Bear rifle. Will 44 mag be enough?

Ardent said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have found the work outlined in Terminal Ballistics Research really helpful.. I have hunted coastal grizzly once, back when LEH hunting was still a thing. I took an 8'2" boar with a 338WinMag , Swift A Frame bullet. Bear was not charging and 1 shot did the trick at just over 100yds. I usually load 250gr Barnes original loads in my Win 71 if I am hunting deer/elk/moose in thick timber where grizzly are known to be around.

Later in the article you quoted the author observed:

"The use of core bonded bullets in the 348 deserves careful consideration as these tend to work best at impact velocities above 2400fps. Having said this,the flat point bullet designs used in 348 help(regain) terminal performance at lower impact velocities. The net result is that providing ranges are kept short and animals are of a relatively large or stout build,it is possible to obtain a mixture of good trauma (fast bleeding) and relatively deep penetration with core bonded bullets."

That sounds like large bear medicine to me. Breaking large bones in these situations always has seemed to be a good idea to me.I think big bullets break shoulders better than smaller bulletrs no matter how fast they are going. I have acquired some Swift A Frame, Woodleigh and NorthFork 348 bullets to try along these lines. I still feel more comfortable with my 348Win over a high velocity smaller caliber round.

I favor the lever action over my second choice ,a Remington 350 Magnum bolt action carbine, because of relative rapidity of fire I can get with the lever action. I can't work any of my bolt action that quickly. I sure some other folks can, but not me.

Cheers!
 
I 100 percent advocate velocity, especially in our times of excellent bullets.

Only time I don't like velocity is when it is in the high range and paired with very frangible bullets

Keep in mind when the 30-30 was introduced many of the 45/70 etc hunters where in awe of it's flat shooting abilities and small but fast bullets having the ability to drop animals fast

But to keep on point of this thread- yeah a 44 mag carbine will work, you probably never need to use it for that purpose though. And bear spray vs guns is a complete toss up. Nobody has been able to absolutely say one is better than the other. As I said early on- guns and spray are tolls in the toolbox.
 
For the cost of a lever gun these days you could get a ultralight rifle like those short kimbers. I would take a 308 win with a good bullet at close range over a pistol cartridge any day. In fact I have taken some decent sized black bears with the 308 and it was very devastating.

Draw backs are getting iron sights for a bolt action, many companies stopped making them. Then there is follow up shots, it is probably easier to shoot a lever quicker but I would imagine those Mauser actions in the Kimbers would be more reliable.

Just my opinion. Certainly not an expert.
 
In terms of fast follow up shots, I get why semi autos aren’t often chosen by people in extreme weather areas, though some semi autos these days are very reliable. That said, I never see pump actions recommended for some reason. One would think something like a rem 760 in a caliber like ‘06 would be a fast-handling and handy choice.
 
Learn to use a bolt gun. Use a cartridge that isn’t meant for self defence of the two legged kind in close quarters or was designed for a 6” barrel and you will be fine. Oh, and bear spray is a joke.
 
For the argument of spray vs gun. Guns can be reloaded. If you only have spray and empty the can on a bear. What do you do if and when it comes back?
How many spray carriers carry multiple cans?

Also does anyone know the population figures of grizzlies vs black bears in the provinces and territories that have both? I can't seem to find that info and I'm curious.
 
Claven2 said:
In terms of fast follow up shots, I get why semi autos aren’t often chosen by people in extreme weather areas, though some semi autos these days are very reliable. That said, I never see pump actions recommended for some reason. One would think something like a rem 760 in a caliber like ‘06 would be a fast-handling and handy choice.
Click to expand...

Can’t disagree. I found pumps high maintenance in sandy and wet conditions, but, in complexity they’re no different than a lever gun. A good bolt action is a much simpler and more reliable mechanism, but I like the symmetry and handling of levers. Like most things, I think we’re just fighting tradition and preconceived notions in the relative unpopularity of pumps. Same reason .45-70s are still thought of as fantastic bear stoppers.

pathfinder76 said:
Learn to use a bolt gun. Use a cartridge that isn’t meant for self defence of the two legged kind in close quarters or was designed for a 6” barrel and you will be fine.
Click to expand...

No argument there, agreed.

redneck09 said:
For the cost of a lever gun these days you could get a ultralight rifle like those short kimbers. I would take a 308 win with a good bullet at close range over a pistol cartridge any day. In fact I have taken some decent sized black bears with the 308 and it was very devastating.

Draw backs are getting iron sights for a bolt action, many companies stopped making them. Then there is follow up shots, it is probably easier to shoot a lever quicker but I would imagine those Mauser actions in the Kimbers would be more reliable.

Just my opinion. Certainly not an expert.
Click to expand...

People still think a hole smaller than your pinky is a big hole, what makes a big hole in game is the velocity. Handy bolt action carbines and in rifle chamberings definitely win.
 
big bear said:
I have found the work outlined in Terminal Ballistics Research really helpful.. I have hunted coastal grizzly once, back when LEH hunting was still a thing. I took an 8'2" boar with a 338WinMag , Swift A Frame bullet. Bear was not charging and 1 shot did the trick at just over 100yds. I usually load 250gr Barnes original loads in my Win 71 if I am hunting deer/elk/moose in thick timber where grizzly are known to be around.
Later in the article you quoted the author observed:
"The use of core bonded bullets in the 348 deserves careful consideration as these tend to work best at impact velocities above 2400fps. Having said this,the flat point bullet designs used in 348 help(regain) terminal performance at lower impact velocities. The net result is that providing ranges are kept short and animals are of a relatively large or stout build,it is possible to obtain a mixture of good trauma (fast bleeding) and relatively deep penetration with core bonded bullets."

That sounds like large bear medicine to me. Breaking large bones in these situations always has seemed to be a good idea to me.I think big bullets break shoulders better than smaller bulletrs no matter how fast they are going. I have acquired some Swift A Frame, Woodleigh and NorthFork 348 bullets to try along these lines. I still feel more comfortable with my 348Win over a high velocity smaller caliber round.
I favor the lever action over my second choice ,a Remington 350 Magnum bolt action carbine, because of relative rapidity of fire I can get with the lever action. I can't work any of my bolt action that quickly. I sure some other folks can, but not me.
Cheers!
Click to expand...

Just bought a Model 71, though mine will get .375’d if I love the gun as I hunt lead free. There is a nice .348 mono now from Hammer. And they certainly nailed a ballistic recipe when they developed the .348 to replace all the .40-65s, .45-70s and .45-90s, etc.

Gatehouse said:
I 100 percent advocate velocity, especially in our times of excellent bullets.

Only time I don't like velocity is when it is in the high range and paired with very frangible bullets

Keep in mind when the 30-30 was introduced many of the 45/70 etc hunters where in awe of it's flat shooting abilities and small but fast bullets having the ability to drop animals fast

But to keep on point of this thread- yeah a 44 mag carbine will work, you probably never need to use it for that purpose though. And bear spray vs guns is a complete toss up. Nobody has been able to absolutely say one is better than the other. As I said early on- guns and spray are tolls in the toolbox.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I do know people who are still alive because of bear spray so I would say it had its merits. I would expect someone who says otherwise would have some experience or real life example of where it has failed. I know of cases where both bear spray and guns have failed to save someone. I don’t expect my bear defence to have a 100% success rate. I just do my best.
 
Gatehouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you mentioned this (before you added more info) I tried looking it up, and found a discussion about it, but the link to the 1999 study was broken. Now that you've added more info I might be able to find the study, thanks.

Edit - only place I'm finding the article is JSTOR. You can read 100 articles a month with a free account, so I'll have a read this afternoon after I'm done with my wildfire training.
 
Claven2 said:
In terms of fast follow up shots, I get why semi autos aren’t often chosen by people in extreme weather areas, though some semi autos these days are very reliable. That said, I never see pump actions recommended for some reason. One would think something like a rem 760 in a caliber like ‘06 would be a fast-handling and handy choice.
Click to expand...

Pump actions (shotguns and rifles) are great for experienced shooters. Non experienced shooters can and will short stroke them and then pull the trigger. Nothing happens so the tendency is to reload again which causes a double feed. I’ve seen it literally hundreds of times.

I agree with you though- A rem 760 could be a great gun for someone that knows how to use a pump shotgun.
 
The big game Hunting blog just posted a YouTube video interviewing Phil Shoemaker. I’m only 25 minutes in, but at around 22 minutes this question is answered.
 
Had a cinnamon sow at a paced 7 yards the day before yesterday. The Kimber Montana in 270 WSM was somewhat of a comfort; but so was the thought that if it wanted to do something it would have already. That massive chocolate brown boar yesterday wasn’t quite as close, but the same rifle back in the boat wasn’t any comfort at all :( that was a lucky bear, the season is open and I have a couple tags. Might be the biggest brown I’ve seen . Right up there with any colour for that matter.
 
6MT said:
I had a conversation about bear defense last weekend with a retired conservation officer. My question was about a 12ga shotgun. I asked what would be the best defense for a bear. He told me that to stop a bear, you need to break bone. What he carried was a 12ga with slugs only. When I asked why no buck shot, he replied about the breaking bone thing. He said that buck shot has its place and is useful in bear defense, but if you want to stop a bear, he preferred slugs.

He also told me about a bear that killed a hiker in Alaska. Him and some police officers were hunting this bear. When they finally killed it and did the autopsy, they found many .45 caliber bullets in it. But the slug was what stopped it because it broke bone. He said a .44/.45 caliber won't break bone and is pretty useless unless you are pumping it full of them and get lucky. And when time matters, emptying a magazine won't solve a pressure situation. A 45-70, I never asked him about..
Click to expand...

Thats a load of baloney. There are LOADS of cases of successful defences against bears with handguns as small as 9mm. A successful defence against a bear doesn't mean you have to kill it. It just means you need to dissuade the bear from attacking you.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz6umzXjP71

By far the most important factor is having a firearm readily available and being able to effectively use that firearm. ie. You need to practice. A lightweight 45-70 will be no fun to practice with and it will be expensive to feed.

The really interesting thing about the following bear defence study is that handgun users (84%) were more successful than rifle/shotgun users (76%).

https://westernwildlife.org/wp-cont...laska-2012-Tom-Smith-Bear-spray-Deterrent.pdf

To me, the following is the crux of the argument. What you use (9mm and up) is WAY less important than being able to bring a gun to bear and put rounds on target. These endless discussions about which gun is the best are basically ridiculousness.

Firearm type received very little support, suggesting that efficacy of the firearm was unrelated to whether people used a handgun or long gun. Considering the high intensity, rapidly unfolding, close-quartered, and chaotic nature of bear attacks, these results are not surprising.
Click to expand...
 
I have a rifle I call "bear spray" it's built on a P14 with one of the canada ammo "gun smith special' barrels on it. It's 38" long and weights 8 pounds.

I never did use it on a bear and probably won't unless it's 5m away and not turning around, ideally I'll never use it

here are a pic of the dies that I use to load for it. 600gr barnes

52697075091_91735c5149_h.jpg
 
Evanguy said:
I have a rifle I call "bear spray" it's built on a P14 with one of the canada ammo "gun smith special' barrels on it. It's 38" long and weights 8 pounds.

I never did use it on a bear and probably won't unless it's 5m away and not turning around, ideally I'll never use it

here are a pic of the dies that I use to load for it. 600gr barnes

52697075091_91735c5149_h.jpg
Click to expand...

I sure wish now I had bought one of those barrels. I would love to have a 500 Jeffery in a precision rifle style. Chassis ect. I guess I will wait for the next election and see if Pierre will unban the 50BMG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom