Lessons From Handgun Defense Failures Against Bear

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/04/lessons-from-handgun-defense-failures-against-bears/

Well duh, everyone knows you the handgun isn't for shooting the bear, its for shooting the other person beside you so you can run away first

But other than the first it sounds like the isn't isn't handgun related since the others didn't actually hit the bear. A miss can happen with a rifle, spray, whatever.

Great article!

This was fascinating. I used to carry a .357 magnum on my flight/survival vest because the .44 magnum seemed like over kill and I could carry more spare rounds. But I studied bear, mountain lion and wolf attacks and considering the terrain I might end up in and the time and distance for medical assistance I switched up. A few laughed at the "cannon" but this justifies my choice. To me at least. Thank you for posting this link.

Of the three cases, in two of them they didn't even hit the bear (maybe grazed it in one), and in the other case where they actually hit the bear it was with a .22.

I can't say that I'm surprised that these efforts were flagged as failures.

I think their next study should concentrate on events where people actually hit the bear they were shooting at. Your odds go up a little bit - not much - if you actually connect. And really, .22's should be discounted from the start. That's just not going to work except in some kind of freaky miracle.

Personally, I would not trust any handgun against a bear. And not a whole lot of the commonly owned rifle calibers either. My minimum rifle would probably start at a hotly loaded .45-70 for a small black bear, and then go up from there.

Handguns are ballistically inferior to long guns in every way. But a sidearm can be with you in situations you'd likely otherwise be unarmed. The meta-studies have shown that if you have time to deploy it during a bear attack, a handgun will probably save your life. I suppose some folks can carry a long gun all-day, every day and it seemed to work for Lucas PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.. But I don't think I could always have a long gun at the ready 24/7 while hiking and camping. It seems like moment you lean it against a tree while you "use the facilities" is likely to be the moment you need it.

When camping I generally rely on a 12ga shotgun loaded with Brenneke Green Magic slugs. But I will always have a sidearm on me, too. This used to be in a HPG Kit Bag but as much as I like the Kit Bag, it's great as a pack but mediocre as a pure holster. So now I usually carry in a kydex chest holster. In the past this has been a 9mm loaded with 147gr hard cast- not ideal but it's the best option I had. About a year and a half ago I got a .40 cal so now I plan to carry it loaded with 180gr hard cast. If I had a 10mm or .44 Mag I'd carry it but I don't and don't really have the budget for a new gun right now (been on work comp for a year and not sure when I'll be cleared to go back to work).

I think the meta-study shows that if you can get to a centerfire handgun your odds of survival are pretty good. A .22LR can certainly kill; Bella Twin killed the largest grizzly ever taken at the time back in '57 with a handful of .22 Longs, not even LR! But she was hiding under a brush pile and was able to shoot up through the roof of the bear's mouth. A .22LR, especially out of a handgun, won't reliably penetrate the skull of a bear so I think it's smart to tote something bigger.

That said, I agree that if you can always have a rifel in .45/70 Government on you that would be better!

New topic: Update of Pistol Defenses Against Bears 123 Cases, 98% Effective

http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=300960#Post300960

That's a great article. Apropos of nothing the forum filters might need a bit of tweaking- I don't think there's anything offensive about the name of the sheriff in "The Rifleman"!