Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,059 Posts
Great article. Good reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
I carry a .45 Colt Ruger Blackhawk as protection against black bears on my property. Even though I reload I felt better going with factory rounds. I bought a box of Corbon 325 gr ++P's. I've always felt like that was enough power but the article bolstered my opinion. The only downside to them is the recoil is absolutely ferocious. A second shot would be slow in coming!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,179 Posts
It's interesting that the one so called handgun failure listed (.357) would've been a failure with any caliber, based on the description of events.
Not really a fair assessment of the .357 caliber.


Miller managed to pull out his .357 Magnum revolver and squeeze off a shot, possibly grazing the animal. Then he fell onto his stomach, dug his face into the dirt and covered his neck.

The bear went for his exposed right arm, gnawing and clawing it and chipping the bone off the tip of his elbow. The attack lasted 10 to 15 seconds, then the animal lumbered away.
As Miller rolled over and was getting to his knees, the bear, only about 40 yards away, came at him again.
He managed to fire two more shots, but with his right arm badly injured he thinks he missed the bear. Then he lay still as the animal gnawed and clawed at him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
Thanks for sharing the link.:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
I love this article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
673 Posts
This is the exact reason why I purchased my 454 Raging Bull.

With the encroachment on Big Browns and Polar bears territory they would soon be migrating to Ohio :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Well, we don't got no stinkin' bear in Texas. We outlawed 'em 100 years ago. :D Heck, a handgun might not work, so pass a law, that ALWAYS works! :sarcasm:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,059 Posts
I carry a .45 Colt Ruger Blackhawk as protection against black bears on my property. Even though I reload I felt better going with factory rounds. I bought a box of Corbon 325 gr ++P's. I've always felt like that was enough power but the article bolstered my opinion. The only downside to them is the recoil is absolutely ferocious. A second shot would be slow in coming!
325 grains? In a 45 Colt? What is the muzzle velocity of that +P+ anti-tank round?

Whatever the case, I somehow doubt getting off follow up shots with a bear charging would be a problem. You would definitely feel it later but it the heat of the moment you shoot your butt off till you hear “click”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,496 Posts
This is the exact reason why I purchased my 454 Raging Bull.

With the encroachment on Big Browns and Polar bears territory they would soon be migrating to Ohio :)
I have read credible stories of Eskimos killing Polar bears with two shots with .22 LR from rifles back in the 1950s. It was all credited to precise shot placement (and not where you might think). Apparently they shoot the bears in the upper chest, one shot into the upper lobe of each lung, then retreated to allow the bear's lungs to fill with blood and the bear would pass out, then die.

I remember one account where the guy retreated a safe distance, the bear went down, the guy waited a long time them returned. He picked up one of the bear's paws and started to skin it when it swapped ends and he was holding it's lower jaw in his hand instead of the paw, and the bear nearly killed him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
So, upon reading the article, it would appear that firearms are deadly, regardless of how big the animal nor how small the caliber may be, and bear spray is unreliable. A shame I was already aware of such information.

Seriously though, I've said it before and I'll say it again, bears are just flesh and bone, two things which bullets have long since proven capable of damaging/destroying.

My favorite part of the article was the report of a .357 Magnum's failure to stop a bear by grazing it. Why? Because it captures the very essence of most Bear Defense arguments, folks making cases for their cartridges of choice by mentioning cases in which other cartridges failed, which are usually cases such as this in which the shots failed to hit the bear anywhere in which it could have conceivably been incapacitated/killed.
Yes, another shocking revelation showcased by the article, near-misses tend to be ineffective.

So what's the takeaway from this article? If you have to shoot a bear to save your life, then make sure that you hit it, otherwise you may suffer a fate far worse than death, having the story of your miss used in poorly-written articles as an example of the cartridge you used failing to successfully stop a bear, or worse, poorly-constructed arguments online made by hummer-driving, Mall Ninja/Keyboard Commando yuppies who spend more time buying guns than shooting them, have most likely never been in bear country, and overcompensate for their own perceived masculine inadequacies by boasting of the S&W M500 they've never shot's unrivaled bear-slaying capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoKen

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I've had Alaskans tell me that the .357 magnum is quite popular up there in big bear country. It's more controllable making a fatal hit more likely than a 500 S&W magnum or some such. Makes sense, though I think I'd take my Ruger .45 Colt loaded with .44 magnum level loads if I were up there. I can control my blackhawk and the first round is what counts. :D

The article didn't shed a lot of light on .45 Colt loads, though, guess they haven't been used a lot. But, I reckon I can look at the .44 magnum results to assess my hot .45s. :D

I'd read a newspaper recount of one of these 9mm stoppages on a brown bear in Alaska, ditto one of the .45ACPs by a hiker in Danali park. 9mm isn't the wimp the the Cooperites wanna make it out to be. :D In fact, it fared as well as .45ACP. Small sample size, of course. Now, they didn't recount .380ACP, but Tuco can take comfort in the fact that a bear is a considerably tougher target than a human. :D This article, if nothing else, should make you feel warm and fuzzy about your carry choice. :laugh: My most carried calibers are .357 magnum and .38 special. Hey, if the .357 will stop a bear, it'll stop a BG! :rofl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
I wouldn't carry a .380 into the woods. It's irresponsible and unlikely to result in a clean kill. .380 is good for close range personal defense against humans who might try to mug you in a parking lot, but not against bears who can come charging at you from 100+ yards away and clear the distance in mere seconds.
Could a .380 kill a bear at close range? Sure, it's been done, but that doesn't mean it ought to be anyone's first choice.

Make no mistake, I wouldn't advocate going into bear country under-prepared by carrying anything underpowered. In fact, part of the reason why I was so exasperated by the article is because it was misleadingly generalized. Yes, at close-range you can kill a bear with just about anything provided you hit it in the right place, but that applies to EVERYTHING that lives! The problem is that it is unrealistic to expect that every single bear attack is going to play out that way. Generally speaking, it's best carry the most powerful firearm you can in bear country. In other words, if you can carry a rifle in .300 Win Mag, then you carry that .300 Win Mag.
One issue I've been having lately is when I read about young folks going for wilderness walks alone with very little on their person, yet they choose to carry a relatively lightweight pistol. Going into the woods isn't a trip to the 711. Sling something, why don't you? Or is the weight too much when compared to the burden of life? Heck, in many ways it makes even less sense to carry a massive, unwieldy revolver with wrist-breaking recoil over a rifle.

At any rate, I didn't care for the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,871 Posts
depends on the area and what is the likely threat that may be encountered.
generally I will carry a high capacity 9 MM compact, in other areas (Bear/Boar, big cats) the 10 MM high capacity would get the call.
I mean if I can tote around a 8-9 pound rifle to hunt with I can tote a 2 pound smaller hand gun in a holster.
now IF hunting the call goes to a 41 magnum revolver but I don't do that stuff anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,871 Posts
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5Ucf4zGTb

Well, you know, for those that think only an 8 gauge slug gun will do it....you know, or a .50BMG. It seems, SURPRISE, that you do have to HIT the animal to stop it. I also found it funny that all pepper spray did in one instance is flavor the bear meat. :rofl:
IF you wear the correct clothing apparently you don't need no stinkin guns at all!
course that depends on the size of the bear that yo are messing with I guess?
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,059 Posts
. At any rate, I didn't care for the article.
What about the article was a turn off for ya? I took it as just a high level overview of various documented bear kill stories over time. No attempt was made to really compare calibers, revolver vs auto, handloads vs commercial loads, etc. Just a simple listing of bear encounters when not really bear hunting. There are enough links in the article so you can dig deep if you like.

I was a little surprised that some survivors were chided for not carrying or attempting use of a “bear repellent” prior to going to guns.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
What about the article was a turn off for ya? I took it as just a high level overview of various documented bear kill stories over time. No attempt was made to really compare calibers, revolver vs auto, handloads vs commercial loads, etc. Just a simple listing of bear encounters when not really bear hunting. There are enough links in the article so you can dig deep if you like.

I was a little surprised that some survivors were chided for not carrying or attempting use of a “bear repellent” prior to going to guns.
Well, it didn't work for the one guy that did. :laugh: I've always been led to believe that bear spray was effective. However, what I've always considered is that you're outdoors, might be a 20 mph breeze in your face. Not a good situation even though bear spray sprays a stream rather than a fog like people spray. And, you know, he might have missed with that stream.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
@daytonaredeye
It would take me a very long time to describe everything wrong with the article, so I'm going to summarize this as best as I can.

Reading the article felt less like reading an article and more like reading an amateur scrapbook. The whole thing felt so carelessly cobbled together, lacking any sense of direction whatsoever like a last minute attempt at completing a school project in which the sole concern is meeting a deadline and having something to show as opposed to actually making a meaningful presentation using a compilation of information to reach a concrete conclusion on the subject.

It's an article that feels like one of those television programs on searching for something legendary. Sure, they can be entertaining to watch, but if you watch expecting a meaningful conclusion then you're going to be disappointed. Perhaps that was my mistake, expecting more from the article than it had to offer? At any rate, that's how I feel. I came in expecting much more than it delivered, perhaps moreso than it ever stood to deliver in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daytonaredeye

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
@daytonaredeye
It would take me a very long time to describe everything wrong with the article, so I'm going to summarize this as best as I can.

Reading the article felt less like reading an article and more like reading an amateur scrapbook. The whole thing felt so carelessly cobbled together, lacking any sense of direction whatsoever like a last minute attempt at completing a school project in which the sole concern is meeting a deadline and having something to show as opposed to actually making a meaningful presentation using a compilation of information to reach a concrete conclusion on the subject.

It's an article that feels like one of those television programs on searching for something legendary. Sure, they can be entertaining to watch, but if you watch expecting a meaningful conclusion then you're going to be disappointed. Perhaps that was my mistake, expecting more from the article than it had to offer? At any rate, that's how I feel. I came in expecting much more than it delivered, perhaps moreso than it ever stood to deliver in the first place.

It's a recount of various shootings, not an Ayn Rand novel! :rolleyes: There is no point being made by it.

I don't think you're old enough to remember Dragnet/Badge 714....."the facts, ma'am, just the facts." :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyC2639 and MoKen
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top