No doubt a properly loaded rifle is better. But you don't always have a properly loaded rifle in your hand. A properly loaded handgun is more likely to be on your person and can be used with one hand. And I'd just as soon carry a short barreled rifle as some of the huge magnum revolvers out there such as the 454's and 500's. I've seen enough incidents where people have used common handgun calibers such as 45, 40S&W, 10mm and even 9mm to successfully stop bear to feel comfortable with one. Assuming proper loads.
I've been using a G20 loaded with 200gr DoubleTap hardcast ammo at a chronographed 1300 fps from my gun when hiking and camping in bear country for years. Normally black bear in the 200-300lb range are common in areas where I live. But I chose to carry the Glock on 2 camping trips to Yellowstone and left the 44 mag at home. I slept just as well with the Glock as any other handgun and a rifle just wasn't practical in that situation.
There is a certain amount of luck involved to hit an area that will stop an attack. But penetration is the key. Those 10mm loads have proven to give penetration measured in FEET, not inches. And I figure the Glock gives me 16 chances to get lucky vs only 6 from a magnum revolver.
If forced to use a 9mm a lightweight 124 gr bullet designed to give 10-12" of penetration in humans wouldn't be my choice. But Shoemaker has proven that the 147 gr hardcast bullets give impressive penetration on even the big bear. After reading the article, and reading the comments he added when posting here I'd not hesitate to use the Buffalo Bore loads he used on local black bear. I know he killed a pretty big bear with the 9mm. And if a 9mm is all I had, I'd load it with that ammo and hope for the best. But I still feel better about the hotter 10mm loads as a minimum.
