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.