Handguns for protection from LARGE bears!

[timmy]

Fellow IFG members:

I have an interest in handguns for bear protection, due to having them around where I live and might be hiking. This video is of Phil Shemaker, who is a well-known guide in Alaska, USA. He lives 'way out in Alaska, far from others, and has raised his kids out in this remote area.

He recounts his encounter with a large ~400 Kg Alaskan brown bear while he was out fishing with clients, in which he shot and killed the bear with his 9mm handgun. He also talks about guns, especially handguns and calibers that one might consider for bears, and also rifles for bears.

We just returned from traveling and I saw this up on the Ron Spomer site, and thought I would share it with you. As we've lived in remote areas (though not quite as remote as Phil Shoemaker!), I feel a strong affinity with these stories.

You don't have to hunt, or go to Alaska, to appreciate listening to a fellow like Phil Shoemaker share his hunting and shooting knowledge, just like we on IFG have appreciated our member Prashant Singh's exciting stories of leopard hunting, but will never do it ourselves.

For those of you with interest in these things, enjoy this video:



I have a great deal of interest in this subject, as I say, since I've just gotten a 9mm pistol for concealed carry and self-defense. Recently, other stories have appeared about people using 38 Special and 10 mm handguns successfully for defense against bears. The special Buffalo Bore ammunition that Phil mentions is available, but quite expensive, and I'm considering getting a box of it. Hearing his experiences in detail is very helpful for me, as I intend to use my new pistol for both bear protection and for self defense.

Another thing about this video that I appreciated is the rural flavor: Folks who live in such areas have a point of view and an approach to life that I've learned to appreciate since I was a little child.

[eljefe]

That was a new one, Timmy.
Taking down a bear with a 9mm.
I used to be influenced by the big bore trapper and guide versions of Linebaugh and others.
I did read his account of it and it shows a lot of confidence in his handgun shooting capability and the right preparation. While it wasn’t a one shot DRT story, he did exactly what he had trained for - and it panned out.
Had a bloke here on an Aussie forum headed to Alaska and getting general advice for a rifle for browns.
I think most punters suggested he take a .375 H&H as a minimum. Which is absolutely sensible.

[timmy]

Thi business of self defense against bears with a handgun has some complexity to it, and I'd like to try to address that here.

For one thing, many of us find hunting and fishing stories of the outdoors to be interesting.

Another aspect of these self defense issues regarding bears spills over into the realm of personal self defense.

Thirdly, some of us, and I personally, face dealing with bears as a practical matter.

So here are three main elements to the point of my posting this, and of my previous post on the subject here:

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=28666

I have included different events on both pages of the linked thread, including the one Phil Shoemaker talks about in the video in this thread.

Dean Weingarten, on the Ammoland site, has amassed accounts of 170 incidents regarding pistols used in bear attacks and claims a 98% success rate. So, what is talked about in the video above is not an isolated, "somebody got lucky" event. It is one of a large number of incidents in which a handgun was successfully used to defend a person carrying from attacking bears. Below, I list three of Dean Weingarten's collections of accounts -- a brief description of each event is given -- which gives great credence to the idea that one can protect one's self from bear attack with a large degree of probability.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/handgu ... effective/

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/04/update ... effective/

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/handgu ... effective/

Additionally, Weingarten also includes this most recent post regarding the practice of carrying with an empty chamber:

https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/bear-d ... ber-carry/

Wiengarten's post about carrying with an empty chamber in bear country is echoed by Massad Ayoob when he discusses carrying with an empty chamber for personal self defense in society:



What we are dealing with here in the case of both bears and goons is the idea that a person will always have both hands free to rack the slide of a pistol when they are attacked. This, I don't believe, is a safe assumption, as one doesn't know from where or how or when one will be attacked in either situation.

Shoemaker, in the video above, points out that self defense against bears is different from hunting bears -- that the hunter is more in control of the encounter and picks the shot, where a person attacked very likely will have little or no time to prepare for an attack.

Another issue that Shoemaker makes regarding bear defense is similar to the situation of a person carrying for self defense: One is not hunting, but rather one is going about daily tasks (e.g., fishing, hiking, going to the store, walking down the street) and being encumbered by a large rifle or even a huge hand cannon is not reasonable.

Another issue here is the self defense gun's ammo capacity: Weingarten lists one case where a father and son poured 31 rounds of pistol ammunition into an attacking bear, and the day was very nearly saved by the son's ability to reload a fresh magazine into his pistol. Again, likewise, Ayoob recommends a large magazine capacity for a carry pistol nowadays, because an attack is more often going to be mounted by a group of goons, rather than by a single criminal, as in the past.

My own view on this has led me to give up carrying my snub nose for concealed carry, and also rethink my carrying this gun for hiking purposes. Six rounds may very well not be enough for bears or goons, and if there is no overruling demand for just six rounds carried, then it seemed wise for me to go with a high capacity semi automatic.

Now, here I think I will be entering controversial territory: bullet effectiveness and intent. We don't want to kill the bear or the goon. We want to stop them from killing or injuring us. The bear, however, when wounded is a very dangerous creature to have on the loose, and in that case, killing the bear is optimal, maybe even necessary eventually.

Regarding defense against the goon, I would say that if an attacked person shoots with the intent to kill the goon, they are guilty of murder. The intent of self defense is protecting one's self and one's family, not executing society's miscreants. However, stopping an attack when one's life is threatened means stopping the attack and immobilizing the goon as quickly as possible. That, like the attacking bear, is accomplished in two ways:

Firstly, a hit to the central nervous system -- the brain or spinal cord. This is not an easy target to hit, especially when the attack comes suddenly and without a chance to prepare.

Secondly, a hit to the cardiovascular system -- in the words of a hunter, a heart-lung shot. This is the easiest target, easier than an arm or a leg which is often espoused by anti-gunners (ignoring targeting the hand or little pinky finger for obvious reasons) which does not prevent the goon from pressing an attack and is much harder to hit in the first place.

Now some point out that either a bear or a goon can be scared off, or dissuaded from pressing an attack home. This is true. Such cases do happen. But can you be sure that this is the most effective way to protect yourself when attacked? Two things are obvious here: firstly, it is an individual choice of the attacked person that is made in an instant, usually by instinct or by practiced muscle memory, and secondly, with our increasing population and the increased familiarity of bears with humans, as well as the increase of drugs impacting a goon's choices and behavior, the question of what is the most effective way to deal with the threat comes to the foreground.

One might also point out that using a gun to wound or scare off an attack, either bear or goon, may enrage the bear and also may cause the goon to accuse you of an attack on them! It would seem logical in this instance that one would choose the most definite way to stop the attack as quickly as possible. That may well be the only way to assure that one even has an aftermath to face! My viewpoint here from a moral perspective is that the goon, by attacking, must assume the risk and bear the consequences of their decision. When deciding to perpetrate evil on someone or me, if something unfortunate occurs while an intended victim is protecting themselves or their families, that is something that the goon should have thought about before hand. It's not the victim's responsibility to assure the goon's well-being, when the goon has deliberately attempted to cause harm.

Cartridges:

I'm going to go with Phil Shoemaker's load: https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l ... tail&p=388

Many folks in bear country are going with the 10 mm semiauto pistol, but as I'm going to be carrying my pistol in public and on the trail, I chose 9 mm as my best choice that doesn't give up very much to a 10 mm.

Some people espouse the use of very large revolvers, from 44 magmun on up to 500 S&W. These guns, for me, are large and bulky, and as Phil Shoemaker states in the video, are slower to shoot, meaning that there are less projectiles sent down range. They are also harder to shoot accurately. I have a Ruger in 45 Colt that can and has been loaded up to 44 magnum levels, although I have not shot those loads in many years. I have two boxes of them ready to go (250 grain Hornady hollow points sitting over 23 grains of Winchester 296), but I expect that my heirs will get to shoot them, if they choose. A single action revolver is simply not a viable defense gun, whether for bears or goons. Big double action revolvers, like a Ruger Redhawk or large Smith & Wesson, are hardly useful for concealed carry. Furthermore, as Phil's video shows and the Buffalo Bore link pictures depict, the hard cast Buffalo Bore 147 grain load seems to do a sufficient job.

375 H&H for large bears: Yes, there's no doubt that this will work and offer a great possibility of success if one is carrying the rifle to support the task. In other words, if one must be working in bear country, or hiking, taking pictures, fishing, or whatever, that's a different story. Can you imagine carrying such a weapon when wading in an Alaskan river to fish? That's why Phil wasn't carrying one on that day (and another reason is that he uses the 458 Winchester Magnum cartridge by choice. I suspect that it will "work" well, too!).

Years ago, I saw my uncle's taking of a large grizzly and a large polar bear (around 1965) with a 300 Weatherby Magnum. That worked well enough for him in both cases, and his guide was sufficiently confident to be the one taking the movies of both kills over my uncle's shoulders.

I have an old Guns Digest article that talks about selecting a suitable defense gun for US Forest Service personnel. This was because the Forest Service was beginning to accept women for forest work and small women were having difficulty with large boomers like the 375 H&H. I believe about 15 cartridges were tested, including the 12 gauge with slugs. (This seems like a poor bear choice, as the slug doesn't have much penetration due to being soft, and buckshot is even worse.)

The whole article seemed to indicate that the 338 Winchester Magnum was a suitable substitute. My view on this reflects that some Montana hunters claimed that the 338 Win Mag chambered in a Browning BAR semiauto rifle was just the ticket for thick woods and brush. Perhaps, from a hunting perspective where at least the first shot will probably be taken on an unknowing target, but getting a quick second shot off at very short range in the bush with such a powerful rifle might be something to think about.

Well, if a 9 mm will do the job, why even bother with a big game rifle on bears? The power of the cartridge is not the issue, although it may contribute to the issue: What takes down the bear is penetration and damage to vital organs. The big game rifle can drive strong expanding bullets that will break through heavy bones, expand, and still reach the "boiler room" of a bear -- IF the bullet is placed correctly. Powerful cartridges like this will accomplish this with much greater probability.

The pistol, on the other hand, is rather weak. It depends possibly on multiple hits to the "boiler room" of the bear. It can achieve penetration because it gives up the heavy rifle bullet's ability to expand and cause more damage per shot in vital places. This trade off in effectiveness is what one gives up in order to carry a weapon that is more of a last resort protection than a first or second "knock down" killing shot. It is one of those risk/reward decisions that one faces so often in life.

By the way, the hard cast Buffalo Bore bullet is optimized for penetration alone, not expansion. it's not the bullet that's appropriate for self defense from goons, where the bullet might pass through several people and maybe a wall or two. There are other controlled expansion bullets for that job. This is like factory 7.62 Tokarev bullets, which in their full metal jacket military form, also have the problem of deep penetration. This issue is also similar to the 32 Automatic round, where every bit of penetration from a non expanding full metal jacket bullet is needed to get useful penetration.

Just like the 9 mm doesn't have the power to both penetrate and expand on a large angry bear and must give up expansion to achieve useful penetration, the 32 Automatic lacks sufficient power to both expand and penetrate on smaller targets effectively.

[hornet22]

375 H&H all day long and more if I was allowed to just carry one weapon and if I am all by myself. Professional Hunters all over the world recommend this caliber for dangerous game.

[timmy]

I would like to share this recent article regarding two archery hunters who were attacked by a grizzly bear just to the west of Yellowstone Park in Idaho.

While this article may be interesting to those who are interested in bears and dangerous game (as I am) will find this interesting, I think that the experience of these two also has something to teach us about self defense, concealed carry, and also what the military refers to as "OPSEC," or Operational Security.

I'll share some of my observations at the end of the article for any who may be interested.

This is from https://www.eastidahonews.com/2024/09/t ... -survival/

SURVIVING A BEAR ATTACK
Two hunters who shot 530-pound grizzly 24 times share their stunning story of survival

Published at 8:46 pm, September 6, 2024 | Updated at 2:05 am, September 7, 2024
David Pace



Riley Hill describes how a grizzly bear bit his arm, flinging him from side-to-side while his friend Braxton Meyers shot the bear repeatedly in the head and spine. Watch their spine-tingling interview with EastIdahoNews.com in the video player above. | Courtesy photos Braxton Meyers and Riley Hill

ISLAND PARK — Dangling from the jaws of a 530-pound grizzly, 20-year-old Riley Hill’s body flung from side-to-side as his hunting buddy Braxton Meyers fired round after round into the bear’s hulking frame. The grizzly’s ferocious teeth sunk deep into his arm, puncturing the skin to the bone, as he screamed and fought back during the longest 30 seconds of his life.

“It was lifting me off the ground and then slamming me back on the ground,” Hill said. “… It was like playing tug of war with your dog, but he was playing it with my arm and ripping it apart.”

Moments earlier, the bear had charged out of nowhere, dramatically altering a peaceful morning as the two hunters from Rexburg and Menan faced one of the fiercest predators in North America.

The men shared their heroic story of friendship and survival in an exclusive interview with EastIdahoNews.com.



Boone Meyers, Riley Hill and Braxton Meyers (left to right) relate their epic fight with a grizzly bear in the EastIdahoNews.com studio on Thursday. | David Pace, EastIdahoNews.com

The attack

On Sunday, Hill and Meyers were archery hunting for elk in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, west of Henrys Lake in Island Park.

“We were really excited to get up there and go explore the country, see some wildlife and some elk,” Hill said. “… We’ve had a lot of elk on our trail cams up there. So we were excited, like, this is going to be such a good year.”

At 7 a.m., they dropped off 18-year-old Boone Meyers, Braxton’s brother, and a 17-year-old friend on Schoolhouse Ridge, located about 30 minutes up the Continental Divide Trail from U.S. Highway 20.

The two backtracked down the trail, arriving at a little canyon about a mile away.

They parked their Razor on a hill and began hiking down until they came to a clearing where they paused and searched the area.

“We don’t want to spook anything,” Hill said.

At about 7:20 a.m., he stepped forward about 10 feet when he heard a “loud thud.”

Turning to look at Braxton Meyers, he saw his friend yell out.

“I just see him looking in the trees and he goes, ‘Oh crap, that’s a bear!’” Hill said.

Meyers said he looked behind and saw the grizzly charging towards him on all fours.

“I could have reached out and grabbed his head,” he said. “… The only thing that I could think was, ‘take off on a sprint so that Riley can get his gun out.’”

Hill dropped his archery bow, pulled a 10mm Springfield from the holster on his hip and shot the bear once in the right side.

“Grizzly bears don’t usually get off their target, but this one did,” Hill said. “This one turned looked right at me, and he’s charging, charging fast.”

The two friends were only about twelve feet apart from each other, and Meyers tripped and fell on the ground.

Hill had time to shoot the bear with three more bullets in the face and shoulder region before its iron jaws clamped down on his arm.

Immediately, the grizzly began to fling Hill around.

Meyers stood up and saw the bear attacking Hill.

He “fumbled around,” pulled out his Taurus 1911 .45 ACP pistol and fired four to five shots at the bear before the gun jammed.

The bear continued to flail Hill from side-to-side as Meyers cleared the feed.

“I was having to pick my shots careful,” Meyers said. “… By then, the bear’s on top of Riley, and Riley’s shoulders are between (its) front feet and his legs are kind of kicked out from its stomach. … I couldn’t see anything Riley was doing. I just could see the bear on him.”

Meyers ran up right next to the bear, continuing to shoot.

“When Braxton hit it, I could feel the bullets hitting the bear through my arm,” Hill said. “(It) wasn’t hitting my arm, but I could just feel the repercussion from the bullets hitting the bear.”

One of the rounds came within two to three inches of his head, he reported.

“(The bear) just kind of looked up at me, and I saw its eyes, and I just started (shooting),” Meyers said. “It put its head back down, and I shot some more (in the spine), and (that) did the trick.”

During one shot in the barrage, Hill felt the bear’s grip on his arm loosen slightly.

With his one free hand, Hill said he “ripped open that jaw, ripped my arm out, and then I remember I stood up, and I was freaking out. I didn’t know if the bear was coming after me again.”

He grabbed his gun off the ground and fired three more rounds at the grizzly’s head.

In total, the hunters shot 24 bear bullets at the grizzly to bring it down.

The rescue

Hill said he didn’t know at the time that he was injured.

At Meyer’s request, he pulled off his jacket and shirt.

“I looked at his arm, I was like, you know, this is bad,” Meyers said.

Using first aid skills he remembered from Boy Scouts, he wrapped Hill’s shirt around his arm and applied two tourniquets, using their belts to keep pressure on the wound.



Braxton Meyers applies two tourniquets to Riley Hill’s arm, recalling his first aid training from Boy Scouts. Hill earned his Eagle Scout award in 2017. | Courtesy Braxton Meyers

Meyers dialed 911 and requested an ambulance or a helicopter.

Meanwhile, his brother Boone Meyers and a friend had heard the gunshots and screams a mile away. Braxton Meyers sent them a pin with their location and Boone took off sprinting, arriving at the site of the attack in seven minutes.

“All I saw was just this massive bear lying on the ground. It was a wild, wild site, to be honest,” Boone Meyers said. “They were up, both still alive luckily.”

The three hiked back to the Razor, hoping to place themselves in range of their rescuers.

“It was one of the hardest climbs of my life. It was a painful one too,” Hill said, as blood spurted out of his wounds about every 15 steps.

Hopping into the Razor, they barreled across a boulder field, scouting for a location for the helicopter to land.

“I know people have felt worse pain, but I’d still rate it an eight out of 10,” Hill said.

He was airlifted to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Hospital where he received 40 staples and numerous stitches.

Miraculously, the grizzly failed to puncture any arteries.

Hill can still move his arm and was released from the hospital on Monday. Doctors estimate it will take at least two months for his arm to recover.



Riley Hill and Braxton Meyers healing at EIRMC. | Courtesy Riley Hill

‘King of the Hill’

The grizzly attack was the first human encounter in the region this year, said Idaho Fish and Game Regional Director Matt Pieron.

The bears are protected under the Endangered Species Act, and it is illegal to harm a bear unless in self-defense.

Idaho Fish and Game officers conducted a thorough investigation and determined that Hill and Braxton Meyer’s actions were justified.

The two friends learned later that local ranchers had long called that bear the “King of the Hill.”

“This bear has always been a problem up there of cattle, and there’s a lot of farmers that … (are) pretty happy with us because we took out the bear that was eating their cattle,” Hill said.

The bear was 20-years-old, an extraordinarily long life for a grizzly in the wild.

“It was a fighting bear,” Braxton Meyers said. “Another bear or some animal had torn one of its ears off. That was the ear that was facing up the hill, and so it didn’t hear us coming down until we were on the side that had the good ear, and that’s when it got up and come at us.”

The bear had been surprised while it was burrowing in a day bed.

“They’ll dig a hole, and they’ll pull brushes and scrub and whenever to hide them,” Hill said. “So we spooked it, and we weren’t trying to.”

An estimated 1,000 grizzly bears reside in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.

While the two hunters are grateful they survived, they are sad the grizzly was killed.

“Sad it had to happen,” Hill said. “I’m glad I’m still here to be able to tell this story. My mom says she’s glad she doesn’t have to go to a funeral this week.”

They credit one another for saving both their lives.

“It makes your whole body just shiver thinking about — it was two friends that saved each other,” said Monica Hill, Riley’s mother. “Riley saw Braxton almost to be bear food and shot, and had Braxton not killed the bear, Riley would not be here – 100% he would not.”

His father Brian Hill considers the Meyers brothers as sons.

“I’m just so eternally grateful that he’s here with us, that they kept their composure, that they were smart enough to do what they needed to do to get off that mountain and keep him safe,” Brian Hill said.

Meanwhile, the two friends still have major milestones on the horizon.

Braxton Meyers’s wedding with his fiancé Macey Steers is set for Oct. 12, and he’s asked Riley Hill to be his best man.

“A lot of people say they’ll take a bullet for a friend. Well, I got mauled by a bear for mine,” Riley Hill said.

1. The boys examined the ground that they intended to hunt and saw nothing threatening. Still, the bear had denned up for a nap and, surprised, came out of his den at full speed. There was no way the boys could have known the bear was there, and it was upon them almost faster than they could think.

Self defense also requires that one be ready, even without warning. There is simply no way that every possible threat can be considered and avoided, although one may try their best.

2. The bear required 24 rounds to stop the attack.

These days, with gangs of goons threatening and harrassing, and the possibiliy that drugs may be involved, the old idea of brandishing a weapon, firing a warning shot, or shooting to wound is even more absurd than it ever was. We don't know how many times we may need to fire to defend ourselves, due to the number of attackers or their condition. The old idea of 5 or 6 rounds from a revolver is less practical today, for these reasons, and the 7 or 8 round capacity of a semiauto seems insufficient.

3. Building on this, note that one of the boys's magazine jammed. Not only did he need more ammunition, he also needed a second magazine for his pistol. Magazines are the weak point of pistols, and the most likely part to cause jams. Carrying a second loaded magazine not only gives an option to a failure to fire, but also increases the readily available ammunition as mentioned in point 2, above.

These boys were ready for a problem and took reasonable precautions, but even then, their survival was a close-run thing. While carrying any firearm cannot guarranty perfect safety, it can even the odds in our favor.

We don't have any idea where the bullets were striking the bear, including how many actually hit a vital spot and how many simply struck the bear. We see that one was carrying a 10 mm, which is favored for bear protection in grizzly country and the other a Taurus 45 Auto, but no real definition of the loads they were using is given. One part mentions "bear bullets." The brand "Buffalo Bore" offers heavy loads with hard cast bullets that offer deep penetration for just this use in their "Outdoorsman" line of ammunition. Perhaps this is what the article's author meant; he doesn't seem very gun savvy.

Hollow points can be useful for self defense in some circumstances. However, clothing or debris can plug the hollow point and reduce bullet expansion. Some brands avoid this by various methods. However, even in our day-to-day world apart from bears, hollow points have very questionable value in less powerful cartridges like 32 Auto.

I found this account to be very interesting.

[dev]

Timmy,

By default our 32 ACP rounds are FMJ. They drop about a foot fired from our 'legendary Ashani pistol' as soon as you cross the 10/15 meter mark.
So through trial, I have found that the magazine will behave till you load no more than five bullets. The spare magazine I have will also behave with 5 or 4 bullets in it. If one chambers a round and carries it one eliminates the most common jams that occur via human error, racking it wrong somehow. But I have found that after the first round goes bang, the rest follow suit with no errors, so the Browning design takes care of errors.

So whenever I have to carry I have one in the chamber. So far even with 10-year-old IOF ammo it still goes bang once the round is chambered. Due to the low recoil, it's straightforward to shoot with one hand. But all this is from range practice, I hope that I don't ever have to reach for it in a combat situation. Not a great assurance but better than throwing stones I guess.

[Vikram]

Tim,

excellent topic, videos and links. Very informative, both yours, and Shoemaker and Massad Ayoob's. I have always been leery about carrying with a round in the chamber. A fear not based on reason. However, as listened to Ayoob's explanation about one not being able to work the slide of a pistol in all situations, it makes great sense to carry one with a round in the chamber.

Re shot placement being critical reminds me of an article that was published in an African big game hunting magazine wherein taking an elephant with a .22LR was discussed. I am attaching the article here.

[timmy]

Vikram, the minimalist 22 Long rifle assertion has long struck me as a medieval "angles on the head of a pin" exercise. It's not something that a prudent person should do, like creeping into the landing gear space of a transcontinental jet. Elephants, rhinos, and Cape buffalo are thick skinned, whereas a bear isn't. I'd think of a bear as being more akin to lion or tiger, only twice as big in some instances.

But, thanks so much for that article, as I've heard this discussed so many times, but never have seen a knowledgable discussion about it.

When I first got my 1911, I carried it with a round in the chamber and hammer down. I didn't trust the safety. Actually, I was wrong on both of these counts: first of all, the inertia firing pin can, in rare instances, set off a primer if the pistol is dropped, or so I understand. Colt must have understood this as well, because the eries 80 pistol has a firing pin block that unlocks the firing pin when the trigger is pulled. A lot of guns, like my CZ 52 and CZ 70 have this feature, but they aren't the only ones.

The second error is not trusting the 1911 safety. Once I understood how what I was carrying actually worked, I saw how "cocked and locked" was very safe: The safety rotates a solid piece of steel into the rotational path of the hammer, and even dropping the pistol isn't going to make it fire under any condition.

This is so opposite so many other older pistol designs, which block the trigger or the sear: such a method relies on the strength of the sear and/or the tiny notch in the hammer that the sear engages. It's easy to see how the force of a pistol dropped could break such a tiny surface and fire the gun. The IOF is a gun I've never examined. I suspect, or assume (take your pick) that its internals are based on the Colt Pocket Pistol 1903 or 1908 design. Neither Colt Pocket Pistol in any of its iterations is drop safe, and there are documented cases of people carrying them cocked and with a round in the chamber (I won't say "cocked and locked," because the lockwork doesn't support such a description) being killed by a Pocket Pistol falling out of a holster. No thanks for me. I guess that, if nobody around me does this, I shouldn't present a negative view of the practice?

Likewise, the TT33 tokarev and its derivatives isn't safe -- the pistol has no safety, unless it's one like mine with an added-on "Safety." I put safety in quotes because that's what it's called, but it isn't safe either. Two methods were used on TT33 copies: one locks the trigger from being pulled, and the other (like mine) locks the sear. However, a dropped TT33, if it falls on the hammer (the heavy end of the gun likely to hit first) will break the sear or hammer notch and possibly fire.

Some say that the half cock notch is sufficient to prevent this from happening, but I find fault with this for several reasons. For one, the hammer mainspring is a short, thick wire coil spring that extends up the hammer spur. it isn't the easiest thing to thumb back in the heat of a threat. For another, take the firing mechanism out of the gun and disassemble it. You will see that the sear pivot pin is about the thickness of a mechanical pencil lead. I could easily see the pin shearing in a dropped situation. Not good. Finally, I don't trust either the hammer or sear not to crack if dropped.

I have to be convinced that the safety mechanism is going to do its job reliably before I would carry a round in the chamber of a handgun. Even many rifles make me nervous on this: Old military rifles had a flag lock on the striker/firing pin/cocking piece that engaged with a flag safety in the bolt sleeve, like a Mauser or 1903 Springfield. That's not going to go off. The safeties of a Mosin Nagant or an Arisaka are very clumsy to operate, but they are safe. But a lot of the modern bolt action rifles only have a trigger block and I don't really trust them.

Just as a note, a Ruger #1 has a blocking lever that the tang safety pushes forward into the nose of the hammer -- it is safe to carry. I even had a close call with a drop test while hunting in the mountains -- I slipped on a snow covered rock. Thankfully, nothing broke, either metal or bone.

We all have to make our own decisions about such things, in the end. As long as people who don't carry safely aren't around me, I guess that's the best I can hope for.

[winnie_the_pooh]

Dev,the IOF pistol is not safe to carry with a round in the chamber. That's an accident waiting to happen.

[Vikram]

Vikram, the minimalist 22 Long rifle assertion has long struck me as a medieval "angles on the head of a pin" exercise. It's not something that a prudent person should do, like creeping into the landing gear space of a transcontinental jet. Elephants, rhinos, and Cape buffalo are thick skinned, whereas a bear isn't. I'd think of a bear as being more akin to lion or tiger, only twice as big in some instances.

But, thanks so much for that article, as I've heard this discussed so many times, but never have seen a knowledgable discussion about it.

When I first got my 1911, I carried it with a round in the chamber and hammer down. I didn't trust the safety. Actually, I was wrong on both of these counts: first of all, the inertia firing pin can, in rare instances, set off a primer if the pistol is dropped, or so I understand. Colt must have understood this as well, because the eries 80 pistol has a firing pin block that unlocks the firing pin when the trigger is pulled. A lot of guns, like my CZ 52 and CZ 70 have this feature, but they aren't the only ones.

The second error is not trusting the 1911 safety. Once I understood how what I was carrying actually worked, I saw how "cocked and locked" was very safe: The safety rotates a solid piece of steel into the rotational path of the hammer, and even dropping the pistol isn't going to make it fire under any condition.

This is so opposite so many other older pistol designs, which block the trigger or the sear: such a method relies on the strength of the sear and/or the tiny notch in the hammer that the sear engages. It's easy to see how the force of a pistol dropped could break such a tiny surface and fire the gun. The IOF is a gun I've never examined. I suspect, or assume (take your pick) that its internals are based on the Colt Pocket Pistol 1903 or 1908 design. Neither Colt Pocket Pistol in any of its iterations is drop safe, and there are documented cases of people carrying them cocked and with a round in the chamber (I won't say "cocked and locked," because the lockwork doesn't support such a description) being killed by a Pocket Pistol falling out of a holster. No thanks for me. I guess that, if nobody around me does this, I shouldn't present a negative view of the practice?

Likewise, the TT33 tokarev and its derivatives isn't safe -- the pistol has no safety, unless it's one like mine with an added-on "Safety." I put safety in quotes because that's what it's called, but it isn't safe either. Two methods were used on TT33 copies: one locks the trigger from being pulled, and the other (like mine) locks the sear. However, a dropped TT33, if it falls on the hammer (the heavy end of the gun likely to hit first) will break the sear or hammer notch and possibly fire.

Some say that the half cock notch is sufficient to prevent this from happening, but I find fault with this for several reasons. For one, the hammer mainspring is a short, thick wire coil spring that extends up the hammer spur. it isn't the easiest thing to thumb back in the heat of a threat. For another, take the firing mechanism out of the gun and disassemble it. You will see that the sear pivot pin is about the thickness of a mechanical pencil lead. I could easily see the pin shearing in a dropped situation. Not good. Finally, I don't trust either the hammer or sear not to crack if dropped.

I have to be convinced that the safety mechanism is going to do its job reliably before I would carry a round in the chamber of a handgun. Even many rifles make me nervous on this: Old military rifles had a flag lock on the striker/firing pin/cocking piece that engaged with a flag safety in the bolt sleeve, like a Mauser or 1903 Springfield. That's not going to go off. The safeties of a Mosin Nagant or an Arisaka are very clumsy to operate, but they are safe. But a lot of the modern bolt action rifles only have a trigger block and I don't really trust them.

Just as a note, a Ruger #1 has a blocking lever that the tang safety pushes forward into the nose of the hammer -- it is safe to carry. I even had a close call with a drop test while hunting in the mountains -- I slipped on a snow covered rock. Thankfully, nothing broke, either metal or bone.

We all have to make our own decisions about such things, in the end. As long as people who don't carry safely aren't around me, I guess that's the best I can hope for.

Thank you for explaining the concept in detail, Tim. Much appreciated.

[dsingh]

against himayan bears if it becomes attacking is very deadly beast many hunters have lost their lives.It find these creatures more dangerous than tiger .I advise people not to mess with bears particularly himalayan bears these are very adaptable can climb small trees also.When I was in school I came accross a generel ward for bear attack victims it looked like horor movie many vistims have hugh swelling and severe injuries which I find horrible to write.If confronted some people had used spherical 12 bore slugs to kill which is useful or rifled slugs .Recently last year a farmer in south used spheical slug against an agrresisve elepahant killing it instantly.

[dev]

Dev,the IOF pistol is not safe to carry with a round in the chamber. That's an accident waiting to happen.

Thanks for the tip. I won't be carrying it with one in the chamber, here on. Actually, I carry the Ashani very rarely now.