I'll be elk hunting in western MT this fall. Am I undergunned with my G100 in a chest holster? Reading up a bit it sounds like the available factory bear defense loads are pretty good. Anyone use .357 in griz country? Which ammo do you prefer?

IF you would have to shoot a charging griz a .357 would not be a good choice. It has worked with lucky shots. If that's all you have a good lead 180 gr. SWC might do.
Everytime I go in dangerous game country I carry my .475 Linebaugh, but a .44 Mag with heavy bullets would be an alternative.
A lot of guys are using 10mm autos, but want to go heavier. Whatever you choose make sure you can shoot it well, rapidly, and accurately. Bears won't give you a time out!

Thanks Larry....I'll be with at least 2 other guys and they'll be carrying .44s....I just don't see me practicing enough with a .44 to make it accurate in my hands.

Any bullet that gives you more then 16 inches of penetration in 10% ballistic gel well work just fine.

It is far more important to have a handgun you can shoot well then caliber.

It is also very important to have the mental mind set to shoot the bear and place your rounds well.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/...-cases-97-effective/

The data base is now close to 200 cases and it is still 97 percent that handguns are effective in bear defense.

The major factors are having a gun, the willingness to use it and being able to hit your target.

Good advice pdog.....really interesting article too.

Great article. I can's seem to calculate how 1 failure is 37 cases equals 97% success rate though(?)

The article mentions 104 cases.

What 37 cases are you referring to

The initial sentence or so. Then goes on to the 104 which does add up. Sorry, just an old man being picky.

Mike

We have close to 200 cases now I'll have to talk to Dean about a up date.

Like to see it. Lemeno please.

Mike

170 cases

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/...idents-98-effective/

Many years ago when metal piercing 357 was available most of what was sold was to big game hunters backing up a rifle. Sadly now illegal.

If I were going to use a .357 Mag for Bear defense I’d be looking for at least a 170gr. Hardcast lead bullet.

In fact, I did build up 200gr. Wide flat meplat hardcast load very similar to the DoubleTap loads years ago. In my 6” GP100 they were super accurate - 2” at 50 yards was pretty common and I do think they were around 1200 fps.

Recoil was manageable in that GP100, though certain stout for a .357.


https://doubletapammo.com/prod...rdcast-solid-a-20rds

Having played with 200gr bullets in several 357mag handguns and rifles

The closest I got to 1200fps was out of my rifles then the average was only 1150fps.

The fastest I could get out of handguns was only mid 900's.

That is with several different powders. Barrels up to 6 inches.

Thanks Robert. I'll practice with target loads but buy those double tap 200s for when I hit the woods.

There is a lot of “expert” advice on here from people who have never shot a bear, nor even had to test their marksmanship skills under stress.

Raw power will never replace shot placement nor will bullet diameter replace penetration.

After 46 years of guiding for, and living with, Massive Alaskan brown bears my personal choice for myself and each of my family members is a 357 revolver with either hard cast or jacketed flat nosed non expanding bullets 160-200 gr bullets traveling around 1000 fps. Most people can handle the recoil and make quick repeat shots.

Hunting, where you can stalk closely and carefully place a bigger , heavier bullet on an unwary animal is completely different than having to make a quick hit on a close, large, highly agitated and aggressive animal when your body is pumped full of adrenaline and all your fine motor skills have vanished .

Thank you Phil. I hold no one's opinion on bears higher than yours for the reasons you mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:.

Hunting, … when your body is pumped full of adrenaline and all your fine motor skills have vanished .

This. THIS. This is exactly what “people” don’t get. Adrenaline dump and watch everything go to hell in hand basket.

Geez, I have an extra cuppa coffee in the morning and my bench rest groups open wayyyy up.

Adrenalin dump? May as well run open bore on a scatter gun.

My personal reality: I ride motorcycles. Faster ones. Adrenaline is not my friend…hasn’t been for more than three decades and a few hundred thousand miles. Fine motor skills…caressing brakes or throttle…that’s the difference between a ditch or wall…or getting home alive.

Phil is absolutely correct.

For me, I can control a .357 even with the heaviest loads I can handload with complete control. I can do max loads on .41 Mag and Heavy .44 Special loads…and .480 Ruger loads.

The top load .44 Mags? Super heavy .45 Colt? Nah, those have a penalty I don’t get beyond. The shock and audible punishment goes beyond what I want.

But a .357 with 200gr. Max loads in a 6” GP100? Yeah…that, that’s one I can put on target all day long. Even in a 3” SP101, yeah. I can somehow do that.

Putting the right bullet on the right target in the right place?

Yeah, that’s priceless.

Having shot 5 or 6 black bears with handguns and seen several more shot.

The ability of the what I call the super magnums to smash threw flesh is amazing.

The 454s 460's and 500's hit hard. But that comes with a price they are heavy and hard to control in recoil and the ability to have fast follow up shots.

Top end 44mag and 45colt loads will both shoot a 300gr bullet in the 1300fps mark. I seen them shoot threw feet of bear.

But again bringing them out of recoil, slows follow up shots down.

Training practice and mindset will help you in a high stress situation.

The old saying you fight how you train has a lot of truth in it.

Having studied and looked at, now close to 200 cases of people defending themselves with handguns from bears. Having interviewed people who have defended them selves with handguns from bears.

These things stand out.

Having a handgun.
Having it readily available.
Having the skills to use it.
Having the proper mind set..

Are far more important the type and caliber.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
There is a lot of “expert” advice on here from people who have never shot a bear, nor even had to test their marksmanship skills under stress.

Raw power will never replace shot placement nor will bullet diameter replace penetration.

After 46 years of guiding for, and living with, Massive Alaskan brown bears my personal choice for myself and each of my family members is a 357 revolver with either hard cast or jacketed flat nosed non expanding bullets 160-200 gr bullets traveling around 1000 fps. Most people can handle the recoil and make quick repeat shots.

Hunting, where you can stalk closely and carefully place a bigger , heavier bullet on an unwary animal is completely different than having to make a quick hit on a close, large, highly agitated and aggressive animal when your body is pumped full of adrenaline and all your fine motor skills have vanished .

YUP!

I get that a pistol is better than nothing, or bear spray for that matter…

But when hunting in bear country, I have a rifle. Even my .25-06 antelope gun is both more accurate and a better penetrator than any handgun for me- and I shoot a lot of handgun- uspsa, idpa, CC training.

It’s not that hard to always have your rifle with you when hunting.

The 3 bear defense cases I personally know of were handled with long arms- one was a 20 ga shotgun using quail loads (at contact distance) the other 2 were “bear capable” rifles. All three resulted in dead bears with no injury to the shooter (the shotgun guy had his dog get scratched up).

If you are fishing or are capable of keeping your holster on at all times but not being in arms reach of your rifle, ok it makes sense… but I’ve tried it many times- using a heavy retention holster vs rifle sitting in arms length, the rifle both got a faster shot off and a better hit.

Point to think about.

The last thing I want for bear defense is a scoped rifle. Are you better at firing a rifle from the hip accurately at a charging bear than a handgun?

Pretty sure I already mentioned that if I were carrying a rifle for bear defense it would be an open sight .45-70 Trapper special but I'm going elk hunting.

If you know something bad was going to happen you would just avoid it.

Handguns are for when having/carrying a long gun is impractical.

A lot of these attacks occur when someone is doing something besides hunting with a long gun.

If you have not read them read the 170 cases below..

They will enlighten one to when and why.

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/...idents-98-effective/

I think I read that in the past. It demands an email address to read it on my phone, so no.

If it is what I recall, then here are a few points…

I agree that having a gun while in bear country is a decent option if you are willing.

I agree that a handgun is more convenient to carry WHEN NOT HUNTING (as you mentioned) and thus more likely to be with you when you need it than a shotgun or rifle. However, if you are hunting with a gun (ie not bow hunting, and even then some places say you may not have a handgun if bow hunting) you already have a gun. Since when I’m hunting, I always have a rifle, I don’t see the need to bring a handgun. If you see yourself wandering around in the wilds while hunting but deliberately going without your rifle, then sure, by all means tote your pistol along.

I don’t think there is any comparison between a handgun and a rifle for effectiveness… and yes, I have hip shot a large rifle and hit a small target (snake) at point blank range. That I didn’t get bit says it worked well. Would you drop your rifle and try and draw a pistol to shoot a charging bear?

As for speed and accuracy, which is faster? A handgun in a retention strapped holster, or a slung rifle? You might be surprised with what happens on a shot timer. For me, the rifle was on average a half second faster. Flash sight picture with a handgun and a rifle is about the same.

The point I would make about the article if it is the same one (and as it’s at ammoland, I’m pretty sure it is) is that a collection of reports found in newspapers/news articles is not statistically valid. I agree that having a gun (even a .22 pistol or .25 auto) is better than having nothing… but it is not statistically valid to say it’s 90-some percent effective. You have no way of ensuring that you have a statistically relevant sample and that you are accurately measuring all bear/handgun events.

Common sense says having one is better than not. Science says you cannot say just how much better with your methodology. It may be nit picking, but inappropriately documented claims hurt the argument.

No one is saying or has said a handgun is better then a rifle or shotgun.

There is no comparisons to rifles or shotguns to handguns.

What has been found that when handguns are used in defense against bears they have proven to be highly successful.

When it comes to speed of deployment. With any defensive tool.

There are far to many variables to make a blanket statement that one is faster then the other.

I spent a lot of time developing shooting courses to train, test and challenge shooters abilities. With rifles, shotguns and handguns.

I have run hundreds if not into the thousands of students through them.

I can design a course that can prove one is better then the other.

Means and proves absolutely nothing.

When the shit hits the fan it is all about the conditions at the time.

Not some hypothetical if A happens then B happens and if not then C happens.

Use what you want believe what you want.

Act how you want.

p dog read the response 3 above your last.

Yes, folks are claiming the handgun is better.

When I went up to AK to hunt moose and bear I decided to try and figure out if it would be at all valuable to take my S&W 329 with as a bear defense gun.

I tried all sorts of tests.

Of course you could rig the test to make one favor another. I tried to utilize any common situation and the only places that the handgun was favored was when you were already in the grasp of a bear/had one arm immobilized. The guide made the comment that I was hunting with a much more appropriate weapon than the pistol, and I would have it in my hands...

If you restricted your comment to your quote What has been found that when handguns are used in defense against bears they have proven to be highly successful. I would have no argument with you, but you continually bring up this over 90% stuff and use a collection of anecdotal data culled from news sources to justify your claim.

Then folks start commenting about how the handgun is better... and arguing esoteria about what is "adequate" for bear defense... Your articles don't state there is some magical minimum under which you are not protected.

I agree its a tool, but in a large portion of dangerous bear territory a handgun is NOT an option, at least legally.

If you are flying in to hunt in AK, every pound on that cub flight in is precious. Duplicative items of dubious value (as in the odds are very much against you will have a violent bear attack that would require you to shoot) when you could bring extra matches or a extra set of dry clothing in a waterproof bag that are much more likely statistically to save your life than a handgun, especially since you are already bringing a gun, and have another person with you.

Yes, every situation is different.

I think the Gunsite bear rules are better than most anything out there about bears.

To paraphrase:

Be alert.
Bears are not cuddly.
Have a powerful firearm available and the proficiency to use it.
Be alert.

I would not refuse to go hunting in an area that did not allow me to carry a handgun.

Conversely, if all I was allowed to have was a CCW pistol on my person, I would not be worried about going where there are bears, either.

quote:

If you restricted your comment to your quote What has been found that when handguns are used in defense against bears they have proven to be highly successful. I would have no argument with you, but you continually bring up this over 90% stuff and use a culled from news sources to justify your claim.

Feel free to conduct your own research.

Feel free to make up your own mind.

collection of anecdotal data

Have you really studied Smiths and Herro's so called research.

They do not supply their source's. They are very bias in there study.
Do really think there data is any better just because they say so.

What is research can you tell me how you run/study it.

If you have more data points to add to it we would love to see and use them.

Kind of hard to set it up in the lab. One would soon run out of test subjects as they would die from being shot or mauled.

Read the incidents do the math.

If you don't want to believe it it is your choice.

Again feel free to do your research and but out your own data.

I would love to see someone else disprove or prove what we are saying.

I would love to see your facts or data.

In said of just saying.

It not so.

Again carry what you want.

I must have missed where anyone said the proper rifle or shotgun isn't as effective as a handgun. My only comment was that in my hands a scoped rifle is one of the least effective close range charging bear weapons. There's a reason the outfitters all carry an open sight .45-70 in their scabbard on the guided hunts I've been on in griz country.

Bottom line what Phil said was all I needed to hear.

Research is something you set up before hand in a random fashion, and then tabulate the results. This is anecdotal in the sense that you are depending on press coverage and that you are seeing every bear interaction in print.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s possible to actually do research that will tell you how effective a handgun is in bear defense in a quantitative sense, ie a gun is x percent likely to stop a fatal attack, bear spray is y percent, both are z percent, situational awareness training is a, etc.

If you wanted to determine relative effectiveness of various weapons at killing bears, it would have to be something along the lines of the old strasborg goat testing they did back when, or some of the old Pautuxtent studies on waterfowl shell effectiveness.

That is generally hugely expensive and of dubious ethicality. Imagine getting hundreds of bears, hooking them up to various monitors while strapping them in position and using a fixed strapped in machine rest for the gun and shooting the bears.

Anecdotal case reports (what you are quoting) can give possible outcome information (ie we have several reports where the presence of any handgun resulted in no human injury despite an attack).

It tells you a handgun can help, it doesn’t tell you “how much” or if it is better than another method. It just said “this time it worked.”

Use Mr. Shoemaker as an example- he said that his 9mm pistol worked that time.

He’s never suggested that a 9mm handgun is the ideal or even a good option… just that it worked when he needed it the one time he tried it. That “any” weapon is better than “none” if you get attacked by a bear.

He doesn’t go backing up hunters with a 9mm handgun… he uses old ugly. If he expects there is a high likelihood of contact with a charging bear, he brings a rifle, so his thought process obviously is that the rifle is a better choice if you have it available.

I don’t think even an expert like him would venture to give you a “how effective” percentage as a guesstimate.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

If you restricted your comment to your quote What has been found that when handguns are used in defense against bears they have proven to be highly successful. I would have no argument with you, but you continually bring up this over 90% stuff and use a culled from news sources to justify your claim.

Feel free to conduct your own research.

Feel free to make up your own mind.

collection of anecdotal data

Have you really studied Smiths and Herro's so called research.

They do not supply their source's. They are very bias in there study.
Do really think there data is any better just because they say so.

What is research can you tell me how you run/study it.

If you have more data points to add to it we would love to see and use them.

Kind of hard to set it up in the lab. One would soon run out of test subjects as they would die from being shot or mauled.

Read the incidents do the math.

If you don't want to believe it it is your choice.

Again feel free to do your research and but out your own data.

I would love to see someone else disprove or prove what we are saying.

I would love to see your facts or data.

In said of just saying.

It not so.

Again carry what you want.

quote:

Research is something you set up before hand in a random fashion, and then tabulate the results. This is anecdotal in the sense that you are depending on press coverage and that you are seeing every bear interaction in print.

Then the Smith, Herro's studies are truly junk science.

But you are again confusing killing bears, to stopping them from killing you.

Even Mr. Shoemaker has stated there is a difference. In hunting situations and defensive situations.

In how a bear behaves.

A successful use in a defensive situation is different.

From a successful use in a hunting situation.

The out comes wanted are totally different.

As of now reviewing uses and interviewing people who have used handguns in defense against bears is the best we have.