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.

I have taken assault rifles to war, and I can tell you first hand that they do not provide the reliable one-shot stops against even a man sized target that you need against a charging bear.

It isn't about volume of fire unless the bear is armed and you want to keep it's head down. It's about one good round that will stop it before it can hurt you...after it is already close enough to make you feel threatened.

QFMFT

deleted

2 cents worth, observations and questions (not necessarily in that order)

Since it seems like a lot has been indulged here, sorry I can't pass on this.

1.I think it is fair to say the answer to the original question is: None
2.Basically, anyone able to carry a handgun in Canada isn't going to be in big bear country.
3.Anyone in such an area, even flying over the bush is going to carry a rifle if possible.
So Strange, are you just jerking our collective chains to get us barking?

It makes me think of something that was supposed to be serious, I found absurd when I saw it.
Years ago (50's and early 60's) the then world famous archer, Howard Hill, made a few movies about big game hunting with a traditional longbow.
A few of the highlights include:
A cameraman getting mauled by a large lion after Howard put 3 shafts into him.
Getting a Cape buffalo rather upset and on the rampage.
Going from being the hunter to becoming the prey after planting several choice shafts into a mother polar bear in an icefield. (it seems like a few of them got bloody besides the bear) Look it up for a hoot.

Granted all the above could and probably has been killed by arrows over the past several millenia.
BUT, during all that time guys were figuring out ways, better, faster and surer ways to kill. Do it farther or do it closer.
Guess work, trial and error, trying and dying, success and failure, all to improve killing without getting killed.
May I pontificate?
Between trying and dying something grand was learned, little sharp sticks worked pretty good on small to medium sized critters that were bad for running away.
The atlatl helped and the bow was even better.
But WHOA, that big hog can sure get mad when I get arrows in him. Maybe my big knife on a stick since he CAN outrun me.

All in good fun Strange. Just a question though, after all these years of Alaskan hunters using big caliber guns to kill large bears, why do you think they would carry the extra “Metal” if they could have just as easily done so with small or medium caliber guns?
Some carry very large caliber (.44 Magnum +) handguns as backup, but I don't think unless they are seriously persuaded of their own superiority they are going to take the chance of becoming a meal rather than getting the bearskin rug.
Can the small ones do it? It's possible.
If not, how fast can you run? Most of us would rather have the margin against the bears advantages.
Live and learn or die and forget about it.

Question 2
What type of thigh holster can I get for a Tavor?

If I were looking for that type, I think Alexander Arms' Beowulf would be a bit closer to effective on ursine anatomy.
If I were going in that area, I would look for something more rugged though.

Im not talking about shooting arrows at a bear though, Im talking about middling him in a hail of semi auto rifle fire of armour piercing rounds.... its a bit different.

What you're "talking" is nonsense, that's the point people are attempting to make. A 5.56mm rifle, firing AP or not, is -totally- unsuitable for use against bears. Slims has taken FULL AUTO 5.56mm weapons to war, has shot them at adult human males (say 150-200lbs) and had it fail to stop them. What on Earth makes you think that a round which does not reliably stop a 200lb man is going to reliably stop a 2,000lb bear?! A bear weighs 10x what a man does. A bear is much heavier-skinned than a human, likewise has thicker fat, heavier bones, and larger organs.

That last bit is important. A .22-caliber hole (which is all that AP would produce) in a bear's Heart or Lung (note; not LungS, since it wouldn't be able to penetrate that far) WILL NOT STOP THE BEAR. A bear's heart beats 6-30 times per minute, and it's the size of a basketball. What this means is that a .22-caliber hole, or a number of such holes, will not bleed the animal out quickly enough. By the time a bear so injured -did- die, it would have had the perfect consolation of having mostly digested its' tormentor. I'd rather shoot it with the bow, personally, since the arrow has enough sectional density to get to the vitals, and a large broadhead to cause massive loss of blood.

This leaves aside totally, of course, the fact that AP ammo is totally illegal for hunting, in Canada and everywhere else I'm aware of.

Even if it wasnt instantly killed though, surely putting 10 or so rounds into the bear is going to make it stop and try to retreat. I cant think any animal is stupid enough to keep attacking an enemy that is taking it to pieces.

Which shows that you're about as knowledgeable about Grizzley Bears as you are about guns. When something hurts a Grizz, it doesn't run. It demolishes whatever's hurting it. This is why Bear Spray is orders of magnitude hotter than "people" pepper spray; it has to be able to utterly incapacitate the animal. You don't "scare it away" or "hurt it until it leaves." You either incapacitate it (ie render it physically incapable of attacking you), or get knawed on.

If the 5.56mm was CAPABLE of "taking it to pieces" you might have a point. Since the 5.56mm IS NOT CAPABLE of doing so, you have no point.

I repeat: A bear is:

10x larger than a human.
Several times denser than a human.
Capable of absorbing -MUCH- greater damage than a human, while retaining what Slims would call "combat effectiveness" far greater than that of a human.
Infinitely meaner, more aggressive, and more destructive than a human.

Why in God's name would you regard a round that is not capable of reliably incapacitating a human (200lbs) would be even remotely suitable for use on something TEN TIMES LARGER?! Bears attack people for 4 reasons:

1: Competition for food. If Yogi thinks you're after his Salmon, he'll be perfectly happy to fight you for it, just like he'd be perfectly happy to fight another 2,000lb bear. If he's willing to throw paws with something his own size, how do you think he'll visualize a human, 1/10th his weight?

2: AS food, ala Grizzley Man. If a bear wants to eat you, it is perfectly capable of doing so. Enraging something that wants you for lunch (say by firing several underpowered, underpenetrating light rifle bullets into it) is a terminally STUPID thing to do.

3: Surprise. Surprising a bear is the 2nd-worst thing you can do, because it puts the bear on the defensive and is perceived as encroachment on the bear's territory. Bears don't negotiate with interlopers, they just mangle them for awhile. Big males will frequently play with corpses, much as cats will.

4: Surprised...WITH CUBS. The absolute, 103% WORST PLACE TO BE is near a mama bear with young. Anything which approaches their young is seen as a threat -to- their young, and Mama will, at that point, totally destroy the threat.

In none of these four scenarios is "scaring it away" or "hurting it until it stops" a workable option. This 2,000lb animal wants to destroy you, not taste you to see if you're good to eat. Bears aren't sharks. When they go after something, it's because they want to obliterate and/or eat it. An apex predator which sees food it wants will not be denied, short of being outrun or physically incapacitated.

No, no... keep going.

That might be a worst case scenario for sissies like you. So there I was...humping along the Appalachian Trail this summer when I rounded a bend and surprised a bear with cubs. My ninja stealth allowed me to get within 10 yards of them. Armed only with my pocket knife (RC 57-60) and my chest hair (RC 48-50), I was able to stand my ground and scare the bear away. True story.

Give me an M4, 30 rounds of green tip ammo and a 6 pack of PBR and I not only would have killed it, I would have successfully invaded France.

Oh, shit... I just choked on my Pepsi.

...

France? Pussy.

Honestly, bear spray is the best choice. They can't see very well before it and 8M Scoville units is sure as hell going to stop it from smelling anythng

The bear you saw was a black bear.

It may well have weighed less than you, been shorter than you, and black bears are particularly skittish, they generally flee any loud noise or intimidating display, it's safer that way when you only weight 150 lbs. I have frequently chased bears out of garbage cans near campsites and hunting cabins.

That is not the same thing as a grizzly bear, which is about the same size/weight as a small car. You do not, ever, stand down a grizzly (at least not more than once).

Well, the bear isnt the apex predator. Humankind if the apex predator!

The main thing I was thinking is what kind of a gun could this man have carried that could have killed a bear, but also he could have carried his camera equipment. Maybe he would have been able to carry a rifle at the same time as the camera... that would be better than being unarmed.

Nevertheless, if people hunt elephants with AK47's(which in fact they do) I think such a gun can easily kill a bear. An elephant is much stronger and more durable than a bear is.

Tell that to the bear. To him, you're an hors d'erve.

Dipshit poachers "hunt" elephants with AK's by spraying whole family groups down with full-auto fire, then waiting 3-5 days and watching for buzzards. The elephants die, all right, but days later and in horrible pain. They also frequently kill poachers in the immediate aftermath (splat!). The AK round will penetrate to the vital organs, but only just: the animal dies days later of infection and pnuemonia, not shock/trauma or swift blood loss. Again, not the kind of thing you want when a bear comes boiling out of the laurels at 10 feet. Again, if these crazed ideas of yours worked, Alaskan professional hunters and guides would be using them already. They aren't. There's a damned good reason.

I mean look - I undersand a big long rifle would be the best thing for taking a pop at a bear... but the premise was something that the guy could carry with his camera equipment while he was alone in the wilderness. I wasnt saying a Tavor was the best weapon, just in my view that it should do. I think most people do agree that it COULD stop a bear but a rifle would be the best weapon of choice. So this guy would probably have to find a rifle that was quite light and sturdy for the job. I dont think IMI make any rifles, but there are many other manufacturers of close to the same quality.

In terms of Apex Predator's - there is surely no predator anywhere on earth as vicious , as brutal, and feared as man? I think a lot more bears get killed by men than the other way round.

Dont try to steal my thunder.

Actually, although it is a little off topic, I think in many cases grizzlies DO fear men... simply because they link man to death. I saw a show where a guy stayed out in the wild and looked after young abandoned bears.... a couple of times bigger bears would get in position to attack the younger bears, until they saw the man (who only carried a noise grenade and a long wooden stick) and the bigger bears would run off.

I think I'd say again - most animals with any intelligence learn to fear man as the most violent and deadly of all predators.

edit

If the guy did need a rifle I found there is an IMI one he can use.

the IMI Timberwolf only weights 5 1/2 lbs and can fire .38 or .357 bullets - certainly enough to drop a bear.

I suppose an ordinary rifle would be okay, but if you have a very dangerous animal attacking you, you would want the best possible reliability, accuracy, and power in your metal.

dude, no offense, but reading your posts makes me glad to live in a free country- you appear to have no idea at all about guns, other than what you found on the net, apparently somewhere filled with other people that know nothing about guns... and you know nothing about bears either.... it reminds me of listening to a junior high student try to impress his friends with his vast sexual knowledge..... for the record, cause I asked several guys that lived and worked in alaska, as I sure as hell did not know shit about a bear outside of a zoo, bear mace is the answer for someone who does not know guns, a twelve gauge with slugs is the answer for someone who does.... neither will always save your ass if the bear feels like eating you.....and BTW why are you such a pathetic IMI fanboy????

Reliability, accuracy and power. A revolver chambered in .44 mag sounds about right. Can't beat a slug .429" in diameter, travelling at 1,500 fps, and delivering 1,300 ft/lbs of energy, All in a reliable handgun package.

Check out Smith's line of .44's. They're a business with a good rep for a reason.

Category - Large Frame (N)

If you really want to satisfy your IMI cravings, here's a rare Timberwolf in .44 mag.

Timberwolf (IMI) Rifle, .44 mag, RARE : Pump at GunBroker.com

That is about the most ignorant thing I've ever read about firearms ever.

Since you obviously have no experience with guns, or useful knowledge about them, why do you insist on posting about them? I'm honestly curious.

Ive actually watched some video's on Youtube where bears have charged people and then turned and fled when a hand gun was fired at them. Obviously the bear instinctively fears the gunshot and knows it can spell death.

As for knowing nothing about guns... I dont live in a country where they are widely available nor would I have one if they were (unless I was in a wilderness with savage animals on the loose). It is well known that IMI make the best guns in the world... since everyone has said a rifle was the best gun to kill a bear with, it makes sense that you'd want the best rifle available.

But I have never been talking about "hunting" bears, simply a weapon to use in self defence if the bear attacks you.

IMI doesn't make the best guns in the world, Smith and Wesson does, didn't you ever see Dirty Harry?

Things move on though, dont they?

Self Defense. Better to have something easy to carry with you than something that requires an extra shoulder strap--IE a RIFLE. (Considering he's already probably got a camera around his neck, I don't think adding a rifle strap would be anywhere comfortable.) Chances are, the easier it is to carry, the more likely he is to bring it a long. A pistol is usually, by far, easier to carry than a rifle. Thus, a pistol is more ideal for "bear defense" than a rifle. (I still think Bear Spray may be the #1 option.)

Second, if "it is well known that IMI makes the best rifles," I'd expect to see it being said by a reputable gun source, i.e. Massad Ayoob, Todd Jarrett, Pat Rogers.

Finally, please to take a minute to consider the information and advice offered by people here. These people KNOW guns, and it would behoove you to listen.

This thread is hilarious.
SF, why would you take a chance with the pretty. semi-cool looking thigh-strapped gun, when a killing machine charges you full speed?
I would bring the biggest baddest thing I could find, that shoots the biggest, heaviest, most penetrating pieces of metal. That and a secondary weapon, and bear spray.
Point is, at 10 yards the bear is on you in 3 seconds at the most. How many shots do you reckon you'd be able to fire with that thing? How many would hit? Maybe one, if you're lucky. How many would slow the bear down? Probably none.

Listen to people who know guns, and who have shot guns at things.

Fuck carrying my own "metal," I'm just gonna carry Walt on my chest in a Baby Bjorn rig.

It repels bears and people lacking a sense of humor at the same time.

Useful little bugger, a'int he?

I think the .475 Wildey Magnum handgun that Charles Bronson used in Death Wish 3 would be a perfect primary weapon for the modern light infantrymen as well as a useful sidearm for avid backpackers that may find themselves in bear country.

Subject matter expert right here.

Maybe the Bureau of Bear Statistics never got around to showing those results to the rest of the bears...

Bears fear loud noises. They're unusual, and always mean something bad - lightening, falling trees or rocks, floods, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with the gun, a black bear can be chased off with loud clapping & whistles (I've actually done this) - unless they've been highly socialized.

The difference is when the bear actually feels it has something to gain from mauling you - defending cubs or pushing you off a kill (or say a salmon stream). Once it makes up it's mind that it's going to kill you, you need something big enough to stop the bear, because it isn't going to stop unless you make it.

For something "well known," I find it odd that you, admittedly not an expert in guns, rather than any gun owner, enthusiast, or professional I have met in real life or interacted with online, are the only one to say it. Don't get me wrong, they make some good stuff; the Jericho is a nice pistol and and the Uzi is the world's most popular submachine gun, but for every gun they make, I can find something that is objectively better in several ways.
Then you don't want to use a small rifle, you want a shotgun or big game round. Big game rounds are only going to give you one shot, but if you want something as hilariously impractical as a bullpup in 5.45, at least go for something that has a chance for stopping a bear in one shot Shiloh Rifle Get it in .405 Winchester, it was good enough for Teddy Roosevelt.

I'm starting to feel a Hall of Fame thread here, and not because Strange Famous is wrong, but because he is so deliberately arrogant in his error. I mean no offense to you, man, but you're continuing to demonstrate your basic misunderstanding of the power of firearms.

Rather than asking a question to individuals with five, ten, fifteen different weapons who have likewise actually seen grizzly bears, taking their advisement and acknowledging it, he's single-handledly declared that everyone who actually owns a gun in this thread is wrong.

Are you familiar with the North Hollywood shootout? It's a great example of how little it takes to weaken a firearm's stopping or killing power.

While bear skin and insulation is not directly equivalent to ballistic plates and body armor, perhaps you may begin to see the problem. Even if a bullet penetrates the skin, a fast moving round will continue only a few inches before stopping. On an animal as heavy as most motor vehicles (and not hollow, either).. this is largely ineffective. Even if your "spray and pray" scenario occurred, you're also misinformed in believing that fully automatic fire is accurate. Under the stress of having a full grown motherfucking grizzly bear chasing you, I highly doubt that even a trained marksman could land all or most of his shots.

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pfft. Lightweights.

Epic thread.

mobile bear stopper

http://www.oldfartsgaming.co.uk/usta...92_GRENADE.jpg
http://gracethespot.com/wp-content/u...ct-tape-3m.jpg

oh my

Actually, if you look at this sensibly... a rifle probably gives you two shots if the bear charges... (although it will flee at the first crack of a gun in most cases)

A assault rifle gives probably 30 shots. The bear is a lot bigger than a man certainly but he doesnt have much muscle and fat around the head and throat. Under stress, I think rapid fire is more valuable... either the bear will drop or flee.

If you are HUNTING a bear a rifle may be the best weapon for a measured and careful shot... if this beast chrages you it would be better to spray him around the head with automatic fire.

Okay... you have been told the realities of the situation by men with experience in handling and using guns.... you have been told the truth as related by people who have actually been to the place you are talking about.... and been told about real world bear attacks....... you have been directed to multiple sources on the effects of different rounds on different things...... you have even had combat vets tell you that you are full of shit.....

Flame Removed

Hasn't there been enough facepalm in this thread yet?

The Powers That Be have decided that automatic weapons are only acceptable in the hands of certain people (either law enforcement, military, or those with enough cash to obtain the proper background checks and tax stamps)

An "assault rifle" is not an option for Joe Blow on the street, no matter how much our asstarded media would like you to believe.

Further, when it comes to ballistics, heavy and slow wins for penetration versus light and fast, every time. The transition from above the sound barrier (in air) to far below it (in fluid) is quite turbulent, as has been mentioned, and modern intermediate cartridges like 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39 do NOT penetrate sufficiently. Further, if a bear is charging you, the skull has a large, flat area where the brow is - bullets, especially light ones, will be ricocheting off, if you get them off, and if they manage to even hit in that area under stress.

In all cases, Joe is limited to semi auto. Joe has to make every one of the few shots he'll get off count, which pretty much means the most deeply penetrating round he can fire comfortably, under stress.

Let's end the IMI and light rifle round fanboyism - this is not their field. It's not even close. IMI is almost unknown in the rifle world, because they barely make rifles. There's what, the Galil and the Tavor, and they're barely-if-at-all available to civilians? There are dozens of other companies, international and domestic, that make rifles to suit these needs, and IMI just isn't one of them. Sorry, but their pistols are not exemplary either. They're not bad, but not holy-cow wonderful either. Check CZ, HK, Steyr, hell - almost anyone else, and there are a plethora of weapons of equal or greater quality.

This thread is full of fail. Sorry SF, but there's no point in dragging this out any further. Please reread the posts from informed members, here and elsewhere. There is no debate.

Generally speaking: Automatic weapons are useless for civilians.

Civilians seem to desire the least useful automatic weapons: M4, MP5, Uzi, etc.

You dont need to be in the army to apply knowledge with common sense.

I certainly have taken on board the comments that assault rifle bullets may not pierce the heavy layers of fat and muscle on a bear... but we are talking about taking shots at his fragile skull, not into his huge body.

The assault rifle has two big advantages over a more powerful single shot rifle

1 - an inexperieced shooter (like me) might not be the best shot under pressure - as you alluded to in your comments before editing them... with a rifle I might have one shot, which I might miss... with a Galil assault rifle I can spray the bear with multiple shots aimed at his head - which is far more likely in fact to kill the bear than a single shot that might be 50/50

2 - also, bears sometimes operate in groups... if two or three bears attacked even a skilled hunter with a single shot rifle would be screwed... the man with the assault rifle again can take down these beasts with a pray of armour piercing bullets - perhaps they are not able to pierce the bears huge body, but certainly they can easily kill with head shots. The fact you can take multiple shots in seconds means you are far more likely to get a kill shot than a single well aimed shot.

Like a sniper, if you are hunting and have a scope and all the time in the world to take a single well aimed shot, a more powerful rifle might be best... but for self defence for the above reasons the assault rifle would be best.

The Galil is the best assault rifle because of its superior quality to the M16 and AK47. In the situation of facing a lunatic bear attacking you if your gun jams you'd be done for.

Someone please lock this thread already.

In responce
 

A weapon is only as good as it owner. With that being said, Pepper sprays, Hand guns and even Cattle prods will not save you from a bear if you do not know how to properly use them. Take the time to learn about the weapon that you choose. Take the proper training courses. Learn the FACTS about events that happend like the one that you mentioned. Never take hearsay as the gospel, no matter who it's from. As for the matter that was mentioned about Guns in populated areas, Since man has walked this earth there has been bloodshead. Strange Famous, You said, "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." You are very mistaken my friend. A bear is only protecting it's self and it's kind. Humans on the other hand need little to no reason to kill you. Bears unlike in HollyWood are passive aggressive, they do not want to confront you no more than you do them. Humans will confront you no matter what. You also stated, " In society the law protects me (or at least aims to)" OR AT LEAST AIMS TO, is all to ture. YOU ARE THE PROTECTOR OF YOUR FAMILY NOT YOUR GOVERMENT. In a break in by the time the cops are called and get there 15 to 25 minets have passed. That is enough for the person to kill your whole family and leave befor the cops ever get to your home. A gun is no diffrent than car, they both have to have a human in control of them in order for the to work. Facts are all that matter. So insted of listening to the news and takeing their word for what happens in your little world, GET COLD HARD FACTS. Good Luck and GodSpeed....

....you are not going to make a head shot on a charging bear. It just isn't going to happen unless you are Annie Oakley and lucky to boot. The area you need to hit is about the size of a grapefruit and is protected behind a lot of bone. Any thing but a spot on direct shot will likely glance off....especially with a lightweight round.


The bear will be moving way too quickly and the shot is far too difficult. With a heavier round, even if a body shot doesn't instantly kill the bear you will likely put it on the ground by breaking it's shoulders, etc. A head shot will only work if you sneak that round into the brain as a lightweight round just doesn't have the penetration necessary for anything else (the rest of the important stuff if hidden behind 11 inches of bone).

Bears are typically alone, they are not particularly social and I have yet to hear a story about a 'pack of bears' attacking someone. At worst it will be a mother and her cubs.

If you are competent enough to make a head shot with your semiautomatic rifle you would have no problem working a lever action rifle, the pump on a shotgun, or a bolt to reload a more appropriate round should follow up shots be necessary.



I can't help but think that you are being deliberately antagonistic because your common sense isn't.

You might as well be trying to convince a NASCAR Driver that he needs to race your '95 Nissan Sentra ricer because "common sense" makes it very clear that your ground effects adds like 50 horsepower.


http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Brbear/brbear_lat.jpg

i laughed a bit at the headshot theory myself. i just dont want to post because everything that needs to be said has already been said...two or three times.

Come on, bears do NOT have 11 inch thick skulls.

Their skull might be thicker than a human's, but not thick enough to protect it from armour piercing bullets.

yeah, an armor piercing round will penetrate the skull....if you can hit the damn thing.

imagine this: you're walking through the brush and hear limbs snapping and the pitter patter of big feet. you turn around to see a bear tearin' ass in your direction, 20ft or so away.

do you think you're going to whip out your weapon and line your sights up with his weaving, bobbing, hungry face?

if i were in a such a situation, id probably point to the brown mass and empty my weapon in a panic.

Armor piercing rounds are not what you think they are. In 5.56 they will penetrate about 1/2 inch of steel which, while impressive, will only happen when the hit is direct. When you shoot something at an angle you are very likely to skip the round off.

For example, I have skipped 5.56 green tip rounds (they have a tungsten steel penetrator though they are not full tungsten, light armor piercing if you will) off car windshields when I was firing at the driver from an oblique angle. I have to note that this was part of a class at a range deliberately set up to demonstrate what does/does not work against vehicles and the people inside them. I have skipped rounds off car hoods, doors, drywall, etc.

If that same round won't penetrate 1/8" thick auto glass when it hits at an angle, what makes you think a much thicker bear skull would behave any differently? The odds of hitting that skull in the small region where the round would impact perpendicular to the plane of the skull and penetrate is very, very small as the area is probably about the size of a golf ball (or the eyes, of course).

Oh, and FYI, armor piercing rounds are some of the least lethal rounds on the battlefield. People who have the choice avoid them unless they expect to be fighting armored opponents.

If it were me the brown mass would likely be in my shorts, so that wouldn't help...

yup, you want some soft points. something that expands like Learys mind on acid.

It is my educated opinion that a phased plasma rifle in 40 Watt range would be an ideal piece for bear control. The hot-as-a-star bolt projectile, after leaving the magnetic cone propulsion unit and covered in its this ionic sheath at the muzzle, would simply evaporate the entire skull of the furry fiend.

So many opinions, so little facts. Lions, Tigers and Bears; Oh my! Head shot, hummm, where to start? Two Bore, 700 Nitro Express, 577 T-Rex, I could go on and on. As for a bear charging you from less than 150 ft. your dead if you try to make a head shot. They do not tell you to play dead for nothing. Most people are not trained properly, thus they have no idea how to make it out alive. Learn the facts it's a life saver. "A pint of sweat, will save a gallon of blood." The guns that I have listed above most people can not afford and do not need. A good Bear spray and a 7.62x54 rifle is all you need. So befor you go Rambo in the woods do real research.

Clue me in... what does this necessitate?

Yuppers. That's why professional guides practice every day, with rifles that kick like horses and cost $5.00 per round and up; so that they -can- make those kinds of shots. Anybody else...well, you might get lucky, but unless you've taken your stomper out and done 20rds/day practice with it for a loong time, a head-shot on a charging bear will be next to impossible, esp. under stress.

I dunno...7.62x54R is identical to .30-06 ballistically, which'll certainly kill a bear with proper shot placement (behind the shoulder quartering-away, under the collarbones quartering-towards), but is hardly what I'd be after as a charge stopper, where you need Papa Bear dead (or at least wishing he was) RIGHTNOW. Two different sets of requirements there. For dealing with a Grizz at close quarters, I'd want the meanest/nastiest/mother-stabbinest/father-rapinest rifle or heavy revolver I could effectively shoot.

If a bear is charging you it's most likely because the two of you were wondering through the woods and crossed oneanothers paths unknowingly. A rifle will be of no use to you then. The bear spray is your only chance of deterring it. Even then there are no guarantees. That is why I say learn how to use the spray properly, which intels checking the expiration date, making sure it will spray at all etc.. The Dunedan, you said, "For dealing with a Grizz at close quarters, I'd want the meanest/nastiest/mother-stabbinest/father-rapinest rifle or heavy revolver I could effectively shoot." Fact is a S&W 500, Taurus .454 Casull Raging Bull and guns of the like you can not control. One shot and a prayer is hardly what I would call effective. That is why I put the spray befor the gun. There are other more pressing matters to consider such as fight or flight syndrome. Learn the facts people. "A pint of sweat, will save a gallon of blood." I'v camped out around bears enough to know that the spray works, I have never had to use it myself however I know people that have. Yes they are still alive and well. Facts, facts, facts people that's what saves lifes.

Uh... the .454 Casull in a full-sized steel revolver is controllable (not comfortable, but useful) and could easily supplant the .44 Magnum for the bear-stopping sidearm role in the near future. Taurus really made their name a few years ago with the Raging Bull and it's a damn fine big bore revolver.

...

We can play scenario tag all day with this thread. I'm not interested in some He-Man circle jerk from a bunch of guys (myself included) that have never actually seen a bear in the woods. Dispelling the StrangeFamous gun myths is really what this thread developed into after a few initial WTF? movements.

You do not know that. I have shot both of the weapons you describe and, while I would not -want- to fire them, I can do so effectively. I much prefer the .460 S&W to the .500.

There are people out there (though I don't number myself among them, simply for lack of practice) who are capable of being much, -much- more effective than one shot and a prayer.

Of course Bear Spray works, otherwise it wouldn't be on the market. However, like people-pepper-spray, it only works some of the time. Adding a suitably powerful rifle or revolver to the mix gives you increased defensive options, which is always a good thing.

If rifles and heavy revolvers were "no use," they wouldn't be carried. Nobody -wants- to hump 5-7 extra pounds through the laurels if he can help it: if firearms were useless, they'd be left behind. Simple. Nor would there be a plethora of stories such as the below, authenticated through Snopes.com. Notice that these gentlemen did not reach for bear-spray, and that their rifles were not "useless."

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

As you said, research.

I find the M79 to be an effective bear repellent tool.