Bear Defense Penetration Standards

Wyosmith, your "charge machine" reminded me of one my son made a few years back with a tetherball and a 100' cord reel. Big difference was, while it came at you on a direct path, it would bounce and change directions slightly, similar to a real animal. Over the years we used it, that tetherball took relatively few hits from our handguns and was a real eye opener to folks that didn't shoot their handguns much. This, even tho the ball wasn't going to kill them. Add the pressure and adrenaline of a real attack and one's skills would be really tested. Similar to pheasant hunting. We have a rule in our group about only having only two shells in your gun(since I only use SxSs it's not a problem). It's amazing how the excitement of that first rooster jumping up in front of you will make you take your two shots well behind the bird and before your shot charge has a chance to open up. A few more birds and your lead is on and you wait till the bird gets out a ways. I'd assume this would be similar in a Bear charge, as the excitement and fear would have one pulling the trigger and emptying their gun before the animal is at point blank range. I personally hope I never find out for real.
 
Those charge simulators are pretty neat ideas I might have to build something like that. That's a lot of good information. The question regarding the 44 magnum loads was more hypothetical, and I agree that big bore handguns are very hard to tame, I know I need more practice to feel comfortable. However the ammo I had in mind when posting this is actually for a 12 gauge. Because I've done my share of deer hunting with slugs and turkey hunting with 3 inch magnum shells with 2 Oz of lead, I feel comfortable saying I'm quite proficient with hard kicking 12 GA loads. Handguns are another story as I don't have much experience with them. The two loads in question are a 600 grain hardcast slug at 1650fps and an 870gr hardcast slug at 1200 fps. The 600 grain is supposed to penetrate 42 inches and I think the 870 grain is closer to 50 inches. So my question was asked with these two in mind, whether 42 inches would be "enough" I feel like I can handle either but the 870 grain would probably be a little slower on follow up shots and it's a 3 inch shell as opposed to a 2 3/4" which I've had a few hangups from short shucking with 3 inchers because of the length of the fired shell. Not a big deal when hunting but could be bad in a self defense situation.
 
I've never heard of any standard of penetration for bears, although we have it for humans. Obviously there has to be a happy medium. You don't want something that penetrates 10" but you also don't want something that penetrates 90" because that would be too much at the cost of controllability. That's theoretical of course but I catch your drift. Wyosmith and buck I don't think you quite understand the question, it would be easy enough to just say "I don't know"
 
Really?
Here is his question
"Just curious if there is any consensus on what is considered adequate penetration for bear defense, Grizzly bear in particular. A ballpark number of inches in ballistic gel is really what I'm looking for."

Now go back and read my posts. I think I understood very well.
Here is one of the 1st things I wrote
"Big bears are not dangerous until they come at you. When they come at you the parts you need to hit are in front. Brain, jaws, shoulders, spine/neck and the heart and lungs. So if you can get a bullet to penetrate 2-1/2 to 3 feet, going deeper only gets more guts, and if you are lucky, may hit the spine farther back or even a hip joint or pelvis."

You know a 350 pound mad grizzly sow is a very dangerous animal. So if a 750 pound mad grizzle boar. Both will hurt or kill you quite easily. But there are more inches through the boar than the sow.

So would a set number of inches be a good answer, considering that a thin and narrow wound that comes out the bears butt may not do the job, but a 11 deep wound for a hollow point 20 gauge slug may drop it in it's tracks.
hummmmmmmm.................
Things to think about huh?

Do you think if an answer of "20 inches" were given it would be satisfactory, without any supporting information as to why "20" is a magic number?
Or 30"? (no reason given)
Or 50"? (no reason given)
Or how about "42.6 cubic inches of permanent cavitation". ? (but again with no reason given)

True, I or anyone else could just write any number of inches down, and it would answer the question as asked, but it would also be an insult to the man's intelligence.

American hunters tend to over-annalise such things and try to come up with mathematical formulas to answer these questions. But that is not going to help much, if at all. Keep in mind that the largest Grizzly ever killed in Alaska was killed with a 22 pistol,(at the time the article was written anyway, back in the 70s) and many of them have been killed with arrows that penetrated up to the fletching and in many cases less then that. But simply listing how deep the bullet or broad head went into the bear doesn't address the reason for him asking the question in the 1st place.
 
Last edited:
Wyosmith you did answer my question, but I guess my follow up question would be why folks say a 10mm is worthless for Grizzlies if 3 feet is all you need. The 10mm hardcasts will penetrate 3 feet or more in gel so I guess I'm confused as to the benefit of a hard kicking 44 magnum load with 320gr bullet that will probably penetrate closer to 4 feet. But I do know that a 10mm is many times easier to put rounds on target than the heavy 44 loads, even for a very proficient handgun shooter. Even someone that can handle the 44 is still going to get faster follow up shots with the 10mm. Also what do you personally think about the two 12 gauge loads I mentioned in my last post? Thanks for all the info I really do appreciate it.
 
The 1st question is which bear? 99% of bear encounters are black bear weighing 150-250 lbs. Black bear do get bigger, but a 300 lb or larger bear is not at all common and the mature ones don't come around humans. Any gun you feel comfortable with for defense against an athletic adult human male is plenty adequate for most bear situations.

Inland Grizzly are only present in a few isolated spots of Wyoming and Montana in the lower 48 and on average are only about 50-100 lbs larger. While more aggressive and likely to attack they are not that much harder to stop. They are more common in Alaska and Canada.

The brown bear along the SE coast of Alaska are the only really large bears reaching over 1000 lbs. But realistically how many will ever be in their presence.

Phil Shoemaker, a noted bear guide and writer from Alaska has been guiding for over 40 years. His testing indicates that a 30-06 loaded with 220 gr bullets is about as good as it gets. That combo out performed everything tested up to 375 mag, and the 375 wasn't much better. This is the same conclusion the Forest Service reached in their study. Finn Aagard an African guide conducted similar tests on large African game and also concluded that a 220 gr 30-06 load was the benchmark for penetration on large game. Larger magnums 375 and up did out perform the 30-06, but nothing in between 30-06 and 375 offered any advantages. This would include various 35 and 33 caliber magnum rounds as well as 45-70 and 444.

Shoemaker has spent a lot of time testing handgun rounds lately and has concluded that a 357 mag loaded with heavy hard cast bullets is more than up to the task on brown bear. In fact last month he killed a large adult male brown bear attacking a fisherman he was guiding with 147 gr 9mm hardcast bullets.

None of the best 10mm loads have been tested specifically with bear defense in mind. But they have been used successfully in at least 2 brown bear attacks that I'm aware of. The best loads shoot the same bullet weights slightly faster than 357 mag. I see no reason to think it wouldn't be just as good.
 
Wow good info I always like to hear 1st or 2nd hand experience. I think I specified Grizzly in my original post, I'd love to go to Alaska or BC but inland Grizzlies are my main concern, mainly western Montana and idaho area. To me I'm a curious as to what the advantage of a 44 magnum vs a 10mm with 220gr Bullets if they penetrate enough to reach vitals, like wyosmith said if the bullet goes through everything important and into the guts it's probably just wasted energy. Plus I know even a 27 ounce glock 10mm is easier and faster than a 40+ ounces redhawk, etc. Not to mention the extra packing weight. My hunting rifle is a 30-06 so what you've said makes me feel better but I think I'd still want something I could use if a bear is on top of me for backup. Maybe carrying an extra savage magazine with 220gr rounds and keeping that in the gun most of the time would be a good idea, then I could just swap mags to core lokts.
 
Jimbo, large mag capacity is a bonus in theory, but I seriously doubt that having 10-14 round is any better than 5 rounds for one reason:

I have never heard any storys of anyone ever being able to shoot a bear of any kind more then 3 times before that bear either got them, or got away with only 1 exception. That one was not long ago when a man in Alaska killed one with an AK-74 and a whole swarm of 5.45X39 bullets. (21 cal, 62 grain,FMJs at 3000 FPS) But in that case the first 2-3 rounds caused the bear to stumble and not be able to charge at full speed. The man doing the shooting did the wise thing and just kept shooting until the threat was vanquished.

Yes there are several stories of mountain men and trappers having shot grizzlies a LOT of times, but in every case I can remember reading about, it was several men shooting at one bear.

So if you and only you have a bears angry attention, I doubt that having even 30 rounds in a gun is much better than having four or five, because if you don't turn, cripple or drop a bear with 3 or less, you either get mauled or you have the bear get away. I am sure, as with the Alaska shooting I just mentioned, there are exceptions, but the common stories are about men who shoot 1-3 times and make good hits, and drop the bear. I just think going with a good powerful arm with good bullets made for the job is a better option. That doesn't mean you need some new gun. It means you need to be able to use what you have well, and you need bullets that are going to break bone and keep going. How deep? My best guess is that 30" is fine, 60" inches is finer and 100 inches is extra fine.


I believe this, but I can't say "thus saith the Lord".

But having seen a lot of grizzlies in the wild, and having seen 2 of them kill other animals, I am HIGHLY impressed with their power and SPEED.

A grizzly can run down a race horse in the first 50 yards. You will not have time to fire 8-16 rounds at any bear that is not already stopped or at least not able to charge anymore after your first few hits.

Now, again I am not being dogmatic here, but I can't be personally convinced that you could shoot any grizzle more then 3 times with anything if the first or second shot didn't work to turn it or drop it.

And if I am wrong, and you could shoot it 8 times, so what? If you are doing that it means the bear is still in the fight. If you shoot better and keep the bullets where they need to be, 1-2 are going to kill better then 8 that are shot "pretty well".

Anyway...on to the question of the shotgun slugs.

I can't honestly say.

I do know that the old 7/8 OZ Foster slugs have been used for many years by Wyoming Game and Fish, as well as the US Park Service on bears. I don't know what they used today, but in the 60 70s and 80s they used the standard 7/8 OZ slugs. They work quite well.

Again I say if you are shooting a bear in an attack you are facing him, and he is facing you. If that is so and you can make a devastatingly large wound in the bear and break bones, the slug may only go in 14 inches, but that isthe most important important 14".

So if the old Foster 7/8 slugs are good I am certain your heavier slugs are going to do it least as good in dropping a bear, and probably much better.

At least if you turn a bear and you have such penetration you can still fire killing shots shooting from mid body forward. A shorter wound channel would not be as good in that case.
 
I agree I think most guys would be lucky to get off 1 good shot on a charging Griz, what I meant is for me to buy an extra 4 round mag for my savage in addition to the 4 rounder that I already have and carry 220gr rounds in one and hunting ammo in the other. My particular savage has a detachable magazine so it'd be simple so swap one for the other, I know a lot of bolt guns are internal magazines. I should have clarified. I don't think they even make a higher capacity mag for a savage 110, I don't like a big square box hanging out of the gun right where you carry it anyways.
 
Last edited:
Use the best combination you can SHOOT well. A 357 Mag with a 187 Gr WFN is a far better anti-grizzly gun in most hunters hands than the best 44 or 454 Casull.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My bear country defensive load is now a .357 Mag 180-gr XTP with a slightly more-than-max charge of H110, out of my old 6" S&W Model 28. I used to carry a Redhawk with 240-gr HPs, but as I have gotten older, I'm no longer able to shoot it quickly AND accurately, plus it's quite a bit heavier to lug around.

FWIW, my main defensive weapon in bear country is an M1A loaded with 180-gr Nosler Partitions. :cool:
 
if there is any consensus
Click to expand...

There are about a zillion threads that can testify there is not!!

My personal take on it is carrying as powerful a guy as you can shoot well and fast. By fast, I think 2-shots off seems to be the most people can expect to manage in a charge attack. If they're lucky!

Long-gun over hand-gun.

So if you can fire a hot 10mm faster and better than a .44Mag then take the 10mm.

There are no Grizzlies here, but there are Eurasian Browns and they are not small. I can't carry a long-gun here without a licence for hunting so that is out. Then the only big-bore I have is a .44Mag so that is what my choice has to be.

What yours is, depends on you.
 
I haven't been able to wade through this whole series of posts. A lot of good advice there. A few points that I didn't necessarily see.

I know personally of a grizzly attack that was stopped by a bear dead with only a .357 magnum, I believe with solid lead.

Information is pretty slim, but I believe that 36 inches would easily place a bullet into the lungs heart, through a heck of a lot of other tissues. you don't need to worry about anything but a full frontal shot if you are attacking, and in those cases you will either hit belly or face. either one will allow a possibly lethal or crippling hit with a 44 or larger.

If you plan on carrying a handgun, as was said, get good rounds for a grizzly attack, not deer rounds.

Accuracy, both on the part of the gun and the shooter, and follow up are more important than absolute power.

There is no such thing as too much power. Simple as that. Can you control it? that's all that matters. DEAD IS DEAD. overkill is a nonsense term. Can you hit it and get in a second shot? That's what matters as long as you have reached a minimum level of power and penetration.

What are suggested rounds? You've gotten a lot of suggestions. Rangers in Alaskan bear country carry rifles, and they choose a .444 or twelve gauge with slugs. A twelve gauge slug gun with hard slugs, even hard sabot slugs can easily blast from brain to bunghole.

What would I choose? A very heavyweight .44 magnum DA pistol with suggested bear rounds. I'm barely certain that I could survive a bear charge, that's a stress situation. What would I use for a rifle? I've already said, large bore lever, or twelve gauge slug.

Would I choose the .375 magnum bolt, as was once suggested for dangerous bear? this was a default rifle for certain jurisdictions for hunting down bear that had been involved in attacks. I think that it has been replaced long ago. I can't handle a bolt well. That's just plain out of the question.

I wonder if a guy with an AR in 300 blk would be able to put enough rounds on target, and whether it would be enough to get two or three into center mass to drop the thing. I think that most talented shooters could do that.
 
Here is a link to an interesting story of a fellow attacked twice by a sow with cubs. He deployed bear spray but it didn't work. He had a handgun (the article doesn't say what it was) but did not or was unable to use it.
 
Speaking of which.............
We had another one here. Outside of the town of Dubois. Last weekend a man got mauled bad. He's in the hospital now and he's going to live, but I guess he came up "second best' in that fight. No shots were even fired. He never had time.
 
Wow I can't believe the guy from Bozeman was able to be so composed and take a video of himself after the 2 attacks. And then drove himself to the hospital. The video he took of himself showed a flap of his scalp hanging off his head above his ear and broken arm. One tough dude.
 
There are a few people on this planet that could face a charging grizzly and still remain completely composed and able. Maybe less than one in 500. Soldiers, cops, people who have lived with and practiced stress situations. Just running through a bunch of drills with a 45 at action pistol ranges isn't going to do as much good as expected.

What's going to happen if I look to the west and see 300 pounds of fat and fangs charging at me, screaming "YOUR HEINIE IS ABOUT TO BE MY BREAKFAST"? heck, I don't know, but when I wind up with only seconds to draw and kill, I'm going to pray that my cell phone works, that I'm within range of a really good trauma center, and that there is someone next to me who's one of those 1 of 500.

The default thought that prevails here is that everything is easily defeated, that every situation can be survivable. Im a lot more reaistic, I know that my chances of survival in a lot of situations is next to zip.

It'd be really nice if the thing gave me a nice warning, standing and yelling at me until I could get prepped and let me take the first shot.
 
I guess part of that point was that you have got to gather the psychological strenght, because that's what's going to save you in a short charge out of brush. If you spook one, it may be only 100 feet away, and it's probably going to go from feeding on the huckleberries to smearing them all over your face before he even swallows. The british used to use a pathetic training exercise, it was a sillouhette on a wire that flew into your face from about 100 feet. you had to hit the thing.

tagging a man sized target at 100 feet isn't the same as tagging a bear at short distance when you've been wandering around admiring the view.
 
A honed set of skills committed to autopilot and reflex reaction are what will give you a fighting chance. My sig line was not picked at random.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top