Alaskan bear defence handgun ... :)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

boomer49

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Does anybody have any authoritative info on what would be a better handgun for a last-minute bear-defence handgun in Alaska?

I know that neither is particularly good ... but I'm comparing a 1911 (with standard .45 calibre 230 g FMJ cartridges) to a .357 revolver with 180 g jacketed solids.

A century-old great big low-speed boxing-glove designed to duke it out with the bad guys in the trenches ... or a zippy little (by today's standards) do-it-all cartridge from a (relatively) more recent time?

Just the facts, M'am ...
 
Yep, neither one.

Velocity alone should tell you which one of the two poor choices.

357 is mediocre, at best. 45acp- not so much.
 
I would go with a minimum of 44 mag in Alaska, especially in the coastal areas. 357 has been used for inland blacks on a regular basis by many people and I've heard good things. Don't know that it's all that effective on coastal griz, might be alright on inland mountain ones but that is speculation.

45acp I personally wouldn't use even though there are people who carry it using +P rounds. Really with low velocity rounds skull ricochet is a concern as well since with either of these vs. griz you're going to need a skull penetrating head shot to do the job.
 
460 S&W accept no substitute. An alaskan brown bear will laugh heartily at you when you shoot a 45 at him. Think 454 Casull, 460 or 500 S&W, and 44mag would be a ....."bear" minimum :p, sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously, you need to look at velocity and the actual energy being carried by the bullet. If you want any distance to target with adequate energy to drop one of those big boys, anything less than a 44mag just wont get the job done
 
Damn, if those were the choices, I'd stay home. At least I wouldn't p*ss the bear off by shooting a popgun at him. Given only the choice you have presented, 357 mag - but I'd be loading into the realm of "one use" cases, and using small rifle primers.
 
You can buy some pretty hot loads for the .357. Lots of Americans use it for medium game, such as deer and hogs. It wouldn't be my first pick, but it would be better than a whistle and some seasoning.
 
Well, this isn't really authoritative, but I've heard the Glock 21 10mm auto is a popular bear defence handgun in Alaska.

I heard it on the internet, so it must be true ;)
 
boomer49 said:
Does anybody have any authoritative info on what would be a better handgun for a last-minute bear-defence handgun in Alaska ?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any books, but if you spend enough time browsing the interwebs you can come to your own conclusions by reading others (sometimes 1st hand) experiences.

I'd rather have a .45ACP than nothing, but you know there are better calibers suited for "Dangerous Game"...

.44 Mag / .454 Casual / .460 & .500 S&W

Seems 10mm Glocks are becoming a popular semi-auto pistol to safely defend yourself in the wilderness with too...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=bear-...&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=cC0zUOi8M-zgigLRk4DYBg

:welcome:
 
I think that you can get all yours infos on others bear defence thread......

Personally, .45acp is NOT a bear defence round. This big slow bullet isn't going to get it's way to vital zone on big bears. This round was designed for human size targets with fragile constitution......

.357 mag is better than nothing, but everything Will be about shot placement. Under stress even if you are an excellent target shooter, it's an other game. If you want to try something at the range: go outside run à 200m sprint and immediatly go inside and shoot as fast as you can. When your heart rate is at 150, it's a lot harder.

I think that .44mag is thé minimum when you are going in bear country.
 
Merci ...

Thanks guys ... for the info, and for not being too ... whatever :)

I was pretty sure that the superior penetration of the .357 would make it a better choice. I obviously know that the .44 Magnum is 'way better than my other ideas, but it just so happens that I already own the other two.

What is it about the 10 mm automatic that (apparently) makes it superior to the.45? Does it have that much more oomph?

FWIW I do own a .44 Magnum Rossi Ranch Hand (a handy little 24" mares-leg design) and I regularly carry it or my Marine Magnum (with 00 buckshot and 600 g Brenneke Black Magic slugs) when I'm outside my yard. (I live in a fairly remote spot ... with just about every type of wildlife in Alberta.)
 
bear

I'll get the sillyness out of the way 1st.....I would seriously rather get slowly ass raped by a bear than endure the Canadian legalpoliticalfacist quagmire that is involved in applying/securing/defending the carry of a pistol !! LOL


OK Seriously now.

In addition to the comments on energy delivery (mass X velocity = energy) which are accurate the next and possibly most important factor is bullet construction. Whatever energy present when it meets the target is useless unless it is delivered to the target. If the bullet explodes, fragments, comes apart or suffers any other problem without breaking bone/penetrating vitals and or major blood vessels or dysrupts the brain/spinal cord it won't do much other than piss off the animal.
Not to mention success is actually stopping the thing...fast.

Bullet construction for this purpose has basically two camps which both have merit. The hard cast heavy lead boys and the modern jacketed but heavily armoured controlled expansion boys. Both specify very heavy bullets driven as fast as possible from a pistol. Either bulet style has a far better chance at getting to vitals and or breaking major bones without bullet failure than typical lighter construction hunting rounds. High velocity lightweight anything is a very poor choice.

357 is at least flexible enough to handload or buy somewhat heavier and fast loads that would be better than anything 45acp IMO. Still not optimal but the old adage....better the gun you have than the one you don't.

If I was going to have a real or perceived need for this type of defence and was in a position to carry for it either legally or a result of risk/benefit analysis I would happily spend the $$ on the right gun and consider it $$ well spent IMO. It would be a shorter barreled big ass stainless revolver in a caliber that doesn't break a sweat producing the energy I am looking for. If I didn't handload it would be in a caliber that had commercially available loads suitable for the task.

My 2c worth.

PS Not kidding about the bear ass raping either....Fawkin' LeftwingLiberalNanistate!
 
gun

There is another old adage......better the gun you have with you than no gun at all.

Yer' WAY mor elikely to have a gun at all carrying a holstered pistol than toting around a long gun. The long gun....even a really compact one..... will either not be there at all or positioned in a convenient location out of reach/out of the way when you need it. That's what handguns were designed for in the first place.......UNLIKE the current mantra that they're the devils right hand and only meant for holding up cornerstores and shootin' up the hood crap.

If I lived where you do I'd be packin' around the pistol that I HAD loaded up as best as possible for the purpose.
Outdoor garments make this carry pretty straightforward and or concealable....where legal of course........
 
skoal said:
The golden gun from james bond,1 shot kill no matter what
Click to expand...

hahahaha nice.

alaska has the states gun laws im assuming? what about a 8.5" or 12" pistol grip 12g? i have no idea if that would even have the power needed but just a thought? probably wouldnt be to hard to back skabbard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom