Ammoland: Handgun defenses againsts bears with case histories

[geologist]

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/ha...umented-incidents-98-effective/#axzz8fWJtBQN5

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/ha...umented-incidents-98-effective/#ixzz8fWKpgPqr
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Handgun Defenses Against Bear Attacks – 170 Documented Incidents, 98% Effective​

Ammoland Inc. Posted on November 21, 2023 by Dean Weingarten

Grizzly bear attacks Jimmy Cox; downed at 10 feet with a 10mm pistol in Defense of Life and Property Incident in AK.
Handguns have been shown to be effective tools when used to defend against bears. Seven years ago, whether handguns were effective when used to defend against bears was in dispute. In October 2016, someone on the Internet claimed pistols were ineffective as a bear defense. He claimed there were “legions” of incidents where they failed. He failed to provide a single documented case where a handgun, when fired in defense against a bear, failed to stop the attack.
A group of people I worked with and I started to look for instances where pistols were fired in defense against a bear or multiple bears. We particularly looked for incidents where pistol use failed to stop the attack. Incidents where the bear stopped attacking, was killed or just ran off were considered successful defenses.

We discovered handgun failures in defense against bears are rare. Successful uses of handguns to defend against bears are about 50 times as common. Handguns have been shown to be an effective tool to use against bears 98% of the time.​

As the number of documented incidents where pistols were fired as a defense against bears accumulated, publishing the entire list became burdensome. This is an update to the list, we include links to the last full list of 104 incidents, published on June 21, 2021, and the first update increasing the number to 123 incidents, published on April 11, 2022. Those numbers are the incidents where only a handgun was fired. Combinations, where a handgun and other deadly instruments were used are not counted for handgun statistics but are documented.
Since April 2022, we have documented 25 more incidents where handguns were fired as a defense against bears. Twenty-one incidents involved only handguns. One of those incidents was judged to be indeterminate (August 29, 1978, Schallenberger). 4 cases were combination defenses. All incidents where a handgun was fired to defend against a bear are included. This prevents selection bias in the data.
This update brings the total number of incidents to 170. In 146 incidents, only handguns were fired. Three of those are judged to be failures. Another three are judged to be indeterminate, including a case where the bear was driven off, but it was unclear if handgun fire or bear spray was the determining factor. Twenty-four cases occurred where a handgun was fired in combination with another deadly instrument. Those cases are not included in the statistics for handgun defenses. Three failures and 140 successes out of 143 cases is a 98% success rate.

Here are the 25 incidents in chronological order:​

Summer 1962 – .22 LR Grizzly Bear Montana​

The incident with the grizzly bear happened in the 1962 spring trapping season. Another worker was helping Chuck then. I met the guy once but have forgotten his name. A 500-pound male grizzly bear was caught in the steel jawed trap and took it and the tangled up drag about two miles where the bear hid in an aspen patch. Chuck and his helper tracked the grizzly on foot. The helper was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun and all Chuck had was his nine shot Harrington and Richardson Model 939, double action, .22 revolver in a holster on his belt.
The grizzly charged and Chuck stood still waiting for his helper to shoot. He looked around and the helper was running off with the shotgun. Chuck turned to run and tripped over a tree root and fell to the ground. The 500-pound male grizzly ran up to Chuck and stood up on his hind legs over him with the trap on a front paw. Chuck pulled out his .22 revolver and fired all nine shots in it. Some missed, some glanced off the grizzly’s skull and one went into an eye socket, killing the bear

Summer 1976 – Grizzly, Montana, .357 magnum Allen Schallenberger​

ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
In Allen’s own words starting in the summer of 1976:

In the summer of 1976, I was working alone on the grizzly bear research and was on a trip in the Scapegoat Wilderness south of the Benchmark Road end on USFS land. I was riding my saddle horse and leading two pack horses with my equipment and camping supplies. I rode into a small grassy opening suitable for horse feed north of Half Moon Peak at about dusk. I unloaded the two pack horses and turned them loose to graze with hobbles and was starting to unsaddle my riding horse. A very heavy, tall, dark colored grizzly bear appeared walking on the nearby USFS trail about 30 yards away. He made no bad threats and kept walking. I had been out about two weeks and my flashlight batteries were dead. Quickly I threw some stove fuel on dry sticks and got a large fire going for light. I put a double halter rope on my horse so he could not break loose from the tree. I set up my small tent and then I stood outside watching my horses and listening to the bear circle the small clearing breaking sticks. The horses with hobbles were not eating and were pivoting sensing the travel of the bear circling around us.
After about two hours, I knew I had to do something to scare away the very large and aggressive bear. I fired six fast shots with my Colt Python and reloaded quickly. The bear left and I tied up all the horses, ate some supper and went to bed in the tent. The horses were allowed to graze the next morning before we headed back to our pickup and trailer at Benchmark Road. The bear’s tracks were in the trail dust for several miles. The front paw print was 8 inches wide which indicates a very big grizzly in Montana. That was the last trip I ever made in grizzly research without a 760 Remington pump 30:06 rifle with ghost ring peep sight and 220 grain loads or a short, barreled Remington 12 gauge 870 with sights and a combination of double 00 buck and slugs along with my revolver and hard cast lead bullets.

​

 

[geologist]

Not all of the case histories are quoted due to the 10,000 word limit.

 

[alpining]

Thanks for reposting this. I had read it when it was released (start to finish), but it's great material and deserves to be recirculated.

Do you have a TL/DR summary for those not willing to take the time?

 

[gdawg]

Ok probably not the most practical choice for most purposes, but I bet that guy was happy to have the 500 when he was 1.4m from a hungry polar bear.

 

[tactical lever]

Thanks for reposting this. I had read it when it was released (start to finish), but it's great material and deserves to be recirculated.

Do you have a TL/DR summary for those not willing to take the time?

I read this a long time ago myself.

I suppose it would come as some surprise to quite a few, as to how many bears were driven off (or killed) with small guns.

We've all heard the old saw on how big bear's heads are bullet proof to anything but big bore revolvers. Was a ridiculous claim and nice to see it debunked. Though bigger guns do have a greater comfort level.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Thanks for reposting this. I had read it when it was released (start to finish), but it's great material and deserves to be recirculated.

Do you have a TL/DR summary for those not willing to take the time?

Damn near anything works. There are loads of cases of people successfully stopping a bear attack with a 9mm handgun. FMJ is better than a high performance JHP because it penetrates better.

The thing most people don't seem to understand is that a firearm does not need to kill the bear to stop/prevent the attack. All a firearm has to do is convince the bear that you are not worth attacking. A loud noise and a bit of pain seems to be all that is required.

 

[Painkillers]

I wonder what the stats are on bear spray? If guns are 98% effective {there's a story in the 2% ineffective}, then what percentage has spray been effectively deployed, and when ineffective...what happened?

 

[tactical lever]

I wonder what the stats are on bear spray? If guns are 98% effective {there's a story in the 2% ineffective}, then what percentage has spray been effectively deployed, and when ineffective...what happened?

I don't think I've seen stats on it, but as with guns there's a few variables.

Wind direction/speed, determination and intent of bear, distance when deployed, coverage...

Heard of a bunch of instances when it failed. A member here, used a can on a small black bear, but it continued to stalk him until he finally shot it.

 

[alpining]

I wonder what the stats are on bear spray? ...

There are stats, and there are stats. Getting good data is a real problem for this question. What - exactly - does it mean to say that "bear spray was deployed, and it worked"?

Scenario: Hiker stumbles upon a bear standing 15yds away. Hiker panics and immediately sprays. Bear doesn't care one way or the other, but it leaves, because that's what it was always going to do. Scenario gets reported as "successful use of bear spray".

Does the person collecting the report even ask about the distance? If they did, do they trust the hiker to make an accurate estimate of the distance?

You have to look more closely at each individual case. That takes researcher time, and time costs money. Most of the "bear spray effectiveness" studies I've seen seem like they started out with an anti gun agenda. No surprise then, that they don't go into details that don't support the agenda.

 

[Painkillers]

There are stats, and there are stats. Getting good data is a real problem for this question. What - exactly - does it mean to say that "bear spray was deployed, and it worked"?

Scenario: Hiker stumbles upon a bear standing 15yds away. Hiker panics and immediately sprays. Bear doesn't care one way or the other, but it leaves, because that's what it was always going to do. Scenario gets reported as "successful use of bear spray".

Does the person collecting the report even ask about the distance? If they did, do they trust the hiker to make an accurate estimate of the distance?

You have to look more closely at each individual case. That takes researcher time, and time costs money. Most of the "bear spray effectiveness" studies I've seen seem like they started out with an anti gun agenda. No surprise then, that they don't go into details that don't support the agenda.

All true. However, understanding that a) most bears take off at a near full pace run at the sight of a person. b) bear mace only has about a 30 foot reach, then we could deduce that the bear at question was likely roughly within 30 feet and not retreating when the mace was deployed. So, abnormal behaviour for a bear = possible threat.

Same holds true for street bums btw.

 

[alpining]

Haha! Very true.

But I have to say that all of the bear sprays I've actually sprayed don't reach out to 30', even in ideal conditions. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but it might be important for some.

 

[geologist]

Most sprays have a 12' effective range in still air.

If you're going to carry it, you have to buy extra cans to train with. There are inert practice sprays for this.

 

[alpining]

...If you're going to carry it, you have to buy extra cans to train with. There are inert practice sprays for this.

Couldn't agree more - I'd wager that a large majority of people who carry them treat them like some kind of magic talisman that wards off bad luck. Also, check your bear spray expiry dates, people!

(and also, unfortunately, I'd wager that most people who carry firearms for the same purpose are guilty of the same lack of realistic practice).

 

[Grain]

... Also, check your bear spray expiry dates, people!...

I tried out a can that had passed its best before date, didn't work at all. Had either lost its propellant or more likely had gummed up internally and was permanently sealed off.

 

[tactical lever]

I tried out a can that had passed its best before date, didn't work at all. Had either lost its propellant or more likely had gummed up internally and was permanently sealed off.

These cans should have some kind of a pressure indicator. Could be a dial or little spring loaded flag that disappears once internal pressure isn't high enough to overcome the spring.

A very distant second best option, at least to me. Those little seals get gremlins.

Just yesterday I grabbed a pocket torch to do a little solder, and found the fuel source low. Then grabbed the butane refillerizer and nothin there either!

 

[alpining]

I tried out a can that had passed its best before date, didn't work at all. Had either lost its propellant or more likely had gummed up internally and was permanently sealed off.

Yeah, it makes you wonder if it might have stopped working sometime before the expiry date... Or if it ever worked... The trigger mechanism doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

As tactical lever says, if you have a well-practiced firearm option, bear spray is a very distant second best. There is no way to test any individual can of spray to make sure it's working. That's just one of several serious compromises.

That said, I'm glad bear spray exists, and I still carry it when it makes sense for the particular situation.

 

[alpining]

Just stumbled across Lucky Gunner's summary of the article in the original post:

 

[CeeZer]

.44 Mag or .454 Casull revolver are min I'd go out with against a Grizzly Pooh.

 

[geologist]

They used to be affected by cold temperatures too.

In Astana Kazakstan in 1996, I had a large German Shepherd acting aggressively towards me on my walk to the office.

It was winter and around -30C.

He charged me and I sprayed him in the face at 12' and he ran away.

When I got to my office I took the can out if my parka pocket and put it on my desk. The handle assembly snapped right off.

 

[polkey]

I remember the Buffalo Bore customer testimonial on their website for the 147gr hard cast +p 9mm on a grizzly in Alaska, with a 3.5" S&W 3954 no less.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=388