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 hesitate to even start this thread, because I think it's going to be hard to keep on topic. But let's give it a try anyway.
I spend a lot of time hiking and tent-camping in bear country - black bear, not grizzly. Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee. When I lived in Montana, I always carried a Ruger .44 magnum. I no longer have that gun; my only large-caliber handguns are a Dan Wesson .357 and a .45 Colt 1911. Typically, I take the .45 in the woods with me. I like the 3 extra rounds (1 in the chamber, 8 in the magazine), and the quicker reload if the need should arise.
I'm interested in hearing people's opinions about what sort of ammunition would be more effective against black bears. Am I better off with 230 grain FMJ for the penetration, or hollow point for maximum tissue damage and shock? I currently alternate, with one round of FMJ in the magazine, then a hollowpoint, then FMJ, then hollowpoint, etc. If it ever actually does become necessary, I expect that I'll just be aiming for the face and the throat from less than 10 feet away. In the best-case scenario, I would be putting rounds on the front of the skull and the nasal cavity, and/or into the torso through the throat and exposed upper chest. I would think that a FMJ would be more effective for a frontal head shot, and a hollowpoint for the throat and internal organs (assuming I can get a clear shot at the area above the ribs).
I figure that a pure anti-personnel round like Speer Gold Dot is wasted on a bear, because I would expect it to shred itself before it even gets through the hide and the fat layer, but if anyone thinks I'm overthinking that one, I'd be interested in their argument.
For that matter, does anyone think I'm better off with the .357 over the .45? I'm open to being wrong about that one, if people do think it would be a better caliber for some reason.
I don't want to spend a lot of time debating whether a handgun is even an appropriate weapon for defending yourself against bears in the first place - a handgun is all I'm carrying, and it's either the .45 or the .357. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
I'd carry the .357 over the .45 ACP. I haven't dug out my reloading book, but I have to expect the .357 loaded to the top charge for a 158 gr or larger carries more energy and penetration power than a 230 gr. .45 ACP. I'd go for a semi-jacketed HP or a FMJ. Figure on using all the rounds, even if it goes down.
If you are with someone, a .22 is very effective against bears, if you come across a bear, just shoot the other person the in knee and calmly walk away, see how easy that was
I'd carry the .357 over the .45 ACP. I haven't dug out my reloading book, but I have to expect the .357 loaded to the top charge for a 158 gr or larger carries more energy and penetration power than a 230 gr. .45 ACP. I'd go for a semi-jacketed HP or a FMJ. Figure on using all the rounds, even if it goes down.
Since I own a .44 Mag S-W, I carry that.
.357 Mag and .45 ACP are VERY effective against humans. Slightly over 96% one shot stop with JHP.
NOT so much on deer or bigger though.
If you ever shot a 200 pound+ buck with a .357 Mag you would know what I am talking about.
I'd carry the .357 over the .45 ACP. I haven't dug out my reloading book, but I have to expect the .357 loaded to the top charge for a 158 gr or larger carries more energy and penetration power than a 230 gr. .45 ACP. I'd go for a semi-jacketed HP or a FMJ. Figure on using all the rounds, even if it goes down.
Since I own a .44 Mag S-W, I carry that.
Thanks, that's really useful food for thought.
It occurs to me that I've kind of let my thought process get stuck in a rut. I've gotten used to thinking that having 9 rounds loaded, as well as a quicker reload, would be an advantage - but the reality is that in any circumstance in which I would actually be defending myself against a charging bear, I'm not going to have time to reload. I may not even have time to squeeze off all 9 rounds. The 6 rounds in my Dan may be all I have time for anyway, so maybe I am better off going with the best available .357 round.
Maybe I should rethink my choice of caliber. I just get used to the .45; it's my "beater gun," my favorite handgun, the one I feel most accustomed to and comfortable with. It's easier to pack than the long-barreled .357, and draws quicker and cleaner. I'm just more used to carrying it around, and it's the one I keep next to the bed for home defense (with different loads, of course.) Just seemed like a natural transition to keep it in the tent next to my sleeping bag. The .357 might be a better selection, though.
I don't know how familiar you are with the Dan Wesson, but it has interchangeable barrels. If I swap out the 6-inch barrel for a 4-inch, would I be losing anything significant in terms of muzzle velocity? In this application, that is? A range of less than 10 feet? I don't think accuracy would be that much of an issue at that range, but it would make it easier to pack and to draw quickly.
It occurs to me that I've kind of let my thought process get stuck in a rut. I've gotten used to thinking that having 9 rounds loaded, as well as a quicker reload, would be an advantage - but the reality is that in any circumstance in which I would actually be defending myself against a charging bear, I'm not going to have time to reload. I may not even have time to squeeze off all 9 rounds. The 6 rounds in my Dan may be all I have time for anyway, so maybe I am better off going with the best available .357 round.
Maybe I should rethink my choice of caliber. I just get used to the .45; it's my "beater gun," my favorite handgun, the one I feel most accustomed to and comfortable with. It's easier to pack than the long-barreled .357, and draws quicker and cleaner. I'm just more used to carrying it around, and it's the one I keep next to the bed for home defense (with different loads, of course.) Just seemed like a natural transition to keep it in the tent next to my sleeping bag. The .357 might be a better selection, though.
I don't know how familiar you are with the Dan Wesson, but it has interchangeable barrels. If I swap out the 6-inch barrel for a 4-inch, would I be losing anything significant in terms of muzzle velocity? In this application, that is? A range of less than 10 feet? I don't think accuracy would be that much of an issue at that range, but it would make it easier to pack and to draw quickly.
With that viscous animal you want something powerful. Something that will knock him down fast, preferably with only one round.
Sure a 17rd Glock 17 9mm loaded with 124 grain Speer Gold dots might stop him. You'll have to empty the whole mag and hope you don't fire your +1 in your chamber while doing it. Either way, by the time you stop him, he might already "got ya".
I would take the .357 mag over the .45 ACP any day, if those were my only two choices. However, I firmly believe that the .44 mag is probably the smallest I would go with.
Most bear attacks happen at 25 ft or less and black bears are very very quick. You will be lucky to get off one shot, two at the most and because of that, you want to take the most meat off that critter that you can. A wheel gun is just as good as a semi auto, if all you can get to is 2 rounds. I have a 500 S&W with a 8 3/8 barrel that I bought for mountain lion and bear. I have a friend that firmly relies on .44 mag for everything. We went out and shot together and switched pistols. He has 3 different .44's. Of the 4 guns, the 500 was less punishing than the rest. It's ported and that really helps. Any time you can push 440 grains of lead down range, it really helps when you are talking only 1 or 2 shots.
Of course, once you stop the bear, you can finish it off with anything, even a .22, but stopping it is the problem.
I'd take a .357 simply for it's penetration. Any handgun is not suitable for bear, what you are looking for is a CNS hit, or your going to get mauled. So, have to punch through the skull, once that's accomplished it's lights out.
A FN five-seven might be useful, fast penetrating round with no recoil and high mag capacity.
Personally, if I knew I was going to be in bear territory on foot I'd have my SCAR 17s with me. The .308 has enough energy to shatter bones, that way if you miss slightly and catch it in the shoulder you can still slow it down a little.
I'd take a .357 simply for it's penetration. Any handgun is not suitable for bear, what you are looking for is a CNS hit, or your going to get mauled. So, have to punch through the skull, once that's accomplished it's lights out.
A FN five-seven might be useful, fast penetrating round with no recoil and high mag capacity.
Personally, if I knew I was going to be in bear territory on foot I'd have my SCAR 17s with me. The .308 has enough energy to shatter bones, that way if you miss slightly and catch it in the shoulder you can still slow it down a little.
A .500 S&W Magnum leaves a 1/2" hole with FMJ as well. What about JHP?
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.
