Bear rifle. Will 44 mag be enough?

[Suther]

How many hands does it take to use spray? You might get it out of the velcro holster with one hand, but you probably won’t. The plastic zip tie that always seems to be left on takes two hands, and the plastic retainer/lock piece will take both hands for sure. All will require you to actually look at them to accomplish.
Last couple weeks I’ve averaged my thumb on the safety twice a day. So far I’ve been able to talk them down though

There are holsters that don't require velcro, just a friction fit, some with a bungee for extra security. And I've never had an issue with the safety clip one handed, clearly YMMV. As for leaving the plastic zip tie on, that is like me using "you left the trigger guard on your rifle" as an argument against using guns - that wouldn't be a problem with the gun, that would be a problem with the user.

Again, I'm not anti-gun. If that is what you like, so be it. I just think gun people downplay the usefulness/effectiveness of spray and over-estimate the usefulness/effectiveness of a gun.

 

[Claven2]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. If that is what you like, so be it. I just think gun people downplay the usefulness/effectiveness of spray and over-estimate the usefulness/effectiveness of a gun.

All the actual scientific literature on the subject supports this viewpoint. As a gun nut myself, I still cannot deny that the evidence is slanted in favor of spray on dangerous bears. Not by a large amount, but it's true nonetheless.

This video does the best job of proving that point than I have seen in a long while. Worth the watch.

[video=youtube;WASFQh13Dj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WASFQh13Dj8[/video]

 

[Butcherbill]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. If that is what you like, so be it. I just think gun people downplay the usefulness/effectiveness of spray and over-estimate the usefulness/effectiveness of a gun.

For sure people down play it’s effectiveness, it can work. It’s been proven to work, personally for me if it comes time to use a tool like spray or a gun I want to kill the animal not run it off or stun it so I can run off. It’s going to be a predatory scenario or a defensive aggressive attack and I’m going to do my best to see that the animal is dead.

 

[0faustus0]

For sure people down play it’s effectiveness, it can work. It’s been proven to work, personally for me if it comes time to use a tool like spray or a gun I want to kill the animal not run it off or stun it so I can run off. It’s going to be a predatory scenario or a defensive aggressive attack and I’m going to do my best to see that the animal is dead.

Butcherbill, curious .... why do you want to kill that bear outright ... instead of just "deterring" it?
I mean doesn't that depend on where, when and how .... ?

 

[Butcherbill]

Butcherbill, curious .... why do you want to kill that bear outright ... instead of just "deterring" it?
I mean doesn't that depend on where, when and how .... ?

If I have an encounter with a bear, cougar etc and it comes down to pulling the trigger on spray or a gun it’s past the point of announcing my presence and being able to back out and get some distance between the animal and I. Like I said it will be a predatory encounter or a defensive aggressive attack, it’s going to be up close and personal and I’m going to kill the animal.

Im not talking about a bear etc that’s stressed making noise and clearly defensive that is well outside of my “shoot it now distance” that wants me to leave the area. It’s coming in with the intent to attack me, be it looking for a meal or I’ve surprised it up close with cubs or over a fresh kill.

 

[Gatehouse]

How much practice does one need to be effective with spray? How much easier is it to hit your target with a continuous jet vs a single projectile? How many hands does it take to use spray?

The pattern I see for gun recommendations are people tend to think they're John Wick, when in reality they're closer to Elmer Fudd... Not calling out anyone in particular in this thread, but the majority of us put a LOT more ammo downrange in a given year than the vast majority of hunters who would scoff at the recommendation of carrying bear spray based on the assumption their rifle will always trump spray.

People often misunderstand how spray is effective too. Far too many people think bear spray is going to completely incapacitate a bear and the bear will run away with its tail between its legs. That can happen, but it shouldn't be expected, the expectation should be that the spray will buy you enough time for YOU to get out of there.

I'd wager the same can be said for gun people.

I'm certainly not against using guns for bear defense, its my first choice too, I just think that gun people tend to over-estimate their effectiveness with guns, while vastly under-estimating the potential usefulness of spray. According to Smith et al. from two studies in 2008 and 2012 on spray and guns respectively, spray is more effective at stopping you from being hurt.

http://www.bear-hunting.com/2019/8/firearm-vs-bear-spray

What is your personal experience with using spray on aggressive bears?

 

[0faustus0]

If I have an encounter with a bear, cougar etc and it comes down to pulling the trigger on spray or a gun it’s past the point of announcing my presence and being able to back out and get some distance between the animal and I. Like I said it will be a predatory encounter or a defensive aggressive attack, it’s going to be up close and personal and I’m going to kill the animal.

Im not talking about a bear etc that’s stressed making noise and clearly defensive that is well outside of my “shoot it now distance” that wants me to leave the area. It’s coming in with the intent to attack me, be it looking for a meal or I’ve surprised it up close with cubs or over a fresh kill.

Well, lets say I am living in the country side .... and yes, I would not want to have an aggressive bear hanging around my home and children. So, yes, I would be inclined to kill it.

But what about ... you are canoeing pristine wilderness .... lets say an area in Labrador that is not accessible and that maybe sees 5 -8 humans passing through every year or less.
Why would you want to kill that bear? I mean you are passing through .... and that bear might have never had an encounter with a human before.

Why kill it?

That bear needs to learn its lesson. Like a young hungry bear trying to mess with a porcupine. That bear will have learned its lesson after the first encounter .... and whenever it will encounter another porcupine ... it will turn around and look for other food.

 

[Butcherbill]

Well, lets say I am living in the country side .... and yes, I would not want to have an aggressive bear hanging around my home and children. So, yes, I would be inclined to kill it.

But what about ... you are canoeing pristine wilderness .... lets say an area in Labrador that is not accessible and that maybe sees 5 -8 humans passing through every year.
Why would you want to kill that bear? I mean you are passing through .... and that bear might have never had an encounter with a human before.

Why kill it?

That bear needs to learn its lesson. Like a young hungry bear trying to mess with a porcupine. That bear will have learned its lesson after the first encounter .... and whenever it will encounter another porcupine ... it will turn around and look for other food.

I don’t think your getting the jist of what I’m saying, if a bear enters my 10-15m no go zone it’s not just curious. It’s already had multiple warnings from me to move along by that point, it’s a predatory encounter and I’m not looking to let it get any closer. Bangers or spray might already have been used already.

This isn’t a curious animal that’s 30, 40, 50m away checking me out or chuffing away clacking teeth is a stressed defensive behaviour. If I’m in a position to use my final resort which will be a firearm, it’s not going to be to move it along at that point. There’s plenty of bears out there, one less predatory one won’t be missed. The one’s that get the message early on and either move on when they realize it’s a human or allow me to back out of the situation are free to go their way.

 

[0faustus0]

I don’t think your getting the jist of what I’m saying, if a bear enters my 10-15m no go zone it’s not just curious. It’s already had multiple warnings from me to move along by that point, it’s a predatory encounter and I’m not looking to let it get any closer. Bangers or spray might already have been used already.

This isn’t a curious animal that’s 30, 40, 50m away checking me out or chuffing away clacking teeth is a stressed defensive behaviour. If I’m in a position to use my final resort which will be a firearm, it’s not going to be to move it along at that point. There’s plenty of bears out there, one less predatory one won’t be missed. The one’s that get the message early on and either move on when they realize it’s a human or allow me to back out of the situation are free to go their way.

Thanks Butcherbill ... so if I get you right ... you would try to deterr a bear ... with bangers, warning shots, bear speay ... etc ... and only as a last resort would you engage in leathal force.

I am with you there ....

Your post 125 ... just sounded a bit different.
I am glad I misunderstood that post ....

 

[MiG25]

I fired a banger at a Black Bear, it went off a foot or two from it's head, it didn't even flinch.

I'll take a Boomstick any day.

 

[Butcherbill]

Thanks Butcherbill ... so if I get you right ... you would try to deterr a bear ... with bangers, warning shots, bear speay ... etc ... and only as a last resort would you engage in leathal force.

I am with you there ....

Your post 125 ... just sounded a bit different.
I am glad I misunderstood that post ....

Bingo, a bear that’s not a threat isn’t getting shot. Unless I’m hunting that is, if it’s a real threat I’m not using spray.

I really like bears, they’re an interesting animal. I’d rather they go on their way and I go mine when I see them in the bush and they do anytime I’ve encountered them. Even the couple grizzly bears I’ve seen while working, they knew we were there. One ignored me and I moved on out of the area and left it alone, the other one saw me on the quad and turned an ran in the opposite direction at top speed.

 

[Dogleg]

Bear bangers can easily go bang on the wrong side of the bear, something that doesn’t happen with a gun which also makes a satisfying bang sould. If you have time and distance to play around with bangers, spray and air horns you’re experiencing a bear encounter not a bear attack. The non lethal tools may have some use there if you think you can negatively condition it. The good news is that if you’re within petting distance of a bear and he hasn’t hammered you he probably isn’t going to.

 

[Suther]

What is your personal experience with using spray on aggressive bears?

You really love to fall for the anecdotal fallacy don't you? Why do you care about my experience when studies involving dozens or even hundreds of people are available?

 

[Gatehouse]

You really love to fall for the anecdotal fallacy don't you? Why do you care about my experience when studies involving dozens or even hundreds of people are available?

You seem quite defensive. It was a simple question. Many of us here have shared experiences with aggressive bears and the use of both spray and firearms and since you post with some conviction about the topic I wanted to know your experiences.

Have you even ever shot off a can of spray?

 

[Odinson]

The 2 Bears that were dropped by my Ruger 44 carbine didn't know the difference. 1 shot for each and they dropped in their tracks. These weren't at the same time but the point is, within a 100 yard distance, the 44 Mag is very capable.

 

[Suther]

You seem quite defensive. It was a simple question. Many of us here have shared experiences with aggressive bears and the use of both spray and firearms and since you post with some conviction about the topic I wanted to know your experiences.

Have you even ever shot off a can of spray?

Yes I have shot spray. A few times. Also been sprayed. It sucks.

 

[Gatehouse]

It should be noted that there are quite a few questions regarding the study linked above

This one. http://www.bear-hunting.com/2019/8/firearm-vs-bear-spray

If anyone is interested they can google what Dave Smith has to say about the study.

Here is a quote (I didn't write the article)

If you are in bear country, having either a gun or pepper spray, or both, could be a good idea. In an excellent article by the Bear Attack Examiner, Dave Smith, he tears apart the idea that studies have shown bear spray to be more effective than firearms.
A thorough review the research on firearms and bear spray reveals that it's not possible to make a legitimate comparison of bear spray to firearms, and that Smith's research on bear spray and firearms is flawed and biased.

The Bear Attack Examiner goes on to show selection bias in the study by Tom Smith. All 269 incidents used to classify gun defenses were incidents involving aggressive bears, while less than a third of the bear spray incidents involve aggressive bears. Dave Smith goes on to write:

A far more significant problem is that the results of Tom Smith's study on firearms are inconsistent with the results of a 1999 study by Miller and Tutterrow on Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska. Miller & Tutterrow examined more than 2,000 incidents from 1970 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life of property, and less than 2% of the people involved reported injuries. Instead of offering a meaningful explanation for major differences between the two studies on firearms vs bears, Smith and Herrero claimed there were no previous studies on firearms vs. bears.
I found an interesting quote from one of the authors of the bear spray studies. From elk-hunting-tips.net:

In the Sept/Oct 2012 issue of Sports Afield, BYU professor Tom Smith, the author of Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska and Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska--says, "If I'm actually out hunting and I have a gun in my hands a suddenly a bear comes at me--do you think I'm going to lay the gun down and pick up bear spray? Are you out of your mind?" Smith also asks, "Does it really have to be a spray versus gun argument? That's ridiculous." Smith says "both guns and spray have their place... because there are times when one is the better, or the only option."
Another indicator of selection bias in the two bear spray vs. gun studies is that numerous incidents were included where people did not have time to use their gun, but no incidents were included where people did not have time to use bear spray.

I highly recommend the Bear Attack Examiner series of articles on this issue. Dave Smith's attention to detail, citations, and reporting make it easy to know the players involved, who did the actual research, and who hyped the research to reach conclusions that simply are not supported.

 

[Ardent]

The .348 does its best work at close ranges. It produces a high level of trauma when loaded with 200 grain bullets at velocities of 2500fps which stay above the 2300fps mark for a short distance. Once this initial velocity is shed, performance becomes somewhat more mild. With fast expanding bullets, game may run but are just as likely to react in a drunken manner and not travel too far. At impact velocities below 2200fps, wounds become more narrow and game run longer distances.

With slow expanding bullets, the .348 can produce clean kills but lean game may run some distance before succumbing to blood loss. Performance of such loads can be fairly ho-hum.

When loaded with 250 grain bullets at 2300fps, the potential for nervous trauma causing an immediate loss of consciousness is less evident, however wounds remain somewhat broad on large bodied game down to 2200fps and then gradually narrow as the 1800fps mark is approached, after which, wounding potential falls off rapidly.

Back to bullets… I’d never read this guy’s stuff, but he’s clearly seen a lot of game shot, his stuff’s not theoretical. He neatly illustrates why not to go to the heavy for caliber end of the bullet weight thinking it means harder hits.

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

Speed freaks being the hunters using .303, .30-06, .308, 8x57 and for that matter nearly every rifle cartridge devised since the outbreak of WWI.

People always try to characterize the argument in extremes, like you’re pushing for everyone to use a .300 Wby. Those rounds just carry the effect of modern velocity further afield, but you can get it in typical Canadian ranges with just a .303.

I was pushing against the 300 Wby and the like actually. My preferences have varied over the yrs starting with the .303 which got me into handloading

back in '70. Been through many chamberings since then but settled on mainly .30-30, .44 mag, .375 Win, .45-70 & .458 Win mag for meat critters.

To answer the bear rifle comparo between .44 mag and .45-70 on a pissed off bear, I'd go with the .45 and 405 gr hardcast at 1500 fps or so meself.

 

[Ardent]

.303s one of the greats, the first .308. I love shooting 1500-2000fps cartridges and will buy or build an 1892 so chambered in a sporty handgun chambering shortly. I just don’t like using them on game when I have 2500-3000fps cartridges that knock things down with much more immediacy on average, and certainly do more damage.

I think we get a bit confused on the difference between cartridges and guns we like to shoot, and the best recipe to knocking down a big bear, our favourite subject here. Hunting deer and black bears, who cares they all work and we can accept a death stroll. If stopping something is expressly in the gun’s job description, go for something faster. Doesn’t take extremes, just 2400fps at the muzzle and up to start seeing the difference, and it’s rather dramatic and undeniable once you do it a few dozen times. Faster just maintains that difference, further. Places like our BC mountains that matters, a .300 is a very sensible choice for hunting.