I mean..... They also put congress in charge of deciding if we need term limits. I don't know that I can debate govtard actions at the same time as bear defense. One contentious topic at a time!
Breaking News. High level White House official weighs in!
In SE AK where I was. F&G had shotguns. When asked they said they weren’t buying them rifles. They used rubber bullets and one guy had some sort of bird bombs. They only visits and a ton of bears and bear issues were solved by locals. Forest service kids that did work had a 375. They were from a Fed program. They intentionally left it behind. One night they came to our house all worked up and said one of the boys did not return. They wanted me and a the store manager to go look for him at night. We said no and if he didn’t show up by noon we would take a look.
Some downplay the handgun as being less accurate than the rifle! If one is actually being attacked by a bear, most anyone should be able to get at least one shot placed pretty accurately, as the distance will be measured in a few feet …. Not 20 plus yards, where the accuracy benefits lean toward the rifle! JMO. memtb
I can say without question, that even at a few feet with my heart pumping out of my chest, I can shoot a long gun better than a handgun and control it better to get another somewhat accurate shot off. BTDT.
To the thread in general, I think it is also important to state that people who work in and around bears, to include ADFG, USFWS and even a lot of local LEOs in Kodiak and such carry shotguns with slugs for bear defense. Why? Maybe it is cost or ease of use for somewhat inexperienced personal. Maybe, it is proven effective. I dunno but that is what all field going personnel that I have crossed paths with in the interior west and Alaska are issued by their agency for bear defense, myself included.
To some degree, I think that is due to the simplicity of a slide action vs working a bolt.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time. --Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice. --ironbender
The Forest service or some agency in AK had more pre64 375s than anyone else I ever saw. They’d bring them in by the dozen for cleanings once a year when I was at the shop.
They were all cut down, some 20” some 18” IIRC. Most looking like it had been done by hacksaw and file. They were then fitted with a Williams front ramp, Millet sight blade on most, and either a Williams WGOS rear buckhorn or a Williams peep, most had the peep. 90 percent of them were in Ramline injection molded stocks.
They did have a few push feed 375s and 338s that had been treated in a similar fashion with regard to sights and stocks.
I was impressed that some gooberment agency not known for its great decision making had such an arsenal of serious rifles. If we found one needing a part they had some that were in rougher shape or otherwise out of service that we could scavenge off of. No idea what kind of ammo they fed them.
A rather large inland grizzly was long ago bonked with a couple shots to the bean with a 22 long.
Big enough to be number 1 in B&C for quite a long time big?
That is absolute fact….but is an anomaly! I would venture to suggest that there would be a lot of Inuit hunters that wish they were carrying something with a bit more punch than they had at the time they were killed by a bear! Of course, getting their comments after the fact is difficult! 😉 memtb
You should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everything goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." -Bob Hagel
“I’d like to be a good rifleman…..but, I prefer to be a good hunter”! memtb 2024
Some downplay the handgun as being less accurate than the rifle! If one is actually being attacked by a bear, most anyone should be able to get at least one shot placed pretty accurately, as the distance will be measured in a few feet …. Not 20 plus yards, where the accuracy benefits lean toward the rifle! JMO. memtb
I can say without question, that even at a few feet with my heart pumping out of my chest, I can shoot a long gun better than a handgun and control it better to get another somewhat accurate shot off. BTDT.
To the thread in general, I think it is also important to state that people who work in and around bears, to include ADFG, USFWS and even a lot of local LEOs in Kodiak and such carry shotguns with slugs for bear defense. Why? Maybe it is cost or ease of use for somewhat inexperienced personal. Maybe, it is proven effective. I dunno but that is what all field going personnel that I have crossed paths with in the interior west and Alaska are issued by their agency for bear defense, myself included.
T Inman; Good morning to you my friend, I trust you're seeing the sun as we are down here - which is rare for us in winter - and you're well on this second Friday of the second month.
As far as I know here in BC shotguns were issued to CO's and RCMP at least. The CO's now have an AR10 .308 but still might have a shotgun for stuff like the Lightfield Smurf Blue plastic dowels? Again I'm not sure sorry.
My gut feel on why they've issued shotguns is a combination of fairly low initial cost, relative ease of training, availability of less than lethal options and possibly the shorter distance the projectile will travel. The CO's will deal with a whole bunch of problem bears in relatively populated areas.
That said T - years ago when I went down the rabbit hole testing different slugs, I corresponded with a chap up in Churchill, MB who was a bear herder. Now who he herded bears for has either vanished from my memory or he never said, but as you know Churchill had and still has issues with the occasional grizzly but the problem bears were traditionally polar bears.
It was somewhere up there where a couple polar/grizzly hybrids have been shot.
Anyways this chap who went by the handle "Boomer" and had some really, REALLY close photos of bears, was a firm believer in Brenneke slugs. He and a couple other posters opined that the Canadian loaded Challenger slug shells which use the Italian made Guilandi slugs were likely on par with the Brenneke as far as penetration. The posters who seemed to be the most experienced with actually shooting something with slugs were very adamant that all slugs were not created equally.
That all taken into account, an Alaska 'Fire poster here Klikitarik reported shooting a grizzly with Brenneke slugs and he wasn't that impressed at all so there is that.
As a brief aside on the Lightfield Smurf slugs, I can report that one was fired in if not anger then at least in a general state of ill will towards this idiot cinnamon we had hanging around the neighborhood and I was able to hit it at about 60yds just with a Truglo fiber optic bead. The bear didn't seem to like it but I'd say that was about the extent of it's effective range.
The neighbor who I was hazing the bear with, reported that when he'd hit a different bear last spring with one - at a distance measured in feet - that the bear was able to perform a gymnastic routine which would have resulted in at least a podium placement at the Olympics.
Anyways T, just a few random thoughts on your posts, some of which might be useful and some just marginal at best.
Haven't shot any bears but have run a lot of loads through big bore pistols. More full power loads than was good for me. I'll still pick an 06 with 200 or 220 npt's for carry power. Was and is good enough for Phil S will be good enough for me. Confidence based on your competence with the 06 will carry the day...mb
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
Haven't shot any bears but have run a lot of loads through big bore pistols. More full power loads than was good for me. I'll still pick an 06 with 200 or 220 npt's for carry power. Was and is good enough for Phil S will be good enough for me. Confidence based on your competence with the 06 will carry the day...mb
My same experience with big bore hand cannons and you cant go wrong with a ought-six, if one is going to carry a large bore handgun, I would recommend plenty of practice.
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
Some downplay the handgun as being less accurate than the rifle! If one is actually being attacked by a bear, most anyone should be able to get at least one shot placed pretty accurately, as the distance will be measured in a few feet …. Not 20 plus yards, where the accuracy benefits lean toward the rifle! JMO. memtb
I can say without question, that even at a few feet with my heart pumping out of my chest, I can shoot a long gun better than a handgun and control it better to get another somewhat accurate shot off. BTDT.
To the thread in general, I think it is also important to state that people who work in and around bears, to include ADFG, USFWS and even a lot of local LEOs in Kodiak and such carry shotguns with slugs for bear defense. Why? Maybe it is cost or ease of use for somewhat inexperienced personal. Maybe, it is proven effective. I dunno but that is what all field going personnel that I have crossed paths with in the interior west and Alaska are issued by their agency for bear defense, myself included.
T Inman; Good morning to you my friend, I trust you're seeing the sun as we are down here - which is rare for us in winter - and you're well on this second Friday of the second month.
As far as I know here in BC shotguns were issued to CO's and RCMP at least. The CO's now have an AR10 .308 but still might have a shotgun for stuff like the Lightfield Smurf Blue plastic dowels? Again I'm not sure sorry.
My gut feel on why they've issued shotguns is a combination of fairly low initial cost, relative ease of training, availability of less than lethal options and possibly the shorter distance the projectile will travel. The CO's will deal with a whole bunch of problem bears in relatively populated areas.
That said T - years ago when I went down the rabbit hole testing different slugs, I corresponded with a chap up in Churchill, MB who was a bear herder. Now who he herded bears for has either vanished from my memory or he never said, but as you know Churchill had and still has issues with the occasional grizzly but the problem bears were traditionally polar bears.
It was somewhere up there where a couple polar/grizzly hybrids have been shot.
Anyways this chap who went by the handle "Boomer" and had some really, REALLY close photos of bears, was a firm believer in Brenneke slugs. He and a couple other posters opined that the Canadian loaded Challenger slug shells which use the Italian made Guilandi slugs were likely on par with the Brenneke as far as penetration. The posters who seemed to be the most experienced with actually shooting something with slugs were very adamant that all slugs were not created equally.
That all taken into account, an Alaska 'Fire poster here Klikitarik reported shooting a grizzly with Brenneke slugs and he wasn't that impressed at all so there is that.
As a brief aside on the Lightfield Smurf slugs, I can report that one was fired in if not anger then at least in a general state of ill will towards this idiot cinnamon we had hanging around the neighborhood and I was able to hit it at about 60yds just with a Truglo fiber optic bead. The bear didn't seem to like it but I'd say that was about the extent of it's effective range.
The neighbor who I was hazing the bear with, reported that when he'd hit a different bear last spring with one - at a distance measured in feet - that the bear was able to perform a gymnastic routine which would have resulted in at least a podium placement at the Olympics.
Anyways T, just a few random thoughts on your posts, some of which might be useful and some just marginal at best.
Have a great weekend my friend.
Dwayne
Dwayne, You have to be the most respectful guy on the fire, my hats off to you sir for your well spoken replies.
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
Some downplay the handgun as being less accurate than the rifle! If one is actually being attacked by a bear, most anyone should be able to get at least one shot placed pretty accurately, as the distance will be measured in a few feet …. Not 20 plus yards, where the accuracy benefits lean toward the rifle! JMO. memtb
I can say without question, that even at a few feet with my heart pumping out of my chest, I can shoot a long gun better than a handgun and control it better to get another somewhat accurate shot off. BTDT.
To the thread in general, I think it is also important to state that people who work in and around bears, to include ADFG, USFWS and even a lot of local LEOs in Kodiak and such carry shotguns with slugs for bear defense. Why? Maybe it is cost or ease of use for somewhat inexperienced personal. Maybe, it is proven effective. I dunno but that is what all field going personnel that I have crossed paths with in the interior west and Alaska are issued by their agency for bear defense, myself included.
T Inman; Good morning to you my friend, I trust you're seeing the sun as we are down here - which is rare for us in winter - and you're well on this second Friday of the second month.
As far as I know here in BC shotguns were issued to CO's and RCMP at least. The CO's now have an AR10 .308 but still might have a shotgun for stuff like the Lightfield Smurf Blue plastic dowels? Again I'm not sure sorry.
My gut feel on why they've issued shotguns is a combination of fairly low initial cost, relative ease of training, availability of less than lethal options and possibly the shorter distance the projectile will travel. The CO's will deal with a whole bunch of problem bears in relatively populated areas.
That said T - years ago when I went down the rabbit hole testing different slugs, I corresponded with a chap up in Churchill, MB who was a bear herder. Now who he herded bears for has either vanished from my memory or he never said, but as you know Churchill had and still has issues with the occasional grizzly but the problem bears were traditionally polar bears.
It was somewhere up there where a couple polar/grizzly hybrids have been shot.
Anyways this chap who went by the handle "Boomer" and had some really, REALLY close photos of bears, was a firm believer in Brenneke slugs. He and a couple other posters opined that the Canadian loaded Challenger slug shells which use the Italian made Guilandi slugs were likely on par with the Brenneke as far as penetration. The posters who seemed to be the most experienced with actually shooting something with slugs were very adamant that all slugs were not created equally.
That all taken into account, an Alaska 'Fire poster here Klikitarik reported shooting a grizzly with Brenneke slugs and he wasn't that impressed at all so there is that.
As a brief aside on the Lightfield Smurf slugs, I can report that one was fired in if not anger then at least in a general state of ill will towards this idiot cinnamon we had hanging around the neighborhood and I was able to hit it at about 60yds just with a Truglo fiber optic bead. The bear didn't seem to like it but I'd say that was about the extent of it's effective range.
The neighbor who I was hazing the bear with, reported that when he'd hit a different bear last spring with one - at a distance measured in feet - that the bear was able to perform a gymnastic routine which would have resulted in at least a podium placement at the Olympics.
Anyways T, just a few random thoughts on your posts, some of which might be useful and some just marginal at best.
Have a great weekend my friend.
Dwayne
Good thoughts Dwayne...as per your usual. I suspect that the reason a lot of agencies issue shotguns for bear defense are for those reasons you state and more, but I also think that if they weren't effective at all then the story would be different. What a person is comfortable with is likely "best", but shotguns with quality slugs likely have a one size "sorta fits all" kind of thing going.
You have yourself a great weekend. Catch some of those perch.
T; Thanks for the very kind reply again sir, you're consistently patient with this semi-old Canuck who reads and I realize also writes too much at times.
Your statement about shotguns being a "one size fits all" and work reasonably well most times makes sense to me for sure.
Because we're not trusted with sidearms in the back country in Canada, I've either used a lever rifle or pump shotgun for my personal meat packing or camping arm over the years. I started with a bit of a modified pump gun that I bought when I was maybe 13 or 14, so we go way, way back, then switched to a 94 and then went back to a 14" barreled pump gun which is at least a pound lighter than my old Lakefield Mossberg. We can run short barreled long arms up here - so far - as long as the overall length is 26.5" and it's not a semi-auto. If it's an auto loader it has to have an 18.5" barrel because....
I'll not even begin to attempt to explain the reasoning behind any of our firearm laws, suffice it to say T, the law makers either have armed guards and have never seen a bear other than on a screen most likely.
Should you or anyone be so inclined for some decidedly not "light reading" I've got a trio of books that were written by a chap who moved to Bella Coola country from the US and became BC's bear attack expert. Now for awhile he taught one of the first if not the very first bear course which WorkSafeBC required for certain jobs or job areas.
So for sure he had experience, but was also selling his course and all that - still T - it's interesting reading for anyone who lives, works and recreates in bear country as we both do.
For sure as I've noted before when I link books, I'm not Mr. Bezos' biggest fan, so provide Abebooks links. Even here in the BC sticks I've had really good service and shipping times from them.
Thanks again for the pleasant exchange, I usually learn something from you and I appreciate that.
Since our last exchange I've also been sent yet another possible location to try for perch at a lake that isn't intentionally being winter killed, so it's an embarrassment of riches truly.
Some downplay the handgun as being less accurate than the rifle! If one is actually being attacked by a bear, most anyone should be able to get at least one shot placed pretty accurately, as the distance will be measured in a few feet …. Not 20 plus yards, where the accuracy benefits lean toward the rifle! JMO. memtb
I can say without question, that even at a few feet with my heart pumping out of my chest, I can shoot a long gun better than a handgun and control it better to get another somewhat accurate shot off. BTDT.
To the thread in general, I think it is also important to state that people who work in and around bears, to include ADFG, USFWS and even a lot of local LEOs in Kodiak and such carry shotguns with slugs for bear defense. Why? Maybe it is cost or ease of use for somewhat inexperienced personal. Maybe, it is proven effective. I dunno but that is what all field going personnel that I have crossed paths with in the interior west and Alaska are issued by their agency for bear defense, myself included.
T Inman; Good morning to you my friend, I trust you're seeing the sun as we are down here - which is rare for us in winter - and you're well on this second Friday of the second month.
As far as I know here in BC shotguns were issued to CO's and RCMP at least. The CO's now have an AR10 .308 but still might have a shotgun for stuff like the Lightfield Smurf Blue plastic dowels? Again I'm not sure sorry.
My gut feel on why they've issued shotguns is a combination of fairly low initial cost, relative ease of training, availability of less than lethal options and possibly the shorter distance the projectile will travel. The CO's will deal with a whole bunch of problem bears in relatively populated areas.
That said T - years ago when I went down the rabbit hole testing different slugs, I corresponded with a chap up in Churchill, MB who was a bear herder. Now who he herded bears for has either vanished from my memory or he never said, but as you know Churchill had and still has issues with the occasional grizzly but the problem bears were traditionally polar bears.
It was somewhere up there where a couple polar/grizzly hybrids have been shot.
Anyways this chap who went by the handle "Boomer" and had some really, REALLY close photos of bears, was a firm believer in Brenneke slugs. He and a couple other posters opined that the Canadian loaded Challenger slug shells which use the Italian made Guilandi slugs were likely on par with the Brenneke as far as penetration. The posters who seemed to be the most experienced with actually shooting something with slugs were very adamant that all slugs were not created equally.
That all taken into account, an Alaska 'Fire poster here Klikitarik reported shooting a grizzly with Brenneke slugs and he wasn't that impressed at all so there is that.
As a brief aside on the Lightfield Smurf slugs, I can report that one was fired in if not anger then at least in a general state of ill will towards this idiot cinnamon we had hanging around the neighborhood and I was able to hit it at about 60yds just with a Truglo fiber optic bead. The bear didn't seem to like it but I'd say that was about the extent of it's effective range.
The neighbor who I was hazing the bear with, reported that when he'd hit a different bear last spring with one - at a distance measured in feet - that the bear was able to perform a gymnastic routine which would have resulted in at least a podium placement at the Olympics.
Anyways T, just a few random thoughts on your posts, some of which might be useful and some just marginal at best.
Have a great weekend my friend.
Dwayne
Dwayne, You have to be the most respectful guy on the fire, my hats off to you sir for your well spoken replies.
Cultural appropriation.
Don't ask me about my military service or heroic acts...most of it is untrue.
I am not sure how much faith I'd put into that. Several of the examples included situations that aren't conducive to what I would think a normal 'attack' would consist of, nor what I'd consider a "success" in stopping an attack.
On the third case they describe, a guide killed a black bear (which in a quote was referred to as both a sow and a boar) with a .22 LR after shooting it 20+ times and dogs fighting it (as opposed to it actually attacking the person).
The fourth example involves a black bear eating a dead woman and they shoot it off her body. Again not what I'd refer to as an 'attack', at least not on the part of the shooter. That same entry states: "The animal was shot and killed", but also that "Michael was very careful *not* to hit the bear, for fear of enraging it."
The fifth example (and the "one" failure) involved a polar bear, again shot with a .22 LR at 15 feet. The article states: "On examination, three shots to the head were discovered, none of them piercing the cranium", so the survivors examined a live bears head??? This isn't to mention that despite the article stating "We found one failure out of 37 documented cases", it describes a second situation in that same example with "two tourists defended themselves with a .22 calibre pistol which proved ineffective. One man was killed, the other injured. Police later shot the bear."....that sounds like at least 2 failures to me.
It was poorly written on several fronts, which makes me suspect of it overall. I didn't even bother reading it further as the first several examples were full of holes, so to speak.
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/773/4Bo5YS.jpg)
