I have a question for the handgun officianados. I have a question that is mostly opinionated but I am interested in your views and opinions on this subject. I have a 7.5" Ruger Redhawk in 44 Mag, I absolutely hate it, and dont shoot it all that well. There are several hunts that I like to do for both black and grizzly bears that are bow only , but like the idea of having a last resort alternative if chit goes sour on me, and the bow doesn't work all that well as a baseball bat!...grin So if a guy was gonna step down from a 44 Mag that you will probably not hit the bear accurately with, what would you step down to? I know there are guides here in Alaska that use 10MM's as backup weapons, but I wonder where calibers like the 40 S&W, 45 ACP, 357 Mag, and 41 Mag settle into all this. I shoot a semi auto pretty well, and clearly understand that a semi-auto might not be as reliable as a revolver in the woods. So fire at me your take and ideas fellas, I'm all ears!

I was first interested in your statement that you "hate it" and it doesn't shoot too well. Playing devil's advocate, I ask: Because you hate it, is this why it doesn't shoot well? Why exactly don't you like about it? The recoil of a double action revolver can be a little rough in full house 44 magnum loads.
Not knowing your reply, I might suggest,
1. Are the grips absorbent? Does it fit you hand?
2. Light loads at close range might be inorder to gain your confidence. Certainly in single action mode first.Then gradually double action with light loads.
3. Sometimes a 4 inch model is more balanced and therefore easier to hit with.

I would not give up on the 44 mag because you take (in my view) a substantial step down moving to the autos and their calibers.
That's all for now.

It has always seemed to me....with, I hasten to add, absolutely no experience to back it up....that since you aren't going to stop a bear with anything but a CNS hit before he's chowing down on your favorite appendages, a tuned accurate .45 auto with 8 round mags loaded with 200 grain FMJ SWCs at 1000 fps would be what I'd want in my hands to try to get a brain or spine hit in the very short time window between being the hunter and being the snack.

I carried my M29 when I was hunting elk in griz country, but that was to shoot myself if the .338 didn't stop the bear.

If I wasn't too busy squirting my previous meal down my leg, I think my best chance to ice a bear would be a .45, and it would certainly penetrate deep enough to do the job. Just my totally uninformed opinion.

Bigger is better, right up to where you start missing. So, the .45 would be first, I had a friend who used a 1911 for bear medicine for years. We are talking about close range, so a heavy bullet wins IMHO over velocity. Haveyou tried .44 specials? It is an inexpensive solution if they do the job.

If I didn't shoot a revolver well, I'd be looking at a Glock 20. Full size 10mm, more smoke than any 45ACP with similar bullet weights, and being that it's a Glock it should be reliable as an autoloader can get. Probably nothing wrong with Steve's suggestion either, I'm just not a gung-ho 1911 guy and I'm bias to .40 cal handguns.

If all else fails, you could get a Desert Eagle in 50AE.

I think any of your alternate calibers would be just fine with an excited Grizz, providing you remember where on your temple to put the muzzle. Seriously I think bear rounds begin with the .44 and work up. If your Redhawk isn't the answer for you look at others. I've used a Super Blackhawk a couple of times on excited blackies, but I have to deffer to others with experience in the Grizz dept. Bigwhoop offers sound advice on choices. Good luck and shoot straight with that bow.

I couldnt shoot my .44 all that well either, than I bought a single six 22, its amazing how accurate the .44's have become now

First off thanks for the replies, here's the deal. I know this is an endless controversial subject, and one often argued by many that have never been in the situation of being charged or attacked by a bear, or even near a bear. I know these things to start my thought process, bears can fight death for a suprisingly large amount of time sometimes, and they move with speed that is very under rated. So with that said, I look at it like this. When I envision a bad situation with a bear, its gonna happen really fast, either because I waited too long to react to the situation while waiting for the bear to behave favorably (most common), or because it suprised me or I suprised it, either after the shot or during the stalk. I only know a few people who have been mauled by a bear , and in both cases they ended up on their back looking up at a bear, one of them had just been shot by a 340 Roy with 250 NP's twice. So the reason I ask about the semi autos is simply for their ability to be used in a more diverse situation (ie on your back one handed, or standing and aiming). I cant accurately shoot that big Ruger with one hand, but I can shoot a semi auto with one hand. I believe that if the Ruger were any shorter hence lighter, the recoil would only be worse. I had a Titanium 41 mag some years ago that had the most wrist jarring snap to it that also was no fun to shoot, so I think lighter/shorter is not the answer. Anyway I am interested to hear what others have to say on this subject.

I hear ya Tom, I have a Single Six and enjoy shooting it quite a bit, but it doesn't change how I feel about the 44!...grin As a matter of fact I spent a couple hours at the range today shooting 3 different handguns of mine that I hadn't shot in a while and then ended up at Sportsmans Warehouse looking at 40's and 45's!

A 44 mag with 300 or 300+ grain wide flat point hard cast will get the job done. A 45 Colt or 454 with 325 grain or heavier wide flat point hard cast is better and the 475 and 500 Linebaugh or JRH are better yet.

I do have some experience with revolvers and hard cast bullets on Bears

AC

When the chips are down, I want my S&W 29. I shoot it better than any other .44 mag and with the 250 hard cast or 260 Nosler it will do the job. If you want heavier, go for it, but pushing the envelope in velocity doesn't get you much in your scenario.

I've got a Power Custom SRH that is sweet, but it's not an everyday carry gun for "just in case" like the S&W is.

.45ACP doesn't trip my trigger for big bears, but, heck, I never tried it - nor do I intend to.

A 10mm might be okay, but .44 is where it really starts. YMMV

Find a hunting partner that runs slower than you AC... problem solved.

Seriously, I'd look at a good .357. damn good handgun with good bullets. I just dont like semi-autos in hunting conditions. I dont trust them and never will.

A .41 would be next on my list but if up north is like down here, it would be a pain to find bullets.

Find yourself a good 686 and dont look back.

Oh and if you are looking at one of those semi auto thingamajigs. Sig makes a beautiful gun. I've carried a G23 for a while. after shooting my wifes P229 (40S&W), the glock is gone. it is a real fine handgun.

Get what you are comfortable using, but if you are worried about being on your back with a big bear on top of you, a 4-in. or less, double-action revolver with a caliber of .4x would be a good baseline w/a hard bullet doing about 1,000 fps.

A single-action revolver is fine for hunting, but cocking it might be problematic in a fight on the ground.

I've never fought a bear but have been in a pile wrestling armed feral humans and seen SIG and Glock pistols knocked out of battery at contact distance.

Your accuracy should be fine at contact distance with a handgun that will cycle.

Or perhaps layer your BUGs: a G20 with hot loads then a Magnum snubby you can access with either hand on the ground.

Here is probably one of the more all encompassing and definitive posts on this subject of bears and handguns by someone who went there and did that a lot.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...&topic=0&Search=true#Post1498247

See post # 1498247 if the link doesn't go right to it.

Hope this helps to answer your question.

Big difference between bears in GA where I live and Alaska but I carry a Glock 20 in 10mm. With the hottest loads it is a bit more powerful than 357 mag and holds 16 rounds. In my experience they are at least as reliable as a revolver and smaller, and lighter to boot. For hunting I would pick a big bore revolver because at distance I shoot them more accurately. But for closer range rapid fire I am more accurate with my Glocks.

I used to carry a handgun a lot during the summer here in unit 13. The best for me was a S&W M629 Trail Boss with 300 Hardcast or a 1911 modified for 45 Super (I developed a load with 275gr FP @ 1,000 fps). Overall, the short light 44 was the best choice. If you're worried about distances like you describe (bad-breath), you won't need to shoot the revolver very well, you'll just need to be able to shoot it. An auto at that distance is more likely to be disabled due coming out of battery from contact.

My advice would be to stay with the RH or get a M629 Mountain Gun, Trail Boss or M329, any of them with good Pachmyer, etc. rubber grips.

Practice with 44 Spl. and if possible, handload bear rounds to your specs. You can always load the 44 to perform as well as a 10mm, 45 Super, etc., and better if you want.

AlaskaCub -

I think going down in "power" is a mistake. If you don't shoot your .44 magnum well, find something else and practice, practice, practice. Keep carrying your .44 magnum. It may take a few years, but if you're dedicated you'll get there.

.44 mag itself is a compromise. It's not "really" adequate, but it's what we have. Doesn't concern me with the run of the mill sub 250 pound black bears I run into fishing along the river. When I start running into the bigger (but fewer) ones feeding up on the hill, I start wondering if I'm kidding myself.

I don't shoot DA .44s very well. For my hands, the Redhawk is the least bad, but I don't shoot it anywhere near as well as I do a single action. I'd rather get one good hit with a Super Blackhawk than a bunch of marginal hits with a double action gun.

Another thought, if it's a recoil issue, is magnaporting. Also, Redhawk's have a funky mechanism, potentially a really slick DA pull compared to S&W and others but they'll never have a truly great SA pull. If you're mostly shooting SA, switch to DA ... I found with my last Redhawk, I shot better offhand in DA mode ... never had that happen before.

You might possibly switch over to .45 Colt. In the right gun (blackhawk, redhawk) it'll develop the same "power" as a .44 mag but at lower pressure so your ears take less of a beating which in turn seems to be perceived as less recoil even if the gun doesn't buck any less. Good hard cast bullet, one of the 300 grain jacketed bullets, or either partition. That's one advantage of the .45 over .44 ... the heavier 300 grain .45 partition. In .41 I don't think there are truly suitable jacketed bullets for bigger bears. They're all "soft" to expand on deer sized critters. Hard cast.

I like to shoot the Redhawk, relative to other DA .44s. I'm not that fond of the Redhawk as a carry gun. That's about as heavy a .44 mag as you can find. I'd rather have something with less weight, I'll live with the additional recoil. Not sure I'd go clear down to the Smith 329 PD (though it is on my mental wish list as a stout .44 special), but maybe something a little lighter.

Disorganized ... rambling ... sorry.

Tom

A 4" .44 mag revolver with hardcast WFN's or HP's at about 1200 from the 4" barrel, not book velocities, is where I settled for a pack gun. The 4" Taurus .44 tracker, the 4" 629, or the 4" regular not super Redhawk are reasonable weight and recoil wise with this style load. It also falls in line with what JJ Hack said and with what an Alaska State Trooper I know who has had to shoot bears advised me.

I hope I never have to find out.

Thanks for the insight fellas, I think I am gonna spend some more time with the Redhawk before I give up on it. It shoots tight little groups off the bench at 25 yards, its the multiple DA performance off the bench that I am not satisfied with. Can only imagine more practise will help that. We have shot black bears with 44's off of baits more than once and they went about the same distance that they do with a bow or a gun so I know they kill well. Maybe I'll take a black from the ground on a bait this year with it just for chits and grins!

I bowhunt in bear country also, but so far knock on wood I've never had a issue with a grizzly. For protection I think you want something you can draw fast and shoot well at 20 yds (beyond that you will probably have some explaining to do), you need something your willing to carry all the time. I have a 4" 629 and a 2" taurus tracker in .44 mag. I really found I love to carry to tracker, it's small and light, and very comfortable to carry. The 629 is too bulky and heavy for my taste.

The downside to the tacker is it's recoil is stiff with 300gr pills, but it's something I carry a lot and shoot only a little . My second choice would be a light weight .41 mag with a 2" or 4" barrel.

I will take my Smith 629 4 inch with 250 or 300 gr hard cast Keith bullet over 20 to 21 gr of 2400. I really don't think a handgun is your best choice but the 44 mag might just save your bacon.

I watched a TV program once where a wildlife officer, knocked off of the top of a cage, on his back, killed a grizzly who was intent on getting to him. He had released the bear from the cage in a transplanting operation. The darn bear was worked up and just wanted to take out his frustration at someone.
The guy used his .357. Probably with some sort of fatory loads. I wouldn't have thought he's have a chance.
If you can't shoot it, it is of no use to you.
How do you feel you want to be able to shoot the thing ? To me, trying to shoot a .44 Magnum, DA revolver w/ a 7.5 inch barrel while on my back, would be near impossible. I know that I'd be much better off with a 4 inch in that I can point it better. I have such a gun that I've done just that with in practice.
You can try lighter loads in a smaller .44.
You can also take a lession from history. Lots of bad actors lost their lives, saving those who had them with the lowly, old .45 Long Colt load. A near round nose, lead, 250 gr. bullet at 820-870 fps. Elmer Keith's old book, "Sixguns by Keith" was full of such examples. Can be fired from the short barreled Ruger .454 Casull from what I see. The Ruger "Alaskan" model w/ a short barrel. Or you can consider a SA gun.
I understand the .45 ACP can be feed such bullets made for the .45 Colt. Can't advise you on that as I haven't done it.
I believe the 10mm, with 200 gr. FMJ, flatpoint bullets will work. Certainly if the .357 with 158-180 lead ammo will work, so should that.
The bottom line is that you need to be able to shoot it in the way that you feel confident that it will work for you. Just what that is is your call. E

The longer the barrel, the more the muzzle flip - for me anyway. Single actions are not as easy to control under heavy recoil as are double actions - again my preception. A full under lug, 4 or 5 inch Smith or Tarus with rubber grips of some sort is about perfect for me.

o

My 5" full lug 44 S&W 629 Classic isn't bad at all with 300 grain cast cores @1090fps. Beer cans at 10 yards don't stand a chance...grin

A Pard with a rifle is what I'd put at numero uno for a bear back up.

My spousal unit doesn't like the 44mag. I got her a 357 and load it with Buffalo Bore ammo.

I hear ya on the rifle thing, but sometimes its hard enough for one guy to put the sneak on a bear , nonetheless two guys if you know what I mean. Aint nothing quiter than 1 am in the timber during spring, you can practically hear a pin drop, and if its dry out its even noiser. Its amazing how even walking in socks makes so much noise during a dry spring!

Clint Smith of "Thunder Ranch" always says that a handgun is best for fighting your way to a long gun. I do crack house raids every day and can tell you that I've never faced a grizzly, but have dealt with charging pitbulls. They are hard to stop with a handgun (.45acp with 230 grain hydra-shock rounds or .40 S&W with 180 grain HST). .223 or 12 ga. does much better. If I were to carry an auto pistol in bear country, I would get a Glock 20 10mm and stoke it with Double tap 200 grain hardcast at 1200 fps.
Brain shot or spine shot will work. Penetration is your friend.

P.S. AlaskaCub I will never have your experience with bears so I am just making suggestions.

Ron


























.

Ditto on all counts. Although I wouldn't sneer at a 357 Magnum loaded with 180-200 gr cast flatnose bullets, either.

In my experience with bear charges/bluff charges outside of hunting situations, you have VERY little time to react. If your firearm isn't in your hand already, you probably aren't going to be able to get a shot off before the bruin is on you.

From the less-than-one-handful of people who've shot their way out of a mauling that I've interviewed or read of, the solution was a double-action revolver that they could access and fire with one hand. A S&W Mountain Gun in .44 Mag or .45 Colt in a strongside belt holster with an easy-opening retention strap and a lanyard on the butt (attaching the revolver to your neck at no more than arm's length) is my ideal trail gun. I've shot bear with rifle and slug, but thank God never had to do it with a handgun against an angry bear. But in my experience with handguns I think this is about as good as you can get.

You don't want an autoloader as a bear-defense weapon because although it can be fired one-handed, if you press it up against the bear and push the slide out of battery, it will not fire. Likewise, if you get off a first contact or near-contact shot, blood and tissue spraying back from the wound can prevent the forward-travelling slide from going back into battery for a second shot. I can't say I have any evidence from bear shootings to support this, but I have a good number of officer-involved shootings in my files dealing with human adversaries where this exact thing has happened.

You don't want a single action revolver, because you have to release your firm, final, and fighting grip on the gun to cock the hammer. In a fight for your life at bad-breath distances, you do not want to loosen your grip on the only thing that might save your life.

So you're left with the double-action revolver. It can be held very firmly, fired one-handed, and it will discharge all 6 cartridges even if the entire thing is drenched in blood, mud, and tissue.

At the point where you're fighting for your life, you need to be able to access your firearm with ONE hand (perhaps as you feed your other to the bear), put the muzzle somewhere close to its brain and start pulling the trigger. I have personally spoken to two men who did exactly that, and survived with relatively minor injury. One case required three shots to kill the bear, the other required all six. Both revolvers were 357 Magnums, but in my experience with wound ballistics, I have to say I doubt caliber really mattered. I doubt a .454 Casull would have killed the bears faster, and might have been harder to use.

My real world experience in shooting grizzly bears is about zip, but like many here I spend a goodly amount of time thinking about what if a grizzly bear, etc.

Somewhere here, in my copy of Taylor's African Rifles and Cartridges, Taylor talks about the .455 Webley double action revolver being a useful thing to have when a lion is already munching on you before you recognize the need to do something about it.

Something you can use one-handed, upside down and slippery with your own gore.

Just a thought, but one of those shorty Ruger Redhawks might do very well.

- Tom

Bears shouldn't be allowed to have handguns.

On the contrary, I support the right to keep and arm bears!

Ron

Handguns don't kill people, bears do.

I've done it and I no longer advise it.

255 grain LSWC at about 750 fps, through a Series '70 Government. Fed well. Very accurate.

Cracked the frame. Can't say for sure that it was the load that did it, but the frame cracked, by golly, and I decided then and there that I would never abuse Mr. Browning's trust again.

- Tom

There, fixed it for you . . . .

(At least that is how Clint stated it when I saw him).

BMT

Thanks BMT

Ron

If bears are outlawed, only outlaws will have bears!

Ron

We are only talking about black bears and cougars if I understand this.

The most experienced person I know using pistols on bears is a retired predator control agent fom Yoncalla, Ore. He prefers a .30-30 but it doesn't always work out. His father was also a government hunter so there is a considerable knowledge base there in my opinion. I have known him since we were 17- forty some years.

He uses a .357 Model 65 S&W with laser grips for night events. He uses 125 grain Jacketed flat points. He recommends avoiding hollow points and especially 45 ACP's with hollowpoints. He references a recent issue with some guys looking for a wounded bear.

He is okay with a 22 magnum if you have a decent shot. He has had a little difficulty killing things with his K-22 22LR though. I have seen it go on for a bit when he tried it. It doesn't look good when you have to reload.

He says bears are easy to kill if they aren't wounded but it gets much harder after that first shot or if the bear is stirred up as with chasing it with dogs.

He recommends aginst frontal head shots on bear. If necessary he recommends shooting them in the eye or between the eye and the ear.

He doesn't see much difference in one pistol cartridge or the other if you get penetration.

As to me I know very little. I ask advice and make my judgements.

I don't find black bear hard to kill at all unless they are excited. I haven't ever shot one with a pistol. I like my slug shotguns for that job or any kind of deer or elk rifle depending.

When packing meat and I don't want to carry a long gun--
I carry a 357 Tracker Titanium with 158 gr Hornady XTP's [ I used flat points for a while but gave it up]or a
40 S&W Glock 27 with 165 Golden Sabers.
Typically carried in a cross chest pilot holster or horizontal shoulder holster so I can get to it with both hands. sometimes in a crossdraw on my pack belt.

I have a 22 Magnum 651 I carry a lot also with FMJ Winchesters FWIW.I know they work on cats and 458 Win said they would penetrate as well as anything.

I don't plan on being in grizzly country without a long gun...

I'm on the bandwagon with Stormin Norman...I carry the Taurus titanium in 45LC w/2" barrel. Yeah, it's not that fun to shoot but it's DA and so light I don't ever know it's there. I'm running 250 hard cast FN's at 1200 and I hope to never have the opportunity to find out if my choice works when the SHTF. Nice to know it's there when I've got a stick and string in my hand though.

+1

Heck I would move up to the 480 R...

I would hate to settle any arguement with a bear with a pistol, but your on track with the snub barrel...I promise you recoil will not be a factor when your on your back being et by a bear and emptying that pistol into the old boy....In such close range situations under stress a short barrel is simply more valid.

And be sure to file down the front sight on the backup bear pistol...

I'd never file my front site down, I don't need to and no one else will need to either if them choose the right caliber and the correct bullet

+1...

I have a Taurus titanium .41 with a 2 1/2" barrel. Stoked with Federal 250 grain castcore loads and carried in an Uncle Mike's nylon pancake holster, it's mighty comforting when I'm out in the woods.

Ron

I wonder when Obama is out of the White House and when the SS stop hanging around to protect him and his family......will he change his mind about wanting to own a gun?

Sorry getting off track here.....thanks JWP/Steelhead.

Great picture, JWP 475. How about a story?? Caliber, range, etc.

Thanks.

L.W.

I carried my M29 when I was hunting elk in griz country, but that was to shoot myself if the .338 didn't stop the bear.

Thats some funny stuff right there.Thanks for the laugh.

I took the Moose on the left in the picture with my 475 Linebaugh with a LFN hard cast from wheel weights and water quenched. I was working the kill when the bear in the Horns of the Moose that I took came in on me. My rifle was leaned up against a tree, but my revolver was in my shoulder holster. I pulled the 475 and one shot through the body flatten that Bear like a Mac truck had hit. I Was impressed at the time and I still am impressed with the effectiveness of the bigger bore revolvers. The 475 in the picture was the first in that caliber that Hamilton Bowen made, the picture is from 1988 and the Moose and the Bear were the first ever taken with a 475 Linebaugh. I have taken a lot of game with a handgun and I'd take a 475 or 500 Linebaugh or 500 JRH over a 338 any day to stop a charge bear from eating my AZZ. They are that effective and I have a lot of respect and love for the 338, but there is no denying that the big bore revolver penetrate farther and leave a larger wound channel

When some one says to file off the front sight so it will not hurt as bad when the Bear or that no handgun is effective against a Bear it shows that they do not know what they are talking about IMHO

Never saw bears with antlers before.

Bruce

JWP,

I can only imagine how well those large powerful handguns hit, but on both ends.....shot my share of 44 and prefer a 41. Many use the 320s in the former and 250-275s and there may be a 295 for the 41...I would imagine those heavies in the smaller cal's will dig as deep but with smaller wound channels.

While lesser in power, how would you feel with say a Heavy bullet in a 41? That 475 on a Ruger I take it? Figure if Bowen made it, then its not an FA.

Thanks for your insight.

JWP 475, thank you for your story. Mighty ineresting, plus some beautiful country behind you, too.

L.W.

JWP475, just yanking your chain - no doubt about the big bore guns such as those you're using. You can keep your front sight!