Handguns and their power
 

This may seem like a silly question to experts in such matters - but is there a handgun which can be legally used in Canada which would be powerful enough to reliably stop/kill an adult grizzly bear?

Only handgun I've known of that can stop something that big would be .44 magnum or .50. I know the .50 was being marketed to fishermen in Alaska/Northern Canada for bear protection. I'm not sure if any other handguns can 'reliably' stop a bear.

Don't know that it's legal in Canada or still made but it should be posted:

Bear Survival Kit

The legality of handguns in Canada is a bit of a sticky issue to begin with. They're harder to get a hold of than rifles, and moving them is a pain in the ass.

It's not legal to carry any sort of handgun in Canada under general circumstances. You need a special permit for transport, and another one to carry (which is very difficult to get, but operates similar to a CCW).

If you jump through all the necessary hoops owning a handgun powerful enough to kill a bear is legal, but actually having it in any situation where you're likely to encounter a bear probably isn't.

Anything .44 Mag. or upwards would do the trick. .45LC in some loadings, .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, .460 S&W, .500 Linebaugh, .500 S&W...any weapon chambered in any of the above would do the job if the shooter does his. A rifle, however, is always a good (the best, probably) idea when dealing with bears, provided you have the room and hands (ie not occupied with a fishing rod, say) free to handle it.

Final rule on bears is that bigger holes are better holes, and big well-placed holes are the -best- holes.

Penetration helps. Bullet type really matters.

While I do agree with you here. THE most important thing is shot placement. You could have the biggest hand cannon in existence, but it won't do you any better than a slingshot if you don't learn to use the gun properly and put the bullets where they count.

True, and the best shot placement in the world doesn't matter unless the bullet can actually get through bone / muscle to hit a vital.

It's important to use something stout like .44 Magnum and important to use bullet types conducive to penetration.

It's just as important to have something with a good sights and a wider sight radius than a .500 S&W snubbie. :P

Maybe I'm dreaming, but wouldn't a standard .45 round do it too? Maybe 230gr, Hollow Point or even HydraShok?

From what I understand from various encounter stories? No, too slow and thus not enough penetration.

You really need a solid bullet (HP just mushroom and won't crack bone) with a lot more Oomph! behind it than a standard .45 round.

There's a reason they recommend .44 Mag as the standard "trail gun" for bear country. S&W, Ruger, etc... have product lines dedicated to it.

As far as I've read, it's less about causing a catastrophic wound (you're not going to with a normal "man stopper," an average bear weighs how much more than a man?) than it is penetrating and destroying a vital organ such as the lungs and heart through the sternum or shoulder or the brain through that thick skull.

...

Given today's innovations, you'd be well served with a medium barreled .454 Casull as a trail gun. Capable of using .45 LC rounds for target practice and lighter targets... and the .454 for when you really need a pocket howitzer. .454 has supplanted the .44 Magnum for many, I've heard.

On a related note, in my hick hometown paper they announce hunting successes during the season, particularly for minors. Two years ago there was a 14 year old who dropped a 440 lb black bear with a .222.

The moral of the story: If your solution to a bear problem is going to be a handgun, then you really need to learn what you're shooting at. Poor shot placement will only serve to make the bear angrier.

Also, What Crompsin said.

If bears are really going to be a problem have you considered bear mace? Or is this situation purely hypothetical?

Maybe he's going on a date?

*rimshot*

Bears can only attack you if they see and smell you. They don't have great eyesight, but their sense of smell is pretty good. Bear spray should be your first line of defense, and will most likely be all you need to disorient the bear long enough to get the fuck away before it comes to its senses and mauls you.
That's really a good way for an inexperienced shooter to break a wrist.

The reason Im asking as I saw this show about a photographer going to take shots of grizzly's in the woods of Canada. He claimed he had no way to defend himself other than this pepper bomb thing.

I guess cos he was hiking on rough ground etc he couldnt carry a rifle, but I was trying to figure that surely there are some kind of side arms that could take care of a bear?

In his place I would have had a metal on me. I wouldnt kill a bear for fun, but if its him or me, I'd rather it's me dusting him than him eating me.

Interesting disconnect then, between your position on this and Concealed Carry. Forgive me if I'm mis-attributing or mis-characterizing your opinion, but didn't you make a post recently about how you did (didn't?) understand why people carried guns concealed in self-defense in urban settings?

Most people justify CCW precisely for the reason you justified carrying a gun for defense against a bear. They don't ever want to use it, but "but if it's him or me, I'd rather it's me dusting him than him [] me..."?

Turns out humans are more dangerous than bears.

well, yes and no.

Im sure humans kill a hell of a lot more humans than bear's do.

But ANY time you're in range of a wild bear he is a threat. Any human being isnt a threat in the same sense.

I dont personally support the ownership of guns in society as a whole, but if you are in an area where vicious wild animals who will see you as prey are at large and running amock then you have a right to defend yourself.

In civil society it is my belief that widespread gun ownership ups the ante in terms of violence and crime. In a wild wood th grizzly bear has already upped the ante by being 800 lbs and potentially extremely aggressive.

It's an interesting distinction you make, because I would describe some urban areas in America in the same way - "vicious wild animals who will see you as prey are at large and running amuck." They happen to be bipedal, but they have largely the same mindset ("I will take from them what I need, without moral consideration") as a bear.

This one might also be a bit unfair because you're drawing a line with what makes you feel threatened ("upped the ante") and saying it ought to be the same for everyone. While you might not be threatened by a 250 lb man in the same way as an 800 lb bear, many people feel similarly threatened. And while you might feel confident in your physical prowess without weapons to defend yourself, someone who is 5'1" and 100 lbs with little to no muscle is in the same relation to the potential attacker as you are to an 800 lb bear.

Well, also human - human interaction is governed by the law, and a whole section of society exists to uphold the law.

The bear is no respecter of the law, and there is very little enforcement of human law in the woods. If the camp was guarded by professionals who would use appropriate force and measures to drive away bears and wild dogs, etc - then I wouldnt need a metal

But if I as all alone in the wild, with vicious creatures who would eat me as soon as look at me, I would feel the need to be able to protect myself.

In society the law protects me (or at least aims to)

...Regardless, the photographer could easily have carried a small lightweight rifle or a shotgun loaded with slugs, both will get the job done far more reliably than any pistol, have far less legal constraints, and will add less than 10 pounds to a load.

There are too many good options to name them, but they are all better than a pistol except for very special circumstances where a long-gun simply can't be carried.

The weight argument doesn't make much sense to me...you don't walk off into the desert without a whole bunch of water, and you don't poke around grizzly bears without a weapon, it simply isn't done (at least by anybody with half a brain). IMHO it's like jumping out of an airplane with no parachute because it weighs too much. Even the wildlife shows have armed personnel standing by off camera in case things go bad.

No 10mm Auto fans?

P.S. Going in to bear country without a long gun is going full retard.

I take your point about having something a bit heavier than a revolver.

I did a little research and I think the best weapon would be a IMI TAR 21.

It's designed to be easily carried in combat situations so the guy could have carried it strapped to his thigh even while he was hiking, and if needed could have taken care of any bears. It might not be legal in Canada though, I dont know

That's not even close to legal.

Best option would probably be a rifle of some description. I don't know if a .22 would do the job, might need something heavier. I'll let the experts hash that one out.

Oddly enough, that Tavor -is- legal and available in Canada. However, the 5.56mm round it fires would do little more (in the immediate term) than annoy a Grizz or Kodiak. The bear might die in three days, but meanwhile he'd still turn you into lunch.

Basically, any rifle caliber which doesn't start with a "3" or handgun caliber which doesn't start with a "4" is going to be woefully inadequate, and the .308/.30-06/300WM class of rounds don't really cut it either. Maybe for -killing- a bear, from ambush or a stalking position, but not for -stopping- a Grizz that's been startled or sees you as a threat to his munchies and comes boiling out of the brush at 10 feet. Double rifles were popular with Alaskan guides for awhile, because nothing says "Down, boy!" like .500 Nitro Express.

You're entitled to your belief, never mind it's directly at odds with the facts.

Well, if you're going to whip that kind of thing out of your rucksack, you might as well have one that is designed for close quarters combat and the penetration of body (and probably bear) armor. And one that is ridiculously reliable for "if it jams, I'm dead" circumstances.
PS90

The 5.7x28mm round is totally unsuitable for bears, although it does a nice number on humans. The Tungsten-carbide AP round is military/LE-only, and is intended to penetrate body armor, then yaw 90 degrees and fly sideways for 8-12" at most in order to avoid overpenetration while delivering a .40 wound channel. This is barely enough to get through a Grizzley's fat layer and muscles, which is much denser than the human medium the round was designed to behave in. All the 5.7 would do is piss the thing off, and possibly without even the "revenge" benefit of Yogi dying in horrible pain a week later. The only possibly workable shot would be the classic "brainer," which although it might be do-able is certainly not something you want to be limited to. 5.7x28 is for armor-wearing humans, not bears.

Edited to add: I should say that I know of at least one incident of 5.7x28mm being used to harvest a wild hog. The round's performance was described as impressive, but it was a precisely-placed headshot delivered by an expert marksman. Still, penetrating the skull of a wild hog is no mean thing out of a .221 handgun/submachinegun round. However, again, not the kind of thing I'd want to have to put my trust in if for no other reason than that the frontal brain-shot may not be the shot you get. The 5.7mm is a beautiful round within its' performance envelope, but bears just aren't in it IMO. I'd be interested to know if there've been any encounters which've featured the 5.7mm.

Jesus, subject matter experts galore. A cursory Google search on the topic will school ya good.

Are you sure?

I don't claim to be an expert here, and am open to correction, but my understanding that several features of the Tavor would put it into the restricted if not prohibited category -- primarily the origin as an assault weapon and the automatic fire, and possibly the magazine (I can't remember whether it needs to be fixed, or if just swapping it out for a smaller capacity removable mag will do). Barrel length may also be an issue as well.

I suppose technically one could argue that it is possible to obtain a licence for restricted or even prohibited firearms, but for the average citizen that gun might as well be illegal for all intents and purposes -- such things are generally only granted to law enforcement.

But again, not an expert, no more than basic knowledge in the subject. If you have more info on the matter I'm always open to learning more.

Curious here too. How's the 10mm stack up against wild bears?

I remember hearing it's power levels were similar to .357, thus I didn't bring it up.

But 700 ft/lbs of energy? It's no Casull but pretty darn respectable imo.

The Tavor is importable because it is not mentioned by name, either as an original or derivative design, in Canada's current import pro-hibitions on semi-automatic rifles. It's much to the consternation of American collectors of bullpup rifles, such as my Mom, who would dearly love a Tavor in their collections and can't get one because in the mother of ironys, American laws governing the import of these types of sport-utility rifles are stricter than Canada's in this case. The Shotgun News recently had a report by Kevin Fortier, I believe it was, regarding the impact of such laws on Canada's film-making industry and focusing on a Toronto prop studio and rental warehouse which dealt in guns for the movies. The kinds of things American collectors dream of; rare machine-guns from as far back as the Colt Potato Digger and everything since, examples of every important military small-arm of the past 150 years, all legal to import and use for business purposes...just not for fun. The article also touched on the curious gap in Canadian law which has allowed import of small numbers of Tavor and FAMAS semi-automatic rifles.

deleted

Smart man.

That's some fascinating information regarding the Tavor. I wasn't aware that it was a semi-auto, and so figured that it would be banned by default as an automatic weapon. Even so, I'm surprised that they let that one through -- there are provisions within the Firearms Act that ban weapons not specifically on the prohibited or restricted list based on characteristics. I guess the Tavor just manages to miss them all.

/threadjack

Well, if the guy has his camera equipment on his shoulde/back, he needs a metal he could have strapped to his leg. He was on his own and didnt have any backup.

Since the Tavor is legal, and probably the best quality weapon of its style as its made by IMI, that would be what I'd take. I'm no expert... but if it fires armour piercing bullets I reckon that'd be enough to drop the bear, even if it doest blow him clean in half of whatever.

Wrong. Please reread the physics portion of the thread.

a human and a bear are made of the same thing - what will drop one will drop the other... you dont need to know a lot about guns to know that.

SF has a hardon for IMI weapons. That said, killing something 4x the size of a human will take something bigger than a human killing gun. I mean if you wanted to kill bears, you might as well just carry around a Barrett.

Not even remotely. Bear fat is much denser than human fat or muscle, and requires more power to get through.

Nonsense. If that were the case, Alaskan fishing/hunting guides would be carrying .40-caliber automatics and 12ga shotguns loaded with #4. They don't.

And since you know jackshit about guns at -all-...

Im not an expert, but I know something about guns certainly.

People take assault rifles to war, and poachers often use AK47's to take out big animals.

It might not have the same kick as a big heavy rifle, but you'd get alot more shots in on the bear with a Tavor. A bear is fat and muscle and bone just like a human - they dont have thick skin like an elephant for example.