Whether it's a bear, dog, or human that I'm defending myself against - I'm not going to stop shooting until I'm out of rounds or one of us isn't alive anymore.

And if I'm out of rounds and we're both still alive, I'm going for the knife. I'm sure as hell not giving up as long as I have breath left in me.

Back up there bud, I never once said a .45 ACP was a good round for a bear.

You must have me mistaken.

Speaking of dogs and bear, here's a little twist to consider if you're in the habit of letting your dog run loose:

In Scandinavia, one way of elk (moose) hunting is letting the dogs run loose and make A LOT of barking. They will chase and stress the elk (moose). This will either drive the elk to a convenient location or give the hunter time to position himself for a shot.

Now what happens when the dog meets a bear? The bear probably wants to run away, but if the bear is surprised and the dog is too close the bear may choose to attack. Then, the dog runs backs to its owner as fast as it possibly can. The bear may very well chase the dog, either as a chase-the-fleeing-prey response or a I'll-show-you-who's-the-BOSS response. Either way, you have a close surprise encounter with a stressed and angry bear and one or more humans.

This situation is extremely volatile, and several bear attacks have happened to hunters with dogs. The attacks may just be fake, or the bear may be stressed enough to make a real attack. Either way, the bear is typically shot by the fellow hunter.

As far as I know, NO ONE walking alone in the woods has been attacked by bears in Scandinavia, as opposed to a handful of hunters with dogs. (One incident is uncertain, though: A man was attacked and killed by bear as he left his "out house" of his bear country cabin. It is believed, but not proven that his dog played a role in the encounter).

I agree that statistics is a rigorous mathematics, just saying that people often misuse statistics to mislead others, either knowingly or otherwise... You need to understand the data from which the statistics originated. You shouldn't include everyone the country over in a cougar attack scenario, it is absolutely misleading, since a large number of people live in urban areas, where cougar attacks are very improbable. I could say that the odds of dying from dysentery are about 10%... which might very well be true if you include the entire world population, since access to clean water is a real problem in many countries. In the USA dying from dysentery is highly unlikely.

Thanks for sharing what goes on there! Very interesting for sure.

Sorry, I meant "you" as in "generic person", not "you" as in "you". It didn't come out that way though.

And all it would have taken was to have squeezed some toothpaste into a bowl and throw it out into the back yard from the bedroom or bathroom window.

Here's a bear vs. .45acp article:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298031

This guy saw the bear (400lb black bear) from a good distance away, and emptied his gun into it. I think at shorter range, he'd have been a bear chew toy.

With regard to stopping an attacking bear, vs. hunting, it's important to keep in mind the two incapacitation mechanics: damage to the CNS and blood loss. A brain or spine shot on a charging bear is something you're probably only going to do if you get very lucky. Blood loss is problematic, because if you don't poke a big enough hole, the bear's fat and fur will tend to plug the external holes up and slow the blood loss. Plus, it just takes a bit of time for a bear to bleed out. That's why shotgun slugs and large bore rifles are popular.

My personal plan in bear areas is bear spray and a 1911 for backup. I might consider a lighter weight magnum revolver, but that's just not in the budget anytime soon.

No problemo!

From what I've read about handguns used against animals, .45 ACP is usually a poor choice on bears. As is 9mm, 40S&W, and other common service pistol calibers. They're made for stopping people (or people that act like animals), not animals themselves. Many have been killed or seriously injured underestimating what a certain firearm will do against a large animal.

In fact, one article I read even said that, in the writer's experience as a bear hunter living in a big bear area, heavy .357 magnum loads perform noticeably better against bears than .45acp. The heavy .357 magnum loads can penetrate to places where .45 acp simply can't. However, it's not an ideal bear caliber in their opinion, it's just better than .45acp (which, a lot of people seem to think is an acceptable bear caliber).

With that being the case, I've formed the opinion that, at an absolute minimum for an outdoor handgun I would want heavy 10mm or heavy .357 magnum loads in a long barreled gun (5"+). I would not, however, feel totally comfortable with that. I would only be carrying that in places where the risk of big animals coming after me is very low.

My preferred handgun choice for a place where bears and such are common would be a .44 magnum or .454 casull. I've read of multiple documented cases where they have worked to stop large bears and other large dangerous animals on the charge. Most recently, that link mentioned above where a short barreled .454 casull was used to stop a bear in Alaska. Still, I wouldn't be 100% comfortable, but I would probably be about as happy as I'm gonna get with only a handgun.

With all that in mind, I still wouldn't want to be using a handgun against a bear or any other big dangerous critter if my life, or the life of another, depended on it. I'd much rather have something like a 12 gauge shotgun firing magnum loads, a .45/70 lever gun, or a medium to big bore rifle. The only reason I would consider a handgun is simply because carrying a long gun around most of the time just isn't practical (nor is it usually quick to get into action if it's strapped to a pack or laying against a tree).