Hand guns and bears . . . let's chat.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris Queen, who had been hunting elk, told investigators he was returning to his horses around 6:30 p.m. when he came upon the grizzly sow and three cubs.
“It was then that he discharged his hunting rifle, killing the charging grizzly,” Mathess said of Queen’s account. “It fell only a few feet from where he stood.”

Queen, 48, was carrying bear spray, the Sheriff’s Office says.
Click to expand...

So, per this Powell Tribune story, even when Game Wardens carry bear spray, they still don't use it in preference to a firearm.
 
agtman said:
So, per this Powell Tribune story, even when Game Wardens carry bear spray, they still don't use it in preference to a firearm.
Click to expand...

This from the same linked article.....
“However, he also had his rifle in both hands and the attack happened so quick that he made the decision to discharge the rifle,” Mathess said in an email. “[Queen] would have had to drop the rifle to deploy the bear spray and in his mind, there wasn’t sufficient time.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like he may have preferred to use bear spray, but didn't have the time. Time is the issue in most "real" bear attacks. Handgun or bear spray in a back-pack instead of in your hands or on your belt. Most folks with a a handgun on their hip for a back-up don't use it first, but have it for when their rifle is not in their hands. Would have been shear foolishness to take the time during a charge to remove a more legitimate deterrent to the threat out of his hands. The fact he restrained from using anything earlier against the bear shows he was doing all he could to refrain from killing it and leaving the cubs without a mother.


SATRP said:
To proclaim efficacy of bear spray is unsupported opinion. Its purported efficacy was not proven via scientific methodology. At best, it's anecdotal.

BTW, US government employees are protected by 870's, not bear spray, when they're working in bear country.
Click to expand...

So, by the same mind-set, the efficacy of handguns is also unsupported opinion and nuttin' but anecdotal. So......IOWs, must be emotional attachment why folks insist they are superior to spray?

No one here is claiming bear spray is superior to a long gun in your hands......and an 870 with slugs is also a definite advantage over any handgun in the hands of most folks. This thread is not about long-guns, so bringing them into the fray is not bringing in anything useful.

The majority of folks entering the woods with a fear for bear, are not experienced in either the use of bear spray, or the use of a handgun at a fast moving target, when their adrenaline is pumping and they are under extreme stress. To claim that the average outdoorsman is going to remain calm under a legitimate bear attack is naive. I have a "charging bear" target at my personal range. I have mentioned it several times here. It is a tether-ball attached to a powered cord reel. Even experienced handgunners never hit it, even after several tries. Even without the stress, knowing the ball can't kill them. Now, take the average person, who buys a new hand-cannon for their week-end camping trip and still has most of their first box of ammo left.

Just sayin'......
 
Ok, how about this, you shove the can of bear spray in the bear's mouth, then shoot it like Sherriff Brody did to the shark in Jaws! :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't even see why this is a discussion. First, spray is off topic, second, bear spray is a chemical irritant. It is a deterrent (when it works), NOT a defense. Not only is it not lethal, its not permanently damaging.

I don't see how anyone with two brain cells to rub together could not only equate bear spray with a firearm (in this case a handgun), but then go on to further idiocy by making it an either/or proposition.

Lets stay on topic, which is Handguns and bears, and leave discussions about bear spray in the can.
 
agtman said:
So, per this Powell Tribune story, even when Game Wardens carry bear spray, they still don't use it in preference to a firearm.
Click to expand...

I have never understood why anyone would carry a handgun for protection when rifle hunting in bear country. I imagine the situation where there's a bear attack and the hero throws down his 300 mag and pulls out his 44 mag to handle the problem! That's pretty much the situation that warden would have found himself in had he thrown down the rifle and went for the spray. Sound's to me like he did everything right. Some people may not believe this but most rifles are quite a bit more powerful than any handgun. One thing I think is certain in an encounter with a wild animal, nothing is certain. My first choice would be the rifle also! When I'm using a sling, I used the Jaeger carry, learned while stationed in Germany. I can bring the rifle into play faster than any handgun!
 
I've never been charged by a bear. But I have been attacked by domestic dogs, it happens fast. And you never know if the dog is going to attack or charge and then back off. I think that's a good reference point for those of us without aggressive bear experience.
 
Okay, just one more . . . .
While visiting friends in AK they told us the story of a guy who was determined to kill a bear with his recurve bow. This guys was an experience hunter who had killed lots of big game animals with "two sticks." Amazingly he managed to get within 40 yards of a grizzly. The bear made him and stood up. The guy took one shot, hit the bear right in the eye for an instant kill as the arrow traveled into the brain. All were impressed. Some time later the guy admitted he was aiming for the bears chest. Gotta love it.
 
Every study made suggests spray as the best alternative. I live in bear country and I carry it.

But the "Macho" crowd will never accept anything that that they don't consider "manly."

I often wonder how many of these folks are just looking for an excuse, ANY excuse, to kill a bear.
 
Every study made suggests spray as the best alternative.
Click to expand...

For the bear, almost certainly! ;)

Looking at this somewhat realistically, and trying to avoid being too macho, the simple truth is, EVERYTHING FAILS.

Personal firearms, in order to be effective must be used as precision implements. Doesn't matter if you're shooting bunnies or biggest bears, if YOU don't put the bullet in the right spot, it won't work the way you want it to work. (and of course the bullet has to be able to get to the right spot, as well)

This takes either sufficient skill or sufficient luck, or both together.

Bear spray is more of an area denial weapon. Non lethal, and spray, so pinpoint accuracy is not required. I'd venture to say the AVERAGE person would be more likely to be capable of the needed accuracy (under extreme stress) with a spray than a gun.

That being said, statistically I'd expect more people capable of effectively delivering bear spray than effective shooting in the typical "charging grizzly" scenario so often discussed.

Studies, first off, look at what worked, and HOW OFTEN. And while the data might be (and usually is) accurate, and the math will be accurate the conclusions drawn from the math might not accurately represent all real world situations.

As an example of a possible conclusion, lets use simple numbers in our "study". lets say we have 10 cases of bear attack, 6 used bear spray, 4 used guns. Lets say both the spray and the guns FAILED to stop the attack half the time. Spray wins by 3 to 2. That's math.

Someone might conclude spray is better because 3 is more than 2. That's a conclusion, its based on math, but its not math.

The same exact process could (and often is) used when discussing which caliber (or load, bullet weight, shape construction, pick a variable, etc) is "best".

Someone will come up with a study, using real world situations, then boil those down to a number, usually using one, or perhaps two factors, and ignoring all the other factors that make each and every incident unique. They will then work some math on those numbers, and present a conclusion, proclaiming whatever has the higher numbers to be "the best".

What ever they say is the best, might be, but it isn't the best just because they say it is, and their numbers often don't mean squat in the real world.

If you ever face a bear, or every time you face a bear, none of the factors in your situation will be identical to what is in the studies, beyond the fact that a human and a bear are involved.

Studies, statistics and their conclusions are useful as general background information. I think blind adherence to anyone's conclusions about what you will face based on their studies is misplaced faith.

There is only one advantage I can see to carrying spray OR a gun, and that is if you only have one, you won't waste any time being confused over which one to use.

Other than that, I think carrying BOTH is the better choice. Spray for when you want to discourage a curious bear, a suitable firearm (and the skill to use it) for when you need to stop an angry bear.

Guns are not magic talismans. Bears are not impressed with what your gun says on it or the size of the hole in the barrel.

I've been shooting .44mag power level pistols, and up, recreationally for going on 40 years. I know what I can do with them, and more importantly, I know what I can't do with them. I've also seen .30-30 bullets bounce off a black bear's skull.

Part of the basic skill you need to defend your self with a gun in a bear attack is knowing enough bear anatomy to know where you should aim. They aren't quite the same as people.

I'll freely admit to being an armchair general on the subject, as I've never been attacked by a bear. I have hunted black bear and that is a much different thing than stopping an attack.

and I'm on a rant, sorry...:o

of the handguns I have, right now, for stopping a bear attack, I'd pick my LAR GRIZZLY .45Win Mag. For me, it just locks into my hand solidly, its a 1911A1 pattern gun with a good trigger, Millett sights (easily seen) and the firepower of a .44 Magnum revolver, in a package I can shoot slightly faster and as accurately as I can a .44 mag revolver. But that's just me. For you, probably not a practical choice.

2nd choice would be my Ruger Blackhawk .45 Colt and my handloads. Not because its the fastest or most powerful thing possible but because I've been shooting it since 83 and I'm very familiar with the gun and the load at ranges from 0-200yds.

the best defense is, of course, the Miyagi defense.

"no be there!"
:D

failing that, the best is "no be surprised!" and the best tool is your feet. RETREAT, don't run. Spray is a fall back plan, and a gun is a GOTH plan (when all other plans GO To Hell).
 
44 AMP

You make some valid points.

One other point that needs to be made. Situational awareness, i.e. head outside of your arse will prevent at least 90 percent of bear attacks.
 
Every study made suggests spray as the best alternative.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

For the bear, almost certainly!
Click to expand...

True, and that's the predictable, result-orientated 'animals-before-humans' premise that drives such flawed 'studies.' Flawed in methodology as well as in their selective statical analyses. :rolleyes:

Plus, none of the tree-hugging, non-hunters who author these studies - all from the safety and rarified air of an academic armchair rather than in the real world of the Alaskan bush - are going to be standing behind you with a .375H&H rifle when your little can of 'Bear-B-Gone' perfume fails to stop a charging Griz. :eek:

Nope, in order to save your skin, you'll have to rely on (a) going into fetal and 'playing dead,' or (b) loud screamage, harsh language, and mucho waving of arms, or (c) Devine Intervention. :eek:

Of course, you could've had your 10mm Glock 20 quickly accessible in a center-chest rig, loaded hot-n-heavy with 15+1 rds of Underwood's 220gn 10mm hardcast slugs, .... but noooooo, you left it at home.

And why? - because you obligingly drank the Koolaide some professorial 'bear expert' handed you that says 'spray is more effective than bullets' at stopping aggressive bruins or turning a charge. :confused:

Uh huh ... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
44_Amp, agtman, Combining:

Every study made using 'animals-before-humans' premise,
suggests spray as the best alternative for the bear.
 
How many times has your seatbelt, airbags or motorcycle helmet saved you??

Some folks live their whole lives in "car country" without it happening even once. :rolleyes:
 
We get this in post #43 of this thread.....
44 AMP said:
Lets stay on topic, which is Handguns and bears, and leave discussions about bear spray in the can.
Click to expand...


.....and then in post 49?:D:D:D

One thing I do agree with, from that long and drawn out rant in 44 AMP's post #49, and have been trying to make a point of in this and every other bear thread I've ever been involved with, is......

44 AMP said:
That being said, statistically I'd expect more people capable of effectively delivering bear spray than effective shooting in the typical "charging grizzly" scenario so often discussed.
Click to expand...

Macho as many folks want us to believe they are, very few folks, even experienced handgunners, can hit the CNS of a bear doing 30MPH straight at you, without a whole outhouse full of luck. I've seen many excellent shooting handgunners humbled by the "ball coming directly at you" drill I have at my shooting range. This is not a "skewed study" by a bunch of "tree-hugging, non-hunters who author these studies - all from the safety and rarified air of an academic armchair rather than in the real world of the Alaskan bush", but real shooting in real life......in real time. Only thing is, it's a fricken' tether-ball on a rope and not a real bear. Folks are calm and collected and know they aren't going to die....and they still can't hit the Dam thing after multiple attempts. Oh, I know some folks here are highly more skilled than anyone I would know, but I'd still bet against each and every one of them, iffin' they ever had the tether-balls to show up at my range and try.

Just sayin'..........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top