IMTUO (= in my totally unqualified opinion ...)
and FMFAC (= from my favorite arm chair ... <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />)

- if you bring a gun, keep it with you, for obvious security reasons ; if you need it, you don't want it a hundred meters away .... and having it on you, is the best way to "control" it and to insure nobody else (kid, untrained adult etc..) will eventually "play" with it ;
- as Chris said, don't put your finger on the trigger until the pistol is trained on a really identified target.

Disclaimer : I haven't the least experience with bears (except for having seen some on TV and in a Zoo ..... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Second disclaimer : my firearms experience is limited to paper target shooting (making holes from .17 up to .45 inches)

And I guess if I had been in your shoes at that time, I may well have done the same things... <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

It´s always easier to be wise in the hindsight. In addition to what the others stated there´s one point that really stood out to me. It may sound a bit harsh but I don´t intend to offend you or pass moral judgement. You borrowed a gun and had a vague idea of using it in the case of a bear encounter. By not thinking more thoroughly about it you conditioned yourself to careless fire in the case of a panic. And you conditoned the whole party to assume that unidentified contacts would be bears. That kind of conditioning is much too powerfull to neglect it. It would be much better to set up a plan and brief the whole party about it. This would increase the probability of proper reactions and it might even decrease the probality of a panic.
Thanks for sharing this experience and giving an oppor
tunity to learn.

There are a lot of issues here, but I would like to address a few comments.

Shooting in the air vs. shooting into the ground-Neither is safe. What goes up does come down, but you were in a sparsely populated area it sounds like. If you shoot into the ground you stand a decent chance of a riccochet. Even with a heavy, relatively slow .45 round. I think in the situation, up in the air was a better choice especially if light conditions were bad.

Do people get mugged (or worse) in the wilderness? Hell yes. Maybe it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen. Most people that love the outdoors are good people, but some people like the woods because there is no law enforcement nearby. At one point I had somebody tip-toe around my tent in the middle of the night. I view that about the same way I do someone trying to break into my house. Why was he there so late, with no light, unanounced? It was a man because we found tracks. There was no good reason for someone to behave like that.

I met a paraplegic guy oen time that was acquainted with a friend of mine. Nice guy and we struck up a conversation. He told me he was in the wheel chair because he had been camping in the Red River Gorge (in KY where I am from) with a bunch of friends. Some person or people came into their cam in the middle of the night and shot everyone in his party with a shotgun while they slept in their bags. He lost his brother and best friend, and he was the only survivor. Some other backpackers found him in the morning which is the only reason he probably survived. Nothing was stolen, and he says they had had no run in with any people during their trip.

It is unlikely that you will be a victim of crime in the wilderness, but more likely than being attacked by a bear. Just my belief, but I am sure somebody has compiled stats on that sort of thing.

Did you ever see proof that the guys on horseback were Forest Service? Anything? I would be highly suspicious of anyone riding quietly into my camp, especially in low light.

You may have over reacted a little. I wouldn't worry about it. No one was hurt. You learned a lesson or two, and discharging a weapon may have possibly saved your sister from a fate worse than death.

Oh yeah, don't run from bears. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

This thread has brought up some good discussion points though IMO, and that is a very good thing.

I know the last post was poorly written but I'm all whacked out on cold medicine and I have the flu. So sue me. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I rather doubt anyone with criminal intent would use horses even in today's rural environments.The things are to expensive and require a level of care few career criminals would care to exert. Even that trash trapper, ersatz cowboy Claude Dallas ditched his stock after murdering two game Wardens. Horsepeople do tend to get a bit arrogant with livestock right away and the superior atitude a horse renders to people afoot. It's not unlike sailboats who insist on tacking across big freighter's bows because " sail powered vessels have right away." The simple fact is our wilderness has become an extension of the uncivilized behavior many of us seek to escape from. I prefer to emulate my literary hero Jack Burns, rumoured to be dead, polite if encountered, hard to find and best left alone anyway <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"Never apologise, never explain"- British foriegn Office <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Cameron2trade:

I don't know you or how often you utilize and/or practice with the pistol you borrowed. I have used and owned a variety of weapons, and from an academic standpoint know about quite a few weapons.

The weapons I consider myself "familiar" with are the ones I own, (I have not "borrowed" or used anyone elses firearm in more than 35 years.) use, practice with, and clean on a regular basis. From my point of view, picking up a firearm that is similar to one I own or have handled before and do not access on a regular basis does not constitute "familiarity" with it. Two firearms coming off the same assembly line with a 1 digit difference in serial numbers can be vastly different in their response to being used by different people. The only thing in my book that qualifies me to handle "strange" firearms is the same consistent safety procedures. Trigger response, recoil, point of aim, point of impact, handling different types of ammo, and other factors make the same model firearm different from one you handle, use, and clean on a regular basis.

Being licensed in the State of Wisconsin to ride motorcycles, I have owned several motorcycles, and scooters in my lifetime, and I am currently looking to buy 1 or 2 scooters of 50cc 2-stroke or 150cc up to 400cc 4-stroke. One of the things I read early on in my bike riding days was that most motorcycle and scooter accidents involve new owners and borrowed bikes. Owning a particular motocycle or scooter and using another one of the same size and model does not garuantee the same behavioral aspects of the one you own. I don't know if any such studies have been made in the firearms arena, but I am willing to bet that missed, errant, and accidental shots have probably been more likely with borrowed firearms.

Bountyhunter

Chris, you may be right. But you are operating under the assumption that criminals/bad people don't have money. That is a bad assumption. Economic background does not change your heart and soul.

"I rather doubt anyone with criminal intent would use horses even in today's rural environments."

You're assuming that the horses were theirs. A woman I used to be acquainted with went with a group of other women on a multi-day trail ride. Three men came to their camp and acted obnoxious. That didn't bother the women as much as the way they treated the horses. It wasn't until the men noticed that one of the women was wearing a holstered gun that they decided to go on their way.

A few hours later, the posse showed up, looking for three stolen horses.

Stupid people are stupid people no matter what their environment.

Sue

lookat the upside your here to wirte about it