10 mm for brown bear

"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! ]

Since a lot of animals can outrun people, what would be the point in backing up from a charging animal at close range except to through your shots off? If you have a 10mm handgun and a bear charges you, you are probably better off standing your ground and firing until the bear is dead or you are. Trying to put a few extra feet between you and a charging bear, for example, isn't very helpful in itself. If a few extra feet leads you to a safer location, like inside, then that is another matter entirely. No matter how good a shot you are, you will always be more accurate being stationary than moving.

This thread really seems to focus on firearms as the defense against attacking bears, but there seems to be evidence that bear spray is actually more effective in preventing injury or death to the human, as well as Mr Bear.

http://www.centerforwildlifeinformation.org/BeBearAware/BearSpray/bearspray.html

This finding is not unique.

That supports the theory of other factors having more influence fairly well. The only calibers with more than two rounds to incapacitation are typical semi auto calibers.


I do not think people prefer it because it´s magic. Probably it´s only a little beyond most people´s abilities and offers enough capacity to have some ammo left, when the bear is close enough for can´t miss shots.

I think we've argued this before.

I carry bear spray, since that is the only reasonable option in my self-propelled adventures. Though there are other situations where I would consider a firearm.

From my point of view, a firearm carried for such a purpose should be capable of a clean kill. So, it should be appropriate in calibre and imparted energy, reasonably ensuring a rapid, humane end to the animal in question. I just don't see most pistol rounds being effective or humane in this context (though you use what you have, I guess). The hunting regulations in many areas spell out the minimum legal round for specific game, and to my mind that is a good place to start.

My 2c.

YMMV

Although I'm a bear spray over firearm guy (though I have many..), there is another issue with regard to the 10mm or any semi-auto if carried for protection in the (highly unlikely) event of bear attack: one handed operation.
Yep.... I know that many modern semi-auto pistols are reliable... rarely jam or FTF...etc. But JUST IN CASE... I don't think a weapon clearance drill with one hand while under a bear is an easy skill to practice.
So if it just has to be a handgun, for me it will be a revolver.

While jams or misfires are always a possibility with a gun, the semi-auto handgun may also malfunction if it is in contact with the target. If Mr. Grizz is on top of you and starting to munch on you, there is the distinct possibility of a semi-auto being knocked out of battery or failing to feed properly if pressing against Mr. Grizz. Besides, it is unlikely that most people will have the time to effectively fire off 15 rounds or more from a semi-auto handgun at a fast moving target like Mr. Grizz. I wouldn't expect to get off more than a couple of shots before Mr. Grizz starts his buffet I agree regarding a revolver being a better choice.

This seems to sum it up pretty well (last sentence in abstract of article that began this thread) - "Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in
bear country."

My weapon would be a revolver - because that is what I have

As the heartless cynic would think: Shoot the other guy in the knee. You only have to be faster than one person. The caliber is irrelevant.

or

I agree with the implied view of the last statement in the abstract - we are really not sure if this study means anything.

More about the incident.

"Kim said that he’d learned lessons from the recent bear shooting. He’s going to buy a holster or two. He’s going to practice not backing up, and shooting rapidly."

and his other bear attack incident.

"I stuck the barrel up against its neck, and the 250 grain .338 did not make it out the other side of its neck."

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/08...-graphic-video/

If a bear is chasing two people and one person falls down (for whatever reason), would the bear always go after the downed person? It occurs to me that I can't think of a reason that the bear wouldn't continue chasing the moving, and thus more visible target. But then again I don't know bear behavior at all. Can the more informed help me out?

Either way, someone will survive to tell the tale. I'll bet bear behavior is relatively unpredictable. Perhaps field trials are in order.

I have some candidates for that experiment!

Wow! Two bear encounters at bad breath distance? He's either the luckiest or unluckiest guy around.

Not who you want as your hiking partner!

The bear spray seems to be the overall best tool. The reason would be that the stinging of the mucous areas - eyes, nose, and throat - can be rather intense resulting in a change of focus. This is only my unqualified opinion.

Yet another example of "its better to be lucky than good". Considering the haphazard shot placement resulted in two out of five rounds being lethal hits at melee range, and one of those two being a "sweet spot" hit resulting in significant trauma to the CNS, the two most significant points of interest are that he was only able to get off the same number of rounds as he would've with a revolver, and one of the five rounds resulted in a self inflicted wound. You can harvest a polar bear with a 22 rimfire if you can reliably place your shot and you know where to put the round.

Spray and pray is never a good tactic against any opponent.

I know a few bear guides in Alaska, and none of them consider any handgun round an effective defense against brown, griz, or polar bears. 12 gauge pump with slugs seems to be the most popular firearm choice for defense against bears. Appropriate bear spray would be preferable.

This here is wisdom.

And as always, take steps to avoid confrontations when in bear country.

A pistol, in my opinion, is a close up, secondary defensive weapon.

With no bear experience, I think a shotgun slug with the correct disabling placement (ie: a shoulder) first, would be the most effective. A head shot to a bear seems to usually only ticks him off unless it enters through an opening (ie: ears, nose, mouth, or eye).

It's a shame Stu has crossed the bar. He had the most 10mm experience of anyone I knew or know.

Consider giving this a read: http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/dangerous-predators-stopped-with-handguns/

Edit: I originally found the above linked article here: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyo...gerous-animals/