Does anyone hear believe the wound channel of a 10mm can’t kill a big bear?
What I've been thinking.
Assuming hard vast is the projectile, how much is gained by .029"?
The bigger hole might cut something the smaller misses, but now we
are depending on .0145.
All dependent on profile.
One more round that might be fired is gonna cut a .400 hole.
All theory full of what iffs
Same as these arguments.
Write a script. I get,
Time, no contact?
G20
Rolling around in the dirt being chewed on, keep my gun?
Got time? 8 round 357.
Only a couple shots, DA 44.
One shot only? 500 S&W
Using an example to argue as any one gun being clearly superior either
shows bias or ignorance.
Be interesting to ask Phill what his thoughts might be if he ran it through his head in an after action report style.
His encounter supports enough power, good bullet in the right place(s)
The 44 guys would argue a bigger gun would have done it quicker.
The 10mm guys will argue he needed more ammo to use.
Ain't a 100% answer.
Size, weight, ease of carry, reliability in an uncontrolled situation,
shootability......make your choice. Spin the wheel.
Hope it never even comes up, FŰCK BEAR!!!
Your line of thinking on this parallels mine. I like SA revolvers but they'd be my last choice for a GTF Off Me Bear! gun. Documented bear encounters sometimes include the bear kicking your ass for awhile and in that instance, the Ruger Alaskan 44/454/480 shines. If you can shoot a heavy DA revolver well, it's going to work well enough before the ass-kicking stage to prevent it. It does not have to be loaded with a tank-killer load to be effective. I would guess .4+, 240 grains+ and 1100 fps+ would be about the ground floor. But I'm just guessing.
I don't doubt a heavy loaded 40, 10mm, 45 ACP or Super will penetrate well enough to kill a bear and and in most cases, rearrange its priorities well enough to save your ass. (Some guys got by with 9mm but for me, no thanks. Bad things happen in the margins and I'm going to keep them as small as possible.) The link to the study, posted by JWP475, supports this and I don't doubt it's veracity or think the researchers are pushing an agenda.
You have a gun, the bear don't. Shoot the damn bear instantly if contact appears imminent. I'd much rather deal with pissed off possum cops than watch them stand around shaking their heads while somebody's trying to sew mine back on.
Finally, somebody did ask Phil about the incident not long after it happened.
_____
Phil you are well regarded by good friends of mine, so please don't take this wrong. I am asking from the perspective of a guy who made a short notice trip to Alaska in the spring several years ago with nothing but a 2 1/4" SP-101 (Loaded with Alaska Backpacker 200 grain LBT) and a 1911 loaded with hardball.
By what rationale do you leave a 475 at home and carry a 9mm while hiking in known grizzly country? If I'd have had time to arrange for a heavy-hitter, there's no way in hell I'd have left it. I had my wife and very pregnant daughter along and carried a slug-loaded 870 on those occasions.
_____
Sarge, My family homestead is right in the middle of a National Wildlife Refuge and the incident happened a bit over 5 miles from our home. We know the area, terrain and wildlife and don't feel the need to constantly be armed -- And when we are out the terrain is difficult and carrying something as large as a 475 quickly becomes a burden. something like your SP-101 is alot more likely to be packed.
As I have pointed out to numerous folks about this incident -- if I had known I would have run into an angry bear I wouldn't have even gone. And if I had to I would have taken my 458.
Phil Shoemaker - Alaska Master Guide
