Hi Folks,
My wife and I are planning a two week hike for one of the coming summers through the Montana Rockies to fish for Golden and Cutthroat Trout, and I am debating what firearm and load to bring for the eventuality of an attack by a grizzly bear. I have ruled out handguns, as I would not trust my .45 ACP (even with its 230gr flat points at 950fps I use for black bear defense while fishing) or even my 10mm for a 700lb angry predator, and I have no desire to spend a huge amount of money on a .44 magnum and then as much money and years learning how to shoot it even close to as well as I can my current handguns.
Therefore, it is between my rifles or shotguns, and I MUCH prefer my rifles. As you can guess by my handle (as well as the fact that I'm the author of the new book on the AR-10), I would prefer to bring one of those, perhaps my Portuguese or modern full-length model for me and my carbine for my wife, but I am also considering taking my Garand or Remington 750 (I like the Garand better, but the 750 is over 3 pounds lighter, and with a 10-round magazine of .30-06, it would be more practical), because I have a bunch of AP ammo for those, and one can't legally get that stuff for 7.62 NATO.
A lot of folks say that a quality bonded bullet like a Nosler Partition or Hornady Interbond would be best, but although these would expand and damage tissue more, I worry that they would not be sufficient to penetrate the massive bones in a grizzly's shoulder, or particularly the skull, which is several inches of bone under thick fur and tough hide.
This is why I thought of bringing the Garand or 750 loaded with M2 AP rounds, which are perfectly reliable in both weapons, and even extremely accurate (it has been called "M2 Match" by competition Garand shooters). All the stories about how a grizzly skull is about the toughest thing in nature made me think that even though it would not make as big a wound channel (although tumbling might improve this quite a bit), the insanely hard, sharpened armor penetrator core in those M2 bullets would give me the best possible chance of punching through that grizzly's noggin, even with a glancing hit that might deflect another round.
What do y'all folks think about this idea of using an AP round for bear defense, and how do you think it would stack up to a quality bonded bullet like a Hornady Interbond? I would lean in bonded bullets towards the 150gr Interbond, because it is ballistically identical to the 150gr SST, which is all of my AR-10s' favorite bullet, and I could just use the same charge of H4895 for the Interbond as I could for the SST and not have to work up a new load.
However, for me to use a bonded bullet, though, I'd have to be able to be assured very well that it would penetrate a bear skull reliably, as when one is charging you, you are facing mostly tough bone, where expansion seems to me to not be as important as deep penetration.
Now, before the chorus of "take a shotgun with slugs" starts, I regularly hunt geese, ducks, and turkeys with 3.5" magnum loads from a 6.5lb shotgun, so I am very familiar with the platform and not at all recoil shy. I do recognize, however, the limitations of the different platforms and my own abilities with them. I have done a lot of comparison shooting, and although I am an experienced shotgunner (well, as experienced as a guy in his 20s who was raised by gun-hating liberals can be), in the time it takes me to put 3 3" magnum slugs on a silhouette target at 25, 15, or 10 yards, even from my considerably heavier Benelli Supernova Tactical, I can put the whole 20rd magazine of any of my AR-10s on the same target.
No matter how used to the recoil I am, the sheer power of that Benelli coming back has knocked me over before, even with 2.75" buckshot and slug loads when I have had to shoot quickly on unstable ground with poor footing, or from a kneeling position. This might well be my situation if unexpectedly charged by a bear, and in those same types of stances, the AR-10s with their straight-line stocks, Battlecomps, smooth semi-auto actions can essentially stay locked on target for very rapid and long strings of fire.
Also, I just plain hate carrying my shotguns, as my Supernova in particular loves to flip over when carried across my chest on its tactical sling. The AR-10s or .30-06 rifles, in contrast, stay tucked in tight, and I almost forget I am wearing them when hiking.
Thanks a lot in advance!
My wife and I are planning a two week hike for one of the coming summers through the Montana Rockies to fish for Golden and Cutthroat Trout, and I am debating what firearm and load to bring for the eventuality of an attack by a grizzly bear. I have ruled out handguns, as I would not trust my .45 ACP (even with its 230gr flat points at 950fps I use for black bear defense while fishing) or even my 10mm for a 700lb angry predator, and I have no desire to spend a huge amount of money on a .44 magnum and then as much money and years learning how to shoot it even close to as well as I can my current handguns.
Therefore, it is between my rifles or shotguns, and I MUCH prefer my rifles. As you can guess by my handle (as well as the fact that I'm the author of the new book on the AR-10), I would prefer to bring one of those, perhaps my Portuguese or modern full-length model for me and my carbine for my wife, but I am also considering taking my Garand or Remington 750 (I like the Garand better, but the 750 is over 3 pounds lighter, and with a 10-round magazine of .30-06, it would be more practical), because I have a bunch of AP ammo for those, and one can't legally get that stuff for 7.62 NATO.
A lot of folks say that a quality bonded bullet like a Nosler Partition or Hornady Interbond would be best, but although these would expand and damage tissue more, I worry that they would not be sufficient to penetrate the massive bones in a grizzly's shoulder, or particularly the skull, which is several inches of bone under thick fur and tough hide.
This is why I thought of bringing the Garand or 750 loaded with M2 AP rounds, which are perfectly reliable in both weapons, and even extremely accurate (it has been called "M2 Match" by competition Garand shooters). All the stories about how a grizzly skull is about the toughest thing in nature made me think that even though it would not make as big a wound channel (although tumbling might improve this quite a bit), the insanely hard, sharpened armor penetrator core in those M2 bullets would give me the best possible chance of punching through that grizzly's noggin, even with a glancing hit that might deflect another round.
What do y'all folks think about this idea of using an AP round for bear defense, and how do you think it would stack up to a quality bonded bullet like a Hornady Interbond? I would lean in bonded bullets towards the 150gr Interbond, because it is ballistically identical to the 150gr SST, which is all of my AR-10s' favorite bullet, and I could just use the same charge of H4895 for the Interbond as I could for the SST and not have to work up a new load.
However, for me to use a bonded bullet, though, I'd have to be able to be assured very well that it would penetrate a bear skull reliably, as when one is charging you, you are facing mostly tough bone, where expansion seems to me to not be as important as deep penetration.
Now, before the chorus of "take a shotgun with slugs" starts, I regularly hunt geese, ducks, and turkeys with 3.5" magnum loads from a 6.5lb shotgun, so I am very familiar with the platform and not at all recoil shy. I do recognize, however, the limitations of the different platforms and my own abilities with them. I have done a lot of comparison shooting, and although I am an experienced shotgunner (well, as experienced as a guy in his 20s who was raised by gun-hating liberals can be), in the time it takes me to put 3 3" magnum slugs on a silhouette target at 25, 15, or 10 yards, even from my considerably heavier Benelli Supernova Tactical, I can put the whole 20rd magazine of any of my AR-10s on the same target.
No matter how used to the recoil I am, the sheer power of that Benelli coming back has knocked me over before, even with 2.75" buckshot and slug loads when I have had to shoot quickly on unstable ground with poor footing, or from a kneeling position. This might well be my situation if unexpectedly charged by a bear, and in those same types of stances, the AR-10s with their straight-line stocks, Battlecomps, smooth semi-auto actions can essentially stay locked on target for very rapid and long strings of fire.
Also, I just plain hate carrying my shotguns, as my Supernova in particular loves to flip over when carried across my chest on its tactical sling. The AR-10s or .30-06 rifles, in contrast, stay tucked in tight, and I almost forget I am wearing them when hiking.
Thanks a lot in advance!
As noted, grizzlies are tough, as in can take a lot of abuse before retreating or succumbing and not as in impenetrable. 
. Seems I've read that there was a fella that did indeed hunt Grizzly with a Garand, and killed quite a few.