Backpacker vs grizzly bear in Denali Natl Park

Rather wait for further details, but...

when I staarted hiking the Cascades.
I called Sierra Techs regarding handloads for .357Mag & .45ACP.

Basically, they replied that in either a FMC at maximum velocity you are comfortable (quick follow-up and GOOD placement, would be their recommendation.

Didn't reload, spent $ for Federal 180gr Hotcast for .357 and pulled out ols box of Hornady 230 gr FMJ-FP for the .45. I feel comfortable carrying but rather pull a "strategic" retreat. One time I don't mind being "Yallar"!

Beside's it their woods.
 
My son used to live near Denali. When hiking he always carried a pump action 12 ga. with slugs.
Methinks the .45 that killed that bear had one lucky shot hit something vital. I have books on Alaska Grizzlys and on story related how a long time nusiance bear was finally killed with a really big rifle. Under the skin, they found many slugs from many different caliber guns, none of which made it through muscle and bone into the vitals. Normally, they require a big banger to assure a kill.
 
I wish they would say what make the pistol was, I too have a 45 cal semi's 1911's in 45acp and a LAR grizzly 45 Winchester magnum not 45acp. It is possible the gun was a LAR 45 win mag. If the gun was a 45 acp I would like to know how big the bear was and where he hit it. I would have to assume ball ammo was used or a bonded HP.
 
I've carried a Glock 30 for several years as my main woods gun. Many people claim it just isn't enough against black bear let alone grizzly.
Click to expand...
I'm one of them, and I carry a Glock 29 for that reason alone; black bear. I wouldn't want to be in Grizzly country at all, let alone with any handgun and nothing else. I seriously hope he had a .45 ACP and not one of the more exotics like .45 Super, .45 Win. mag, etc., because as has been said, this is not a great success story for the cartridge used, and I would expect a bit more from the bigger .45s. Very nice of the bear to break off the attack, though.;)
 
It doesn't really sound like a bear attack to me. It sounds like a couple of hikers interrupted a bears nap and reacted to the threat display by emptying a .45 at it.

This incident on Sunday is more like an actual attack: http://www.adn.com/2010/05/31/1301997/dog-intervenes-in-grizzly-attack.html

5264050.67831.original.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpg
 
I'm with you on that K-beer. He gave the bear a chance and didn't seem to have a choice. The hiker's on the other hand ran in to a bear and shot it. The Rangers should be able to see running claw marks in the ground if really did charge then stop abruptly. I just have a hard time believing a bear would attack then walk off after being shot. But we have to give the hikers the benefit of the doubt. No proof other wise.

There is a small group of people who carry in national parks (and elsewhere) waiting for a chance to shoot a bear. Get their name in the press, brag to their friends, yada, yada yada. As the hikers have shown how can you prove what really happened?
 
Last edited:
Well, We've got too little information to say much.

the only bit I'd like to add is that I once read a news article about a Inuit woman who killed a 1000LB grizzly bear with a .22 LONG (not long rifle) rifle. It was trying to get into her house and got stuck at the window. She shot it a couple times in the face at point blank. If a .22Long is enough to kill a grizzly bear in 1 or 2 shots(A well placed close quarters shot), then I don't see how or why any standard handgun round wouldn't be able to do the same.

Edit: Personally I'd want an AK, or some other rifle with a high cap magazine to defend against a charging bear with. I'd keep shooting until the damn thing stopped moving, Then I'd put two point blank shots into the head to be sure. Yes, 7.62X39 is not the best hunting round, but I am pretty sure 10+ FMJ rounds ripping through a bear's body will stop it or slow it down long enough to get more shots into it.

Self defense is not about being humane
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people will head out into griz country with their 1911's assured that the almighty 45acp is up to the job.

I hope this story doesn't get anyone killed.
 
There is a small group of people who carry in national parks (and elsewhere) waiting for a chance to shoot a bear.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. There's a couple of similar threads on THR and there's some pretty silly comments along that line.
 
I've always thought there was a misconception about firearms for self defense from Bears. Hunting a bear and defending yourself from a bear are two completely different things.

When hunting a big Brown or Grizzly Bear you need a powerful firearm that can penetrate the vitals and cause a lot of damage. Usually the means a mid to big bore magnum rifle. I know this might cause quite a stir but for bear defense you need a firearm that you can quickly get into action and get accurate shots with. The only way to stop a big Bear on the spot is to get a good shot to the head, the neck or spine, or a solid shoulder shot. No other shot will do the trick. Most centerfire rifle or handgun rounds have the punch to do the job. Stopping a Bear on the spot has more to do with shooter ability than it does the power of the cartridge. There have been plenty of cases of 9mm and 38 special handguns stopping a charging grizzly or brown bear on the spot. If it worked before it will work again. The key is getting off quick and accurate shots. You would probably be worse off lugging a big powerful rifle around. It will take you longer to get it into action and you would likely only get 1-2 solid shots off. There isn't much room for error on a charging bear. You have three fairly small targets that are moving around.

I read about a case of a moose hunter in Canada that had killed a moose with a 338 Magnum rifle but couldn't pack out the entire animal that same night. He came back the next day to recover the rest of the animal and brought a 30-30 rifle with him. He was charged by a big bear and put the animal down with a few shots from the 30-30. He actually said if he had brought his more powerful 338 Magnum rifle he probably would have not survived. He said he could get quicker shots off with the 30-30 rifle. I think a lot of people have false perceptions of a grizzly attack. You aren't likely to have 20 sec. to get off multiple shots from a high powered rifle. You either need to make the first shot from a high powered rifle count or carry a less powerful weapon that you can shoot quickly and accurately. Its been proven that most centerfire rifle and handgun rounds will penetrate the skull of a grizzly bear. If it will do that it will do the job if you an make the shot. That's the key, making the shot. If you shoot a bear in the head with a handgun it will die. If you shoot it in the head with a 30-30 it will die. I really wouldn't carry a semi-auto handgun for Bear defense thought. I don't trust them in the outdoors as much as revolvers and semi-auto handgun ammo is rounded so that it will feed smoothly. A round profile has a tendency to glance off objects at an angle. You want something either with a lot of speed like a rifle projectile or a blunt handgun ammo with a large flat meplat fired from a revolver.

Hunting and defense are two different things. This doesn't really apply to self defense from humans because the targets are completely different. A human attacker exposes much more vital targets than a Bear does.
 
possess but not discharge

The rather odd comment about "possess but not discharge" is likely an odd translation/expression by mgmt resultant of the recent change in NPS laws regards carrying/possessing firearms in Nat. Parks.

One can now possess firearms in most Nat Parks as the Parks have adopted state law. If you can legally carry/posses in your state, you can likely do so in most areas of Nat. Parks there as well. The intent is self defense. But one still cannot plink, target shoot, hunt etc. within the Parks if such is normally prohibited (Nat. Rec areas excluded).

Oddly, I have heard of this incident here, instead of from the agency, but will check further. There will no doubt be a major inquisition. The hiker has shot and killed a bear within a Park, where all resources are protected. If it is a righteous shoot, it is a very positive event (except for the bear) for all who argued in favor of the reg change. If it goes the other way, it is fuel for those who were opposed to the change.
 
The rather odd comment about "possess but not discharge" is likely an odd translation/expression by mgmt resultant of the recent change in NPS laws regards carrying/possessing firearms in Nat. Parks.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It's like any other local law or ordinance that where possession is allowed and accepted and discharge prohibited.

Those prohibitions have some exceptions which exclude firing in self-defense and the defense of life and property. I'm guessing "but not discharge" pertains to target shooting and hunting and someone in the media is just being dishonest and not telling the entire story.
 
Here are my further thoughts on the matter...

To address the argument "how is the hiker supposed to know if the charge is a bluff or for real?" This begs the question should there be any stipulations for those venturing into wildlife territory? It also poses an ethical dilemma, should man be allowed to blast anything that evokes a fear response in him just so he can take a walk through the park? How are we to separate men defending their lives from cowards hiding behind a gun?

I think the conservationist's great fear is that the new law will give men, who aren't of the proper disposition and mindset to preserve and admire nature while accepting that they are in it's domain, license to carry and discharge their handguns in the name of moral superiority and without consideration for the long-term effects their actions will have on the eco-system. This is the part where someone cues Bubba: "I'll put down ever last bear if it means keeping me and mine safe!" If safety is your concern, then stay the hell out of the wild.

For my part, I believe the wilderness should be kept wild and I don't intend to venture into it to test my resolve or the stopping power of my sidearm just to get a glimpse of "nature" for the same reason I don't go swimming with sharks. I've got National Geographic and Discovery for that.

Flame suit on.
 
Annoyed...

FP2000H:
Here are my further thoughts on the matter...
To address the argument "how is the hiker supposed to know if the charge is a bluff or for real?" This begs the question should there be any stipulations for those venturing into wildlife territory? It also poses an ethical dilemma, should man be allowed to blast anything that evokes a fear response in him just so he can take a walk through the park? How are we to separate men defending their lives from cowards hiding behind a gun?

I think the conservationist's great fear is that the new law will give men, who aren't of the proper disposition and mindset to preserve and admire nature while accepting that they are in it's domain, license to carry and discharge their handguns in the name of moral superiority and without consideration for the long-term effects their actions will have on the eco-system. This is the part where someone cues Bubba: "I'll put down ever last bear if it means keeping me and mine safe!" If safety is your concern, then stay the hell out of the wild.

For my part, I believe the wilderness should be kept wild and I don't intend to venture into it to test my resolve or the stopping power of my sidearm just to get a glimpse of "nature" for the same reason I don't go swimming with sharks. I've got National Geographic and Discovery for that.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not a fan of that guy "Bubba" and actually despise people that are of that mindset. If you're going into the woods to prove something and will do whatever it takes, you have NO business venturing into the wild in the first place! It's a place to visit and take in the beauty all around you, NOT NOT NOT destroy it with your new hand cannon that your LGS salesman hustled you on. There is a MAJOR difference between being prepared and hoping it won't ever happen vs. loading up and looking for the dangerous part of town. Those same people are the ones responsible for everyone being paranoid about the general public owning a firearm and possessing it for CCW.
Ok I will get off my soap box and quit preaching for now, but I COMPLETELY agree with you FP2000, well said.
If the bear was killed to protect his wife and not because he panicked or was just hell-bent on shooting a griz now that it's legal to pack in the National Parks, than I commend what he did and probably wouldn't have done anything differently. I got followed by a cougar on a hike with my gf a couple months ago and I know that if I had been carrying I would have at least fired to scare it off and I was wishing for my guns the WHOLE time!
I hope to see the details of this soon just like all of you.
 
Too much is being made of the not legal to discharge it deal. It isn't legal to discharge a firearm in most city limits either. In some parks you can constantly hear gunfire off in the distance b/c someone is using a 1911 to cut down a tree.
 
I'm rather interested in the outcome of this myself. Most bear shootings are investigated by the state and they generally give the benefit of a doubt to the shooter unless there are 3rd party witnesses or clear forensic evidence to contradict the account (the bear was shot from side, etc).

This is the first Park Service investigation of such a shooting, since this is the first season carry has been allowed in the parks. It's going to set a precedent that will affect most of us who use the parks. It's too bad the incident is so wishy-washy.

This link is probably the best source to get the results of the investigation when it's released: http://www.newsminer.com/
 
We have no grizzlies where I live,but we do have black bears. If I'm going for a walk in the woods,my choice is a 7.5 inch Redhawk in .44 Magnum...which is for backup to my Marlin 1894 in the same caliber. I can personally attest to 2 facts,however: 1]If a bear is seriously chasing you,it can easily outrun you,and 2] If said bear is chasing you,your climbing a tree is a waste of time,because they can go up a tree like a cat!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top