Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska 10mm 220gr Hard Cast enough Grizzly?

Sounds like that bear was aggressive before being shot. The bullet probably helped change the bears mind, not that the added help of the spray hurt anything either

The bear didn't charge until hit.

I have been bluff-charged--or even bluffed without a charge-- several times. All those instances could have been termed "aggressive." But none of those bears ever actually charged--and I didn't shoot at them.

From the descriptions of the instance I've cited, the bear was acting aggressive but wasn't very close. There are several levels of aggression "action" displayed by bears, which range from nervousness to warnings to bluff charges to serious charges, or even stalking. All have different body language.

The guy who shot at the sow was with his .45 wasn't being charged, and was somewhere around 50 yards from the bear. But who knows exactly what the bear was doing before it charged? And estimates of distance are always suspect, especially when grizzlies are involved.

I have also a grizzly "charge" three horseback hunters from a couple of hundred yards--and been turned back when the hunters spurred their horses toward the bear.

There aren't any rules about what an individual bear will do, which was my main point in my post. MarineHawk was guessing about a firm rule, and there isn't any such thing.

Mule Deer, we had 3 instances of brown bears in our camp the week before last. A sow and two cubs which we just got out her way, a 7' boar, and finally a 3 year old (probably ran about 250 lbs or so) totally confused getting within 5 feet of my guide. My guide yelled at it, of course then it ran down the beach to within 10 feet of me. We kept yelling at it to go back in the willows and it finally did. Was it dangerous, sure, did we think about shooting it, no. I wasn't about to use my bear tag on a bear that small lol

I was figuring I'd bring my Glock 20mm

Hell of a handgun, don't know i would want to touch it off but intimidating as he--.

.80 calibers rule....

Mule Deer, I appreciate the account above about the attack. I don't think you're quite being fair about what I said, which is requoted at bottom (with emphasis added). I never said there was a "firm rule" or that a handgun had not caused an attack. I just said that I want to hear more about any real, confirmed instances and compare them in nature and number to the many confirmed instances where a bear has been deterred by handgun bullets and, in many instances, just the sound of a handgun. I think there is an eager acceptance of the "better cut off your front sight" principle that any handgun that won't physically shut down a bear's CNS is more dangerous to use than climbing a tree, etc ... I tend not to believe it based on numerous actual videos and state and federal investigation reports of incidents that objectively contradict that cliche.

There may be some incidents that support the cliche too. And you have identified one. I would like to know more about the conifrmed details to know what to take away from it. But even airbags and seatbelts in rare circumstances cost, rather than save, lives. It does not mean that, on the whole, it is better to have them than not have them. I tend to think, based on all I've observed first hand, on video, that most decent handgun calibers also are more of a benefit than a cost. There is a line somewhere between what calibers (when well handled) will usually work and which ones usually won't work. I'm not sure which side of that line the .45 ACP lies, but I wonder if many animals would be encouraged toward a person repeatedly firing 10mm 200gr HC FN bullets @ 1,300 fps at it.

And I still don't know what the spray proponents would do when the bear tries to come in their tent, or seven guys try to abduct a wife when their far from help. What happens when the spray dies off, and the seven dudes come back? In a personal incident that shaped my own preferences, about nine years ago, I was hiking in a national forest in Colorado, when seven malicious-looking guys approached me and my fiance (now wife) and started asking questions about directions, and they obviously didn't care about my answers. It was really scary and they were clearly sizing me up. When they were about 15 feet away, I made a decision based on my powerful instinct that these guys were mischevous, pulled my jacket over my USP, drew it (without yet pointing it at them), and asked them to leave "now." I don't know what would have happened if I only had a spray gun, and I'm glad I did not find out. Everyone should make their own decisions based on their own personal preferences, but I think my carrying of a handgun in that instance saved my now-wife from a terrible assault. I just feel more comfortable and confident with a handgun than with other options when I am in places where I have to protect myself and my loved-ones on my own.

Are you trying to convince yourself or everyone else?

Either? About what?

You've got 24,608 more posts on here than me. What do you do with all of those? Convince yourself or others? No comprende.

That's not a charge situation, but should get you charged.
...............................................
Look, bears have been DRT with a rifle shot and bears have charged after being hit with rifle shots.

Lives have been saved by handguns in DLP situations and sometimes they have been made worse.

Pick the proper search terms and have a go at Google and Youtube. You'll find examples of both.

Carry what you want and good luck with it.

I too would rather have a 12ga or rifle if actually being charged. But I carried a handgun (in my case, a FA .454 with 360gr HC FN bullets chronoed at an avg of 1,503 fps) while fishing the rivers, and was glad because carrying around a rifle while fishing and screwing around for hours at a time nine straight days after I got my brown bear with my rifle would have been, to me personally, somewhat annoying.

And I brought an anti-tank version of a handgun, but I would not have felt completely undergunned by a 200gr .40 caliber HC bullet moving at 1,300 fps. I know you can find some things to support both sides of almost any opposing arguments, as you say, but I haven't seen the number of specific incidents supporting the "better file off the front sight" argument as I have seen supporting the opposite. And I'm talking actual specific reports, such as:

"'The man, who was in the lead, drew a .45 [ACP] caliber semi-automatic pistol when they heard a noise coming from the brush. When the bear emerged from the thicket and ran toward the other hiker, he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction. The bear stopped, turned, and walked back into the brush, where it quickly disappeared from view,' said the [park's] release. ... The bear was found dead in a willow thicket approximately 100 feet from the pistol casings ..."
LINK.

I freely admit that I could be wrong, but people, like me or anyone else, must make judgments based on what we have observed and been able to learn and the logic that seems most appropriate. There is disagreement on this issue, so people can't simply "rely on the experts" to decide because they don't agree. I have seen countless animals from squirrels to humans to deer to brown bear being shot with some kind of firearm. There may be countless examples that I just haven't seen, but in every instance where the animal could, he/she went the other direction if at all possible and as quickly as possible. The 10mm load described above is essentially a standard .41 Mag load from the past. I know that talking about rapid-fire shots at a bear sounds intuitively silly to many, but I can empty my G20's 15+1 capacity pretty quickly, and am probably better at shootinig it, especially with folow-up shots than with my .454 Casull. And I just haven't seen any really compelling collection of data or even annectdotal specific reports that show me that, even a big bear would simply laugh off being pelted with a lot of .41 Mag bullets in a short period of time and just march toward the source of the pain and shockingly-loud noise. It's possible that I'm overlooking something (and I'm not saying it has never happened), but if I had to bet, one way or the other, I would think many many more than 50 percent of brown bears would flee when being pelted with such projectiles, just like every other animal I've ever observed, and just like in the reports I've read, like the one quoted above.

It appears that there is an average of something like one or two fatal bear attacks per year in North America (of course more are injured too). If someone is hiking in bear country and can't shoot a .500 JRH well and doesn't want to lug along a 12-ga or .375 H&H every time they go out into the wild, I just see nothing wrong with relying on the equivalent of a fast-shooting .41 Mag that's easy to carry, draw, and shoot quickly. Of course, he might be attacked by a rare angry bear that charges into .41 Mag explosions and bullets, but it might work like the incident above, or more likely, he won't get attacked at all, but will have a decent survival tool (for emergency meat hunting, signaling, and inti-personnel protection as well). And of course, I'm not questioning anyone who prefers something else. I'm just defending the judgment of those who do choose to rely ono something like a 10mm with hot and heavy hard cast loads.

Your mission, should you chose to accept it...



Nothing wrong with it, IMO.

The problem as has been posted by others in similar threads, is that far too few are able to shoot a handgun with the accuracy that's needed, let alone during the stressful event of a true charge.

And, the best weapon is between one's ears rather than on one's hip.