Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had another encounter with black bear, in Manitoba (I don't consider this one 'up close'). We were driving the road between Thompson and Nelson House, and someone had thrown out a bag of McDonalds. A bear was relishing its feast, and we stopped to take pictures, and the bear charged our truck. She bluffed, but I think she was just too bloated from the junk food to move more than a couple steps.
Last edited by Newtgirl; 07-28-2011 at 12:40 PM..
Reason: Was worded Yoda-like.
I've yet to be in brown bear territory. With black bears, it's sometimes better to act big and bad, especially with the younger ones.
My only close-up encounter was with a juvenile in West Virginia. I was in the woods, surveying for canopy red spruce trees. With some fancy footwork, I did a dumb move and ran my face into the knob of a spruce tree. I was seeing stars pretty good, thought I was going to black out. Of course I was alone in the woods, hundreds of yards from my truck. I managed to find a good boulder to sit on and regain my senses.
As I was sitting there, dabbing at my bloody face (ended up with two black eyes and a concussion), I hear *crash crash crash* through the woods. And where I was surveying was just up the mountain from a ski-area subdivision where people are notorious for feeding the 'cute' bears. Out from the brush pops this juvenile, maybe 150 lbs. He stops short, I think he was startled to see me sitting there. I try to yell at him, but I'm still pretty woozy. And he stands up and ***** his head like a dog. I think if my butt hadn't puckered so tight, I would've pooped myself! I've got my whistle with me, so I whistle at him real loud, and he goes back to all 4's. And doesn't move. And I'm cursing all these people that think bears are so cute.
So I stand up, and I grab a stick, and I wave my arms up real big, and I growl this big, gutteral, inhuman growl, and I throw my waterbottle at him, and I hit him in the head. Finally he starts walking off toward my truck. So I'm throwing sticks and growling and hoping to Gaia and all of the woodland fairies that he thinks I'm terrifiying and that he's not young enough that his momma's not still around and that he makes a hard right turn and I can get back to the trail and my truck and go back to the office.
I got the rest of the day off.
Just thinking about it now, years later, in the safety of my office, it still gives me goosebumps. It's really, truly terrifying; that primal lizard-brain flight-or-fight sensation that takes over in those situations.
I've got a close affiliation with NOLS (that's where I've got my Wilderness First Responder certification through), so I really feel for those kids, even moreso that I normally would.
Sounds like you had a very bad day there. You did the right thing (except maybe throw a water bottle at his head lol)... and yep it is dangerous when bears become habituated to people for sure.
I thought it would be more effective than spruce cones.
He never really did seem scared of me, even when he finally left, more ... bored. I think he wanted to play. I wasn't up for a game of bear-wrestling, so he went off to find something more interesting.
One thing I have never understood whenever the discussion of firearms to defend against bear attacks comes up is why (large caliber) handguns are so often looked upon critically in comparison to a shotgun or large caliber rifle (especially the latter - at least the shotgun has the buckshot pattern argument in its favor, allowing for a little bit of imprecision under the exigency of a split second decision).
The ever-predictable chorus on this topic almost always seems to hypothesize that your handgun skills have to be exceptional, in comparison to ones skill with a rifle. I don't understand the rationalization behind that theory. Virtually nobody makes that argument when promoting the virtues of handguns (and concealed carry) for self defense against humans... so why would a different set of rules somehow apply for bears? If anything, many self defense advocates (when referring to home and other person-to-person threats) often argue that it is the rifle, not the handgun, that might take greater skill because a rifle or shotgun is a much more awkward and unwieldy weapon, and arguably has a slower response rate in comparison to a handgun because it is both heavier, as well as the fact that a rifle or shotgun is often shouldered on a sling behind ones back when one is walking along, in comparison to a handgun which can be drawn relatively quickly if one holsters it conveniently.
So..... beyond the obvious issue of sufficient bullet mass and energy of a handgun versus a rifle or shotgun, why is the argument so often made that one must somehow possess greater skill with a handgun in comparison to a rifle. Obviously, with a shotgun, one can afford to be a little imprecise if one is shooting a buckshot load, since it has a it of a spread, allowing for a little inaccuracy... but that argument obviously doesn't explain rifles (nor shotguns, with slugs).
One thing I have never understood whenever the discussion of firearms to defend against bear attacks comes up is why (large caliber) handguns are so often looked upon critically in comparison to a shotgun or large caliber rifle (especially the latter - at least the shotgun has the buckshot pattern argument in its favor, allowing for a little bit of imprecision under the exigency of a split second decision).
The ever-predictable chorus on this topic almost always seems to hypothesize that your handgun skills have to be exceptional, in comparison to ones skill with a rifle. I don't understand the rationalization behind that theory. Virtually nobody makes that argument when promoting the virtues of handguns (and concealed carry) for self defense against humans... so why would a different set of rules somehow apply for bears? If anything, many self defense advocates (when referring to home and other person-to-person threats) often argue that it is the rifle, not the handgun, that might take greater skill because a rifle or shotgun is a much more awkward and unwieldy weapon, and arguably has a slower response rate in comparison to a handgun because it is both heavier, as well as the fact that a rifle or shotgun is often shouldered on a sling behind ones back when one is walking along, in comparison to a handgun which can be drawn relatively quickly if one holsters it conveniently.
So..... beyond the obvious issue of sufficient bullet mass and energy of a handgun versus a rifle or shotgun, why is the argument so often made that one must somehow possess greater skill with a handgun in comparison to a rifle. Obviously, with a shotgun, one can afford to be a little imprecise if one is shooting a buckshot load, since it has a it of a spread, allowing for a little inaccuracy... but that argument obviously doesn't explain rifles (nor shotguns, with slugs).
Petro security patrols on the N. Slope utilize shotguns, airhorns, lights/sirens, handguns, etc. Bear hazing can involve pyrotechnics, cracker rounds, bean bags, etc. (lethal shots are very rare). A variety of options in the tool chest: which one you choose depends upon on the situation and your qualifications.
It's not really the same as traditional self-defense.
One thing I have never understood whenever the discussion of firearms to defend against bear attacks comes up is why (large caliber) handguns are so often looked upon critically in comparison to a shotgun or large caliber rifle (especially the latter - at least the shotgun has the buckshot pattern argument in its favor, allowing for a little bit of imprecision under the exigency of a split second decision).
The ever-predictable chorus on this topic almost always seems to hypothesize that your handgun skills have to be exceptional, in comparison to ones skill with a rifle. I don't understand the rationalization behind that theory. Virtually nobody makes that argument when promoting the virtues of handguns (and concealed carry) for self defense against humans... so why would a different set of rules somehow apply for bears? If anything, many self defense advocates (when referring to home and other person-to-person threats) often argue that it is the rifle, not the handgun, that might take greater skill because a rifle or shotgun is a much more awkward and unwieldy weapon, and arguably has a slower response rate in comparison to a handgun because it is both heavier, as well as the fact that a rifle or shotgun is often shouldered on a sling behind ones back when one is walking along, in comparison to a handgun which can be drawn relatively quickly if one holsters it conveniently.
So..... beyond the obvious issue of sufficient bullet mass and energy of a handgun versus a rifle or shotgun, why is the argument so often made that one must somehow possess greater skill with a handgun in comparison to a rifle. Obviously, with a shotgun, one can afford to be a little imprecise if one is shooting a buckshot load, since it has a it of a spread, allowing for a little inaccuracy... but that argument obviously doesn't explain rifles (nor shotguns, with slugs).
You already stated the reason. Handguns, even large caliber handguns, do not have the same stopping power of shotguns firing slugs or rifles.
A shotgun firing a .65 caliber slug delivers 2,361 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, and 926 foot pounds at 100 yards. A .375 H&H has around 4,300 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. A Remington .458 Win Mag has around 5,400 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Now compare that to a .44 revolver that has around 1,040 foot pounds at the muzzle.
I have special hot loads for my .44 revolver that boosts it to around 1,400 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, but it is still only for backup. I carry a 12-gauge loaded with slugs as my primary camp gun, but I do not always carry it with me. If I am fishing in the river, then my shotgun is on the bank, but I am always wearing my .44 revolver.
As far as skill is concerned, you should be proficient in whatever weapon you choose to use, and the weapon should be large enough to do the job. As far as self-defense against humans versus bears, obviously it does not take nearly the same amount of fire-power to stop a human as it does to stop a bear. This gives you more options when it concerns stopping humans. A 9mm pistol will stop most humans, but it certainly will not stop a charging brown bear. You need the right tool for the right job.
Location: Approximately 50 miles from Missoula MT/38 yrs full time after 4 yrs part time
2,308 posts, read 4,122,467 times
Reputation: 5025
some additional info on "projectiles for Brownies"
I found the following information interesting..........
As we all know, maximum pentration and "bone-breaking ability" are "key" to stopping a charging Brownie. That being accepted as a widely accepted "given", here are the results of a "non-scientific", "back-yard" penatration test.
Weapons: (1) .375 H&H 300 gr Nosler Partition bullet (old style)
(2) .375 H&H 300 gr Barnes Triple Shock X bullet/all Copper
(3) 12 ga 3" Mag Winchester Super X (1)oz Conventional Slugs
(4) 12 ga 3" Mag Brenneke 1 3/8 oz Golden Slug
Medium: 30" of wet newspaper-packed pretty tight-- at 30 yards
Results: #1/ 15 inches................muzzle energy/approx 4050 ft/lbs
typical approx 30% expansion and front portion of core gone
.............#3/ 10 inches....... about 40% expansion, but 100% intac
estimated muzzle energy of approx 2100 ft/lbs (1oz slug)
they don't have anything heavier.
.............#4/ 17 inches.......muzzle energy of approx 3015 ft/lbs
approx 15% expansion & 100% intact. 1 3/8 oz slug.
(NOTE): the 1 3/8 oz slug, equals a 601 gr .375 bullet.
Being in my 80th yr I don't know if I will get back up to AK for another Brownie.........but if I do, I'll be using my handloads (#2 above) in my .375,
and my Mossberg 500 (w/ pistol grip stock & 20" barrel & #4 above).. slung over my back while fishin' in the Little Su..........and just in case: my S&W/ Mdl 29(ported) .44 mag loaded w/ 300 gr Very hard cast solids on my hip.
Have worked to damn hard all these years to have some Brownie do "a Treadwell" on me.
After-thought: To the gentleman who spoke of a shotgun loaded with "buck-shot"...................all you'd do is "really ****-him-off".
I found the following information interesting..........
As we all know, maximum pentration and "bone-breaking ability" are "key" to stopping a charging Brownie. That being accepted as a widely accepted "given", here are the results of a "non-scientific", "back-yard" penatration test.
Weapons: (1) .375 H&H 300 gr Nosler Partition bullet (old style)
(2) .375 H&H 300 gr Barnes Triple Shock X bullet/all Copper
(3) 12 ga 3" Mag Winchester Super X (1)oz Conventional Slugs
(4) 12 ga 3" Mag Brenneke 1 3/8 oz Golden Slug
Medium: 30" of wet newspaper-packed pretty tight-- at 30 yards
Results: #1/ 15 inches................muzzle energy/approx 4050 ft/lbs
typical approx 30% expansion and front portion of core gone
.............#3/ 10 inches....... about 40% expansion, but 100% intac
estimated muzzle energy of approx 2100 ft/lbs (1oz slug)
they don't have anything heavier.
.............#4/ 17 inches.......muzzle energy of approx 3015 ft/lbs
approx 15% expansion & 100% intact. 1 3/8 oz slug.
(NOTE): the 1 3/8 oz slug, equals a 601 gr .375 bullet.
Being in my 80th yr I don't know if I will get back up to AK for another Brownie.........but if I do, I'll be using my handloads (#2 above) in my .375,
and my Mossberg 500 (w/ pistol grip stock & 20" barrel & #4 above).. slung over my back while fishin' in the Little Su..........and just in case: my S&W/ Mdl 29(ported) .44 mag loaded w/ 300 gr Very hard cast solids on my hip.
Have worked to damn hard all these years to have some Brownie do "a Treadwell" on me.
After-thought: To the gentleman who spoke of a shotgun loaded with "buck-shot"...................all you'd do is "really ****-him-off".
At one time I went hunting for brown bear on Montague Island, unsuccessfully. I do not hunt them any longer. I used a Remington .458 Win Mag, and I am not entirely sure which would hurt worse - having to fire more than three rounds from that beast, or being mauled by a brown bear.
It is definitely not a long-range weapon, at 300 yards with a 540 grain round you have to elevate the muzzle by so much you are essentially using indirect fire.
I also carry a Mossberg Model 500 as my camp gun. It has an 18.5" rifled barrel and an extended tube magazine. I use the older (because I have not had the need to buy anything newer) Brenneke one ounce sabot slugs.
The first four rounds are slugs, the last three are 00-buck. I figure that if I do not drop the critter with my first four rounds, it will be close enough where aiming will not be as important as getting off another round.
I also wear my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag at all times, as back-up.
The ever-predictable chorus on this topic almost always seems to hypothesize that your handgun skills have to be exceptional, in comparison to ones skill with a rifle. I don't understand the rationalization behind that theory.Virtually nobody makes that argument when promoting the virtues of handguns (and concealed carry) for self defense against humans... so why would a different set of rules somehow apply for bears?If anything, many self defense advocates (when referring to home and other person-to-person threats) often argue that it is the rifle, not the handgun, that might take greater skill because a rifle or shotgun is a much more awkward and unwieldy weapon, and arguably has a slower response rate in comparison to a handgun because it is both heavier, as well as the fact that a rifle or shotgun is often shouldered on a sling behind ones back when one is walking along, in comparison to a handgun which can be drawn relatively quickly if one holsters it conveniently......
A big bear can weigh 10 times as much as a large human and can close the distance between you at 30 miles an hour. If you need to put it down, you need to put it down RIGHT NOW.
I use a .40 pistol with a 3" barrel for CCW self-defense. I have no doubt it will do the trick handily on a human attacker. It would not even phase a grizzly or polar bear.
A pistol just does not have the muzzle energy and penetration of a rifle. People do defend themselves successfully with pistols. I can think of two recently, one with a .454 Casull and one with a .44 Magnum. Both killed large Alaskan bears and had little or no damage. to themselves. But a big bore rifle or a 12 gauge with slugs would have been a better choice, provided the were somewhere that hauling a long gun made sense.
A handgun is way better than nothing, but it is not ideal in terms of stopping power.
Even better is avoiding the bear attack at all costs. Know where you are, put up your food, etc. Even if I were aiming an RPG at a bear before it even knew I was there I'd still rather not be there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
some additional info on "projectiles for Brownies"
