"The 10mm is increasingly popular as a wilderness defense gun in Alaska. Fully loaded it’s as light — and a bit more powerful than — a loaded, small frame .357 magnum. The GLOCK 20 holds 15 rounds versus five or six for a .44 or .41 magnum revolver. In this case near Homer, Alaska, on the Kenai peninsula, it did the job."

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/08...h-10mm-handgun/

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

I'd rather shoot myself in the foot with bear spray....

My training group has tested this out extensively (minus the undergrowth, the injury and the bear) and concluded that moving backwards with a handgun, even on a flat range without anything to trip on, is not a best practice. This isn't intended as a criticism of the hiker in the story; moving while shooting is an advanced skill that not many people train to do.

I consider the fact that he took down an 800lb bear with a handgun, any handgun, pure luck. Some may think this incident proves that 10mm is a "magic bullet". It isn't. If you have no other choice, sure, go for it. There aren't any better options for you, so give it a try. But don't expect it to work. It did for this guy in the article, but generally, no, it's highly unlikely that a handgun will stop any bear, much less one this size.

You have experience?

This study shows slightly higher success by percent, of handguns over rifles.

"Success rates by firearm type were similar with 84% of handgun users (31 of 37) and 76% of long gun users (134 of 176) successfully defending themselves from aggressive bears (Z 1⁄4 1.0664, P 1⁄4 0.2862). "

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/s...5_23_07_utc.pdf

The abstract makesinteresting reading:

ABSTRACT We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving
firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Encounters involving brown bears (Ursus arctos;
218 incidents, 81%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 30 incidents, 11%), polar bears (Ursus maritimus;
6 incidents, 2%), and 15 (6%) unidentified species provided insight into firearms success and failure. A
total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents. We found no significant difference
in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long
guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters
with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n ¼ 162) of bear–firearms
incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear. Using
logistic regression, the best model for predicting a successful outcome for firearm users included species and
cohort of bear, human activity at time of encounter, whether or not the bear charged, and if fish or game meat
was present. Firearm variables (e.g., type of gun, number of shots) were not useful in predicting outcomes in
bear–firearms incidents. Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that
can lethally stop an aggressive bear. Where firearms have failed to protect people, we identified contributing
causes. Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in
bear country.


2012 The Wildlife Society.
KEY WORDS Alaska, bear deterrence, bear–human interactions, black bears, brown bear


Note especially the phrase "no significant difference in success rates" and especially the last sentence - isn't this true for all sorts of gadgets we carry into the back country?

While this may sound impressive, this is probably due to the lack of emergency rooms for treating bears, and they slowly bleed to death several hours after being shot (probably having already maimed, killed and consumed the person that shot them). Eventual death of your opponent really has nothing to do with stopping their attack from injuring/killing you before they died.

This death rate for bears from firearms is much higher than death rates for humans from those same firearms, even though bears are much more sturdily built than humans.

Here's an article by someone who compiled a bunch of statistics into a nice presentation:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

Scroll down to the table that shows actual percentages for stops, kills, incapacitations, etc.

Compare the results for, say, .22 against .357mag. Both have a %fatal of 34%. So does that mean a .22 is as good as a .357mag? Well, if you look at the stat for "# of rounds until incapacitation", you'll see that the lowly .22 is even better than the .357mag (1.38 vs. 1.7). And comparing this article to the other article quoted in a previous post, those big 'ol bears died at almost twice the rate of humans (61% vs. 34%). Common sense must be applied when looking at stats and drawing conclusions.

My point being, take statistics reported in various studies with a grain of salt. It doesn't make sense that firearms, handguns in particular, are so effective in stopping bears, when they are so ineffective in stopping humans. Maybe the bears were just scared away in most of the successful defense cases, and a firecracker or air horn would have worked as well as a firearm?

I'd still want a firearm when dealing with a bear, but preferably a magnum caliber rifle from about 100 yards out, from a rest, with a scope, and a couple of good solid hits to various vital areas. (Actually, I'd prefer to let the bear go from 100 yards out, but if it was in a dead run heading for me, I'd take my shot sooner rather than later.) The probability of taking out a bear with your handgun as you stumble and fall backwards putting out wild shots is next to nil. Even if it's a magic 10mm handgun. Certainly better than nothing for bear defense, but I wouldn't get over confident about it.

There was one case I read about where a hunter hit a bear that was charging him at 100yds. The bear caught, killed and started to consume the hunter before dying of the fatal shot.

Bears are tough.

How about bear spray as an alternative?

I'm thinking ... wrap that bear spray with bacon and toss it out there for the bear to chew on. Then shoot the can in his mouth with your rifle. A triple whammy - pepper, explosion, and bullet.

[ Idea unashamedly taken from the first "Jaws" movie. Hey, it worked on a Great White! ]