East coast bear...357 mag or .45 apc.

I am starting to think I must stink to bears or something, since I am close to 50 and have never had a bear attack me. The only black bears that have noticed me immediately have ran as fast as they could away from me...

I am scared to death of cougars, and if I was in grizzly country I would take more precautions, but strictly black bear areas I don't worry about anything.
 
davelandrum said:
I am starting to think I must stink to bears or something, since I am close to 50 and have never had a bear attack me. The only black bears that have noticed me immediately have ran as fast as they could away from me...

I am scared to death of cougars, and if I was in grizzly country I would take more precautions, but strictly black bear areas I don't worry about anything.

I went with some shipmates to recover a vehicle in Saltry Cove on Tuesday. Saw at least 8 or 9 bears that afternoon/evening. All were well within bow range.

That's why I carry a Marlin 1895STP (.45/70). It's cumbersome and uncomfortable at times, but if the spray don't work... It will be worth double it's weight in gold.
 
So what your saying is that "Dumping the mag" into a bear that is charging you is a bad idea. I believe that someone mentioned that bears have tough skin and a high tolerance of pain. So that is where the "Hope for a lucky shot" comes in. Even if you hit it with every shot there is no way with a bear charging at you that you are going to hold perfectly still and hit exactly where you want to with every shot. Just not going to happen. So again I appologize for not making myself more clear to you.

Here is what I should have wrote so you would understand it better......I would want the semi auto pistol over the revolver. That would give me more shots if needed. If a bear where to charge I would want the extra shots if needed as I put well aimed shots into the bear's head. Seeing how he is charging you that is the best shot you have.

That's why I carry a Marlin 1895STP (.45/70). It's cumbersome and uncomfortable at times, but if the spray don't work... It will be worth double it's weight in gold

I have never carried bear spray. Not sure how far it is good for but I am guessing that if it doesn't work the bear will be too close and it wont matter what your carrying.
 
Coastie - Don't blame you a bit, but Alaska bears are a whole lot different than most black bears encountered in the lower 48.

Stay safe!
 
I have never carried bear spray. Not sure how far it is good for but I am guessing that if it doesn't work the bear will be too close and it wont matter what your carrying.

I've used it with good results before. Turned away two bears from being too close for my comfort.

There was a juvenile that wasn't fazed at all by the spray and I then started looking at the 10mm I was carrying and about wet myself when I really started thinking about it. I figured it was time to go big or go home.

The spray is in a holster on my belt. The Marlin is in my hand. :D
 
east coast bears

We're talking black bears. And the 200-500 lb weight range mentioned earlier is about right. Blackies are notorious for being timid, wary and shy when encountered naturally in the wild. They are not typically thought of as aggressive.

Likely the most dangerous ( and I have to force myself to use the phrase) black bears are the ones that have become accustomed to humans, as in some areas of the National Parks. These do not flee as a "wild" bear will, but tolerate human presence. On a family trip last year to Great Smokey's NP, we saw 9 in one day, two on the trail and quite close. The others were from our car. None would have exceeded 250 lbs, and most were immature and around 150+.
All were in close proximity to people and seemed not troubled in the least by human presence.

Smokey's had a bear fatality about 10-15 years ago, when a pair of bears attacked and killed a lone adult woman. Rangers responding found the bears still with the victim and the bears were mowed down with .40 SW from Sigs w/ multiple hits. They would have taken long guns, but the call was disjointed and responders were not aware they were going to a bear incident. I do not know any other details.

This is in stark contrast to my experiences in Shenandoah NP in the early 80's. There I had about weekly contact w/ black bears on the trail, or in a bear live trap and collar project. All were extremely wary and would not tolerate human presence, fleeing immediately.

Given all that, I would not worry to much about aggressive black bears, but a firearm/ handgun, in the woods is a comfort to most of us, regardless. I would feel adequately prepared w/ either handgun you mention, provided the .357 is not a snub, and is loaded w/ heavy JSP or SWC full house ammo. With the .45, again, a full size auto would be my choice as opposed to a subcompact. I would lean towards truncated or flat nose heavy FMJ if the gun was reliable w/ same.

For me, autos carry easier, typically flatter and more compact. The larger framed / barreled revolvers can be awkward over long distances on foot.

I have to agree that the greater threat is from two legged human predators, but armed as above you could handle both.
 
Black bear attacks are more common than is often reported. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ab5cdb1806fef4aa

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3306263 All of these were within a couple hours of where I live and are in areas where I hike and camp.

A bear was killed in June by Smokey Mt National Park rangers after it became aggressive and bit a hikers foot. I know of several incidents that are being kept quiet here in N Georgia. Fortunately no one has been hurt yet.

I see bears all the time. Most run or just wander off, but being prepared and aware is a good idea.
 
Ours don't make the news all the time either but we have at least one a year around use. It is usually either a archery hunter or a hound hunter, but at least once a year we have a bear attack.
 
Guy was attacked/mauled by a black bear, here, in his yard, between Raleigh & Cary. (for y'all that ain't familiar with the area, it's 99% city/suburbs)
 
bamaranger said:
We're talking black bears. And the 200-500 lb weight range mentioned earlier is about right. Blackies are notorious for being timid, wary and shy when encountered naturally in the wild. They are not typically thought of as aggressive.

Depends on where you are... Black bears can be way more aggressive than their larger brown-cloaked cousins...

Stereotyping black bears by saying they are not really aggressive compared to brown bears is like saying that German Shepard's are less aggressive than American Mastiff's... Any way you slice it; you're a fraction of a second from being wrong on either count.

It's best to go prepared and with a full account in the bank of knowledge. Knowing that you could be lunch in short order is the first lesson needed. The second lesson is to be armed well enough (spray, rifle, shotgun w slugs) to prevent the first lesson.
 
Yes, My wife and I hiked up to the Mt LeConte Lodge in early June. The staff there warned us to be extra careful because they had been having lots of problems with aggressive bears recently. They told us that a bear had recently bitten a hiker on the foot trying to get his backpack and that park rangers had decided to kill it.

They said it would be easy to identify the aggressive bears because they had been chasing them away from the lodge with paintball guns. Seems they all had red paint in their fur.

A link to the lodge for those interested http://www.leconte-lodge.com/about.html
 
Last edited:
wouldn't the revolver be better? if a bear were charging, by the time you could un- hip it, wouldn't it most likely be a contact shot?
 
Not in my opinion, at least not for that reason. If your close enough to worry about a pistol being out of battery and not firing, you are close enough for something to bind up the cylinder on a revolver preventing it from firing also.

Given his 2 options I like the 357 better because of better bullet options and much better penetration. As I stated earlier my personal choice is the Glock in 10mm better because it gives me 16 rounds equal to 357 power in a smaller, lighter, more reliable platform.
 
Another vote of Bear spray. There are kinds that advertise a 25 yard range, just pray to god the wind is not blowing in your face :D
 
deerhunter firing@the head and even just the 1st couple miss you're in trouble. centermass and just make sure you are hitting the bear. there was a recent bear attack (posted on here) where the guy emptied the mag like you said(centermass) and the bear eventually retreated and later died from his wounds(9shots found the intended target). people underestimate the bearspray as its place on the belt is well-deserved like coastie pointed out. even with wind it can work and its not like said bear has to be right on you(there sense of smell is Phenominal. my dad is an avid hiker+has been since retirement(and lets be frank here- alaska takes the cake on the wildlife, rugged terrain contest here so whenever an alaskan firearms enthusiast speaks about these matters- I tend to listen); he hiked appalachian trail all the way from maine to GA, he hiked cali to canada, etc. he Refuses to carry a gun even though I always tell him I am buying him one. I will force him when he goes to AK as the buck 110 knife is nice but he is all done without backup and his courage is real. he has seen mountain lions as another example
 
PLEASE NOTICE WEBSITE WHERE THE BELOW ARTICLE IS SITED FROM REGARDING MY MOST RECENT POST:

http://standbyliberty.org/2010/06/1...egal-to-carry-the-gun-but-illegal-to-fire-it/


ALSO SORRY, I WASN'T TRYING TO DELVE INTO THE POLITICS; I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND THE ARTICLE(I SORT OF FOUND BOTH). IN MY VIEW ONCE THEY ASCERTAIN ITS SELF DEFENSE ITS CASE CLOSED(PROBABLY JUST PROCEDURE) BUT BOTTOM LINE IF THATS MY DAD HE IS BEAR FOOD(ONE LAST POINT: IF THE LAW HADN'T BEEN CHANGED ON PARKS ABOUT 2 MONTHS AGO, THESE TWO OR @ LEAST ONE WERE ALSO BEAR FOOD). THERE IS A REASON WHY CCW IN ALSAKA REQUIRES NO PERMIT AND HOPEFULLY SOME MEDIA WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IS A VALID REASON BEHIND CCW NOW BEING ALLOWED IN US NATIONAL PARKS:)

A Man Shoots a Grizzly Bear and Saves a Woman, the Government Opens an Investigation Because it was Legal to Carry the Gun, But Illegal to Fire It
June 10th, 2010 | Author: admin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_us/us_hiker_kills_grizzly

Keep that link in your minds eye. Over the Memorial Day weekend I found an interesting story that once again demonstrates just how anti-gun and how inefficient the federal government is and can be. The headlines went like this “Backpacker shoots, kills grizzly in Alaska park”. Needless to say it got my attention and I decided to look into it a bit. What I found is amazing.

According to Denali National Park spokeswomen Kris Fister a man and a woman reported they were hiking on Friday, May 28th and evening was closing in. While doing this they reported that a Grizzly Bear emerged out of what is called “trail side” brush and charged the woman. The man with her drew his weapon and fired nine rounds from his 45acp pistol. The report stated that the bear stopped and walked back into the woods. Being more than a little shaken the couple went to the park rangers immediately and reported what happened.

The next day which was Saturday, the park officials went to the location where the hikers claimed the incident took place and found the bear dead about 100 feet from where the shooting occurred. So far I’m in the game, here is where it gets weird. The incident is under investigation, investigate what? The key is that while it is legal to now carry a gun in the park, its illegal to shoot it. Hello? This park, Denali is in Alaska, they have big old bears in Alaska. By the way, I am very pro anything that helps animals without hurting people.

The new federal law recently signed took effect a couple months back and in that law it provides for people to be able to carry a firearm in a national park as long as they are complying with the state law in which the park is located. More or less, if you have a permit to carry and state X honors it, you are covered in the park. Here is the strange thing, if this was a person that had been shot instead of a bear think about this, you have two witnesses and the assailant is dead. Unless you find ballistics that cast doubt on their stories how much of an investigation can you do as long as they stick to their story about the incident? As long as you found the attackers weapon, the shooting is going to be found justified and this is a person, not an animal. The bear was obviously well armed and posed a threat.

What this shows is that the left in this country that dominates things like national parks, have more money than brains. A man shot an animal that was about to attack his female companion, his weapon is far from an ideal hunting weapon let alone a bear hunting weapon. They are both lucky to get out unscathed. But somehow we need to “investigate” the incident. Give me a break. The reason they have more money than brains is because its your money.


Posted in 2nd amendment, america, government, weapons | Tags: 45acp, Alaska, criminal investigation, Denali National Park, federal law, grizzly bear, Shooting 3 Responses to “A Man Shoots a Grizzly Bear and Saves a Woman, the Government Opens an Investigation Because it was Legal to Carry the Gun, But Illegal to Fire It”
A Man Shoots a Grizzly Bear and Saves a Woman, the Government Opens an Investigation Because it was Legal to Carry the Gun, But Illegal to Fire It | Pennsylvania:
June 10, 2010 at 8:16 pm
[...] Here is the original post: A Man Shoots a Grizzly Bear and Saves a Woman, the Government Opens an Investigation Because it was … [...]

Carol Ford:
June 11, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I am astounded that they need to do an investigation on this. It is not like the man shot the bear just for kicks and giggles, he was defending another human life. Sometimes I think they the powers that be have too much time on their hands.

admin:
June 11, 2010 at 7:54 pm
They do have way to much time on their hands. The sad part is that as taxpayers we are supporting their actions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top