Can we all agree that a double-action revolver is best for bear defense?
I'm talking about grizzly bears in Alaska and Montana.
Nearly all of the bear attacks I have read about involve a sudden attack in thick cover and the bear making contact.
Nearly all encounters result in the victims getting off only a couple of shots.
These are sudden and terrifying encounters.
Therefore, a large frame double action revolver with a shorter barrel and maximum power is ideal.
My bear sidearm is a Ruger Bisley in .45 Colt with a 5.5" barrel.
Not ideal. Having to thumb the hammer is a detriment and lying on your back with a bear on you and you trying to shove a gun into it's vitals is no place to try and also get the hammer cocked.
My other woods gun is Glock G29 10mm. Under powered for grizzly and will not fire with the muzzle shoved into the side of a bear's head.
So it seems obvious to me that double action revolver in .454 Casull with a 4" barrel is the ideal SIDEARM for a "typical" grizzly attack.
Why don't I have one? Because I rarely ever go far enough East in the Idaho woods to encounter a grizzly and my Glock loaded with 15 rounds of 200gr hardcast boolits are adequate for the wolves and cougars and smallish black bears that I run across.
But for folks that regularly hike and fish in grizzly country, in lieu of a long gun in .45-70 or 12ga, then the double action revolver makes the most sense.