No, actually that is THE question and the focus of the entire discussion here. What's the title of this thread? "Bear Spray vs. Bullets", not "Does Spray Ever Work?".

Oh no! Thread drift strikes again. Has this ever happened before on ETS? (and yes, I confess -I am guilty, and this is not my first offense.)

But it is worth remembering that if you are in a situation where you are using either implement, you are either very unlucky or at least somewhat negligent. Reading Herrero's studies, it seems pretty clear that the Prime Directive in bear country is to keep a clean camp.

I have both pepper spray and firearms.

I wouldn't want to face an angry charging bear with pepper spray. I wouldn't want to face an angry charging bear with a firearm. I wouldn't want to face an angry charging bear period. So my first choice would be to avoid the encounter entirely.

If I couldn't avoid the encounter, I would want to engage the bear for the farthest distance away (of course, only AFTER identifying him as an actual threat). That favors a firearm. But you would need to have enough gun for the job, and know the vital areas of a bear in order to shoot effectively. Many people fail in both of these categories. So that would favor pepper spray, which you would instinctively aim at the correct place - the face. Unfortunately, that face would have to be right in YOUR face for the pepper spray to be useful with its limited range.

You are not guaranteed to win no matter which defensive choice you make. Best to avoid playing the game in the first place. If I absolutely had to choose, it would be a rifle. Minimum cartridge choice would be full load .45-70gov. Best of both worlds would be to wrap the pepper spray in bacon and toss it to the bear. While he's munching on it, shoot the can with the .45-70 (idea stolen from the first Jaws movie!)

Hey, maybe someone could write up a FAQ or make a bear spray thread into a sticky. This seems like a recurrent topic around here.

[commentary on political commentary redacted]I agree with Hikermor that we all need to look at the data objectively to see the relative merit of spray vs bullets.

On the other hand, the general recommendation to carry spray over firearms when you're not hunting doesn't mean *you* in particular cannot do a good job defending yourself against a bear with your gun. (Uh, I mean you have the gun. I don't mean the bear has your gun.) It's like the self-defense advice: if you carry a knife, it could be used against you -- but that applies primarily to people who have little idea what you're doing. Some, like AKSAR, know what to do when shooting a bear. Me, I just know a little about running madly through a course while putting two rounds in the A zone on each cardboard target, shaving seconds off for a better score. The pepper spray is probably a better choice for me.

For the hunters on the board, if a bear is charging at you, where do you want to place your rounds? I'm thinking it's got its thick skull lowered. You need to hit the CNS, because a bear will still have the time to kill you even with a severed artery. How do you do that? Use a magic bullet that can make a 180 degree turn and get to their medulla oblongata from behind the neck?

[commentary on political commentary redacted]I prefer a gun but we had both with us when we went to Alaska. Others prefer spray. I say take what you yourself is comfortable and confident with. The simple fact is that if a bear is determined to have you for lunch you need to fight back. Shoot him spray him, or stab him if need be, like the mountain men of old. It's another hazard you face out there in the bush and if you are unprepared to face it among the myriad of hazards then perhaps you would be more comfortable watching the Nature Channel. Sorry if that sounds insensitive, but I'm sure S&R and whoever has to recover your remains would agree.

Death by Bear is a rather rare event,especially compared to the many who die from falls, drowning, or severe weather. Don't forget to plan for those eventualities as well.

Of course, the odds change drastically if you are bushwhacking through a blueberry patch in autumn on Kodiak Island....

Don't forget to have fun out there.

I don't think that time has past, at least not completely. I've been involved in a few of these threads on ETS over the years and I think that if you go through them there is at least one person implying that it you are risking your life unnecessarily by carrying spray instead of a firearm.

The other theme I've noticed are those that seem to think you aren't really defending yourself unless you kill the beast attacking you. They seem to prioritize killing the attacker over ending the attack (or at least don't see these as 2 separate things).


Talking to this specifically, all the available information does indicate that bear spray is better than firearms for this specific use. While both can be used to successfully defend oneself against bears, bear spray both has a higher success rate in stopping attacks and a lower injury rate in their users.

The only caveat right now is that bear spray is the newer technology and therefore has fewer total reported uses than firearms. As the years march on we will get more data. However, as bear attacks are both rare and make for a good news story, we are able to see the results of the encounters as they happen. So far we are seeing the result of the studies backed up in the stories that hit the news.

It's worth noting that the article cited quoted a news story highlighting the successful use of bear spray. You would've thought that if the failure rates of spray were closer to those of firearms that they could've at least quoted a story where someone attempted to defend themselves with bear spray but failed.

Belt and suspenders worked for this guy. Spray wasn't enough , gun didn't kill bear either. Both together got R done tho.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/gun-cha...76d119223d.html