Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Living with grizz and wolves.

Im going to buy my brother a handy rifle for around his cabin and the long walks with the dogs he takes along with wood gathering and such.

North Idaho/Montana/Canadian border.

Figured a sweet lil lever action would be nice. Not sure how big in caliber. Maybe a Shotgun? I always figured a Handy .338RCM and a scope with quick detatch rings might be fun. Pretty sure he's been stumblin around with a side arm and bear spray on his trips...

Anyways, thoughts?

Who makes a handy lever action in 45-70?

Marlin. I thought about the 450 marlin. Then again I thought maybe a 444Marlin thinking he'd shoot it more...

The .450 Marlin has been getting kinda hard to find brass (or ammo) for. If looking at a .444, the more versatile ones would have the 1/20 Ballard rifling, that would allow some real heavyweights, though the micro-groove 1/38 can work with some 300 grain hardcast bullets. The 265 grain Hornady and 270 Speer work good with the 1/38, and are excellent jacketed bullets for big game.

A Guide gun in .45-70 is something to look at, also. There are some mild factory loadings available, along with some pretty stout boutique offerings, and handloading that round makes for a bunch of possibilities.

Any of the 3 cartridges mentioned will have some amount of recoil with the heavier loadings.

Ruger Gunsite Scout stoked with 220 gr Corelocts or TSX's. No scope, just run the irons. It'll weigh 6# on the nose with an empty magazine. Handy as a pocket on a shirt.

I also would not be afraid to carry a Rossi 16in SS 92 lever in 357 with 180's.

Marlin has done special runs of 16in SS guns for Davidsons IIRC. It still weighed 7#. The GSR is lighter.

If you run across a Trapper lever in 44 or 45 Colt, that would be a fine choice. They're easier to shoot than heavy loaded 45-70 or similar, and, with hard-cast heavy bullets, you've got plenty of penetrating power. (And the mags also hold a handful of ammo versus about 4 in the 45-70/450.)

You're looking for something that he'll actually carry. After awhile, toting a rifle around gets tiresome. If the gizzlies and wolves were encountered that often, he'd be actively looking for something to deal with any problem. That said,

The problems come at halitosis distance and, frankly, rifles are a mite easier to use when you've got a bit of separation betwixt you and the target. So, go for a pistol. Now is where the suggestion is far different from everybody else's. Get a decent 1911A1 and kit it out in .450 Rowland. Then carry it cocked and locked. That's 9 rounds of .44 Mag equivalent in a package that is much easier for most folk to control than a revolver. Too, it is a bit sleeker to carry.

If he wants, as he should, to practice with it, he can get a .22LR conversion kit for cheap shooting, use the original ACP barrel for fun, and the bear medicine, all in one package.

RB

When a bear's coming in fast, the time between max handgun range and being eaten is a split second.

A 10mm Glock carries 16 rounds of 200gr FMJ ready to go. I think they're already making some inroads into the market for wilderness belt guns.

Among rifles, the guide guns are pretty popular in Alaska, where they oughta know.

I like handguns and have a few, but when I wander the backcountry, I most likely have a rifle of some flavor. anything from an AR with 62 gr. TSXs to a .375 RUM, depending on the anticipated threat level and my mood when I gather my gear.

but, it's all about what makes your bro feel comfortable in the woods. a stainless Rossi/Puma in .454 Casull can be had for ~$600-$650. or on the other end of the scale, I'd consider a Bighorn Armory model 89 in .500 S&W.

Rossi 92 on GB



Bighorn Armory

I'm thinking that I'd rather be throwing a load of 00 buck and mix in a slug in a stainless pump 12 ga than depend on a pistol caliber to save my life. To me it is much easier to hit something with a shotgun than a pistol every time.

With this gun you carry a few rounds of bird shot and you can fetch dinner from your walk now and then too. If it shoots slugs well you have a short range deer, moose, caribou gun as well.


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=545222923

Carrying a gun all the time, for everything can get pretty old. How about bear spray? Easier to hit with it than with a handgun or rifle if the bear is charging. You don't have to fight a legal battle when you use it, either.

I'd think that the firearm is in addition to bear spray.

I went to Bighorn Armory's site and looked at their offerings. They sure make a nice-looking rifle, but after buying one, I couldn't afford the boots to walk in.....


I'd love one of those rifles in .454 Casull.

I'm a bolt gun guy, but I think a stainless Rossi 92 with a 16" barrel in 45 Colt would be handy and easy to carry at 4.8 lbs. Holds 8 in the tube. 20" version is right at 5 lbs and holds 10 in the tube.

I shoot one in .357 and it's a lot of fun.

This is a fact. Montana thinks it knows how to handle bears with bear spray. Go to Alaska where they really have Griz and they are all trained with firearms and carry them. Best thing is to shoot the bear then spray him so it looks like you tried to play fair...

Not exactly.

A lot of people think a firearm is far more effective than spray, but on average spray works as well, and often better. One of the classic Montana examples occurred a few years ago, when a couple of bowhunters bumped into a sow grizzly with cubs, and sow showed signs of aggression. One of the bowhunters had a .45 semiauto and started shooting, wounding the sow, which charged, knock him down and started chewing. The other bowhunter had a spray bottle and chased the sow off with it.

Hunters like to cite instances where spray doesn't work, but statistically it works around 90% of the time. I know several people that have used it here and it worked in every one of those instances.

I've also been to Alaska a lot, and many guides (especially when fishing) carry both spray and a firearm, and often only the spray. Some also issue a spray bottle to each fishing client, just in case.

Yes, a firearm will work, but only if you hit a seriously charging bear in exactly the right place. Not many handgunners can do that, despite what most think, especially on a charging bear. A shotgun will also work, but only with tough slugs; most buckshot and slug loads don't penetrate enough. A rifle is usually most effective, but spray doesn't demand the precision of a well-placed shot.

I wish I agreed with this... but after using spray twice and seeing it fail twice I have faith in it only for young dumb bears (the most common problem, granted) that are not really aggressive. Serious bears need something a lot more lethal.

The claims of success need to be checked pretty carefully as people often let fly on bears in situations where the bear was never going to do anything anyway. There have been many successful spray reports on bears 40 yards and more away...

Fortunately, here we say "I was afraid" and there is no way you will have to make any other excuse for shooting a bear. But the playing fair aspect is something to keep in mind.

Art,

The successes I KNOW of with spray have not been only on young, duymb bears, by any means. And I know at least one very experienced brown bear outfitter who trusts spray enough to always have it on hand.

I know this about him partly because I was standing next to him one day when a dumb-ass tourist woman chased a big sow down a river, trying to get a close-up with a point-and-shoot camera. The sow came out of the brush at most 10 yards away. My friend had a revolver in his left hand but the spray in his right (dominant) hand, pointed at the bear--and that friend has killed several charging browns with a rifle. Luckily, the bear chose not to come.

Also have a friend here in Montana who spray-stopped two big, mature bears in their tracks when they were within a few feet.

One of the problems with this subject (which has been beaten to death several times before on the Campfire) is that most people don't have any experience with spray, or cite an instance or two where it didn't work. There have been plenty of studies of numerous "bear indicents" done by people who were not anti-hunters indicating somebody using bear spray is at least as safe, and probably more so, than somebody depending solely on a firearm.

Anybody who's been around bears much can cite instances where spray didn't work and bullets did. But I tend to play the odds, whether hunting in grizzly country or buckling seat-belts. Yes, there have been instances where seat-belts severely injured people, or even kept them inside burning vehicles. But the odds are much better when buckled up.

In my experience, the most likely situations where bear confrontations occur make projectiles a better choice anyway. The ideal scenario with bears is to maintain some distance....more than spray can reach.

You can often maintain some distance by "intruding in their space" with something repulsive to them by sight, sound, touch, or smell, and that means you don't want to be close enough for spray to work. Or, if you surprise them, you better have your weapon of choice in your hand and ready. In that situation, I don't want a non-lethal means in my strong hand, and would prefer to have both hands on a lethal means of defense. (But this is the scenario that seems to be most commonly pictured in spite of being least likely for those with much experience and awareness.)

And if the fellow has dogs, he would be well served in knowing his dogs well when bears are around. Different dogs behave quite differently around bears. Some are inclined to sound off and act aggressively. Some turn tail and return, (perhaps with an angry animal in tow). Others do a 'middle ground' kind of thing and neither antagonize nor scare the bear off; kind of 'point' the animal. (I had a husky/lab/shepard mix that did the latter; great bear dog - fearless, but you had to pay attention. And he 'pointed' many bears, some which we never saw.)

It has always been maintained by the sprayers that it is paramount that you have to make a killing shot with a firearm and little regard to the same accuracy with spray. I carry both when elk hunting with a bow.

Be sure whichever you are going to rely on, you had better be able to deploy it and use it effectively in a split second or you are just hours away from becoming bear poop...

Phil has made his points about spray and I would certainly never question any aspect of his bear credibility. But if bear spray was perfect why did he even have a gun in his hand?

I play odds as well and buckle my seat belt... but there is no way I would carry spray alone.

I defy most people to do anything but wound a charging bear with a handgun. Unless you are a very good quick-draw type, you are much better off with the spray.

Many failures are due to not using spray properly, or having some that is expired. If it is more than three years old, then go buy some new stuff. Old pepper spray will only serve to flavor you a little bit while he is eating you.

Many encounters happen so fast that a heavy hand gun could not even clear the holster.

Sorry my post ended up in the middle of mule deer's post above. Bear spray works well except when using it into the wind. Then the blowback will incapacitate you,and it only takes a little bit.I have knocked myself down with the faintest of breezes. I have shot several large black bears that were in foot snares in the face with a 12gauge using bbs and 4 buck. It makes their head into a jigsaw puzzle at 10 to 15 steps.very effective. Only 5 out of 100 people are capable of killing a charging bear with a handgun, and I bet only1 out of 10 could do it with a rifle. So carry spray and use it if the wind is right,or use a shotgun. Theses bear attacks happen very quickly and the bears speed is incredible.

And a can of spray is going to be drawn and used faster than a handgun? How long does it take to calculate wind while drawing?

I have seen more than a few bear charges in person...

Savage 99 in 358 Winchester.

Steve

I've been sprayed, thus I know what it does to me. Knowing that, I don't carry the stuff because if I get tagged with it I'm fugged. Never sprayed a bear, or had reason to shoot one in self defense yet. But been close enough. For me it's 180 hard cast in my 586, with the same in a Marlin, or warm hard 240s in my 629 or Marlin.

Apparently some people think because I'm saying spray usually works that I'm also saying there's no need for a firearm. I did NOT say that, and never have. But do think most people would be able to draw the spray and have a better chance of stopped a bear within spray-range than with a handgun. That's what the statistics indicate, partly because the spray doesn't need to be as precisely applied as a bullet.

There are also quite a few places where you can carry spray but not a firearm.

People who make their living helping others harvest Alaska's natural resources often benefit from not having to skin untagged critters and not doing unnecessary paperwork..... something about scrutiny perhaps.

maybe he's just looking for a way to NOT kill the bear, instead of looking for a reason TO kill the bear.

A great deal of the trouble with these queries is that many people seem to have the idea that bears just magically appear and want to charge people. Nothing could be further from the truth; contact with bears is quite easily avoided. And I say that in spite of sometimes seeing dozens of them in a day. But sneaking up on them, or rubbing elbows with them in the same stretch of river.....you can't blame the animal for reacting, and you had better be ready....and giving some room is never a bad way to do that.

I don't relish the idea of hoping some chemical that can as easily disable me as, perhaps, the bear, will be an effective deterrent on an angry, scared apex predator that is intent on impressing its footprints upon me. I also don't hold great confidence in any firearm preventing or ending such a thing, but it might buy a bit of time.

But the whole issue seems almost moot considering that a person who isn't blind and/or deaf has a lot of control over their proximity to bears most of the time. And I wouldn't have a dog around that didn't improve my odds in proximity to a bear.

sbhooper,



I feel sorry for you. I am 5'7" tall and weigh about 155 pounds. At seventy-one years old I do not find "Carrying a gun all the time, for everything can get pretty old," getting old at all. Two things here. I enjoy guns and realize 99% of the time big bad animals will run away. If one decides to bite, I want to bite back with a little more authority.

Chuck, I think your brother would welcome the "opportunity" for an attack on his person.

20" barreled 06 shooting 220 Partitions.

I carry both sprays...bear spray and lead spray 44 mag out of my Rossi 92

Marlin Guide Gun, 45-70...

Here's my best friend's, all the bells and whistles. Set up to perfection:

Klik,

One of the problems with this thread is that grizzlies live in many kinds of habitat. The OP specifically asked about bears in "North Idaho/Montana/Canadian border" country.

That can vary some, but in general the bears are found in thicker country than in much of Alaska, and aren't found along rivers nearly as consistently. They can appear nearby at any time, and while a full-out charge with no warning obviously isn't common, avoinding bearsbears that can be almost anywhere in thicker woods isn't as easy as it can be in parts of Alaska.

There are places here where you can spot grizzlies a long way off, but there's also a lot of country where all of a sudden they're right there, very close. It's happened to me a number of times, both when I've been hunting and when I've been in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks--where you can carry legal firearms, both openly and concealed, but not discharge them. The law was changed in 2010 to allow carrying firearms to ease transport through the parks, not to allow people to carry firearms as protection from bears. Which is why the parks urge people who plan to hike to carry spray.

That is why in my 25+ years of living in kalispell,MT. that I have never set foot in Glacier National Park They want you to only carry spray, NOT!!

Good point and I'd add that the spray will probably have it's desired effect quicker than a bullet unless you are lucky/skilled/well equipped enough to hit the bear in the brain or spine. Many if not most of us have seen even a deer cover a lot of ground after taking an ultimately fatal hit from a bullet, an angry bear full of adrenaline can be much harder and slower to stop with a bullet. In my experience which is less than some more than others, most bears will run from and want to avoid humans, but it only takes one who has other intentions to ruin your day, and you can stumble onto them when you least expect it.

spec - I am NOT dissen on you.

Fellows I have ZERO experience hunting bears. However have wanted to hunt them a long time. I have a few books on bear & hunting them.

That said, I've done a lot of reading about bears & bear hunting.

I don't think I've ever read 00 buckshot recommended for use on bears. Now SLUGS are a diff story.

Y'all correct me if I'm wrong.


Jerry

Common thing here is for some to alternate buckshot with slugs... "get 'em in the face an' eyes with the first shot an' kill 'em with the second!"

I consider it idiocy...

Common thing here is for some to alternate buckshot with slugs... "get 'em in the face an' eyes with the first shot an' kill 'em with the second!"

I consider it idiocy...

N Idaho montana canadian borders are heavily forested. Moose,deer,elk,blackbears too. His cabin is deep into this population of grizz and wolves.. Each trip into his place if they don't see them the scat and sigh is there. Usually darn fresh.

SU35, he's getting old and feeble! Least thats what I like to tell him. Suggestion noted..

Shag,

Yeah, that part of the world is interesting country, not as wild as most of Alaska but because of the dense forests it can hold a lot of wilderness animals close to towns and cities. Back when I was in college it was common to run into grizzlies when pheasant hunting some of the thick cover north of Missoula. I did once, but the bear went the other way. Another guy got mauled by a grizzly in the same area a couple years later. He shot the charging bear in the face at very short range with a load of 6's, and the fish & game guys had to follow it up and finish it off. As I recall, it was a sow with cubs.

But the same sort of thing is starting to happen even out on the plains quite a ways from the mountains. Maybe 2-3 years ago somebody jumped a couple of grizzlies from a draw near the Missouri River, over 100 miles from the nearest mountains.

NW MT is a jungle. Sitka Deer is incorrect that bears don't just appear. They do in NW MT. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Something else to consider, is that if you spray lead around and wound a bear, you just endangered all the wardens and rescue people coming to your aid.

As far as bears coming out of nowhere, there was a hunter in the area where I hunt elk that surprised a sleeping griz. The bear ran over him and bit him on the way by. He was lucky and got a good story.

That's their native country. Lewis & Clark found them on the plains.

MD, Good point on the varied habitat factor. Even knowing their patterns locally takes time. When they are on the beaches, the rivers, the tundra, at denning time....all are patterns which are affected by important factors. And then there's things like how habituated they are to people. And never-ending breezes in some places too.

One of the things that places bear spray low on my priority list with our bears is the fact that the air is rarely not moving significantly, and it's a pretty rare animal that will be in the cone of favorable 'possibility' (where the animal is more likely to get deterred than the spray-bearer is.) Either we just smell way worse than most people, or the bears hereabout have never quite adapted to human stench, but they sure get busy when they get downwind.

They are pretty easy to see out here on the prairie --- plus we usually get the junior sized Griz. However, Griz being in the neighborhood has caused me to carry a heavy pistol at times when working cows.

I see Counter Assault spray advertised on TV quite often; but it's only the odd day that we don't have wind -- and plenty of it.

Please show me where I said bears don't just appear... I have hunted Kodiak brown bears and interior grizzlies for time that equals many, many months. I have watched thousands of bears over the years. I have fished around them and done lots of other things. I have also skinned more than a few of them.

But, that said, the opportunity to surprise a bear can be greatly reduced by paying attention. If the bear you are walking into cannot smell you due to the wind you need to make enough noise to ensure he hears you. Avoid the brush along the creeks where the bears are likely to be napping, basic stuff, but you have to stay aware.

To suggest a Kodiak alder thicket is not as dense as any other, anywhere, is to prove you have never been in one. Glassing at distance it is amazing how often a bear will simply appear on the hillside and vanish at any time.

alder thickets can rival the thickest South Texas stuff I've seen...

I'd rank it right up at the top for nightmare thick... and I've seen a few examples of such across the US, including AK thickets..

Probably the biggest difference between grizzlies around here and in Alaska is they're not hunted here. This can result in bears that are "habituated" to humans--though not always. Biologists trapped a huge grizzly on the Rocky Mountain Front during spring maybe 10 years ago that they'd never trapped before, and apparently had never caused any problems with numerous ranches in the foothills. They aged the bear at over 25 years, and it bottomed out an 800-pound scale in the spring, fresh out of the den.

But others have become much less wary of humans. Montana lost it's grizzly season in the early 1990's, and by then it was down to only two weeks in the fall anyway. Idaho's season had disappeared even earlier. There was a relatively quick change in attitude among some bears, especially younger males, and while many will still run from any scent or sound of a human, others are much less wary. They're not exactly like park bears, but not like hunted bears either.

Some rancher friends along the Front had a big male start eating sheep and cattle a few years ago, and after a relocation attempt failed the game department cured the problem with what my friend called "Weatherby injection." Luckily the bear had been radio collared during the relocation, so was easy to find.

Since the population has increased considerably over the past 25 years, there are quite a few bears moving into more open country, partly because they're not very nervous about humans anymore.

The Feds recently proposed opening hunting seasons around Yellowstone in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming because of the increase in that bear population, but didn't make any such proposal about the Glacier/Front/northern Idaho population, which includes the bears showing up on the prairie and those living in pheasant cover on the other side of the continental divide. It will be interesting to see what happens, but no doubt lawsuits from various groups will keep any season from happening for several years.

Spot on. Keeping wild animals wild, and honest, is better for people and critters.

During Antelope season in SW Montana a few years ago I came across the fairly fresh carcass of a cow out in open sagebrush, well away from timber. I had a black bear tag so a few days later I approached the carcass from downwind peaking over a nearby ridge, hoping to get a chance at a black bear but knowing a grizzly could be on it. Sure enough a big grizzly was on the carcass so I ducked back behind the skyline and reversed course. I'm glad I knew of the carcass by this point and didn't pass by unawares while the grizzly was there. I would have never expected to encounter a grizzly at this location well after daybreak. You never know where or when you may see them and the population in Montana has rebounded quite successfully from when I was a teenager there in the 70's. Seeing a grizzly in this area during that time period would have been possible but highly unlikely even in the most remote corners.

Whatcha goin' to do with that little dude, shoot him, or spray him? (His back is almost sticking up into the water, just a bit right of center.)



Where's Ma?

Just like when a goat kid gets separated from it's nanny. You can go handle the young one a little and when it makes some noise momma will be along directly....

Given enough notice, spray in left hand pistol in right. Although many times I slip through the forest with spray in hand, safety off. You can bump up a sleeping or nursing bear within 20 feet and that distance will be closed before the hand reaches the holster. I walked up on a nursing bear in heavy timber, within 30 yards, and saw her with binoculars before I was on top of her. She was on her back with eyes closed nursing 2 cubs. When she winded me she jumped up, cubs flying, and hightailed the other direction. If I had been any closer, within sight, I would have been in deep doo doo. Others can do what they want, I pack spray and a pistol for backup.

I give my girlfriend the pepper spray and I carry a Glock 10MM.
I gave her instructions to spray the bear and if that doesnt work run behind me and I will use the Glock.

If you have seen a griz in the wild you would realize the Glock is a desperate last attempt before getting ate.

We never did see Mama. That little bugger was spotted as my son and I were lugging a tub full of salmon up the rocky 'beach' toward the fish rack...and that cub. We were 200 yards from the nearest weapon (which we yelled for...and another son brought the 45-70......and a handful of 480 ammo). And that's how....




This revolver earned the freckles as it resided full-time and under the eaves on the smoke house last summer.

Not seeing the she-bear was more disconcerting than having her huffing and puffing about. A couple boys placed on the roof of the fish rack provided regular play-by-play on the activity on the nearby stretch of beach.

lol...I can imagine it was a bit tense.

Vic_in_VA
If you want to use the 454 Casull look for a Rossi in the Win. 92 clone and you will still have enough for your shoes. You can also shoot the
45 Colt for practice . Cheers NC

I saw those, and if I were to consider a Casull, the 92 clone would probably be it. As it is, I have a very serviceable Guide gun.

The Bighorn Armory rifle, with the half mag, is just what appeals to my sense of aesthetics, much in the way a Winchester M71 or M64 do.

That price is a little more than I want to spent on something that "just catches my eye".

I recently kept an eye on a rifle at a local store, a Winchester Extra-Light .45-70 that was just begging me to take it home, but I resisted long enough for them to sell it to someone else. Man, that was a pretty rifle!

FWIW, if you're cranking something reasonably hard cast through a lever gun, you don't need chamber-stretching pressures to push bullets fast enough to poke deep holes in furry critters. I keep a little Win M94 Trapper carbine handy, 45 Colt. It holds 7-8 rounds of 320 grain cast bullets which leave the barrel at around 1550 fps. I've run that bullet through 30" of bear at under 50 yards, but the same bullet has also zipped through and gone, a large bull caribou at over 150 yards, punching through antler shovel, left shoulder, across body and out right hip. I like the 45-70, and it does have more impressive recoil, but it really doesn't do enough 'more' to make a 44 Mag or 45 (strong) Colt carbine an ineffective choice.

As I understand it, no more than about 1700 or so fps is what one needs with a hardcast bullet if maximum penetration is what is wanted.

Though I don't have nearly the bear threat you do, I simply like to hunt with the big bores, and have found the LBT-type bullets to be very effective.

I use them in .44 mag rifle and pistol, and the .45-70 on occasion. Pistol velocities are 1200 to 1300 fps with the Beartooth Bullets 300 grain LCMN GC, depending on which pistol, and the .45-70's velocity is 1650 fps with a Beartooth Piledriver Jr. My .44 mag rifle is going about 1590 fps with a 300 grain WFN.

I've run the .45-70 up to 1800 fps with the PJjr, but according to my not-so-scientific tests, all that I got was kicked harder.

For hunting locally, I've kinda gravitated towards the Speer Unicor in my .45-70, and at 1710 fps, it's much kinder to the shoulder. This has me considering Beartooth's 350 grain Piledriver lite.

Repeated for truth. Pay attention. This theory is ignorant.

People that think drawing a can of bear spray is quicker than drawing a gun have never drawn a can of bear spray, taken the clip off, making sure which direction you are going to spray and then go for it. I can and have drawn a gun much faster and don't have to worry about the wind.

Klik, agree most people have no idea how much more substantial a 44 mag or 45 Colt is through a rifle than a handgun. I've got both but my preference is still my 45-70. I use the Buffalo Bore ammo and have a lot of confidence in it. This is what I carry
45-70 Magnum - Lever Gun Ammo - 430 gr. L.B.T.-L.F.N.(1,925fps/M.E.3,537 ft.lbs.)

Where are you located Larry?

East of Cut Bank?

NE of Great Falls. Those 2 Griz in the pix were about 3 1/2 miles South of my place. The camera is facing South (Missouri River breaks / Highwood Mtns). The day before they had been 5 miles North of my place.

I'm familiar with Tarkio, if that is where you're from.

Not from Tarkio. I am over in the Yellowstone Valley east of Billings. Screen name is from my first dog I ever had.

I travel your area though and do some work there in the Highwoods as well as Dupuyer, Ft Shaw, Valier, Augusta etc.

I thought the butte to the left of your picture might have been the sweetgrass hills.

It's Square Butte. You work in some nice little communities. I have a friend North of Conrad who has been talking about a great restaurant in Dupuyer (of all places). There is an excellent restaurant/bar in Highwood, also. Lots of memories.

All my work is done out on ranches near these communities.

I was just in the Highwoods a couple weeks ago up by Lost Lake. Ever been there? Quite the sight.

I don't live around grizzly but have a few wolves and black bear around. Nothing works quite like a properly loaded 870 12ga. Never needed it but it swings rather well with a 20" barrel. You can pick up good used police magnums for under $200 if you know the right shop. I can't imagine a bear or wolf not taking notice of some one plus ounce solid copper slugs or buckshot. You could even cast and load your own. I've seen casting dies for 12 ga slugs and bet a hard cast slug with Linotype would leave a mark.

Yes, I have. We've taken the short walk from the gravel road to the Lake overlook --- impressive.

You should look at the lake from below.

When you're driving in to the ranch below the lake and surrounding cliffs, you don't see it until you are halfway past it. It is pretty amazing from that perspective.

Heavy caliber double-action revolver. Keeps yer arms free to do other stuff. I don't have griz around, only black bear, moose, and wolves, so I get away with a .357 mag in a Ruger SP 101. I carry nearly every day.

Bill

This is my most commonly carried walk-around rifle in SC and Interior Alaska. It was my Dad's '94 in .30-30, made in 1927. 48 years in Alaska, and I have yet to have to shoot an incoming bear, tho there have been a few close encounters of the turd kind. Some of them when I was armed.

Point is - I've long since gotten past bearanioa. But I still take along a little peace-of-mind. Mostly...



I was once surrounded and shadowed by a pack of wolves on a trail flanked by heavy brush. Now, they MIGHT have just wanted to play with Tripper Lab. The .260 thought different.

If I am not carrying a rifle, I'll likely have a 12 gauge pump shotgun with 00 or 000 buck for the first round backed by slugs. Take out a bear's nose and eyes, and there is a pretty good chance to use the rest, if the buck doesn't do the complete job. Or if I'm bird-hunting, 7 1/2s will (probably ) work as well as the buck at very close range. That's my theory, anyway.... And one won't have a lot of choice at that point anyway. Them things are quick, and stuff happens fast.

I believe I can get a carried long arm into action faster than a holstered sidearm or bear spray, and I can't hit chit with a handgun anyway. Bear spray is best used when one has it already in hand (i.e. the situation has already tipped you off), one is not shooting it into the wind, and most importantly, one has PRACTICED with it.. I don't carry it, but my wife does when she goes out alone. I don't think she's ever practiced with it, tho she does review the directions time to time.

As Mule Deer wrote earlier, this topic has been hashed over here on the 'Fire many, many times before, and feathers always get ruffled, and no consensus ever seems to be reached. But I guess that's just the nature of the 'Fire.

So I guess I'll weigh in myself and keep the pot stirred. 'Cause, after all, I've seen more than a few bear charges in person myself.

First point I'd like to make is that the study Mule Deer alluded to earlier (the one with the 90% bear spray success rate vs the 78% firearms success rate) was, sadly, a flawed study. (Which I wrote to the editors of the journal it was published in, and which was privately agreed to by one of said editors, even though they didn't publish my letter.) You can't compare use of pepper spray by general tourists and backpackers to the use of firearms by hunters. The two activities are hugely different, in that hunters are being stealthy while trying to get close to game, whereas backpackers and forest service workers are not.

So what %age of times will spray or firearms actually work to defend against a bear attack? Nobody really knows... but if you factor out the hunting behavior by the humans involved, the success rate of firearms in bear defense is probably higher than Herrero et al. reported. (BTW... the latin abbreviation et al. means "and associates", not "et cetera... just one of my personal bête noirs) At the same time, I believe the 90% figure for pepper spray was probably a tad high, but close enough for government work.

That being said, I'll make my second point: most people who carry heavy caliber handguns in the bush suck at using them. And I do mean SUCK, an opinion which I base on years of handgun instructor experience. I've been teaching revolver classes since the 90's, and in those classes I start off by having everybody do a time draw-and-fire from the holster with their chosen carry handgun. Most guys who consider themselves experienced with their defensive revolvers have draw-and-fire times (you have to hit the target at 7 yards, BTW) of 3 to 5 seconds, and I've seen many who had a hard time breaking 8 seconds. And these are guys who consider themselves good with their handgun.

That's with a DA revolver, BTW. Guys with SA guns have a hard time getting it done under 5-7 seconds. With training, most people can get their DA draw under 3 seconds, but few will get to a "competitive" speed of 1.0-1.2 seconds. I've never seen anybody with a real SA .44 or bigger caliber draw and fire much under 3 seconds, even with a lot of practice. We're not talking dedicated fast-draw or competition "cowboy" pistolas here, boys. I'm talking about serious hoglegs: Ruger BH, Freedom Arms 97's, etc. You know, the kind of guns you'd use for real bear defense.

I generally advise anyone who decides to carry a handgun in the bush and is serious about it to actually train with the firearm in question. Which means firing lots of rounds FROM THE HOLSTER, using a timer and a scorable target to keep yourself honest. Cheat if you want, but the only person you're cheating is yourself. How many rounds is "lots"? I dunno. I've been shooting 10,000 to 20,000 rounds of DA revolver ammo per year in training competition since the late 90's. That's probably too much for most folks. But a couple hundred rounds a week for a few weeks prior to a wilderness trip isn't too much. And training with lower-recoil ammo than the stuff you're going to carry is smart, as long as you finish off each session with the real stuff. Just my humble.

I think carrying firearms in bear country is smart. I do it myself whenever it's legal. And I also carry pepper spray, and I've trained to use it, too. I've also taken a bear-defense class and shot slug guns and rifles at charging bear targets. It's interesting and worthwhile.

But the bottom line is that bears are not as dangerous as many folks believe they are, and encountering them in the wild is one of the greatest experiences most backcountry users can hope for. Knowing bear behavior is the most important part of bear safety. Defensive weaponry comes a distant second place.

Just a thunk to throw in here...some manufacturers of bear spray market the product with a holster....which you don't have to get the spray out of, just flip the safety and let her rip! For those who have seen bear charges....you'll be lucky if you have enough time to do that, let alone draw a handgun, aim and shoot. And as I used to tell my customers, if a bear is charging , don't worry about the wind....the worst thing that could happen is you'll get a face full of spray, but then at least you wont be able to see whats going to happen to you!

Anyway, here is a pic of the no-draw ( or quick draw if you choose...) holster on a fishing pard.....

Please read a book by...... Alaskan pilot and plane dealer. I love his sarcastic comments especially when the park ranger chick says the bear thought he heard a mouse in the tent, that's why her jumped on it and bit the teenage boy. When you go in the hills hunt like your life depends on it. How did the original people survive without bells and bear spray????? They hunted and were aware of their surroundings. The authors name will come to me and I'll post it. He makes a hundred times more sense than these nitwits paid by tax dollars.

The authors name is Thomas Hron. He also makes a dandy alarm system for camping.

I usually think about it as a closer encounter than others think of it. I would hate to be in a poor tree with my rifle on the ground. I would hate to try and cock my 45 Colt single action, manage the safety of a semi auto handgun, or successfully wield my Winchester in 50-110 when my right arm has been disabled. I feel better with a double action that I can put to use by simply pulling the trigger. At least 44 mag for big bears, short barrel for close work.

However, I can certainly understand why folks would rather settle such a dispute at longer range.

And of course, if you're out hunting anyway, carry a rifle or shotgun. My 50-110 loaded with 500 grain hard cast and unspeakable amounts of smokeless powder is pretty capable. Hurts on both ends though.

Bill

Never been charged by a bear, have been by a pissed off pitbull and the mace that hit him dead in the eyes and face didn't even register in his radar. Not a bear I get it, but if a bear really means it I wonder....

Last summer I went fishing in SE AK. Every person except me and the guy I was fishing with that we saw walking on the ground had a short 12 gauge pump shotgun except 1. That guy had a Marlin Lever 45/70. I didn't see bear spray on any of them.

I think I found this link back when I first joined the Campfire. There were some pretty nasty "discussions" on the topic. I can't remember the name of the guy who showed black and blue pictures of himself from his giant revolver recoiling into his face. Pretty funny!

The link still seems pertinent, although without new cartridges, firearms, etc. A .458 Winchester Mag bolt rifle w a 22 inch or so barrel looks good to me as a primary rifle, although a real grizzly hunt might be an excuse to buy that .50 BMG semi-auto every gun safe should hold (I might need a gun bearer).

Bill

Safety in Bear Country: Protective Measures and Bullet Performance at Close Range.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

Speaking to the issue of having a hand disabled when a bear charged, I have a story about just such an event.

I've only killed two Black bears and neither was charging, but years ago when I was hunting with a bear hunting outfitter in Calif., he told me what happened to him.

He had a dude in camp bear hunting up in the Sierra. The dogs had treed a large boar and when the outfitter and the hunter arrived, the bear was high in a bull pine tree with branches out over a steep ravine.

The outfitter told the hunter where to shoot the bear, right through the heart, etc. The hunter, nervous and pumped, using a scoped rifle, fired at the bear and hit him in the foot. The bear came down out of the tree and ran straight into where the outfitter's best strike dog was tied. The bear immediately began to tear up the hound.

The outfitter screamed at the dude to not shoot again as he feared his strike dog would be hit. The outfitter was carrying a S&W 58 .41 Mag. and his partner was carrying a S&W 57 .41 Mag.

The outfitter pulled his .41 Mag. revolver and started down the side of the steep ravine which was deeply covered with slick pine needles. He slipped on the pine needles and rapidly slid directly into the enraged bear and his mauled hound.

He said that the bear who had by then killed his dog, turned his attention to him immediately and was on top of him. The bear was swiping at him, clawing at his arms. He had his left arm covering his face. The bear managed to break the outfitter's right thumb back as he held his revolver. He still hung on to it and began firing point blank into the bear's body.

The outfitter said that the only thing he really remembered about the bear being on top of was his .41 Mag. going "Click, click, click, " as he'd emptied it into the bear which fell dead on him. He said it all happened in just a few seconds.

His partner and the dude got him back to their truck along with their dogs and took him to a hospital for treatment of his injuries. This happened about three years before I was there.

The first night I was there in camp, he was cooking dinner for us in the cook/eating trailer. He had on a tee shirt and I could see on the backs of both his upper arms, huge, ugly, purple scars from where the bear clawed him. It looked like someone had attacked him with a couple of hay hooks.

The subject of "double action" vs. "single action" revolvers came up. He said that if he'd been carrying a single action revolver, he'd have been killed by the bear because his thumb was completely broken back along his wrist and was useless.

Both he, his partner and their dog wrangler were carrying double action revolvers. The outfitter's name was "John Webb." He had been written up in Outdoor Life a couple years before.

Regarding .41 Mag. as opposed to .44 Mag., he and his partner both said that they'd killed many Black bears with both and could not tell any practical difference between the two calibers and their effect on Black bears. Therefore they carried the double action .41 Magnums instead of the .44 Magnums as they said they recoiled less and one could get back on target faster.

That is my "disabled hand" story by someone who experienced it first hand with a very angry Black bear.

(I carry a S&W 57 .41 Magnum when out in bear country. )

L.W.