WYO300RUM
Well-Known Member
Glad you don't have Grizzles in Wisconsin...
9mm side arm
- Thread starter Monster Toms
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
WYO300RUM
Well-Known Member
memtb
Well-Known Member
Extended magazine……remove loaded magazine, discard the 9 mm handgun, and defend yourself with the magazine!
memtb
Nope, no griz but a lot of big blackies. I have read articles about hunters purposely going for Griz and big browns with handguns and being successful at it. Personally I think that they have a big death wish. I also have noted that their guides are backing them up with big bore rifles that could put down an elephant with one shot, well actually a .243 could do that if the ammo was right and the bullet hit the head just right. But that is another story.
Someone who is comfortable with their handgun, practices often and maybe even shoots competitively has a much better chance of accurately engaging their target and hitting exactly where they are aiming.
As a challenge to those out there that have access to fresh Griz or Brown bear skuls, why don't you take one of those fresh skulls that you were just going to throw away, get back about 10 yards and shoot some Buffalo Bore Heavy .357 magnum or equivalent .357 rounds into that skull then report back on the penetration?
jbronner13
Well-Known Member
This I would love to see….a skull penetration comparison.
sea2summit
Well-Known Member
Not sure that would add a lot of value, very few engagements successfully hit the head. "Bad" or body shots are why bigger bullets with lots of energy make the difference in breaking down a bear or stopping the more aggressive attacks.
Handgun or Pistol Defense Against Bear Attack: 73 cases, 96% Effective
Another ten cases have been added to the cases where pistols or handguns were used in defense against bear attacks. The total now is 73 cases. There were 3 failures. Handguns were 96% effective.
www.ammoland.com
The ammoland accounts of handgun success with bear attacks is interesting. I for one would not want to be in a position where all I had to defend myself against a bear attack was a .22 of any ILK, Reading on it is clear to see that just about any caliber handgun can successfully be used in bear encounters. I did however note that while the larger caliber handguns were successful, so were many lesser handguns, many sub caliber. I also noted that several of the encounters police were involved. Normally police officers are well versed in shooting handguns than common civilians yet I see a uneven proportion of the police officers getting attacked and chewed on. I wonder if this is due to their reluctance to shoot and have the Bambi lovers complain? I rest my case on using a .357 magnum for bear defense.Not sure that would add a lot of value, very few engagements successfully hit the head. "Bad" or body shots are why bigger bullets with lots of energy make the difference in breaking down a bear or stopping the more aggressive attacks.
Handgun or Pistol Defense Against Bear Attack: 73 cases, 96% Effective
Another ten cases have been added to the cases where pistols or handguns were used in defense against bear attacks. The total now is 73 cases. There were 3 failures. Handguns were 96% effective.
WYO300RUM
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone would throw away their bear skulls . If I were hunting bear I'd be carrying my 460.S&W XVR or Ruger Super Redhawk 454 Cassul. I'm not going to carry those monsters while deer and elk hunting here. I carry my rifle, a Glock 10mm w/220 gr. Hardcast for back up only, Bear spray and a long fixed blade knife. If needed for a griz, in that order. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have some big black bear .
Although I agree with much of what you say, near all really... the LEO normally being well-versed in handgun usage and tactics is quite debatable, not being hard on my brothers here, I am just saying; they are not hired for their weapons skills, it is far more complicated. Many, and I mean many, just break the minimum of 70% in their department's qualification... now firearm training is a "big" expense for any department, qualification isn't training they aren't the same. So perhaps another profession might be a better example, but... as I said, I agree with you, well... there is that .357 Mag thing, I'm thinking 10mm
Cheers
This is a great line!
"Youe even have better luck carrying a stick of salami to throw at him and hope he finds it tastier than you look."
The other one I like is :
"A 25 Auto is all you need in bear country... so you can shoot your buddy in the knee and out run him!
IF you really have an encounter with a bear and all you have is ANY handgun you are in deep s*&t... DD62
"Youe even have better luck carrying a stick of salami to throw at him and hope he finds it tastier than you look."
The other one I like is :
"A 25 Auto is all you need in bear country... so you can shoot your buddy in the knee and out run him!
IF you really have an encounter with a bear and all you have is ANY handgun you are in deep s*&t... DD62
sea2summit
Well-Known Member
This is the .22 that harvested the world record Brown bear in 1953. But wouldn't be my choice for a bear hunt, even though she wasn't necessarily hunting bears at the time.
Your point about LEO not all being able to shoot bulls eyes every time but the chances of them being able to hit, at least in the vicinity of where they want to is a lot more commonplace than the average concealed carry person. Here in Wisconsin it is possible to get a concealed carry license without ever having to take a shot or handle a pistol, and unfortunately many take advantage of this and carry something that they don't know how to use. Talk about being dangerous.Although I agree with much of what you say, near all really... the LEO normally being well-versed in handgun usage and tactics is quite debatable, not being hard on my brothers here, I am just saying; they are not hired for their weapons skills, it is far more complicated. Many, and I mean many, just break the minimum of 70% in their department's qualification... now firearm training is a "big" expense for any department, qualification isn't training they aren't the same. So perhaps another profession might be a better example, but... as I said, I agree with you, well... there is that .357 Mag thing, I'm thinking 10mm
The same goes for the average, note the word average hunter. They carry a handgun as a backup that they can only, and if that marginally shoot and not all that accurately, after all they are hunting with a powerful rifle.
Now it is a given that when the bear, which is a big target is so close that even the worst handgun shot in the state shoots that it's hard to miss, if that bullet doesn't find a good home that handgun was as useless as the big hunting knife they probably didn't carry as a last ditch resort. As I think of it they would probably have better luck with the knife but in either case would be successfully mauled by the bear.
I am a firearms and hunter safety instructor. I help out people sighting in. Some don't want help, they think they know what they are doing yet can't put even one round into a 24 inch paper sighting in target at 100 yards. Of course they don't want any help, especially from a woman. Once several years ago a group of 4 came to the range with a refrigerator box, set it up at 100 yards and took turns shooting at it. Of the 80 rounds shot by four hunters only 6 hit the refrigerator carton and they were satisfied with that. Gentlemen, while this may not be indicative of the people frequenting this web site, but there are more of them out there in the woods than you probably care to think about. Be Safe my friends, Be safe out there.
Ah! the old Canadian Cooey does it again.
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
Did he have any camouflage fibers or boot leather stuck between his teeth too?
