You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
anti-black bear
- Thread starter doctor_brevic
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
But then he did give any sources (no "documentation") for his data, we were left having to accept his word for it. Also his list did not include black bear:Here is an article by Chuck Hawks on 12 ga for protection in the field. He lists some interesting data on buckshot and states that there are documented cases where the buckshot didn't even penetrate the hide.
"There have been a number of cases where buckshot failed to make it through the tough skin and muscles that protect the chest wall of a lion, tiger, or even a leopard. A lion is maybe half the weight of your average grizzly bear and about 1/4 the weight of a brown or polar bear. Leopards are about the weight of a human being, so think carefully before stoking your shotgun with buckshot."
But then, the O.P. was not concerned with hunting black bear, but with random encounters, which implies non-hunting situations. The fact that in New Jersey has a law against using buck shot for B.B. has no bearing at all to his question.In addition, in some states it appears to be illegal to hunt bear with buckshot:
So if you live in New Jersey, don't go hunting for bear with buckshot. It is against the law.
In regard to buck shot's poor pattern missing vital areas, it begs the question: Is a single projectile more or less likely to miss the vital area of a charging black bear than a charge of buck shot?
Would someone please just shoot a Black Bear with buck shot and report the results? Then we can dispense with all the suppositions, will nots, should nots, can nots, shooting of wall board, lions, leopards, etc.
Last edited:
"...The front shoulders foremost..." Only if the bear attacks with the dreaded "side-way" charge. However, if he uses the old tried and true frontal attack, he presents his chest...not his shoulders....the most likely shot presentation for a true attack scenario is going to be a frontal with skull and front shoulders foremost...
Dear dahermit, you are trying to prove a negative which is logically impossible, or so I am told by popular media outlets. Specifically, you acknowledge the lack of evidence directly with bears, yet you do dismiss a lot of good evidence on spread and penetration
Certainly, on the basis of spreading of buckshot 1 inch per yard, then anything over 25 yards needing defense of another person would make buckshot very unreliable. To be effective, 5-10 yards is the most effective range, but few would wait till that small of a distance. Slugs and large hard cast bullets have much better penetration and accuracy than buck shot.
To state we have NO data is quit in error in my opinion. If your only acceptable evidence is live, in vivo accounts with a black bear, it looks like so few people choose this to have any sensible measure. That in itself is data to take into account since we have thousands of live, in vivo accounts of slugs and large hard cast bullets working well in hunting and defense against black bear. So, you keep asking for data yet ignore the real life data of the lack of evidence of 00 buck shot as in indication that most folks have already voted on this issue with a resounding no.
Certainly, on the basis of spreading of buckshot 1 inch per yard, then anything over 25 yards needing defense of another person would make buckshot very unreliable. To be effective, 5-10 yards is the most effective range, but few would wait till that small of a distance. Slugs and large hard cast bullets have much better penetration and accuracy than buck shot.
To state we have NO data is quit in error in my opinion. If your only acceptable evidence is live, in vivo accounts with a black bear, it looks like so few people choose this to have any sensible measure. That in itself is data to take into account since we have thousands of live, in vivo accounts of slugs and large hard cast bullets working well in hunting and defense against black bear. So, you keep asking for data yet ignore the real life data of the lack of evidence of 00 buck shot as in indication that most folks have already voted on this issue with a resounding no.
Not trying to prove a negative, just trying to show that opinion is not data, opinion is not the same as proof. I have not dismissed any evidence on spread...I just have not responded to it, but you on the other hand, have not taken into account that there are variables in buck shot spread such as choke, cartridge, and individual guns. There has been no evidence on penetration of buckshot on black bear...only wall board.Dear dahermit, you are trying to prove a negative which is logically impossible, or so I am told by popular media outlets. Specifically, you acknowledge the lack of evidence directly with bears, yet you do dismiss a lot of good evidence on spread and penetration
Why would not a person begin shooting buck shot at 25 yards and continue shooting with as many rounds as possible instead of wait? Carrying a Single shot? And again, since there was no answer offered when I first asked: Is a single projectile more or less likely to miss the vital area of a charging black bear than a charge (or multiple charges) of buck shot?Certainly, on the basis of spreading of buckshot 1 inch per yard, then anything over 25 yards needing defense of another person would make buckshot very unreliable. To be effective, 5-10 yards is the most effective range, but few would wait till that small of a distance. Slugs and large hard cast bullets have much better penetration and accuracy than buck shot.
Most of the "evidence" that has been posted in this thread is opinion , and not accounts of those who have been attacked by a black bear and responded with gun fire...and more importantly, have not used buck shot. Hunting, with shots through the vitals at a non-attacking bear is of questionable value in this discussion.To state we have NO data is quit[Sic, quite], in error in my opinion. If your only acceptable evidence is live, in vivo accounts with a black bear, it looks like so few people choose this to have any sensible measure.
"real life data", is that people have accepted the platitude that buck shot will not be effective so they do not use it? It will not work because people think that it will not work? Circular logic? As for those who have voted, I suggest that a vote be taken on changing the speed of light from 186,000/sec. to something more reasonable.So, you keep asking for data yet ignore the real life data of the lack of evidence of 00 buck shot as in indication that most folks have already voted on this issue with a resounding no.
May I remind older posters (and inform younger ones), that one time, it was a general "truism" that big heavy bullets were deflected less by brush than smaller, lighter bullets...until The American Rifleman, et. Al., actually performed some tests to see if it was true, not just "voted on" or accepted as truth.
In Montana in our particular neck of the woods we use a hardcast bullet, center drilled with a panhead machine screw screwed right into it. Its a regular skull caracker and the old guys around here have been carrying those kinds of bullets while berrypicking, fishing or walking in the woods for as long as anyone remembers. You just have to pay attention to your seat depth.
Dear Dahermit, yup, we have almost nonexistent data on buck shot in bears in real life. On the other hand, we have thousands upon thousands of real life data with all sorts of rifle bullets and shotgun slugs on bears over several decades and in fact, more than a centuries worth of data. The data reveals that the bullets with the greatest penetration are the most effective.
So, it appears it is not really lack of evidence or data that is missing, but willing volunteers to test buck shot in real life on live bears. I wonder why?
So, it appears it is not really lack of evidence or data that is missing, but willing volunteers to test buck shot in real life on live bears. I wonder why?
Bear defense
I live in a tourist town in vermont. There are black bears that may as well be wearing blue jeans strolling all over my place. My bear defense for the home is a winchester pdx round which is buck shot followed by a slug. My largest handgun is a. 40 cal s&w sigma. The pdx is convinente as it is my hd round as well. Does anyone have an opinion on the pdx for yogi?
I live in a tourist town in vermont. There are black bears that may as well be wearing blue jeans strolling all over my place. My bear defense for the home is a winchester pdx round which is buck shot followed by a slug. My largest handgun is a. 40 cal s&w sigma. The pdx is convinente as it is my hd round as well. Does anyone have an opinion on the pdx for yogi?
To follow your logic "A " (heavy bullets) is effective so therefore, "B" (buck shot)is not. Or, in other words, Black people (A)are effective baseball players. Therefore, Hispanics (B) are not. That is an illogical conclusion.Dear Dahermit, yup, we have almost nonexistent data on buck shot in bears in real life. On the other hand, we have thousands upon thousands of real life data with all sorts of rifle bullets and shotgun slugs on bears over several decades and in fact, more than a centuries worth of data. The data reveals that the bullets with the greatest penetration are the most effective.
Because they are dissuaded from using it because "everyone" says (but no one proves), that buck shot will not penetrate a black bear, will spread out too much to hit the vitals. Whereas, a heavy bullet is sure to hit the heart of a charging bear every time despite it is a four inch target at 30 miles per/hour?So, it appears it is not really lack of evidence or data that is missing, but willing volunteers to test buck shot in real life on live bears. I wonder why?
Black Bear speed:
http://www.sierrafoot.org/waterford/wildlife/bears.html
Bear defense
You will get all kinds of opionions...but no proof. You could save us a whole lot of wasted rhetoric if you would provoke a bear to attack you and shoot him in the chest...then we will have something more useful than "opinion". When you gut it, examine the organs, heart, lungs, liver, for buck shot holes, and then let us know what you have found out about the effectiveness of buckshot on a Black Bear.I live in a tourist town in vermont. There are black bears that may as well be wearing blue jeans strolling all over my place. My bear defense for the home is a winchester pdx round which is buck shot followed by a slug. My largest handgun is a. 40 cal s&w sigma. The pdx is convinente as it is my hd round as well. Does anyone have an opinion on the pdx for yogi?
Well, it seems there is data concerning using buckshot for bear defense. And somewhat iconoclastic at that.Here is a well written article PREFERRING buckshot over slugs.
http://www.biggamehunt.net/articles/...s-double-ought
I suspect that this debate will continue since I see other similar debates on TFL in the rather distant past of 2002.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=1204284
dahermit
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Here is a well written article PREFERRING buckshot over slugs.
http://www.biggamehunt.net/articles/...s-double-ought
I suspect that this debate will continue since I see other similar debates on TFL in the rather distant past of 2002.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=1204284
Well, it seems there is data concerning using buckshot for bear defense. And somewhat iconoclastic at that.
Dear dahermit,
Sorry, I posted that link and secondly, I didn't see a real life bear kill in that story. In addition, the author recommends keeping distance such that you can limit the spread of buck shot to 9 inches. At 1 inch per yard, that means about 10 yards max effective range according to this author.
Buck shot is nothing I would want to be on the receiving end, but the data you so sorely keep asking for is NOT found in this article either. Once again, that was my post for the sake of balance to the discussion. It is all based on HIS OPINION, something you have over and over again disallowed as evidence in this discussion.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways, let's find a real life incident if possible since that is the standard you have previously set in this discussion.
dahermit
My thinking is that i am using the best of both worlds with buckshot and a slug in the same round. Perhaps a goddam .50 cal on a turret is in order lol. Let me present it another way.
If shooting a bear for a true defensive reason it will be close up. My home is not huge and just like a human it would have to be inside or on its way in to be of real danger to me. I have other long guns but all are scoped. I have handguns but they are meant for human defense. If outside i will send as many of the fifteen .40 cal rounds at him as i can and pray. Therefore the one true go to for me is the short pump gun. If it had only buck i figure i may as well spread honey on my ass and go for a strool. If i only have a slug i could easily miss a bg in the dark without my glasses. With the pdx 1 i figure i get a little of the best of both worlds.
My thinking is that i am using the best of both worlds with buckshot and a slug in the same round. Perhaps a goddam .50 cal on a turret is in order lol. Let me present it another way.
If shooting a bear for a true defensive reason it will be close up. My home is not huge and just like a human it would have to be inside or on its way in to be of real danger to me. I have other long guns but all are scoped. I have handguns but they are meant for human defense. If outside i will send as many of the fifteen .40 cal rounds at him as i can and pray. Therefore the one true go to for me is the short pump gun. If it had only buck i figure i may as well spread honey on my ass and go for a strool. If i only have a slug i could easily miss a bg in the dark without my glasses. With the pdx 1 i figure i get a little of the best of both worlds.
The combined weight of the 9 pellets is roughly 486 grains. With an average muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps, the result is point blank energy of 1,800 foot pounds with 1,200 foot pounds being retained at 30 yards. It is important to understand that this energy exists only if all 9 pellets hit the target. For every pellet that misses, the load's energy drops by the energy of one pellet.
Penetration is hard to quantify for 00 buckshot. A spherical projectile has inherently poor penetration capabilities. A pellet that strikes the chest between the ribs might pass through a deer, one that strikes on the thick part of the shoulder blade might not penetrate the vitals at all - I've seen both scenarios.
My own experience has indicated that if shots are kept to a distance in which all 9 pellets strike a 9-inch circle (roughly the size of a deer's boiler room), enough penetration is accomplished to cause the tissue damage required to ensure an ethical harvest.
From the article above, buck shot is only good for close up work and spherical projectiles lack penetration. Isn't that the entire point we have been discussing? Something just as thin as a shoulder blade can prevent it penetrating vital organs, let alone penetrating to CNS in a large bear. I don't believe that this article is as helpful to you as you believe it is. It starts with a muzzle energy of 1800 foot pounds which is only half that of a .450 or top loaded 45-70 let alone a 45-70 loaded with a 540 gr Garrett Hammerhead.
This source has contradictory statements while advocating for buckshot. It is well written but at the same time, I don't believe he has convinced a whole lot of folks.
The shotgun crowd, of which I am one, believes that the odds of providing a face-full of 00 buckshot once a charging bear is within 5 yards are much better than precisely placing one bullet in the brain. At 5 yards buckshot is devastating and infinitely easier to aim than a handgun. There is some debate in this camp as to whether or not the shotgun should have slugs following buckshot, but we all tend to agree that 00 buckshot should come first.
I've been very close to bears in the wild. Thankfully, none of those bears have ever charged. Despite my good luck through the years and a relatively high comfort level when around bears, in the interest of preserving life (my own or that of another) I will always choose to carry a shotgun fully loaded with 00 buckshot with me whenever I'm in grizzly country and not carrying a rifle.
He is advocating waiting until the bear is 5 yards away with not even one personal experience with this. I find this dangerous conjecture since there are no good reports of anyone surviving using this strategy. Yet, on the other hand, I can find hundreds of reports using proper ammo to survive with slugs or large bore bullets most especially when we go to Garrett's Hammerhead in 540 gr.
Yes, I agree, let's get some real life data and drop the opinions not based on real life experience.
If there are variations in pattern spread between guns, loads (buffered, non-buffered, plated, non-plated, different chokes, etc.) How can you state that the spread of buckshot is 1 inch per yard? If in each scenario a different spread is encountered, would not some guns shoot less that 1 inch per yard, and others shoot more?Dear dahermit,
Sorry, I posted that link and secondly, I didn't see a real life bear kill in that story. In addition, the author recommends keeping distance such that you can limit the spread of buck shot to 9 inches. At 1 inch per yard, that means about 10 yards max effective range according to this author.
Uh, it was the second link you posted (to earlier FiringLine discussions on the same subject), that was most interesting. Did you not read it? Do not tell me that you did not read the content of your own links? It discussed several instances of buckshot being used successfully against Black Bear. Is that not the data we were seeking?Buck shot is nothing I would want to be on the receiving end, but the data you so sorely keep asking for is NOT found in this article either. Once again, that was my post for the sake of balance to the discussion. It is all based on HIS OPINION, something you have over and over again disallowed as evidence in this discussion.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways, let's find a real life incident if possible since that is the standard you have previously set in this discussion.
Dear dahermit,
I don't think we are going to change anyone's minds on this issue. Nor do I believe you are going to change your mind no matter how much evidence or lack thereof is discussed. I quoted an article by Chuck Hawks who is widely regarded as an expert in firearms issues, yet you chastised me for his article that did not include sources:
The prior post on the firing line thread from 2002 did not include any sources for his evidence either of the bears alleged to have been killed with buck shot. So, this is not data unless you wish to include any anecdotal sources as evidence which you declined to do with Chuck Hawks. I have tried to find objective testing which you seem to uniformly reject.
So be it. The fact remains that spread and poor penetration hamper the reliability of buck shot as a bear defense load. As you stated earlier, the best data is those times where it failed. To date, I don't have the data anywhere unless you have found some source yourself. I believe that is what you had asked for previously.
In any case, I don't see any further reason to keep this banter up my friend. I wish you luck with the buck shot at close range. Not my choice.
Have a good day and stay safe.
God bless,
Alaska444
I don't think we are going to change anyone's minds on this issue. Nor do I believe you are going to change your mind no matter how much evidence or lack thereof is discussed. I quoted an article by Chuck Hawks who is widely regarded as an expert in firearms issues, yet you chastised me for his article that did not include sources:
dahermit
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 1,444
But then he did give any sources (no "documentation") for his data, we were left having to accept his word for it. Also his list did not include black bear:Quote:
Here is an article by Chuck Hawks on 12 ga for protection in the field. He lists some interesting data on buckshot and states that there are documented cases where the buckshot didn't even penetrate the hide.
The prior post on the firing line thread from 2002 did not include any sources for his evidence either of the bears alleged to have been killed with buck shot. So, this is not data unless you wish to include any anecdotal sources as evidence which you declined to do with Chuck Hawks. I have tried to find objective testing which you seem to uniformly reject.
So be it. The fact remains that spread and poor penetration hamper the reliability of buck shot as a bear defense load. As you stated earlier, the best data is those times where it failed. To date, I don't have the data anywhere unless you have found some source yourself. I believe that is what you had asked for previously.
August 27, 2011, 11:52 AM #40
dahermit
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
For those that keep advocating buck shot, do any of you have any story of anyone successfully defending against a bear with buck shot? I read and search bear stories just about every single day and I just cannot recall any stories of someone fending off a bear with a shotgun with buck shot. On the other hand, I can show you plenty of stories of hard cast bullets from hand guns or rifles or slugs from shotguns.
This begs the question: Do any of you have any story of anyone unsuccessfully defending agains a black bear with buckshot? Would not that be more meaningful?
In any case, I don't see any further reason to keep this banter up my friend. I wish you luck with the buck shot at close range. Not my choice.
Have a good day and stay safe.
God bless,
Alaska444
22-rimfire
New member
As others have suggested, I would get some slugs for that shotgun. Save the buckshot for 2-legged predators. I would also consider acquiring a 357 mag or larger handgun for more convenient carry around the property. My personal choice is a 4" 41 mag revolver.
Black Bears seldom attack people. But it happens, and it is often because the human has done something a bit stupid relative to being in black bear neighborhood. My brother has a black bear that visits his home weekly. They have to remove the bird feeders at night and certainly not keep any garbage around that might be edible. The black bear's little cousin, the raccoon, can also be a bit of a pest at times.
Black Bears seldom attack people. But it happens, and it is often because the human has done something a bit stupid relative to being in black bear neighborhood. My brother has a black bear that visits his home weekly. They have to remove the bird feeders at night and certainly not keep any garbage around that might be edible. The black bear's little cousin, the raccoon, can also be a bit of a pest at times.
The biggest thing folks do stupidly in black bear country is not understanding that the nature of the majority of black bear attacks on humans is predatory in nature.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/uoc-bop050911.php
Just one more reason to be well armed when in the woods, even if that is on your back porch.
Beware of predatory male black bears
Research regarding North American black bear fatal attacks on people shows lone males are most dangerous, attack rates are rising with human population growth.
Fatal encounters with black bears have been exceedingly rare during the last century, but appear to be mainly the result of predatory male bears targeting humans in their wilderness home ranges, according to a new study led by the world's leading expert on bear attacks.
In an article published today in the Journal of Wildlife Management, University of Calgary professor emeritus Dr. Stephen Herrero, University of Calgary graduate Andrew Higgins, and colleagues from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and Brigham Young University analyzed the circumstances of all recorded deaths inflicted by non-captive black bears in North America between 1900 and 2009. The study found that 63 people were killed in 59 incidents in Canada, Alaska and the lower 48 states. The researchers determined that the majority (88%) of fatal attacks involved a bear exhibiting predatory behaviour, and 92% of the predatory bears were males. The authors suggest male black bears have evolved some different behaviours than females.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/uoc-bop050911.php
Just one more reason to be well armed when in the woods, even if that is on your back porch.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.