Hmmm. Thanks for bringing that up AKSAR. Very good to know, and if forced to defend myself, you may have saved me some jail time. Very much appreciated.

Yes, a powerful enough handgun would have a range beyond 25 yards. My opinion was based on the markmanship skills of the typical shooter. IMHO, very few people would have the skills necessary to hit a vital area of a bear at 50 yards with a handgun. Let alone if the bear was charging you - moving, and you pumped up on adrenalin. An accomplished handgun hunter, with a scoped handgun, could certainly make the shot. But for the average Joe ... handgun group sizes at 50 yards are usually measured in feet, yards for some folks. But with a .444 Marlin handgun? Average Joes first shot might be within a few yards of the bear by pure dumb luck, but his followup shot would be more likely to take out the 747 flying overhead.

LMAO. I agree. I'm pretty cool under pressure, and the best shot here with handgun or rifle. That's why I shoot for two other guys when it's time to qualify. Well one now, see looking for a special daypack. Loved the 747 comment. And you're right, the average Joe would probably end id as bear scat like Chaos said. I just hope that if that situation ever comes to fruition, and I hope it never does, that I do better than the average Joe. Thanks.

More people have died from bear defense arguments than from actual bear attacks.

Face it, Deathwind, you just need an excuse to buy another gun over the missus' objections. You're making us enablers in your habit...

LOL 50 yards with a hand cannon against a stationary paper target is very doable; against a fast moving target while the clock is running and you're amp'd up on adrenaline? That's not a good plan.

The thing that riles me about the gun vs. spray argument is that so much of the "no gun" side depends on least common denominator thinking. They just seem to ass-ume that a gun toting hiker will not know how to run his gun under stress, that he has not practiced with it with hundreds of rounds, that in general he is a dumba**.

It gets old, and it drives me ignore their arguments.

There are so many variables at play with the "in XX out of YY bear encounters, guns didn't help" analyses that they are useless.

How about this: have spray, have a gun, and be a flippin' surgeon with that gun.

You should know that you really don't know that. Among other reasons, there are many definitions of "best shot" out there -- I've seen plenty of benchrest shooters who can split an atom at 1000 yards but would never be competitive in any sort of action shooting competition.

Bingley

Shh!!! She might see this!

Russ

I have a great deal of respect for your opinion. See below.

Glock

Exactly. The whole save the poor bear at the cost of your own life and limb has gone a bit far IMHO. And I never carry a gun until I'm comfortable with it and have put at least 300-500 rounds through it and know EXACTLY where it will print. As for firing calmly under stress; I have a great deal of experience with opponents far more dangerous than a bear. Nuff said.
Thanks to all of you for your input, and thanks to you Glock for expressing my ideas.

I meant under combat shooting and sharpshooting testing chaos. If there's anyone who can shoot better in this area I haven't met him or her. Would actually enjoy the competition. My brothers always said I was a freak of nature when it came to shooting. But I'm sure there are plenty who could out shoot me. Note that I said here.

By the same token, the "Anybody who doesn't carry a gun is a dumba**" side always seems to ass-sume that any body who does carry a firearm is automatically skilled enough to hit, with a hard kicking gun, under extreme stress, a small target moving very fast towards them. That also gets old.

For the record, while I choose to carry spray, I don't have an issue with folks carrying guns for bear protection, provided they have put in sufficient realistic training to be truely profficient with that gun. In previous threads on this issue I have even given advice about what firearms are considered adequate for bears and what sort of shot placement is best.

However, in Alaska I see lots of folks out in the woods carrying firearms for bear protection. Anchorage is a relatively small town, and I know some of them and have seen them shoot. Some of them are skilled shots. But far too many of them are probably more likely to hit themselves or their companions than to hit a charging bear. They buy a gun, shoot it now and then, but never really develop any real skill with it. Likewise, a lot of hunters, who may be in fact be adequate shots with a rifle, go buy a 44 Mag or 454 Casull for casual hiking. But they don't shoot it much, but they just know their rifle skills automatically translate to the big handgun. Those folks are without question better off carrying spray, in my opinion.