I am browsing around for a good survival handgun. This would be taken on hikes and camping trips to fend off any types of animal and/or crazy human threats. I've researched the types of animals in my area and the worst things I came across are black bears and wild boars. I have a Henry US Survival .22 and a Mini-14 .223 that I use to get food. I dont think those calibers would have much effect on a bear at all. I don't want to be toting two rifles around either so I've narrowed my choices down to handguns. Right now, the only one that's sticking out to me is the Glock 30 compact .45 - It's a glock so it can get a little dirty and few shots from a 45 should stop or deter a bear. I don't want to have to do the trick that Alec Baldwin and Anthony Hopkins did in that one movie..can't recall the name....and let it get that close. Anybody have suggestions or reviews from firearms they've used in situations similar to this? Thanks.

In before the lock? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Just offhand, I imagine your Mini-14 would be sufficient for the majority of your concerns. Obviously ammunition used can have a factor, but 5.56mm can be expected to penetrate deeper and do more damage than a .45. Looking at energies, a .45 might have ~350 ft lbs at the muzzle, and a 5.56mm will have somewhere around 1,400 ft lbs. There's just no comparing them.

There was a reply I heard one time when somebody asked what kind of pistol they should use to defend themselves from bear.... the reply went something like "it doesn't matter, just make sure you file down the front sight so it doesn't hurt so bad when the bear shoves it up your ***!" <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In all seriousness, if you are dead set on a pistol, I'd be looking into the high powered revolver range.

For years, Smith & Wesson has put out a line called the Mountain Gun. It comes in a different caliber every year, rotating among .357mag, .41mag, .44mag and .45Colt. It is specifically designed for backpacking as they have lightened the weight by making it a half lug underbarrel, and decreasing the outside diameter of the barrel. It is not designed for 100,000 rounds of hot magnum loads. It is a great gun to shoot. My g/f has the .357mag model. Personally, I am waiting for the next round of .44mag to come out. I don't know what this year's model will be.

I second the Mountain Gun. I have had the model 29-8 MG (.44 mag) for about a year. I have put about 500 rounds of hardcast through it and I love it. Here's a picture: MG

As far as bears go Mekanik, there is a world of difference between the average 200 lb. blackie we have around here and some of the 600 lb. monsters they grow in PA. Depending on the size of bears in your area, you might be OK with the .45--I personally would opt for something bigger. But it's about perfect for the human vermin you are more likely to encounter anyway.

Regards, Vince

I was in the gun store a few weeks back and looked at a Smith and Wesson model 329. It is a 44 mag made out of titanium. Amazingly lightweight. I will probably get one for the same reason you are looking.

I have a model 29, which is a 44 mag made out of blue steel. It is heavy, but is still a handfull to shoot. I can imagine that the 329 would be PAINFUL to shoot. But if you are looking at a charging bear, adrenaline will kick in and you'll likely not notice the recoil. (I've experienced this while big game hunting, after putting an animal on the ground I stopped and wondered why my rifle had no recoil).

Nice thing about the 329 is that if you ever decide to carry it in an urban setting, you can use 44 Special ammo. The 44 Special has less energy, which will minimize over penetration on human predators.

I know where I live, there is a requirement that any handgun that you hunt with have 500 ft-lbs of energy at 100 yards. The 44 mag is the smallest round that meets this requirement. The 45 ACP comes no where near that.

Also, a revolver does not leave empty casings all over the place. This is real nice if you reload for it.

A couple of things to consider:

If you're facing a grizzly or a big brown, you might consider using the 45 on yourself instead, as it will only affect the big bruin by enraging it further. In fact, I can't imagine any production pistol (short of an exotice big bore single shot) that would be an effective deterrent against big bruins in a confrontation. Average sized black bears are a different story. Many of them have been taken on a regular basis using 44 mag penetrating loads. I have a 300 grain stiffie that is devastating on moderate sized blackies at typical pistol ranges.

223s have more energy than a standard 44 mag load, but lack the momentum to effectively thump big game. They are well capable of taking deer sized game, but I would hesitate using them on big predators, as their performance characteristics do not fit the profile you would desire.

The comparison is similar to hitting them in the ribs with a sledgehammer thrown at them at about 60 mph (the 44 mag load) vs pushing a 5 foot long 8mm drill bit through them quickly, or slapping them in the ribs with a big wooden spatula. In order for a 223 to penetrate enough, it must be designed so it won't open up on impact much, if at all. If it opens up quickly, it won't make it to the vitals, and will only sting the beastie.

The name of the movie, btw, is "The Edge". A 44 mag is more like the big spear that the bear falls on at the end of the fight.

Speaking of cartridge selection in a handgun, if a stiff heavy 44 load (300 grain flat point at 1,330 fps in my case) won't do the job, I doubt anything else is gonna do any better. A handgun is just not a reliable tool in dealing with griz. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I like burncycles post, just no comparrison hand gun to 5.56

As far as handguns I like Glock 40 caliber and my Springfield XD40.....but there are more human threats than bear threats in my area.....and I like bears more than people anyway.

It says you are in Hawaii so I am a little confused were you worried about native bears or bare natives??

"... just no comparrison hand gun to 5.56"

Depends on what hand gun. For defense against black bears I'd pick a .41, .44, or .454 mag over a .223. I'd think what you would want would be penetration and I have my doubts as to whether a bullet from the .223 would hold together long enough to keep your head out of Yogi's mouth.

An interesting but mostly academic question though, since bear attacks are right up there with alien abductions on my list of things to worry about. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince

And then there is the 500 S&W Magnum it will produce almost 2600 ft.-lb

They had an article written from the 2003 SHOT show but I don't know if it is still available or if the anti gun folks put a stop to .50 caliber cannons

I looked out my window before taking out this morning's trash. I didn't see any black bears or pagan biker gangs pressed flat against the walls in ambush a la Farside cartoons. When ( and if) I carry it's a carbine rifle or shotgun. Somewhere in my closet is an old SMLE. 50 rounds of handloaded 210 grain .303 and a can of military ball and I'm set for everything up to and including a Fokker DR1 ( Richtofen was downed by a single lucky .303 from an aussie machinegunner) I think my rig sent me staggering into the wall with a net outlay of $150. I even have this 1907 pattern pig sticker bayonet. Rambo has nothing on me for bringing home the bacon if some old boar charges. I haven't priced titanium Smiths, but I bet thats a whole lot of survival gear. Do yourselves a favour, look at an old mauser, Moisin ,SMLE or a scattergun. With the money you save buy some books on bears and learn.

Where I hunt there are a lot of mountain lions. Sometimes mid-morning I stop for a snack. As I'm warming up my can of kippers (yes I know, but I like them) I imagine that fishy smell slowly wafting along, drawing every large kitty within miles right to me. I bet I look pretty comical sitting there eating while craning my neck from side to side and glancing furtively behind me. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> But you know, I honestly like that feeling. I think the outdoors would be a lot less fun if I didn't get it at least once in a while. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince

First... you've got bears in Hawaii???
OK, now that that's out of the way, if you're contemplating having to stop a bear (or maybe a POed Samoan), while I'm a die hard fan of the .45 ACP for "normal" carry, I'd suggest you look into a .50 S&W, or a .454 Cassul. The .45 ACP is great for normal humans, but if a bear is your target, unless you're a VERY good shot, or VERY lucky, you're just gonna make it mad along with curious/hungry/whatever. Bears (and drunk/stoned/psychotic people) are pretty hard targets to either turn around or put down, and in either case, I'd suggest putting down to turning around. I don't want a mad, wounded anything coming back for some payback. If you do go with the .45 ACP, remember, if you fire one round, empty the magazine... and have a back-up (or 5) to reload with.

Troy

It's still listed on their website. The 8-3/4" barrel version weighs over 4-1/2 lbs empty! Add a scope and you might as well be packing a rifle.

I still want one though. <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince

It's stil out there, and going strong.

Troy

lol, no, as far as I know, there are no bears in hawaii. I'm just stationed out here. Normally I'm from North Carolina and frequent the mountains there a lot. That's where I was talking about. Sorry to confuse.

I'm sure for a lot less $ than a titanium Smith, someone could pick up "an old mauser, Moisin ,SMLE or a scattergun." And for $600-$700ish a titanium Smith would cost, one could purchase a whole lot of survival stuff and a whole lot of bear books.

But the original post asked about a handgun that was light enough to be used for backpacking and yet had enough firepower to defend against a bear. Seems like the titanium Smith fits what was asked about and it can probably be had for within $100 of what the underpowered Glock 30 can. (I say that 45 ACP is underpowered for bears - against human predators, it is very adequate). If I was hunting bears, I'd be recommending a .338 ultra mag rather than the 44. But given the parameters spelled out in the original question seems like "an old mauser, Moisin ,SMLE or a scattergun" does not fit either.

I like shooting and I like guns (but I don't like Glocks) so I view spending the money on a Smith as a good investment. There were no bears or pagan bikers outside my house this morning either. lol. But I'd still like the titanium Smith.

Actually, when it comes to bears and handguns, Burncycle had the best advice.

I have spent a little time on Maui so I had an idea of which you were more likely to run into.

I have done a bit of hiking in NC and TN on the AT or Smoky Mountains and never been bothered by bears except almost run down by one in Cades Cove one time.

They are hunted enough there that they seem to know to stay shy of humans except in the park were they cause all kinds of trouble. Of course in the park you can’t carry anyway because the Feds would maul and chaw you a lot worse than the bear would if you did.


I would probably be content with a .357 or .44 for the bears you are likely to run into in the areas I was in.

I read all the posts to this point but will reply as if I haven't... get your Glock (I prefer M1911, but whatever trips your trigger), feed it the best proven 230gr ammo it likes, and hang your food/smellables in bear bags. Worst case, shoving your Glock down a bear's mouth and busting a cap beats shoving your empty fist down his gullet. Bear attacks back East are just not all that likely and almost all the time, if they get your food, that's all they were after anyway - they've evolved into food thieves back east, for the most part.

Anything in a pistol that would be effective on a large predator is not very managable for accurate rapid-fire in a multiple human threat situation - too much recoil to recover from rapidly, even with practice. I can accurately shoot my 44 mag RedHawk pretty rapidly with full-bore 240 gr loads (NOT with 300 gr, though), and it is a very heavy handgun as these things go - one of the heaviest. But I'm a tortise with it compared to my M1911 when it comes to rapid accurate aimed fire.

A 45ACP is a great choice for self-defense but not very good for defense against a predator larger than a cougar. This issue is primarily with bullet weight, not energy. Ordinary pistol cartridges wound and kill via a totally different mechanism than fast rifle bullets. Pistols calibers above 40 caliber efficiently kill large animals all out of proportion to their energy IF they have a heavy enough bullet. But you can't get to large animal lethality with a 45ACP case - overall length restriction, case capacity, and semi-auto design factors for factory ammo defeat you. The real "magic" point with conventional caliber offerings, oddly enough, seems to be 45 caliber, but it starts at around 255gr bullet weight and 1,000fps or so and increases dramtically in lethality as the weights go up about 300 - 350gr on truly large animals. More velocity doesn't seem to add much lethality. As lethal as a heavy bullet 44 mag is, (actually a 43 caliber), it is not as lethal as a heavy bullet 45 Colt load, even when the 45 Colt is loaded to a more moderate velocity. No one can explain that; it's just an observed fact. The uber S&W hunting cartridge, BTW, is actually a 45 caliber, not the 50 S&W - the 460 S&W - althought the 50 is interesting in some respects. These cannons fit my hand very well in the stores, but they are freaking HUGE - I'd rather carry a levergun carbine in 44, 45, or 45-70.

Trying to compare large animal lethality of fast-moving miedium caliber rifle bullets to relatively large caliber heavy bullets is not a logical exercise. You have to refer to ACTUAL results, and then hypothesize to fit reality. Fact is, heavyweight 45 bullets at moderate velocity easily out-penetrate conventional expanding rifle bullets in large game - a well - established fact. And non-expanding rifle bullets below somewhere around 33 - 35 cal usually don't kill as quickly as the large caliber heavy weight pistols bullets (Don't take that as gospel - interpolation was required on my part to work that out).

Having written the above, bears aren't deer or antelope, which I have always found to be extremely predictable to reactions to bullets. In my experiences, black bears USUALLY react fairly predictably to a hit, but every once in a while... a man I knew described his personal horror story to me first hand a year after his recovery from a pretty horrible mauling by a medium-sized blackie that he had shot two arrows through (through!) and then 2 minutes later shot thru-and-thru 5 times with a 454 at point-blank range. The bear died, of course, but much mayhem was committed first. That sort of thing is quite rare with black bears, though.

Grizzly bears seem to be different (Note that my sample size here is more limited; I have only shot 2 and witnessed the taking of several others, but less than 10 total). Regardless of size, they seem to be a bit tougher than blackies and they seem to have a little higher percentage of insanely hard to put down individuals. Every single grizz I took/saw taken reacted differently to lethal hits, so my primary point is that I am not comfortable generalizing about grizzly reactions when shot. One of the bears I saw shot was a fairly large lowland interior animal around 600 - 700 lbs, and it was put down rather efficiently at too-close-for-comfort range with a 44 mag pistol. It did not flip over in its tracks; it kept coming (slowly), but the second shot at 20 feet stopped it and it expired right there in short order. My personal nightmare involves a SMALL grizzly (300 lbs) that I absolutely hammered with a medium caliber rifle - repeatedly. The necropsy revealed that it should have flipped over dead with each shot, but it kept on coming... rapidly. It was closer to me than 20 feet when it finally gave up the ghost - BUT you don't have those in your part of the country.

Get your Glock, stoke it well, and respect the bears who were here before us - best observed from a distance requiring binoculars. They're much cuter at that range...

HTH,

Tom

Well Tom, I have read all the posts and they make a lot of sense but the fact remains that no one firearm is going to suffice for all situations, so...........consider this. Most likely anyone headed to the boonies will not be alone so I would suggest one person sling a BAR .30-06 over their shoulder to cover all bad bears and people and designate the second person to carry an over/under .22/.410 or .223/.410 or something similar for keeping the meat pot full over the campfire. That's the best I can offer. A lot to carry but effective for most situations. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Boone

Long post warning (you should know that about my posts by now, LoL)

<< no one firearm is going to suffice for all situations >>

Of course not. I answered the specific question that was asked with my opinion and the reasons why that is my opinion - in some detail. Since I can't figure out where you were going with your post, I'll amplify my post instead.

In the early 70s Speer came out with their 200gr very large hollowpoint 452 bullet (they still sell it), partially in response to some apocryphal urban legands going around at the time about 45ACP ball ammo fired by stake-out cops failing to put down the odd bad guy here and there (although most of the time it did). I believe that it was the first readily available bullet for the 45ACP that, as near as anyone could tell, reliably expanded in flesh. The current crop of premium 45ACP expanding bullets are far superior and ARE proven to reliably expand, real world. Examples would be bullets like Federal Hydra-Shock (oldest of the new type) or Remington Golden Saber (my personal preference).

Like many others, I developed an extremely hot load for that 200 gr Speer bullet out of a M1911. My 1911 is ramped properly, but trying to hot load that bullet has probably blown more magazines out and grip panels off than all others combined, due to over-enthusiastic modification of the feed ramp that left un-supported case wall forward of the case head hanging in thin air. I NEVER, even then, figured that for a bear load - too light a bullet for the caliber.

But some folks thought otherwise and I recall reading about a couple of fellows who successfully hunted black bear (IIRC, in PA) with M1911 and that bullet loaded to something over 1,000fps. They reported cleanly taking some bears, supported in the magazine article by photographs of bears and some recovered bullets - IIRC, at least one bear expired to a shot that exited the off side. Bullets that were recovered were supposedly expanded to around 0.90" (I think - may have been less - 0.65 seems more likely to me, but 0.90 is what I remember) I believe that the bears were shot from the sides with heart-lung type hits - as long as the bear cooperates by not getting POed for a minute or two, the shot that reliably kill with the least amount of penetration required. It was, and is, a believable story. Lots of caveats, and it never claimed to transform the 45ACP into a bear-defense gun. Oh, it's still used by some boar hunters from what I hear and read, although I personally would be leery of electively shooting a large boar with it.

The current crop of uber-bullets/factory loads for the 45ACP are exceptional and well-proven FOR WHAT the 45 is intended for: anti-personnel. Their depth of penetration is designed to a fair-thee-well for Law Enforcement anti-personnel use, and they perform real-world as-designed. So I conclude that they would be better than the old Speer 200gr on bears if a shot to the heart-lungs can be made without requiring deep penetration (like head-on on all fours). Bear caliber of choice? Hardly. Pot meat gun of choice? Not even close. But I stick to the question asked. Backpacking requires compromises, conciously or sub-conciously, and since human predation is more likely than bear predation back East, a 45ACP is a reasonable compromise. Of course, the VAST majority of hikers carry no firearm and manage just fine...

I have an adequate selection of weapons to choose from and don't routinely carry a 45ACP in the woods. On the RARE occasions I carry my 1911A1 while hiking/backpacking, I stoke it with 230gr factory Golden Sabers unless I'm in a location likely to have pesky black bears. Then I carry handloaded 230gr Hornady truncated-cone FMJ bullets as a compromise - one magazine of those in the gun, and 2 magazines of the Golden Sabers. It's my opinion that the TC FMJ bullets develop a better wound channel than RN ball and reliably penetrate deeper because they are less susceptable to being deflected and veering off inside the target. My opnion on TC FMJ performance, AFAIK, is as yet unproven in that caliber, but has been amply demonstrated in the 9mm; that's the original form factor for the 9mm and the bullet that gave the 9mm its early good reputation in WWI.

In any event, the 45ACP gets the job done on humans, cougars, and lesser animals. With good ammunition, skill, and luck, it probably will get the job done well enough on an average Eastern bear or boar. But it really can't get up over the event horizon of a 255+gr 45 bullet leaving the muzzle at 1,000+fps, so it's a compromise weighted towards the more likely threats. Even those threats (human) are very low probability. I just don't see a problem with what he wants to buy, even though it's not my first choice.

<shrug> The short-barreled DA large caliber revolver options mentioned in other posts would be OK, too - just threat-weighted the other way, in my opinion. S&W is not the only one that offers those kinds of options, FWIW. And there's nothing wrong with a properly fed DA 357, either, although that flips back over to the human-weighted side. And Ted's 40 S&W is great, too, although I would be VERY picky about bullet weight and selection if bears were around - available loads and bullets for the 40 are even more oriented towards anti-personnel than the 45ACP.

The list of plausible compromises is long and I can cheerfully accept many opinions on the "right" answer to his question - regardless of what I choose to do for the reasons I wrote and others that are less relevant to the question.

Regards,

Tom

I'm always a bit bemused at priorities and what scenarios we think we will play out. We cut blank sections from Topo maps, handles off toothbrushes, pack obnoxious freezedried food ( just add clorine cleaned crypto free water for visions of grandma presenting a steaming platter of blueberry french waffles) and optimistically arctic rated sleeping bags that miraculously roll up tighter than a baby armadillo. And then we strap a axe and firearm on that together wiegh 12 pounds, have enough metal to throw our compass 90 degrees off true but give such a list to starboard we compensate anyway in an uneven stride. I suppose we expect to build a saxon great hall and cover the floor with Grendel's hide. Anyone pack the whistle and mirror when the reality of 99% of our real adventures play out and we want to come home? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Tom, thanks for your well thought out reply. Don't fret, I am not sure where I was going either. I guess the bottom line on firearms in a wilderness survival situation is that most likely it will be used for nothing more than taking game for food. With that in mind, one should set out to find the most suitable weapon considering size and usefulness. One choice would be a .357 revolver and a supply of hot ammo plus a supply of shot shells. I've never tried the shot shells but I would think the range would be limited on ground animals. Maybe further on winged creatures. I have to believe that .357 hollow point hot loads would be adequate on a 200 pound bear. What it would do to Bigfoot is another story. Problem is, with most pistols and revolvers, every time you fire it you announce your presence and location to an unknown audience. Maybe just for game a .22 revolver with sub-sonic bullets would suffice if you are a decent shot. Who knows? When I was a kid in the last century, we used to put baby bottle nipples over the barrel of a .22 and we "imagined" that it silenced the bang somewhat. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Boone

Yeah, what you said...

Boone,

I agree. Setting aside TEOTWAKI and other fantasies, foks here at ETS have such varied locales and circumstances that any hard-and-fast answer to questions about firearms is going to be wrong in some way for most of the readers... and most of us could go safely without a firearm in the woods all of the time. So nowadays I try to just stick to the question asked instead of extending it to justify my choices.

However, I am mindful of my own experiences here and abroad and there is absolutely no question in my mind that there ARE exceptions and that it would be just plain stupid to go unarmed some places in some situations - specifically including parts of North America. At least here in the USA I can legally exercise my choices in the places I choose to go. (I rarely frequent NPS lands because that choice is denied me there.)

Tom

I have a Mosin Nagant M44 and love it <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm not suggesting that 5.56mm is ideal or anything, just that if that is something he routinely carries around, it will likely be more effective than a .45 on just about anything he's shooting at.

Ghris... Dude... you don't have to list, strap the axe on one side, and the hogleg on the other... they balance each other out, and you walk straight <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Troy

You keep poking fun and commenting on how amusing we all are...
Kind of discouraging <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> not to mention the off the wall randomness lately

You have a good point about the 357 Magnum revolver being a fine all around sdearm. I don't see the great fascination with the auto pistol for field use. (Please, no rants, feeding a revolver is a lot more flexible than an autoloader.)
My one comment concerns using the Speer 357 shotshells: they are not a reliabile game getter except at extremly close range, say ten feet. Try wadcutter loads or semi-wadcutters for small game. In my S&W, 158 gr semi-wadcutters hit the same POI as a hot 125 gr hollow point soft nose.
Except for someone hunting Black Bear, the chance of a mauling in North Carolina is probably on the same order as being hit by a meteorite, but.... the question was asked.

"There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action"

I always mimic Gilligan in the opening credits. Can anyone list what the castaway's had in the pilot episode? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Chris is clearly bored with the board

My go to firearms in a survival situation will be a Ruger Combo: Mark II pistol and 10/22 rifle.

In a survival situation you will not have access to any means of keeping large amounts of meat from spoiling unless you plan on smoking the meat to preserve it.

That said, you will be looking to fill the cooking pot on a as needed basis. The .22 LR will drop small game with accurate shot placement. .22LR ammo is cheap. Think about it, would you rather move 1000 rounds of .22LR or 1000 rounds of say .357 or .45ACP ammo. Two bricks of .22LR in a ruck is not that noticable. Also, the report of a .22LR is less noticable than one of the .357 / .44 mag hand cannons.


I know that this thread started with the bear threat as part of the situation, but why worry about bears if the are not native to the area that you live. I plan on being at the top of the food chain if I have to run for the hills.

Ammo and camo will keep you at the top.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Howell had about $5 million in cash, and Ginger had at least 15 formal evening gowns. Something was definately going on there...

Vince

He is from North Carolina. They have pretty large black bears there. That's not to say you are wrong; these threads do tend to wander a bit.

Regards, Vince

Tom,

Thanks. That was great advice. I can't help laughing at chris. not making fun of but laughing WITH him lol. I do plan on my camping adventures to carry a .22/.223 and have my buddy with a .338 or a shotty. Camping situations are different because you go into the wood and purposly live rough. Survival situations are unexpected situations. I personally go camping to test out gear and techniques. Camping situations can turn into survival situations and your goal in a survival situation is to turn it back into a camping situation or get rescued. Anyway, perhaps I'll take up bear hunting and go with different people who have different guns and see what happens. I said bear just because they are the biggest, hungriest, toughest things I could think of that I might encounter in the woods and if running isnt an option and i dont have time to make an impaling spear lol then i'd just like some way to kill it or wound it to where i could get away. I understand what everybody is saying about how a pistol is going to produce more of a punch effect whereas a rifle will produce a drill effect. I have been looking at different guns some more and the Taurus 454 Casull might just be what I need. You can get a titanium model so it can take the elements a bit better. Well anyways, thanks guys. I'll let you know what I end up getting.

I expected that the shotshells were short ranged but I didn't realize that ten feet was the killing limit. I like the idea of 158 grain wad cutters. I have a slew of them. Like several hundred. Also quite a few semi-wad cutters.

For the information of those not real savvy about a .357, be advised you can shoot .38 caliber ammo (including wad cutters) as well as .357 ammo. But you CANNOT do the reverse. A .357 bullet is too long to fit into a .38 cylinder.
Also, for anyone wondering what a "wad cutter" is, it is a bullet, usually a reload, that has a flat nose and is used for target practice. It punches a perfect circle in the paper target whereas a round nosed bullet leaves a ragged hole. Just makes for a better looking target and a little easier to grade.
No offense to those who knew that but I am sure there are those that didn't know that. Now they do. We all learn from each other. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Boone

I just saw this year's Mountain Gun today at the local gun shop. It's the .44mag in stainless. Pricetag was $710. I'm tempted, really tempted. It might be higher priced than a Mauser, but I'm not tall enough to carry the Mauser concealed.

Grits, I have a Ruger MKII also and I love it but it sounds like a .30-06 when I fire long rifles in it. Really, really loud!

I also just ordered a 25 round magazine for my 10/22 but haven't tried it yet. Cost about $20. Was a name brand but I can't remember the name and I am too lazy to get up and look.
Fine little rifle. Deadly at 40 yards consistently with a Bushnell 4X. I have more guns than I need but less than I want. As someone once noted, there is a fine line between hobby and mental illness! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Boone <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think we all need to remember that Chis is not only the full-time moderator, but also a part-time plain old poster just like us. He sees the same old topics come up time after time. I'm not sure how he keeps from getting jaded. I know it would be hard for me. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince

Well, since you're going to carry your Mini-14, may I suggest stoking it with Federal Premium Vital Shok ammunition? There is a load using a 60gr Nosler partition bullet (SD .171, BC .266) and another load using the 55gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet (SD .157, BC .199). The Nosler bullet in this caliber has a good reputation on deer and antelope and I would expect the TBBC to have an equally good reputation, but I don't recall reading any field reports on it - sorry. I would lean towards the 60gr Nosler Partition as a better all-purpose load in the Mini-14, but either would be better than the other readily available factory loads.

Neither of these will change the 223 into a spiffy big game rifle, but they beat the snot out of varmint or match bullets for that use. Don't be lulled into using ball ammo. M193 Ball (55gr BT) penetrates OK in something homgenous like wood but has poor/ureliable penetration in varying density stuff (like bone and flesh) - it frequently tumbles and even comes apart. Years and years ago I didn't know/believe that, but eventually I became better aquainted with its real-life effects... 55gr Ball is OK on unarmored humans and that's about it.

If you reload, there are a lot of other choices, such as various Barnes bullets, but the Federal stuff is the only mass-market factory stuff I know of that puts serious bullets on 223 cases. The Federals will be pricey as 223 ammo goes, but...

The Mini does not have a fast enough twist to handle spitzer bullets much heavier (longer) than 60gr, so the 75 - 100 gr 223 ammo is not feasible. There are Speer 70gr semi-RN bullets, but they are not very tough bullets and in my experiance sometimes come apart in mid air when fired from a mini-14 (1-9" twist). I shot a few hundred of those in my Mini and my buddy still does - at the range it's amusing to see one come apart, but that would not be comforting on a live target.

Regards,

Tom

For anyone interested, I find this useful when considering calibers and loading.

Muzzle Energy Computer

Ginger and Mary Ann.

It's always interesting reading about peoples choices of sidearms for survival, having been a survival instructor and SF trooper for over 24 years. So much information is necessary to begin choosing, but among the most important is to consider what the "threats" are where you will be at. There truly isn't ONE sidearm that does the trick. Living in Montana I have a RUGER .480 because I often horseback in Griz country, however one of my favorite sidearms is a RUGER .22 stainless with a fluted barrel. I guess it's all up to your tasts and being knowledgable about the threat, and capabilities of each firearm to meet those threats. JB

Chris, I live with bears, it's not as funny as you think meeting one on the trail and realizing they have you somewhere on the menu.............Have you ever read the book "Bear Attacks", even though I have a BS in Wildlife Science and know the contemporary yet a bit "yuppy" feeling on carrying guns in bear country, I shall continue to do so, and it will not be an old military weapon..........Griz still scares the dickens out of me because I know how unpredictable they really are. Happy in MT, JB

Shotgun. Loaded with full caliber slugs, none of the saboted frilliness, if you want to scrape up every erg of power and aren't worried about range.

Handguns, until you get into the monster stompers starting with .454, just don't do much to bear. I'm assuming your concerns involve the bear being unhappy with your existance already. Hunging them is another matter- you catch them when they are mellow and eating and just minding thier own business, so you have time to get a good shot off. Pistols are handy, but they don't have the energy you want with a ticked off bear. An animal that is angry and gets hurt gets angrier, in my experince.

If you REALLY need to go with a handgun, you are close with the .45, but I might suggest tradding it in for the compact 10mm that Glock used to make if you want to stay with an autoloader. (Don't know if they still do.) Load it with the heaviest FMJs you can find that are at FULL pressure, not the FBI's "not a .45 but acts like it" pressure level. Aim for the head. Maximum pentration of the brain pan, and repeat it. A lot.

Save the last one for you.

If you don't mind a wheelgun, lots of options. The .454 might give you the most versatility and availability of ammo, but expect to shell out the big bucks for your practice. The .480 from Ruger has a slight edge. 357 and 44 Magnums can do it, but again, I'm assuming the bear really would like to see you in parts and you want to make sure that doesn't happen.

I've seen what black bears can do to plywood and 2x4 garbage bins. Thats just being hungry. Being really, really pissed, I wouldn't want a pistol, myself.

I can't comment on hogs, never been around them, other than to say that they have a reputation for being ornery and stubborn. Again, I'm not sure I'd put my faith in a handgun.

18 months duty on Kodiak Island, 12 months park survey member in Kenai studying mainland brownies, 3 weeks in Churchill, Canada- Polar Bear capital of the world, 2 archaeological contracts in Montana in grizzly habitat, countless horsepacking trips in California bear country, honour of meeting with the Seus family and Bart, acquaintance of Douglas Peacock and told Timothy Treadwell he would get himself and bears killed someday and that I would mourn the bears. I also watched Han, the great white bear enter the pavilion during a religous procession with my Hopi friends. The slaughter of ursus is in the thousands. The number of human deaths miniscule, with most the result of human stupidity. To give our most arrogant of species a dedicated bear stopping firearm assures a single option and sad end for the bear when We intrude on HIS world. My Choctaw clan lineage precludes making war on family in any case. " If we have a race war, I'm siding with the Bears." - John Muir .

You should take a look at Ruger's Super Redhawk Alaskan in .454 Casull.
It is a superb revolver for those who need extra safety from boars, bears and such. I really like it a lot, you can shoot heavy .454 loads or .45 if you feel like it.

<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
My dictionary Is not really up-to-date and does not include the various hunting techniques.

Does it mean you HUNT bears by HUGGING them very, very hard ?!?
Waooohhh !!
Isn't such a technique a bit dangerous (I mean, not for the bear ... but for you) ??
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


(yeah ... I know... it's an easy joke... but at first, I really did not get it and tried to image s.o. hugging a bear.... <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> LOL ....)

Could not agree more!! This post was not really about a "survival sidearm". It was about a defense handgun for backpacking in bear country.

Any wheelgun .44 mag or larger (e.g. 454 Casul, .480 Ruger, .500 S&W) in a light weight version seems to answer the question asked in the original post. A .357? maybe? A 45 ACP? I would not if I was truly looking at a sidearm for defense against bears (but if you go 45 ACP, forget the Glock and get a 1911 - I like Kimber but there are many great 1911s on the market).

For a true survival side arm, I think a 22 is the way to go. Ruger and Browning both make great semi-autos. It will not ruin as much meat when used for hunting and you can probably carry 10x more ammo for the same weight.

Planet Earth, calling Chris, Planet Earth calling Chris - we have received the above message but it does not appear to be in a language this forum can understand - can you please transmit a translation in a standard calibre...

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

http://www.udap.com/product.htm
Flare, Whistle, and gun... but the spray stops most from all my reading and no one is harmed.

Kavanaugh quote:

The number of human deaths miniscule, with most the result of human stupidity. To give our most arrogant of species a dedicated bear stopping firearm assures a single option and sad end for the bear when We intrude on HIS world. My Choctaw clan lineage precludes making war on family in any case. " If we have a race war, I'm siding with the Bears."

**************************************************************************

Are we to assume that we "arrogant" humans should never intrude into "HIS" (the bear's) territory and certainly not with a weapon for self protection? And if suddenly attacked by a sacred bear, should we hug the nearest tree and appeal to the great Choctaw spirits to save us from certain death? I think not. Unlike some people, I get no joy or satisfaction from killing any kind of wildlife although I am an avid hunter. Likewise, I would not enjoy killing a charging bear but I would stand my ground until the last bullet is fired and hope that I prevail over the beast.

Granted, bears, mountain lions and other dangerous animals have been pushed to the point of extinction due to man's never ending quest for more territory. But to imply that man should not invade HIS domain is not realistic. I'm sure most intruders
into bear/mountain lion country do not do so (hunters excepted) with the intention of soliciting a confrontation with them but good judgement dictates that we be prepared to defend ourselves against wildlife that is indeed wild and subject to going berserk and attacking anyone that invades his territory.

I suspect that the number of bears and other dangerous animals killed legally by hunters far exceeds the number killed in self defense by "arrogant intruders" into their territory.

No offense, but some of your posts defy common logic and reasoning. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Boone

Translation, Just because I live in a state with Ruppert the Bear and the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. star on the flag does not mean I am whoefully ignorant of bears nor in some "Yuppie" PC freefall against firearms. I have not heard one mention of how to behave around bears, both Old Ephraim and the more dangerous black, how to observe your surroundings for bear sign, bearproofing a camp or even proper shot placement should the rare neccessity of shooting an agressive individual become the last option. Instead it's just BAM!BAM! get the camera and call Outdoor Strife for another 'it happened to me' story replete with a slobbering monster pulled from Bullwinkle's hat on the cover.

Mr.K, as usual, deciphering your post causes my imagination to work overtime to extract your point(s). I disagree that nothing has been posted relative to bear sign, etc. I am bringing back one of my earlier posts on the subject:

KyBooneFan
enthusiast


Reged: 06/19/05
Posts: 202
Loc: West Kentucky
How to protect yourself from bear attacks.
06/22/05 08:15 PM (216.135.43.141) Edit Reply



In light of the rising frequency of human/bear conflicts, hikers, hunters and fishermen are advised to take extra precautions and keep alert for bears while in the field.

It is suggested that outdoorsmen wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as not to startle bears. They are also advised to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear.

It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear feces. Black bear feces are smaller and contain lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear feces has little bells in it and smells like pepper!

"The more I carry, the less I need."

Post Extras:

http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~salley/Bard.book/waltz.bears.html Bears are niether cuddly anthropormorphic friends ( and Teddy is a vital part of my BOB along with spiritual literature, a romanian Bible and The Epic of Gilgamesh) Or protean nightmares with no respect for BMW car alarms. The real bear is something entirely different, and deserving better than either Bill Ruger or Timothy Treadwell. ETS has a reputation for testing everything impartialy. Exausting pre conceived folklore about the big dark woodssss is part of that <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Good one Chris, and by the way, I got the meaning and intent of the original post crystal clear <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Troy

I'll say this much, you're always good for a chuckle. Entertainment at it's finest, even if some find it a bit cryptic (not us spooks anyways).

As for me, armed or not, if I encounter a bruin (any species qualifies) out of season or I'm otherwise without tag, I'll do my best to E&E. If that ain't an alternative, I treat them the same as any other assailant. I must admit, bear stew is a might tastier than braised Homey. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Having been jumped by other critters, I can say that a big bruin that has the drop on me will likely make me lunch before I can quick draw anything, pepper spray included. It's one thing to have an unexpected encounter, quite another to be stalked by a predator. I'd be more concerned about getting bushwhacked by a big cat than any bear. Them cats is sneaky.

The best stunt I ever saw was a bear chasing a coon and the coon went down a steep grade and the bear tried to follow. Trouble is, bear's are a might heavy in the keester, and when that load gets higher than their head it is akin to trying to balance a weeble upside down. As you might guess, that bear went ass over teakettle the rest of the way down the hill, gruntin' and oomphin all the way down. When he hit bottom, he'd lost interest in the coon and was just trying to get his feet back under him proper. It'd have been a shame to have missed such a stunt, and I learnt that some bears can't go down hills at all without darned near breakin' their own necks. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

That's an old trappers trick for getting away from brear bear, problem is you've gotta have a steep enough hillside nearby <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Troy

While I wouldn't use this as a replacement for a bear bag, the people over at Watchful eye designs state: [snip]
"While most bear proof containers allow the bears to detect food but don't allow the bears to get into the containers, O.P.SAK actually keeps the bears from coming to the campsite at all. Keep both food and toiletries in an O.P.SAK and you can even leave them on the ground outside of your tent. Make sure not to contaminate the outside of the O.P.SAK with food odors." [snip]

Does anyone in the group have experience with these?



http://alaskaoutdoorjournal.com/References/beartips.html
offers some comments on the subject of bears though I'm not qualified to judge it's accuracy.

http://www.corbon.com used to make one of the best "big game" rounds which might be a good survival round.

Ashamedly, I must admit that I am guilty of over focusing on the topic. Thanks for the nudge, Chris.

No, I know what he's getting at. And what we've been doing defies logic.

We've been talking about how to get out of a worst case senario. We haven't been talking about how to not get there in the first place. The former with the later is for survivalists, the two are for survivors.

It's like seeing your teenager smoking, so you throw him on an operating table to cut a cancerous lung out. Or one of those horrible mathematical proofs where they write out the basic equation over half a page, say "of course, it would be obvious to any educated person that this reduces to", and they hand you an equation that is only two inches long, and expect you to understand what they did. Few steps in the middle missing from either of those chains of events. The middle bits we've not talked about, and maybe we should.