IMHO you did make a faux pas. My guess is that you already know that or it wouldn't still be on your mind. That said I am happy that your family is safe, but shooting in the air is not the best action to take in that situation. Having your weapon ready was warranted in the situation. Noone will ever know what the men on horses truely intended, but I think it was a very good thing that you were prepared to defend your family. Unfortunately bad people can be everywhere we go. I'm happy everything worked out in the end and no harm was done.

Hello Cameron and welcome to the forum.

Given your situation, you did what you thought best and everyone survived without injury and that is the goal here. Another goal is benefiting from the experiences of others.

You have asked for feedback, so as a fellow outdoor enthusiast, I will oblige you with my opinion. Please note that this is not intended to enflame or embarrass anyone. It?s strictly an observation. So with that disclaimer, I?ll continue.

To answer your question, ?Do you think I over-reacted?? - simply stated, yes.
? Your sister saw or thought she saw a bear ? then panicked and ran away screaming, ?bear!?
? Having seen or heard nothing, you panicked, ran for your weapon and fired it into the air.

Our discussions generally revolve around the principles of knowledge, gear and mindset in order to be better prepared.

Based on your story, it seems you had sufficient gear, but the knowledge and mindset categories may have needed a little fortifying. (But isn?t that why we are all here <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

Going into a place where you are likely to encounter wildlife, you should familiarize yourself with what to do in case you stumble across one of Mother Nature?s beasts. With many animals, fleeing is not the best alternative. You can?t out-run them and if they?re not interested in devouring you or simply scaring you away, catching you can become an intriguing challenge to them.

The S.T.O.P. acronym (Stop, Think, Observe, Plan) is also spoken here. It applies in several of your situations:

1. The bear
? Stay calm
? Is there really a bear
? If so, is it merely watching you, is it walking in the distance, is it protecting its ?turf? or is it in attack mode

2. The .45 pistol
? Stay calm
? Where is it (If legal to carry, why is it not secured on my person)
? Is a bear really attacking me
? Can I acquire an actual target in the low lighting*
? If I shoot a bear will I kill it, injure it, scare it or tick it off *
(*Should have been determined before the trip began)

3. The men on horseback
? Stay calm
? What are they doing
? Are they a threat

As far as the men on horseback, I can?t say who they were or why they did or didn?t do what they did. I probably wouldn?t have wanted to get too close to a group screaming, ?bear? and blasting rounds into the air either ? especially if I was on a horse that could?ve been mistaken for a bear - after dusk. They could have indeed been thugs, but I have a hard time believing that they were. They were in the woods on horses (not exactly stealthy) at night, 9 miles into the backcountry. Now unless you were mining gold in them there hills, it would probably be easier and more lucrative for these horsemen to knock off a local convenience store if they were thugs. Plus you had the .45 there as insurance.

In summation:
? Stay calm
? Identify the potential threat
? Assess the potential threat
? React accordingly

Remember:
? The weapon should be secured at all times
? Fire the weapon only at an intended target
? The weapon is not a ?noise maker?
? Falling projectiles and ricochets kill

That?s my observation FWIW <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />. Stay safe and thanks for sharing your story.

I'm not so sure this is a great idea.



I thought since bears have poor eyesight they will "bluff" attack to see what you are about.

-john

Like many others have pointed out. We were not there, you were, so who is to judge. I will say a couple of things.

1. A weapon is no good to you if you don't have it with you.

2. The people on horses were not Forestry Service. If you read the rules at the websites, Guns are ILLEGAL in National Parks, and LEGAL in National Forests (within applicable local and state laws). If you were in a National Park they would have come into camp, talked with you and let you know. They would have show you ID and if they were afraid of "the crazy guy with the gun" they would have marked your location and had you followed / tracked. So they could deal with you later.

"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."

I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. I am not a big fan of warning shots of any sort. Nevertheless, if you are going to fire one, or fire a gun at all for that matter, you MUST be sure of your backstop. Yes, ricochets are a threat but I would still prefer to fire into the ground over up in the air.

I do agree that neither one constitutes safe gunhandling.


Regards, Vince

I don't understand the shooting thing at all, whether in the air or the ground. Is the notion that a loud noise would make a bear go away? That never would have occurred to me. So I would say yes, it's a faux pas as far as I can tell. Unless someone knowledgeable says otherwise I'm going to believe that shooting for the sake of making noise is an ineffective plan even if there's a real bear, especially a bear that's not actually attacking. The noise might even provoke the bear. And even emptying a clip into a large attacking bear might not stop it.

Odds are that 45cal rounds are going to bounce right off of a large Bear. That's not to say they won't scare him but don't expect them to have any significant stopping power at all whatsoever. I'm not going to judge your actions from the comfort of my perverbial armchair but I will tell you that IMHO positive target identification is a must before discharging a firearm. Ofcourse that's not to say you did not positively identify the sky before discharging yours. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> As far as the people that approached your camp on horseback. I would have to say that I would not believe even for a split second that (based on your story) they were in any way associated with the forest service. I would fully expect them to either be in clearly marked uniforms or present identification if that was the case and if they were in my camp for more than a minute I'd probably even ask them (politely) to present ID or move along.

Paulr:

There are people on this forum more technically knowledgeble about ballistics than I am, but here is my take on guns in the woods.

If I ever went anywhere where bears, cougars, mountain lions, wolves, or bobcats were a concern, I would not depend on a .45 ACP as a camp security sidearm. Those who have seen my previous posts know I am a huge fan of the .45 auto, but not against the aforementioned animals. I would prefer a .38 Super in semi-auto format because of the drop-away magazine feature, or a .357 magnum with at least a 4 inch barrel with speed loaders. The reason for the .357 magnum over a .44 magnum which would be a superior cartridge is the .357's lower recoil for multiple shot target aquisition and a better chance at multiple hits. The head would be my target of choice so that if the shot does not kill, it will still hurt, hopefully enough to change the animals mind about continueing the attack. I know some of you will contend that hurting a large hunting animal will make it angry and more vicious, but I personally believe that is primarily a human response commonly known as "vengence". I would be inclined to believe animal suffering pain would tend to back away from that pain. One of the main reasons I believe that has to do with a story I read about a man that was attacked and knocked off his horse by a mountain lion and manged to fight it off with a tree branch. Now a tree branch to the head of a mountain lion can not compare in pain to even a lowly .22 to the head for the infliction of pain. After that incident, he went riding with a sidearm which I believe was a .357 magnum strapped to his belt, and I believe he also attached a lanyard to the sidearm.

In the woods of Wisconsin, where the biggest animals are black bear, deer, and an occasional wolf, I feel quite comfortable with a sling shot and a .22 caliber semi-auto rifle as a camp gun. The thing I fear most in the Wisconsin woods would be a pack of feral dogs, and for that, I would feel safe with my Ruger .22 caliber semi-auto pistol.

The best advice has always been to just stay away from dangerous animals unless you are hunting them, and then you should have what you really need to put the animal down quickly and humanely.

Bountyhunter

>>>>I shivered when you said your sister ran, and then you did. Bear bait. You can't outrun a bear<<<<

He didn't have to outrun the bear, only his sister <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't think we disagree at all, not really. Neither option is good. I just think in the described situation he stood a better chance of hitting someone by shooting at the ground. Especially since it doesn't sound like a lot of consideration went into the shot to begin with.

I grew up in a rural state, and most of my shooting practice has been done on people's farms, not at a range. I have witnessed some freakish, pucker you up riccochets that have made me triple careful about where I would post a target. Falling projectiles do hit people, but in the described situation it sounds like they were miles away from any kind of substantial population density.