Bear PROTECTION, not Bear Hunting
- Thread starter Sniper 51
- Start date
- Status
It depends on what kind of "experts" we're talking about. If these experts are largely ones who haven't been in a situation that required the use of bear spray, then why do they recommend bear spray?
usually (that's an obvious generalization, not an absolute) if you are upwind of a truly wild bear they will avoid you as soon as they can smell you. if you are down wind of them where they can't readily smell you that means the wind will be blowing in your face as you face the bear.... not a good situation for bear spray. garbage dump bears and so forth are not as easily dissuaded by the scent of people.... either way, I don't consider it good tactics counting on a favorable breeze to help save my life when I could have a gun instead. I somehow don't think a lot of people really know how fast a bear is, because they think they can deploy bear spray, access the situation, then draw and fire a gun on target before the bear attacks them.
Typically because they're the same folks who don't hunt or shoot, and so detest the shooting and/or hunting of animals, large or small, to begin with ....
They certainly don't like reading about hunting bears, or incidents where bears are shot in legitimate self-defense ... nor the same about moose, elk, caribou, et al., even though all these big-game species are legally huntable.
Hence they recommend what amounts to industrial-strength perfume over the use of a centerfire rifle, slug-gun or handgun, because their 'food-chain' priorities dictate the bear's survival though not necessarily yours, and they will fault you anyway for 'provoking' the encounter by having tread into the animal's territorial domain.
Priorities, priorities ...
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay, I have been reading through various arguments from both sides and looking up incidents. Here is my take. Both handgun defense and spray defense have proponents and detractors. Both sides selectively use information to bolster their positions. Both sides seem to conveniently ignore information that doesn't suit their argument.
It is difficult to tell from the various eye witness/victim accounts just how often bears were actually attacking or just bluff charging and the humans reacted to the encounter as an attack. In some cases, it appears that the aggression was more on the part of the humans because they felt threatened. Not passing judgement here, but simply pointing out that bears were too close and that did not respond to shouting and posturing by the humans were then hazed by the humans in an attempt to fend off the bears who instead returned aggression.
Pistol proponents (such as the guy from Ammoland) like to talk about all the times bear spray 'failed,' citing accounts like the two hunters in Wyoming where the guide was killed and his partner didn't know how to work a Glock. Of course the guy using the bear spray was potentially already terminal, the surviving buddy not having reported seeing his guide ever deploy the spray. Of course, it is important to keep in mind that bear spray is a short distance weapon and often after the attack has commenced. People are going to get hurt at that point. People also seem to get hurt by bears when they attempt to use firearms at that point as well. The difference here is that a pistol can actually kill the bear to stop the attack and pepper spray has to dissuade the bear.
Pistols can dissuade or kill bears at longer distances, a big benefit for handguns. However, shooting and not killing a bear has apparently triggered bears to then charge and physically engage the humans. I did not find any instances of it, but I do not doubt that very close use of spray in an attempt to haze bears may have had a similar result. It is hard to get good information from the various accounts online. They often exclude the less exciting aspects of the events and so we miss how things truly unfolded.
Bear spray proponents point out that people engaging with firearms are more apt to be injured or killed by bears than when using bear spray. Firearm proponents argue that a higher percentage of attacks are actually stopped successfully with firearms than bear spray. Both arguments appear to be correct based on the data presented. Again, based on the information available, I would have to question just how often attacks were actually attacks and how often the attacks were actually triggered by humans. I am not suggesting that the humans did not feel threatened, but am suggesting that some attacks were undoubtedly brought on by how the humans performed.
When I talk about the bias in reporting success and failures, I am going to use this article as one example as I still have it pulled up. I found examples from both sides that seemed to read the same way.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/bear-spray-failure-bow-hunter-mauled/#axzz5azjz89Gb
Here, bear spray was said to fail because the bear charged through a cloud and still attacked, resulting in injury. Bear spray did manage to drive the bear off however. So was it a success or failure? Bear spray stopped the attack, but did not prevent the attack.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/harr...ack-finally-stopped-with-a-glock-10mm-pistol/
By contrast, Weingarten considers this to be a success story for guns because the hunter was not killed despite the bear being shot multiple times to prevent "attack." The gun did stop the attack after the hunter was seriously wounded. So is this a success or failure of the gun?
My point here is that both sides want to claim their option is best. Both sides will present information in a favorable manner to make it sound like they are correct. The contrast between Weingarten stories is interesting. Bear spray is bad because it did not prevent an attack even though it eventually stopped the attack, but in the gun story, the gun is good because it did stop an attack despite failing to prevent it. Hmmmm.
It is difficult to tell from the various eye witness/victim accounts just how often bears were actually attacking or just bluff charging and the humans reacted to the encounter as an attack. In some cases, it appears that the aggression was more on the part of the humans because they felt threatened. Not passing judgement here, but simply pointing out that bears were too close and that did not respond to shouting and posturing by the humans were then hazed by the humans in an attempt to fend off the bears who instead returned aggression.
Pistol proponents (such as the guy from Ammoland) like to talk about all the times bear spray 'failed,' citing accounts like the two hunters in Wyoming where the guide was killed and his partner didn't know how to work a Glock. Of course the guy using the bear spray was potentially already terminal, the surviving buddy not having reported seeing his guide ever deploy the spray. Of course, it is important to keep in mind that bear spray is a short distance weapon and often after the attack has commenced. People are going to get hurt at that point. People also seem to get hurt by bears when they attempt to use firearms at that point as well. The difference here is that a pistol can actually kill the bear to stop the attack and pepper spray has to dissuade the bear.
Pistols can dissuade or kill bears at longer distances, a big benefit for handguns. However, shooting and not killing a bear has apparently triggered bears to then charge and physically engage the humans. I did not find any instances of it, but I do not doubt that very close use of spray in an attempt to haze bears may have had a similar result. It is hard to get good information from the various accounts online. They often exclude the less exciting aspects of the events and so we miss how things truly unfolded.
Bear spray proponents point out that people engaging with firearms are more apt to be injured or killed by bears than when using bear spray. Firearm proponents argue that a higher percentage of attacks are actually stopped successfully with firearms than bear spray. Both arguments appear to be correct based on the data presented. Again, based on the information available, I would have to question just how often attacks were actually attacks and how often the attacks were actually triggered by humans. I am not suggesting that the humans did not feel threatened, but am suggesting that some attacks were undoubtedly brought on by how the humans performed.
When I talk about the bias in reporting success and failures, I am going to use this article as one example as I still have it pulled up. I found examples from both sides that seemed to read the same way.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/bear-spray-failure-bow-hunter-mauled/#axzz5azjz89Gb
Here, bear spray was said to fail because the bear charged through a cloud and still attacked, resulting in injury. Bear spray did manage to drive the bear off however. So was it a success or failure? Bear spray stopped the attack, but did not prevent the attack.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/harr...ack-finally-stopped-with-a-glock-10mm-pistol/
By contrast, Weingarten considers this to be a success story for guns because the hunter was not killed despite the bear being shot multiple times to prevent "attack." The gun did stop the attack after the hunter was seriously wounded. So is this a success or failure of the gun?
My point here is that both sides want to claim their option is best. Both sides will present information in a favorable manner to make it sound like they are correct. The contrast between Weingarten stories is interesting. Bear spray is bad because it did not prevent an attack even though it eventually stopped the attack, but in the gun story, the gun is good because it did stop an attack despite failing to prevent it. Hmmmm.
Last edited:
Mike_Fontenot
New member
That does raise an interesting question: if a bear is just very slowly approaching you, without growling or showing other aggression other than just staring at you, just how close do you allow him to get to you before you shoot him or squirt him?
Pond James Pond
New member
I think that, looking at what DNS took the effort to write and what others have said, there is only one certain conclusion tone drawn:
Bears are physically tough, imposing and strong and there simply is no sure-fire way of dealing with an encounter, any more than there is for a gazelle dealing with a lion. We are the gazelles.
A bear is a superior adversary in every way bar intelligence. Intelligence is our trump card which allows us to plan to a point but, all the same, the “horns” we carry, as with the gazelle, May not be enough.
If that is not acceptable, stay out of bear territory...
Bears are physically tough, imposing and strong and there simply is no sure-fire way of dealing with an encounter, any more than there is for a gazelle dealing with a lion. We are the gazelles.
A bear is a superior adversary in every way bar intelligence. Intelligence is our trump card which allows us to plan to a point but, all the same, the “horns” we carry, as with the gazelle, May not be enough.
If that is not acceptable, stay out of bear territory...
This is probably the definitive answer. I am assuming that it is a deliberate action and that the bear knows that you are there.
You spray him the very second that he gets within spraying distance. Why, in the name of god and everything holy, would anyone wait until the thing is within striking distance before using non lethal force?
Shooting him? Not so simple. a bear isn't going to deliberately stalk up on you in such a situation. It isn't in their nature. If one does, it's possibly looking for a sandwich, knowing that you are a sucker with a backpack full of bacon cheeseburgers and that you will be glad to share a picnic of Hardee's and michelob with him. He may believe that you are yourself edible.
Hold out as long as your nads will allow and face the consequences afterwards.
You may have just shot a bear who escaped from a zoo and all he wanted was a cheeseburger and a ride home. You may have just shot a serial killer who preferred his meal with a little extra adrenaline spicing the meat.
I am truly surprised that nobody has brought up the factual wisdom provided by numerous organizations such as the sierra club.
If it is a black bear, stand up tall, wave your arms, roar at him in a guttural and threatening manner, just like you would on halloween. If he's a grizzly, throw yourself to the ground and play possum. Hold your hands over your face and head and bite down on a branch so that it can't hear you screaming in terror.
Honestly, I believe that either one of them will work better for anyone who I know than giving them a super blackhawk in .454.
One more time,then you are on your own.For the bears who read books and follow the rules,and we are talking black bears,by far the bear who is most likely to attack and kill you is a lone male who silently stalks you.No rush,no drama,he just closes the distance.When he gets close,then he will rush you.
Good luck! Think about it. A high drama bear is telling you to back off.As a hunter,you don't do high drama.
The bear who is hunting you wants to close the distance.
He may be very persistent.
The quote is about falling for the bear's plan."Well,he does not seem threatening"...…….He does if you know the plan.
If you are being silently stalked by a lone male bear Make the best use of what you have.I think it might be best to have both.Spray might buy you some time.(Or solve the problem) He might need shooting. I can't tell you.
buck460XVR
New member
9 fatal attacks by black bears in the U.S. in the last 20 years. 1 of those was from a pet/captive bear. While there is an amount of risk, it is quite minute. More folks get killed by bees every year, yet you see very few folks walking around with a can of Wasp spray on their hip. This includes those that know they are allergic.
glockman55
New member
One reason I choose this: SW329pd. lightweight and Big bang,,
Cosmodragoon
New member
As I said earlier, black bears can often be shouted away. There used to be an awesome video of an old lady doing that, including against bluff charges. (I can't find it atm.) Of course, you'll want to draw first if they are close enough to be dangerous. If they are really close or a shout fails, I'd say shoot (or spray). Don't gamble with your life. A common and true theme here is that wild animals can behave unpredictably.
wild cat mccane
New member
I'm telling you, there is no larger duped group of consumers in ANY single consumable product than what Ruger/S&W has built with just a little fear for bears.
And to show I'm not an angry curmudgeon who hates guns as someone posted above, here is my 686. I still would not grab this first over my bear spray. Probably ever.
And to show I'm not an angry curmudgeon who hates guns as someone posted above, here is my 686. I still would not grab this first over my bear spray. Probably ever.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've done some cleanup work.
This topic is amusing to some but serious to others. Those who find it serious are welcome to continue the discussion. Those who find it amusing are welcome to ignore the this thread from here on out.
(At least please try to minimize the jokes in deference to those who are trying to have a serious discussion.)
This topic is amusing to some but serious to others. Those who find it serious are welcome to continue the discussion. Those who find it amusing are welcome to ignore the this thread from here on out.
(At least please try to minimize the jokes in deference to those who are trying to have a serious discussion.)
JohnKSa,
Thanks for taking control of the discussion again. I hate to read these forum discussions when everyone wants to argue or discuss everything except what was asked.
Thanks to those who stayed on topic. Yes, I could have done a search on Bear Protection...and I did. Just thought I would add my personal circumstances to see if I could get additional information. Sorry to those who were offended by another bear topic but I thought that's what these forums were for. New information. If not, we might as well just shut down these forums and set up a reference library in the future.
I don't dismiss the spray, it's just not what I want to trust in a life or death situation. Didn't want to go into all the details at the start but I have had a long career in law enforcement and very familiar with weapons and my capabilities. However, a bear is completely different from a perpetrator and wanted to see what others had to say.
After much research I have made my personal decision on how to handle this situation. It may not be right for everyone but I think its the right decision for me.
I know that a .357 is capable of handling the situation but questioned how many effective rounds on target could be fired due to recoil under the circumstances. I know that a 45LC is capable of handling this situation. I also know that a 255 gr. 45acp+P is almost an identical twin to the 45LC so I chose to go with a Glock 21 Gen. 4 with just a little less recoil and more rounds than the .357, plus it weighs less for carrying all day. If I decide to move on up to a 10mm at some point and time I can do that with a simple conversion. Thanks again for all the input.
Thanks for taking control of the discussion again. I hate to read these forum discussions when everyone wants to argue or discuss everything except what was asked.
Thanks to those who stayed on topic. Yes, I could have done a search on Bear Protection...and I did. Just thought I would add my personal circumstances to see if I could get additional information. Sorry to those who were offended by another bear topic but I thought that's what these forums were for. New information. If not, we might as well just shut down these forums and set up a reference library in the future.
I don't dismiss the spray, it's just not what I want to trust in a life or death situation. Didn't want to go into all the details at the start but I have had a long career in law enforcement and very familiar with weapons and my capabilities. However, a bear is completely different from a perpetrator and wanted to see what others had to say.
After much research I have made my personal decision on how to handle this situation. It may not be right for everyone but I think its the right decision for me.
I know that a .357 is capable of handling the situation but questioned how many effective rounds on target could be fired due to recoil under the circumstances. I know that a 45LC is capable of handling this situation. I also know that a 255 gr. 45acp+P is almost an identical twin to the 45LC so I chose to go with a Glock 21 Gen. 4 with just a little less recoil and more rounds than the .357, plus it weighs less for carrying all day. If I decide to move on up to a 10mm at some point and time I can do that with a simple conversion. Thanks again for all the input.
Sniper.
I personally believe that you have chosen a truly fine outfit for bear in the east. You will encounter bears up to 250 or so, six feet by three, normally smaller. You have a gun that you can put rounds on target with and rounds that can cause extreme damage about a foot into the bears front end. If the thing needs to be shot, that's what you want, to bleed out the chest or break the nerve system.
There is one thing that I want to repeat. These bears are purportedly more likely to alert you to their presence rather than charge without notice. You may have the chance to use the non handgun weapons. As a cop, you must appreciate having alternative weapons, your primary weapon in bear country would best be served by a gun that will work for you and will probably kill any bear that you can hit. A secondary weapon would be great, a not so lethal weapon that you can deploy after due consideration, one that offers a choice of not shooting.
If you would prefer to keep it simple, to not have another decision to make, well, I can understand and respect that and it is a decision that you have made. Do what you think is best. I'm probably of the same mind anyway.
I never have felt that a 9 mm was adequate to carry against bear attack unless the carrier is capable of dumping a lot of rounds under the chin of a running bear, even though that is an unlikely scenario. That doesn't rule out a semiauto, a forty size round or larger in semiauto that allows a shooter to put lots of rounds on target is going to be probably lethal and would almost certainly stop or turn back anything but the most determined charge.
Have confidence in your choice of ammo, ,you already have confidence in your choice of weapon.
I personally believe that you have chosen a truly fine outfit for bear in the east. You will encounter bears up to 250 or so, six feet by three, normally smaller. You have a gun that you can put rounds on target with and rounds that can cause extreme damage about a foot into the bears front end. If the thing needs to be shot, that's what you want, to bleed out the chest or break the nerve system.
There is one thing that I want to repeat. These bears are purportedly more likely to alert you to their presence rather than charge without notice. You may have the chance to use the non handgun weapons. As a cop, you must appreciate having alternative weapons, your primary weapon in bear country would best be served by a gun that will work for you and will probably kill any bear that you can hit. A secondary weapon would be great, a not so lethal weapon that you can deploy after due consideration, one that offers a choice of not shooting.
If you would prefer to keep it simple, to not have another decision to make, well, I can understand and respect that and it is a decision that you have made. Do what you think is best. I'm probably of the same mind anyway.
I never have felt that a 9 mm was adequate to carry against bear attack unless the carrier is capable of dumping a lot of rounds under the chin of a running bear, even though that is an unlikely scenario. That doesn't rule out a semiauto, a forty size round or larger in semiauto that allows a shooter to put lots of rounds on target is going to be probably lethal and would almost certainly stop or turn back anything but the most determined charge.
Have confidence in your choice of ammo, ,you already have confidence in your choice of weapon.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Many people don't feel a 9mm is adequate, yet it seems to work just fine. There does seem to be some disconnect between perception and actual field results.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5bStF7blm
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5bStF7blm
field results mean nothing.
They represent one unique event out of a number of other completely unique events. Using real world results of only four poor examples to predict the future, without giving balancing events where they failed is a fallacy. they are only reports of what had happened, and prove only the possibility that it will work again. There are four incidents that they confirmed and no counter reports given of people who had their legs chewed off after using one in defense.
A breakdown.
1. three head shots killed the bear. Sure, everyone can do that, right?
2. it ran away?
3. It worked??
4. repeated bluff charges. Spray didn't work, it ran away when shot.
It's a fact that the 9mm is not a round meant for or appropriate for big, dangerous game. It even fails to stop human attackers time after time. The FBI shooting and many, many others have found decided that it can't be relied on to even stop an angry human, why would it be reliable against angry, bloodthirsty, hard, tough, predators like bears? A big bear taking two rounds to the chest and three to the head is not going to happen every time a grizzly attacks.
That strange disconnect that you are seeing is people ignoring true facts and using other facts to support their not well considered beliefs. The guy who carries a .22 lr derringer on his belt buckle and feels safe is not at all different from the guy who packs a 9mm in his pocket and expects to survive what may be a desperate battle with a huge killer.
For some reason, there are people who want others to adopt unconventional wisdom. I've had people argue that the whopper was the best burger. In this case it's quite obvious that the 9mm is not even acceptable to hundreds of thousands of people as a weapon for use against humans, and rightly so. It's also obvious that you can kill a bear with a 9mm, a round of birdshot, even a hatchet, in a pinch.
I feel sorry for those who buy into these marginal beliefs and ignore better advice, like 'don't count on being lucky. Working four times only means that it may not work the next time.'
They represent one unique event out of a number of other completely unique events. Using real world results of only four poor examples to predict the future, without giving balancing events where they failed is a fallacy. they are only reports of what had happened, and prove only the possibility that it will work again. There are four incidents that they confirmed and no counter reports given of people who had their legs chewed off after using one in defense.
A breakdown.
1. three head shots killed the bear. Sure, everyone can do that, right?
2. it ran away?
3. It worked??
4. repeated bluff charges. Spray didn't work, it ran away when shot.
It's a fact that the 9mm is not a round meant for or appropriate for big, dangerous game. It even fails to stop human attackers time after time. The FBI shooting and many, many others have found decided that it can't be relied on to even stop an angry human, why would it be reliable against angry, bloodthirsty, hard, tough, predators like bears? A big bear taking two rounds to the chest and three to the head is not going to happen every time a grizzly attacks.
That strange disconnect that you are seeing is people ignoring true facts and using other facts to support their not well considered beliefs. The guy who carries a .22 lr derringer on his belt buckle and feels safe is not at all different from the guy who packs a 9mm in his pocket and expects to survive what may be a desperate battle with a huge killer.
For some reason, there are people who want others to adopt unconventional wisdom. I've had people argue that the whopper was the best burger. In this case it's quite obvious that the 9mm is not even acceptable to hundreds of thousands of people as a weapon for use against humans, and rightly so. It's also obvious that you can kill a bear with a 9mm, a round of birdshot, even a hatchet, in a pinch.
I feel sorry for those who buy into these marginal beliefs and ignore better advice, like 'don't count on being lucky. Working four times only means that it may not work the next time.'
- Status