would you purposely downgrade?

My packer is a Smith Mountain gun in .44 .... the only reason I switch down to a .357 in a situation where bears are possible would be for concealment ...... my SP 101 for instance ..... and quite frankly, so long as the gun is on the outside of my britches ....... the Mountain Gun in .44 feels a lot better.

A bear is nothing to mess with ... what someone can do with a pop gun under ideal conditions casts little light on what happens during a confrontation (adrenaline, the bear's).

There was a professional guide that wrote an extensive piece in a huntin' rag a few years back ..... he spent the whole article extolling his real world vision on why he did not need a .44 so why should you?

Well, in the end he gave his .357 to his daughter that was also a guide and went back to a .44 ......

His name is Phil Shoemaker ... I am sure if you want. a search will drag it up.

The griz in the picture is a little fat by my recollection but my experience is most limited ..... I saw them a year ago at the West Yellowstone Recovery Center ...... they have some problem bears there ........ but in any case, my minimum would be a good .44 and better yet, my .480 and between you and me ...... one of those Abrams tanks would be a lot better ....... just shut the lid and wait it out!

Best regards

Three 44s

[Rick Hodges]

Ha! Years ago, squirrel hunting with a 22 rifle, I was distracted by a patch of blackberries....wonderful sweet delicious berries.....I don't know who was more surprised me or the damn bear.....but we both went in opposite directions as fast as our feet could carry us....thank God!
I am of the bigger is better school of thought.

[Ric-san]

Wow...lots of great info on this thread...

[paul h]

I'd like to type a four letter word that begins w/ a H before the word no but the word filter will censor it. They are a lot more to handle. They are a lot more to handle no matter what people say. Gloves are a must for the biggest hand cannons. A 44 is a handful but is still manageable. Above that and all bets are off.

I've shot quite a few of the big bore revolvers, 44's, 45's, 454's, 475's, 480's and 500's. I have found that I have a recoil threshold over which it is extremely difficult for me to shoot a revolver accurately. Recoil and how you handle it is a combination of gun weight, grip shape, bullet weight, bullet velocity, powder charge and the pressure of the powder when it leaves the barrel. What I have found is that the 44 with 300's @ 1300 fps, the 45 with 330's at 1300 fps and the 480 with 400's at 1200 fps is the upper level of what I can handle.

When you get to the 454 with the added snap of pushing those bullets 1500 fps, or the 475 and 500 pushing 400+ gr bullets 1300+ fps, the recoil becomes extremely difficult to handle. I know people that have mastered those guns and who can make long range off hand shots that you'd have to see first hand to believe.

That all said bear gun threads are always interesting because likely less than 1% of those posting their opinions have seen a grizzly or brown bear in the wilds at handgun range, and just as likely of those who have been that close to the big bears, less than 1% of them have had faced a true charge.

Can a strong properly loaded 357 kill a big bear, absolutely

Is it a good or the best choice, absolutely not.

[Cornbread]

That all said bear gun threads are always interesting because likely less than 1% of those posting their opinions have seen a grizzly or brown bear in the wilds at handgun range, and just as likely of those who have been that close to the big bears, less than 1% of them have had faced a true charge.


^This!!!

Because of where I live I run into them berry picking, grouse hunting, and sometimes just on my property when they decide to stroll through. It's not a daily occurrence but it happens a couple of times a year and 99.99999% of the time we both just go on our way and nothing happens. The first time you see one up close and personal it changes how you feel about what you carry in the woods.

There was an old rancher up here a few miles from my place who used to kill every grizzly that came on his property(he has long since passed away) and he would just bury them with his backhoe, no one the wiser. One of my friends was out at his place and came on him burying one one time and asked him once why he did it. He just looked at my friend like he was dumb for a minute and then said "cause those things can really hurt ya" and went right back to what he was doing.

[Lonegun1894]

Paul H,
You have an excellent and very valid point. I have faced people, hogs, cattle, vehicles, etc, and have never had a gun fail me or failed to hit where I was aiming, but even the largest of the bulls I have taken down, including a couple with a 4" .357, wasn't trying to eat me. Now some were trying to kill me, but I have always wondered if the trying to eat me part would change my attitude or performance--but I'll never know unless I get to face a charging grizzly someday.

[Littleton Shot Maker]

as a very young kid DAD always was a 44 freak, I tried the gun a few times but my (still) little girls hands had a very hard time holding on to that gun, even tried to jump out of my hand a few times,

We switched over to 41 Mag, NOW I am no expert but numbers are something like this 10% less Knock down with 20% less felt recoil and loaded up too, and even when shooting 44 special (for me ) it was a bear to hold on to....

41 mag- feels like a big 357 , heavier and with less jump than a supper light or short barreled 357...
I am not a revolver guy so I would end up with the 10mm-1911, but revolvers work great, don;t need mags etc. but fast reloads while under the gun or while being dragged, chewed on is another story

357mag great for two legged pendejo for sure,

[lightload]

Yep. Them old rattletrap 12 ga. pump guns seem like the best choice for me--with Brennecke slugs of course.

[paul h]

To me the 12 ga is the worst of all worlds, my first choice is a heavy rifle, second a heavy revolver, last is a 12 ga.

[Lonegun1894]

Would you mind explaining your thinking, Paul H? For what it's worth, I prefer rifles and handguns over shotguns, but up close and personal, a shotgun has a certain niche that the other two just can't match, but none of the weapons listed are perfect for everything, cause if they were, well, we wouldn't need the other two options.

[DW475]

Lots of good info here. I tend to favor my 44 Redhawk stoked with my 310gr cast bullets when i'm fishing or deer hunting in Brown Bear country. Seen a lot of brown bears and most encounters was observing the bear high tailing it the opposite direction. I personally think each individual should carry what ever they are most comfortable with that they can shoot accurately in the environment they will be in. Stoke it with good lead!

[Three44s]

We are all "built" differently .......... and are attuned to stress and how we handle it as well.

But one thing that stands out as a handloader of bigger revolver cartridges is that we have a plethora of load combinations at our disposal.

My passion is towards DA revolvers and to many it seems ridiculous .............. but I run mine in SA and DA modes but heavy on the DA side.

I practice on golf balls.

I do not fire enough high energy loads to the point of reducing myself to a flinching blob ...... but I do enough to keep it relevant.

I practice with lighter loads in greater quantities and then trend up the power ladder and at the very top of what I deem sufficient for that package ....... gun and "job" ....... I shoot a relatively smaller sample (if it's a high end enough load to incite the flinch).

Now, it's become apparent to me that as one backs off a bigger gun/cartridge package to lower power levels .... you don't have to back off a tremendous amount before you reap huge benefits as to controlability.

My .480 for instance. ........ I find that one grain under max in a 400 gr. bullet with say H110 ......... is all I need to lower it ........ better extraction is another bonus ..........

What good is done if the cases stick in a tense situation if you needed to reload?

I also subscribe to the theory that a large bore gun backed off to suit the individual shooter with a sufficient weight bullet or boolit is BETTER .... way better than a .357 loaded to the point of straining it's guts out.

Best regards

Three 44s

[paul h]

Would you mind explaining your thinking, Paul H? For what it's worth, I prefer rifles and handguns over shotguns, but up close and personal, a shotgun has a certain niche that the other two just can't match, but none of the weapons listed are perfect for everything, cause if they were, well, we wouldn't need the other two options.

A few reasons. Documented use of shotguns against bears up close have been quite dissapointing in several situations. A shotgun with slugs doesn't handle any better than a rifle. Terminal performance of a medium to large bore rifles is no comparison to a shotgun. A handgun is much easier to pack than a shotgun.

So, if a shotgun slug won't work any better than my 400 gr hardcast @ 1200 fps from my 480 or perhaps worse, why tote a shotgun? If I'm going to tote a long gun, my 350 rem mag or 500 Jeffrey will get the nod.

[Piedmont]

A few reasons. Documented use of shotguns against bears up close have been quite dissapointing in several situations. A shotgun with slugs doesn't handle any better than a rifle. Terminal performance of a medium to large bore rifles is no comparison to a shotgun. A handgun is much easier to pack than a shotgun.

So, if a shotgun slug won't work any better than my 400 gr hardcast @ 1200 fps from my 480 or perhaps worse, why tote a shotgun? If I'm going to tote a long gun, my 350 rem mag or 500 Jeffrey will get the nod.

Repeat hits from a pump or semiauto shotgun will be much faster than from a bolt action rifle. Also, not all slugs are created equal.

[DougGuy]

Ha! Years ago, squirrel hunting with a 22 rifle, I was distracted by a patch of blackberries....wonderful sweet delicious berries.....

And where was it you were hunting when squirrel was in season when blackberries are ripe???

[Lonegun1894]

And where was it you were hunting when squirrel was in season when blackberries are ripe???

I can't speak for other States, but here in Texas, it varies by county as to season and bag limit, but my county has no closed season and no bag limit on squirrels. And I have seen a few (very few though) blackberry patches. Usually the competition is deer and hogs though, and not bears. Maybe he has the same kind of seasons?

[Cornbread]

Montana squirrels can be shot whenever, they aren't game animals here, just like coyotes and rabbits. So you can shoot them when you want. Though why you would want to I have no idea. Where I live we just have the little red ones and you would need about ten of them to make a meal for one person, maybe more.

[frank505]

And two instances of bear encounters that were started with bear spritz to no avail were finished with rifles. Both in Montana at the end of October. We had one Wednesday, but no shots fired.

[Cornbread]

Here are pics from a friend of an average sized Montana grizzly taken yesterday from his car window. It was feeding on gut piles left by other hunters. This was on public land in an area I fish but rarely hunt. My GF hunts this area a couple of days a week though during deer season. This should give you a decent idea of size, but they seem even bigger when you are closer and you aren't in a vehicle.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/AndyTheCornbread/12196229_10153699945078374_5892664713017852270_n_z psent2kh6l.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/AndyTheCornbread/12195839_10153699945313374_1215428159390123835_n_z psh80nnord.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/AndyTheCornbread/12191407_10153699945103374_6245234804411031345_n_z psw06ict5i.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/AndyTheCornbread/12190968_10153699945178374_1900265911469546153_n_z psdgzbjqpl.jpg

[Ramjet-SS]

357 ? No thank you give me the 44 or Glock 20 in 10mm

[Love Life]

Give me a model 70 in 375 H&H!

[9.3X62AL]

Give me a model 70 in 375 H&H!

Good choice. I had the pleasure of firing one some years back, serial #4038 IIRC. Smooth ride, and manageable but firm recoil. It was and is a very well-designed cartridge for its purpose--to dissuade large nasty critters from dining upon or otherwise cancelling the reservations of outdoors folks.

It was a close question between getting a CZ rifle in 375 (actually a ZKK-602) or the CZ-550 now in the safe in 9.3 x 62. Both hold 5 rounds in the box (most belted mags only hold 3), but the 9.3 doesn't give up much to the 375--and the 550 weighs significantly less. After 13 years of great fun and superb work, that 550 x 9.3 is among the LAST rifles I would ever part with.

There has been conversation in California wildlife circles about re-introducing grizzlies to their old homeland in the Sierras, using the same rationale of the wolf re-intro zealots. If you don't keep those fauna fascists at your feet, you'll have them at your throat--sure as h--l. AS IF California didn't already provide sufficient disincentives to productive citizens.......SHEESH.

[Love Life]

There is a story around Bridgeport about the "accidental" introduction of two grizzlies years back. I guess they were both killed. Whether there is any truth to the story I couldn't tell you.

[9.3X62AL]

I surely wouldn't discount such a story. As I'm sure you discerned while living in the area, folks thereabout are a practical, literal sort not given to nonsense or blatant exaggeration. They will mess a bit with Angelenos when the opportunity presents itself, but that can be overlooked as justifiable in most cases--since most Angelenos are Rose Parade Refugees anyway.

[6thtexas]

In the June 2003 edition of Handloader magazine Phil Shoemaker wrote an article entitled "Handguns and Bears". At the time this was written he had over two decades experience as a brown bear guide. His handgun of choice was a .357 loaded with Norma 180 gr. FMJ loads. He stressed the absolute need for penetration and the ability to make rapid multiple hits. Shoemaker wrote that in a purely defensive situation against a large bear, he would feel more secure with a double action .22 magnum revolver than a single action .454 because of the little gun's ability for rapid hits and superb penetration-at least until actual physical contact has been made, as beyond that stage he had no experience. He also stated that if one expects to need a weapon then they should take a large bore rifle. This makes a lot of sense to me and comes from a man who actually "has been there and done that".

[Markbo]

And I respect Phil Shoemaker and his right to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is. :lol:

[6thtexas]

Well I don't know that Shoemaker is wrong or not as bears are scarce over here in Boerne Texas-how many do y'all kill over in Tomball? :)

[9.3X62AL]

There are some elements of light-tackle sport angling that DO NOT translate well to hunting or defensive venues. The large-bore rifle for the great bears is fine advice, but the 357 Mag for the critters is like #3-weight fly tackle on bluefin tuna--long on sporting ethics, but real short on common sense or effectiveness. C'MON, MANG!

[6thtexas]

As I understood all the theorizing in the thread, sport has nothing to do with the scenario in which a handgun would be used-close range last ditch defense when one could not get to a rifle. BTW, Shoemaker also advised to shoot at the center of the head and put as many bullets in it as possible until the bear dies or retreats. Full disclosure- I have not killed but one bear and that was a medium sized black up in Canada. A single Sierra 220 gr. RN from my 30/40 Krag worked fine. I just mentioned Shoemaker's article as something else to think about. Were I to hunt or otherwise pick a fight with a grizzly bear I expect I would take my old .375 Whitworth. Fortunately, the only Bears we have down here are a ball team and I don't think anyone has had to shoot at them! :)

[ZippyHillbilly]

Well I dunno if it's the same Phil Shoemaker that lives a rock throw away from me or not, but if so, he is a fairly talented pistola dude. So is Novak, who lives here as well. I guess if it comes down to life or death I kinda look at it like this .... If it's him/it or me, i definitely rather it be him/it. Carry the tool you feel is appropriate for the task at hand.

[6thtexas]

I believe Shoemaker the writer lives up in the Alaska peninsula.

[ZippyHillbilly]

I believe Shoemaker the writer lives up in the Alaska peninsula.
Gotcha. We got one here as well it appears. LOL. Didn't much figure the one I know was huntin much Griz.

[Markbo]

Well I don't know that Shoemaker is wrong or not as bears are scarce over here in Boerne Texas-how many do y'all kill over in Tomball? :)

Not one! But it's on my bucket list. :D

[9.3X62AL]

Quite correct, 6thTexas. "Sporting" has nothing to do with it. I was trying to illustrate with irony a concept involving common sense, and maybe got misunderstood. Of course, there are those souls whose tastes run to extreme adventure travel......wrassling gators, socializing in dive bars in dodgy areas, bowhunting of nasty critters......no accounting for preferences.

[paul h]

And I respect Phil Shoemaker and his right to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is. :lol:

Kinda curious how you've gained more experience with brown and grizzly bears in Texas than one of the most experienced bear hunting guides in the world who has lived in the Alaska bush for 30+ years???

[Markbo]

Maybe you missed the smilie face Paul. I thought it was pretty clear that I was making a joke that it would not be MY choice regardless of an experts opinion.

Lighten up Hoss.

[charlie b]

The choice of someone who is really good and really familiar with the bear is different than someone like me who is just good with a pistol and has never confronted a bear. I know I could not hit one between the eyes if he was charging at me. So, a .357 would be nearly useless until the bear was on me.

If I have to be in big bear country then I'd carry a large bore rifle, or, better yet, have a guide next to me with his weapon of choice :)

[tazman]

I think everyone is missing the point for carrying a 357 in the woods. It works just fine for the smaller creatures you may wish to shoot. It also works great for charging big bear. You just stick the muzzle in your mouth and pull the trigger when the bear gets close.:bigsmyl2:

[6thtexas]

Seeing as most of us stand as much chance seeing a Yeti in the field as we do big belligerent bears, what sort of handgun do you carry in case of an up close and personal encounter with Bigfoot?:)

[Lonegun1894]

Good point, 6thtexas. I haven't seen a bear or a bigfoot around here, but I have seen plenty of meth-monkeys, and am much more worried about them.

[charlie b]

And that is why I carry a little .357 mag when out hiking or fishing :)

[Markbo]

Wow! All I ever have to worry about is pinecone throwing squirrels or the occasional angry swine - which usually laid fault anyway for tracking, chasing or shooting it. :D

[9.3X62AL]

Marie and I had a bad time with a black bear in Summer 2002, and a strange/scary encounter with a probable meth enthusiast in March 2007. I covered our exit from the bear's berry patch with the Redhawk.......and the zombie elected to disengage when I pulled the Mini-14 out from behind my truck seat, this after reversing after us for more than a mile on a winding dirt road near Silverwood Lake. Not sure what his plan was, and I was happy that he considered discretion as the better part of valor. "Non-violent drug offenders", mi nalgas.

[Mica_Hiebert]

Seeing as most of us stand as much chance seeing a Yeti in the field as we do big belligerent bears, what sort of handgun do you carry in case of an up close and personal encounter with Bigfoot?:)
Ruger sp101 357/3" bbl i wanted a little more sight radius and velocity so i bought a gp100 match champion.in 357/4.2 inch bbl but i havent had it out yet. Load will be 180 grain cast wfn.

[9.3X62AL]

SP-101s are nice little wheelguns. Those 180 grainers will cause it to come back smartly, but of all the compact 357s I've ever fired the SPs and the 2.5"/3" S&W 19/66 or 13/65 are the most tractable. There are no "bad" 357 Mag loadings for felon repellent.

[Petrol & Powder]

I could not agree more. The SP101 is a stout little revolver. Over-built is the description that comes to mind and it falls between the S&W J-frames and K-frames in terms of overall size. I wouldn't consider its 5 round cylinder to be an impediment but its weight puts it almost in the snubnose K-frame territory.

The 2 1/2" model 19 or 66 are outstanding guns. The S&W models 13 and 65 are excellent fixed sight versions of the models 19 & 66 but 3" barrels are the common "short" barrels in those models.

In any event, a .357 DA revolver is a fine choice.

[rjathon]

I once talked with a Fish and Game guy in Montana who trapped problem Grizzlies and relocated them. He said that most of the time they would bolt away upon release but every now and then one would attack. I asked him what his weapon of choice was for defense. He surprised me when he said a 10mm Glock.

He he said that a CNS hit was the only effective shot and all that was required was a bullet to the brain. A brain shot on a charging grizzly is extremely difficult with one exception. He said that the technique is to lay on your back and "feed" the bear your feet. While he is munching on them you put the gun to its head and fire.

He he liked the 10mm Glock because the recoil is tolerable, penetration is adequate, it is lightweight to carry and it holds lots of ammo.

Two of of my buddies were attacked by a sow once while they were bow hunting. They turned around a corner and found her feeding on a gut pile with her cub near by. She severely mauled one guy while the other sprayed it with pepper spray. She slapped it out of his hand and went back to mauling the other. He picked it back up and emptied on the bear which finally ambled away. The mauled friend needed around two hundred stitches but other than some gnarly scars had no permanent damage.

They both said said that had they been carrying hand guns they wouldn't have had time to draw them before the bear was upon them.

[jmort]

"They both said said that had they been carrying hand guns they wouldn't have had time to draw them before the bear was upon them."


​Sow with cubs, real bad deal. Some good advice.