Sounds like a grizzly defending it's kill isn't always stopped by bear spray.

http://www.yellowstonegate.com/2013/03/n...teton-elk-hunt/

I doubt there is any one-size-fits-all situation. 10 seconds isn't a lot of time to react.

A lot of variables can impact the effectiveness of bear spray. A breeze, the experience of the user, the size of the cannister, and the sensitivity of the animal to its effects.

A lot of variables can impact the effectiveness of firearms too, especially in a stress situation. As I understand it, it takes a pretty good, fast, disciplined shooter to kill a charging bear. Otherwise, if a bear is doing a "false charge" (for example) it becomes a wounded bear that is "all-in."

If two of the three hunters had used bear spray, with one as a safety, would the outcome have been different? Maybe, maybe not. It's really impossible to say.

I wouldn't wish to see any human hurt. Still, it's a damn shame about the bear.

No internet discussion is as heated as defenses against bear attacks or as the relative merits of 9mm vs. .45 ACP. Moderators beware!

Nothing in life is guaranteed....

If I have a 9mm or .45 to defend myself against a grizzly bear, I'll only need one shot. Just hope I can hit myself before the bear does!

Sounds like they used plenty of bear spray and a rifle that would take down an elk. Plenty of rifle for grizzly.

Bear attacked the wrong group this time.

OK, so just a little clean up of some political commentary. Political commentary is discouraged, even when well taken. No finger pointing, nothing offensive here, nobody is a bad guy... but dems da rules. Fair 'nuf?

HJ

Bingley called it. Here we go ...

There is an old joke about using a 25ACP to defend yourself against bear attack. Just shoot your girlfriend in the knee with it while the bear is chasing both of you.

lol!

HJ

Would a handgun be enough to stop a grissly? (aside from making a lucky shot) I've always wondered about that.

Shot placement, speed and situational awareness trump caliber every time.

With that said, typical defensive loads for humans are not appropriate, as they're designed to expand and limit over-penetration. Bears have much better natural armor than humans, so a large jacketed (JSP better than FMJ) or hard-cast lead bullet is better to achieve enough penetration.

The prevailing wisdom seems to be that a .357 Magnum loaded with heavy JSPs would require precision hits on the central nervous system to reliably stop a bear. Under stress, few people can make precision CNS hits on a charging bear with a handgun. As a master-class competition handgun shooter, I would be doubtful of my ability to make such a shot.

A .44 Magnum or .454 Casull is more appropriate -- for those that can accept the weight and are capable or shooting them effectively. I'd rather have a shotgun loaded with slugs.

It's worth repeating that your best move is to avoid confrontations with bears. It's also worth repeating that you shouldn't carry firearms anywhere unless it's legal to do so and you are trained to use them safely and accurately.

If the bear is defending food or cubs, you cannot scare it off. If the bear is thinking that you might be good to eat, firing a gun may actually cause it to decide that you are not food.

While your chances of stopping a bear with a .22 is very, very slim, your chances of killing a bear with one aren't as bad. The .22 has a lot of penetration and can cause an infection or a bleed that will eventually kill the bear. You'll most likely be bear scat before that happens, though.

According to the NPS account and investigation of this incident, the spray and bullets reached the bear at the same time. If that is the case, this incident is irrelevant to any spray vs. bullets discussion -the bullets weren't backup for the spray in this case.

While in theory, I prefer bear spray, when Mr. Griz is ten feet away, as he was in this case, I would probably be very happy with a slug loaded shotgun in my nervous little hands.

REDACTED

Back on topic, yes, you can hunt bear with the larger calibers. My ... second cousin? ... used to be big into pistol hunting. I would assume that, at close enough range, a .44 mag (maybe smaller, but would you want to find out) would do the trick. Again, shot placement is KEY.

Lots of people, most of whom who have never shot a grizzly, have theories about the best caliber. No handgun is really good bear protection. The only real advantage of a handgun is that it is lightweight (relatively speaking), and you might actually have it accesseble when you need it. Yes, people have successfully protected themselves with a 44 Mag, but truth be told a 44 Mag is pretty weenie bear medicine. Even most 454 Casull loads deliver less muzzle energy than a 30-06, which most people who have experience with bears would consider the minimum rifle cartrige for bears.

Keep in mind that a grizzly bear is a very tough animal. Big bones and massive muscle, under a thick layer of fur and fat. Their brain is actually quite small, relative to the size of their head. The skull is very thick, and the front of the skull slopes back at an angle, like the frontal armor on a tank. Unless you get very lucky, shooting a bear in the head will just mean a really pissed off bear with a bad headache.

If you choose to carry a firearm for bear protection, the best advice is to carry the biggest, most powerfull rifle you can shoot well. In Alaska, the two most popular guns for hunting big bears are the 375 H&H, and the 338 Win Mag. A 12 gauge shotgun with rifled slugs is not a bad choice for protection. On hunts I have killed a brown bear with a 338 Win Mag loaded with 250 gr Nosler Partition bullets. I've also killed a black bear with a 30-06 with 220 gr bullets.

These days however, I generally only carry bear spray when out hiking. It is much lighter weight to carry, and has been shown to be on the average at least as effective as firearms. That is my choice, and I spend a lot of time in bear country.

I'd feel better with my 870 Remington loaded up with Brenneke slugs. As a last resort, if you do carry a handgun of the sort that you'd use for protection against humans, those who've "done it" say you should use hard cast or FMJ. Penetration is what you want; aim for the brain and hope for the best. Few handguns will enough structural damage to stop a big bear without shutting off the CNS.

The discussion at work one day veered onto the subject of bear attacks and guns (don't really have bears around here to speak of). A coworker asked me what kind of damage I thought my .45 would do to a bear.

I told her:

1) I'll be shooting until the gun is empty and one of us is dead, either the bear or me, and he has stab wounds and a knife sticking out of him

2) I have the .45 ON ME, which is better than the "wish I had it with me" rifles all my coworkers were talking about

3) I'll be the most painful meal the bear has ever eaten and he'll probably die soon afterward if he does finish his meal.

All said and done, a .45 may not be the weapon of choice. But it IS the weapon I have handy.

Both you and the bear would be better off if you carried spray. I think AKSAR has proably had more field experience with grizzlies (a very different critter than black ears) than all the rest of us put together.

I have spent all of 48 hours in serious grizzly country - an overnight trip in Denali. We were very careful because we carried --nada! This was an afterthought after a mountaineering patrol on Denali. Once you get up high, grizzlies are not a concern.

The last person I've heard of saying so was mauled to death by an ice bear about 10 years ago. He had ~30 years or so field experience hauling stuff to remote locations in Spitsbergen. He put plenty .22 bullets in that bear, but that only made him more angry. I haven't heard any .22 caliber nonsense since then...

Just shows that "experience" is often a nickname for "cementing poor practice". Just because something stupid usually works out doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. He had scared bears before, that poor man, but this time the bear wasn't scared so easily.

But you don't need a .22 to scare bears: History shows a vast array of successfully scaring ice bears with basically any activity known to man: Engines, Shouts, dogs, waving, explosions, broom sticks, clanging pans and the velcro flap of polar explorer Borge Ousland's jacket (reaching for his gun after numerous attempts to scare a troublesome bear. Signal pistols didn't have ANY effect, but the sound of a velcro flaps ripped open was obviously very scary to that particular bear). Scaring is good practice and saves the life of the bear and yourself from a lot off hassle. 95% of the time it works out really well. But sometimes the bear really doesn't want to be scared... and then you need something really effective.

For the record: No, I've personally never needed to scare or defend myself from any bear.

The verdict is still out about bear spray and ice bears, though. Don't know about Canada or Russia, but in Spitsbergen the official rule is not to trust bear spray untill it's been more thoroghly tested and has a track record of being effective on ice bears. I guess it's only a matter of time untill bear spray is adopted as recommended practice there, too.

Oh, as always, Aksar has good advice, listen to him.

Thanks for the details ... this is exactly the information needed to answer the original question!

Just sharing a little knowledge here.
And these comments are in NO way based on my own experience ... I have never been attacked by a grizzly and hope it will never happen :-) So the advice below comes from another forum where there are experienced bear hunters.

If you do decide to shoot the bear, you need a rifle which at least has a 30-caliber and a bullet speed of roughly 3,000 ft/sec. For example, something like a 30-06 or better still a .300 Winchester Magnum. A little bit less bullet speed is OK (the 30-06 is more like 2800-2900 ft/sec) ... I'm just giving you the right kind of range. This comment comes for a very experienced hunter who has shot large brown bears. So this person speaks from plenty of experience. That kind of bullet caliber and speed will penetrate the skull and spine of a large attacking bear.

It goes without saying ... a large bear like a grizzly poses the most serious kind of risk. There are definitely stories of these bears attackign with their heads down, moving low to the ground, and running very fast. It would be a tough job to control your nerves, keep proper aim on the attacking bear, and get off a successful shot.

I'm not saying other guns would always fail. Just passing on what you would really need to have a good chance at success. Hopefully noone here ever winds up in that situation.

Pete2

Unless you can provide a link, the reports show that rifles were the backup and bear spray was ineffective in this case.


"David Trembly first saw the bear soon after they entered a wooded area in the Snake River bottoms and tried to scare it off.

All three hunters had ready access to bear spray. When the bear charged, David Trembly fired his spray while his sons raised their rifles and initially held fire. One of the hunters described he grizzly bear as moving "incredibly fast" and "like a cat," moving low to the ground and snapping branches as it charged, according to the release."

"Three bullets — one to the back and two to the head — brought down the 534-pound male practically at the hunters' feet."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charges-killed-grand-teton-grizzly-18676666


And here

"After reviewing the investigation, handled by law-enforcement rangers at the park in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to file any charges against the three, park officials announced Thursday.

According to the investigation, the unidentified hunters, who were participating in the park's annual elk reduction hunt, tried to deter the bear with bear spray, but when it charged to within 10 feet of the trio two fired at it, hitting the grizzly twice in the head and once in the back, killing it, the investigation noted."

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/201...ional-park22897

Here is the news release summarizing the investigation: Investigation Results Made Public in 2012 Grizzly Bear Shooting

From what I see here, it sounds like hikermor's summary was correct. The release states: "Park rangers and science and resource management personnel believe that both the bear spray and bullets contacted the grizzly bear at nearly the same instant."

From the link you provided to the National Park Traveler website -""During that brief time, the hunters deployed bear spray and discharged firearms against the charging grizzly. Park rangers and science and resource management personnel believe that both the bear spray and bullets contacted the grizzly bear at nearly the same instant," the release said. "The totality of circumstances indicated that the hunters were forced to make rapid decisions in close proximity to the bear, and they acted in self-defense."

ROFLMAO! If it's close, that's about right.

I've encountered bears scores of times (a little north of a hundred times, maybe); several times virtually face-to-face (OK - it seemed like that - 10 - 15 yards). Black bears, grizzly bears, and coastal (brown) bears in all sorts of terrain / circumstances. Less than 300 meters and it makes my heart rate go up every time. There have been some particularly scary occasions - 3 in particular still give me an occasional exciting dream, but mostly encountering bears have been just an interesting event. No animals (or humans) harmed so far.

I'm NOT an expert - have killed (legally) two grizzly bears over the years and do not intend to shoot any more bears. Having said that, neither of those I shot expired immediately. The HUGE one didn't travel after I shot it (once) but was very close to me in close cover - scared me witless. Years later, a (relatively) small one was practically bulletproof and dang near killed me. Covered 300+ meters RAPIDLY - it came for me, even though every shot was a mortal hit. It was hunting my dad (unknown to him) at the time I decided I had to intervene. I didn't have time to be scared until AFTERWARDS. It died at my feet. That story takes about 100 times longer to tell than the actual events...

So - with my *tiny* bit of firsthand data - dropping a bear in its tracks at close range seems to be dicey. I go armed in the wilderness, but I do not have any desire to confront a large animal up close - bear, moose, whatever.

(I'm still grinning about the one shot comment - dang, that's funny!)

From Wikipedia on the Danish Navy Greenland patrols:

'Among the equipment used by the Sirius Sledge Patrol is the M1917 Enfield bolt-action rifle chambered in .30-06 Springfield, and Glock 20 pistols chambered in 10mm Auto as their previous Pistol M/49 sidearms chambered in 9mm Parabellum proved insufficient against the polar bears encountered.'

qjs

I wouldn't be real optimistic about the 10mm round against polar bears, either!

Friend in NorCal killed a standing bear towering over his wife planting flowers at close range with a single 44 mag pistol shot to head,dropped like a rock with one head shot.

His Bud killed one in his grove with a 22 rifle,one shot,excellent skilled hunter he was though,and bear surprised him,he wasnt bear hunting.This fellow told me a 357 mag will stop any bear in Calif,I'll take his word for it.When I visited there he always armed me with a 357 and said never leave the house without it (and dont shoot off your toe,first hand advice from him,LOL),they had a lot of problem bears there.

State relocated problem bears to the area yet denied it,they killed bears they called '2 holers',a hole in each ear from where they had been tagged twice before by state before they showed up in their backyards.

So they not only had a lot of bears,they had bears with issues.Nice,eh?

"This fellow told me a 357 mag will stop any bear in Calif,I'll take his word for it."

You're right that I should have ammended my quotes above to cover large, angry bears. A large bear, such as an attacking grizzly, really requires a good high-power rifle.

I agree that there are folks who hunt the smaller bears, such as those in CA, with handguns in .357mag and 44mag caliber. Although I have to say that we do have bears getting up to 700-800 pounds in California and I sure wouldn't want to wound one of those things with a handgun :-)

Pete2

"any bear in Calif" does not include grizzlies, despite their appearance on the state flag. Grizzlies have been extirpated from CA for nearly 100 years. The black bear is a very different critter, smaller and less aggressive (usually).

Sometimes when I see such black and white comments as "this caliber will stop any [bear/bad guy/sith lord]," I get a little worried. Nothing ever works 100% of the time. A fine defensive caliber like .357 has failed at times. A state trooper placed multiple rounds of .357 center mass on his assailant, but that didn't stop the bad guy, who survived. Unfortunately, the trooper did not. So before packing your favorite caliber for the extreme unlikely situation of encountering a grizzly intent on killing you, please remember that your mileage may vary.

Very true.No grizzlies here.Thought that was a given but not clear,so dont be confused,no grizzlies here for sure.

But problem Bears,we have plenty.And a magnum handgun will stop them.

And smaller calibers too,but hardly ideal for sure.You want to be a serious experienced marksman/hunter with nerves of steel to do that.But it can be done.

A lot of large game I wouldnt want to wound with any weapon.

I just ran across a report of a Native Alaskan who stated that his grandfather used to bring down bears with a 22 LR. Aiming point was the ear of the critter.. I would assume he didn't try this technique when the animal was charging....

"Sounds like a grizzly defending it's kill isn't always stopped by bear spray."

One hunter used bear spray and two hunters fired on the bear when it was within 10 feet""

Hmmm...

You have a dead bear, a discharged can of pepper spray and two weapons fired.

It _could_ have happened the way it is described by the survivors.