9mm v. grizzly

Quote:
It was in the sense that no bear stalked them or charged them.Had that been the case things very likely would have turned out worse.
Extra points can be scored for demonstrating reading comprehension skills.

A "charge" or "charging" is exactly how Shoemaker himself characterized the bear's behavior.
Click to expand...

You have a point here. I could have been clearer. Shoemaker says they were not being stalked by this bear nor was it a sow charging them to protect cubs. Neither was that bear waiting for them to approach so that it could charge. Shoemaker tells us what we need to know without shame of it, he thinks they came on a sleeping bear that they woke up and it's behavior was confused and it charged them. The point I was making is that the bear being confused or startled provided them a few seconds of time.

They did not come upon a bear defending it's cubs nor a bear hunting them. The story likely would have ended differently then.

By virtue of a lotta luck (good name for a stripper ain't it, Lotta Luck) they all survived. Too much luck was needed here.

I don't think Shoemaker is stupid either. I think he made a bad judgement call. Luck with good shooting and a good bullet saved them.
 
For as long as I'll probably remember anything, I'll remember a picture I saw or the lower leg of a hiker, stripped of flesh from the knee down to the tennis shoe, and an empty .38 snub nose pistol beside the body.

That bear was enormous, a brown (though today the Internet tells me browns and grizzlies are "the same bear") standing it could look into a second story window. Killed later by a ranger with several shots of 7mm magnum.

I think about everyone here agrees that a 9mm was not the best possible choice, but it worked for that guy, that day, and you know the saying, if it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid....

We've spent several pages saying how stupid it was, but he's here, the people he was guiding that day are here, all unharmed and the bear ISN'T.

perhaps not the smartest thing, but not stupid.
 
The point here is that if anyone thinks the 9mm is a good round to carry against bear...it's not. Not enough gun.
Click to expand...
I would agree it's not a good choice for bear defense. However, it was clearly enough gun in this situation, and also it was enough gun for Garen Brenner when he killed the grizzly that charged him and his friend while they were fishing.

It's not what I would choose to carry, but there's no denying it can be enough gun--because it has been demonstrated more than once that it is.
Bring a pack full of luck as well, without that this story would have been different.
Click to expand...
There's always an element of probability when you shoot a living animal. Ideally, you want to minimize that aspect of the situation because that's the unpredictable part. I think I would agree that both Brenner and Shoemaker got some help from luck.

<<Edit--Corrected Brenner's first name. My apologies to anyone who tried to find the incident using the incorrect first name.>>
 
Last edited:
Unlike situations involving human predators, I have no problem firing a round off in a "safe" direction to scare off a bear. In such cases, a 9mm is quite adequate. So is banging pots and pans.
 
I'm curious if he still occasionally carries the 9mm or just carries his 44 all the time. Granted he exhibited a lot of skill in this encounter, but he was also very very lucky. If it were me I sure wouldn't count on getting that lucky again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top