True and I have a tricked out 1895GS myself but in polar bear habitat I prefer the more easily degreased and more reliable feeding/extraction of a Mauser bolt action rifle.
Polar Bear Cartridge
- Thread starter thepolinator
- Start date
True and I have a tricked out 1895GS myself but in polar bear habitat I prefer the more easily degreased and more reliable feeding/extraction of a Mauser bolt action rifle.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I'm all in favor of ATCs being issued to anyone who wants them, but I don't know if a handgun would be on the list of firearms I would recommend for a recoil (and presumably blast) sensitive novice to use as a life saving tool in an adrenalin charged dangerous bear encounter. If she was a handgunner in her private life and could manage a .357 or larger revolver, then have at it, but out on the tundra is not the place to learn pistol marksmanship IMHO. Having said that, the gun you have with you, is better than the one back in your tent because you haven't seen as much as a bear track in the two weeks you've been in camp, and the damn shotgun's too heavy with everything else there is to do, so a handgun does have it's place. If she was interested, a M-19/66 carries easily and isn't usually a problem to manage for adults with small hands.
CreamySmooth
CGN frequent flyer
I'm going to vote in on the .338 Fed in a Montana as previously mentioned. It just hits hard, carried light and runs all day long.
I was up in Nunavut for years. The Inuit i knew that hinted used .223 or .303. BUT there is a huge difference when you're the hunter on a fast snowmobile or defensive use. 200 grain .338's cause massive damage under 100, and the elk and black bear I shot with it have made it my bush country gun.
I was up in Nunavut for years. The Inuit i knew that hinted used .223 or .303. BUT there is a huge difference when you're the hunter on a fast snowmobile or defensive use. 200 grain .338's cause massive damage under 100, and the elk and black bear I shot with it have made it my bush country gun.
I don't have first hand experience on charging bears however enough gun to kill a bear vs stop a charging bear is two different things.
Lots of good advice here but if it was me I will seriously looking at any reliable short barrel 12 gauge shot gun with ghost ring sight ( can get as short as 8.5" if its a pump ) or 18.5 for a semi with a butt stock NOT pistol grip.
You can have the Vang Comp system if recoil sensitive or get a gas semi (reason I didn't mention inertia is gun might not cycle if not shoulder properly and more sensitive to additional weight) however, I would be careful on the reliability on cold weather and you might have to use some quality lubricant for extreme weather.
I would also load slugs for the first round or two and buckshots to capacity just for safe precaution.
Lots of good advice here but if it was me I will seriously looking at any reliable short barrel 12 gauge shot gun with ghost ring sight ( can get as short as 8.5" if its a pump ) or 18.5 for a semi with a butt stock NOT pistol grip.
You can have the Vang Comp system if recoil sensitive or get a gas semi (reason I didn't mention inertia is gun might not cycle if not shoulder properly and more sensitive to additional weight) however, I would be careful on the reliability on cold weather and you might have to use some quality lubricant for extreme weather.
I would also load slugs for the first round or two and buckshots to capacity just for safe precaution.
Just finished reading the thread; more out of a desire to learn than intending to offer advice. I spent one winter in the artic but no real experience with the big white bears and will leave that to those with experience. If faced with this decision, I would consider trying to go along in any support role possible. If that wasn't possible, I would have to be comfortable with the protection that is provided before I would say OK to the job. Some things in life are not worth the risk.
- Location
- South Shore, Nova Scotia
It's pretty dated, I guess, but this 1980's Alaskan Forest Service study makes for some interesting reading. It's probably been posted on here before, but it was my first time reading it.
Clearly, some of you folks here know your stuff...interesting bear thread indeed.
I don't know a heckuva lot about calibres much larger than 30 - the study mentions a round called a .460 Weatherby Magnum, is that powerful? ;-)
Lol...of course the recoil might send her back south. Recoil is addressed in the study as well. First place for overall destructiveness went to something called a .458 Winchester Magnum.
And, of course, there is more to the equation than just the ammo: firearm weight, manageability, portability etc.
All in all, what I got out of it was, handguns, even the .44 mag, are not particularly effective, 12 gauge with slugs are good, but buckshot is not, and once the bear is down, keep shooting!
At any rate, I agree with those that have said it should be the least of her worries, attacks being so rare and all...plus having a guard as well.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf
Clearly, some of you folks here know your stuff...interesting bear thread indeed.
I don't know a heckuva lot about calibres much larger than 30 - the study mentions a round called a .460 Weatherby Magnum, is that powerful? ;-)
Lol...of course the recoil might send her back south. Recoil is addressed in the study as well. First place for overall destructiveness went to something called a .458 Winchester Magnum.
And, of course, there is more to the equation than just the ammo: firearm weight, manageability, portability etc.
All in all, what I got out of it was, handguns, even the .44 mag, are not particularly effective, 12 gauge with slugs are good, but buckshot is not, and once the bear is down, keep shooting!
At any rate, I agree with those that have said it should be the least of her worries, attacks being so rare and all...plus having a guard as well.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I cringe a little bit with that early 1980s comparison. No Brennekes tested at all. Hardly any premium bullets such as the Nosler Partition or Corbon Penetrators. Niether is there any hard cast WFN ammunition for the 44 Magnum or the 45-70 cartridges evaluated.
All in all, an extremely dated list IMO.
All in all, an extremely dated list IMO.
- Location
- Yellowknife, NT
I'll admit I only read the first page of this thread. However, I just returned from a month in Resolute Bay, Nunavut and was witness to polar bear hunts and a whole lot of polar bear skins stretched out to dry in town. Hell, I even ate polar bear soup! The biggest I saw had a nose to tail length of 12.5 feet.
None of them were shot with anything bigger than 303 British, and a few were taken with a 308.
None of them were shot with anything bigger than 303 British, and a few were taken with a 308.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I think its dangerous to assume that the rifles and cartridges used successfully by the Inuit for subsistence hunting are then by definition suitable for close range self defense against one of the largest, and most successful predators on the planet. When it comes to cartridge selection for this sort of thing, the only thing better than big and slow IMHO, is big and fast. That advice of course must be tempered with the individual's own experience, competence, and tolerance to recoil.
- Location
- Yellowknife, NT
It's wrong to assume that that's what I had assumed. It certainly isn't what I suggested.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
????
While you might not have come right out and stated it, the inference seemed clear.
- Location
- Yellowknife, NT
I stated a fact based on recent personal experience. I didn't say that you should use either of those for close quarter combat against a polar bear. I wouldn't recommend doing so and I didn't say so in my earlier post.
Perhaps a dumb question ( nope, I didn't read all the pages either); are you sure she's recoil sensitive? As men we often are sure that the women in our world can't shoot big guns.
Women can be very hardy when it comes to recoil. My daughters eat up recoil like a 'Fat kid eating smarties'
The eldest is Grade 12, about 120-130 lbs ( don't dare ask, lol) and shoots all my sporter'd battle rifles with skill and scant regard for recoil. And a sporter'd K98 in 8 X 57 that weights about 6.5 lb's...lights up pretty good when you pull the trigger.
But my daughter likes to shoot; if your wife doesn't enjoy shooting, she will have little tolerance for recoil I'd guess.
Good luck
Women can be very hardy when it comes to recoil. My daughters eat up recoil like a 'Fat kid eating smarties'
The eldest is Grade 12, about 120-130 lbs ( don't dare ask, lol) and shoots all my sporter'd battle rifles with skill and scant regard for recoil. And a sporter'd K98 in 8 X 57 that weights about 6.5 lb's...lights up pretty good when you pull the trigger.
But my daughter likes to shoot; if your wife doesn't enjoy shooting, she will have little tolerance for recoil I'd guess.
Good luck
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Excellent point!
Those who are interested in shooting, be they male or female, if physically fit, can, within reason, dismiss recoil as unimportant. Recoil, again within reason, is an exhilarating part of shooting, unlike a sharp muzzle blast which many find intimidating without the use of hearing protection. The question then is, what are the parameters of reason?
The way the rifle is set up is more important than the cartridge in the chamber. The rifle must fit the shooter, it should be fitted with a quality recoil pad, and the scope if so equipped should not be mounted so far rearward as to hit the shooter, regardless of shooting position. The front swivel should not be close enough to the shooters hand to result in a cut, and the shape of the pistol grip and the bolt handle should be such that the knuckles of the shooting hand are not painfully wrapped. The shape of the stock should cause the rifle to move rearward in a straight line rather than climb and bang the comb into the shooter's cheek bone, and the comb should be of a height appropriate to bring the eye in line with the sights. Provided the rifle falls within these parameters, and weighs about 8 pounds, a normal person unhardened to recoil should be able to dismiss the effect of recoil up to the power of a hot loaded .30/06.
Once your rifle has hurts you, you have a mental hurdle to overcome, once you've mitigated the reason for that injury, be it slight or serious. As an example, I got cut with the scope on my .458 a while back. The mistake was my own, and I new the scope's ocular was too far behind the cocking piece, and sooner or later I'd make a snap shot or shoot from an awkward position which would position the scope closer than usual and I'd get tagged. Sure enough . . . It still requires great concentration on my part to shoot that rifle well, without a scope on it! Once I've shot it enough to get back to my comfort level, I'll scope it again.
Yes, Mike is right as often lol ...
where is the reason ...? lol
my wife had for a first rifle a .300 weatherby she never shot any shotgun or 22s before except bows and pistols and she had no issue will it be at the range or in hunting mood.
she killed her first black bear with it and it worked very well.
the stock was great and she was not and still not reading internet experts. of course she s handling now less calibers with even better results.
where is the reason ...? lol
my wife had for a first rifle a .300 weatherby she never shot any shotgun or 22s before except bows and pistols and she had no issue will it be at the range or in hunting mood.
she killed her first black bear with it and it worked very well.
the stock was great and she was not and still not reading internet experts. of course she s handling now less calibers with even better results.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
First centerfire rifle my wife shot was .375 H&H, and she handles it perfectly despite being 115lbs. Not everybody is the same though, however men often under estimate a woman's abilities.
Question??
Question for those who have shot or seen bears shot with them?? Do readily available 12ga slugs have adequate penetration for a breaking shoulders shot on a grizz/polar bear? It's topical for this thread and the very same question is being discussed at work where I am one of a few tasked with this. Was a few seconds from finding out last year and would really like to know from someone else's experience first please. Youtube shows limited penetration, but.....
Question for those who have shot or seen bears shot with them?? Do readily available 12ga slugs have adequate penetration for a breaking shoulders shot on a grizz/polar bear? It's topical for this thread and the very same question is being discussed at work where I am one of a few tasked with this. Was a few seconds from finding out last year and would really like to know from someone else's experience first please. Youtube shows limited penetration, but.....
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Foster slugs don't penetrate as well as Challengers or Brennekes, but the majority of people who carry shotguns for self defense here load them with foster slugs. In some circumstances that limited penetration can be an advantage, which is why Manitoba Conservation uses them here. The math is simple enough, if one isn't enough, continue shooting until it is. When I carry a shotgun, it's loaded with 600 gr Brennekes. If I was recommending a slug load with fosters, it would be the Federal 3", ounce and a quarter slug, but loaded in a light gun, or one with a steel top folder, these can be a handful.
Last edited:
