Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game side arm for bear protection !!

"Zero yards" is approximately where I would start shooting, plus 5 maximum, with the .357 Mag Colt Python I occaisionally carry afield. At that range even it would likely do the job on a bear if jammed up against that sucker in the right place. If I can hang unto it long enough (I'm probably gonna get hit, even with the first one at 5 yards, and maybe shaken and bit). I've managed to never get into that kind of situation, so far.

Close a couple times, but I've always had a rifle, and never had to use it, either. I plan to keep it that way.

I don't carry the Python for bears, exactly..., and it's all I currently own in large sidearm. The .44 Mags seem to keep getting sold off or traded.... And certainly the bigger ones would be better yet. As (I think) John Taylor, African PH once wrote "In that kind of situation, even a 12-pounder isn't too much!"

An Alaska Peninsula game warden I once knew carried a .357, and a double 10 guage with 00-Buck, sawed off to 18 inches. "One is for ornery people, the other is for ornery bears." is the way he put it. He had it rigged with a nifty home-made shoulder and leg sling which left his hands free, secured the gun down against his leg, and which would let him get that thing operational really quickly if surprised.

In good bear country (like on the narrow, shallow, brushy salmon stream we were surveying once), he carried it in his hands. Both hands. We were wide-eyed and heavy breathing by the time we called it a day, about 10 am, and several bears inside 30 yards, all of whom left quickly. Plus a few more farther away. But we just didn't need to count no more stinkin' salmon on that crick! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> (I had a Winchester 70, .338 Mag. with 20 inch barrel, 250 grain Silvertips, and feeling definately undergunned)

JJ
Spoke with a bear biologist this evening and his comment was "That fella needs to work on his powers of observation." He said the Audobon text is dead on and he has looked in lots of bear mouths, polar bears included.

The only skulls I have on hand are from bears I have killed and that does not include a polar bear... But it does include brown grizzly and black.
art

I'm interested to hear JJ's response, cause I'm just natural curious. I've only seen the inside of the browns and blackies as well, but what I've read and seen of polar bears SD's statement seemed reasonable considering all of the other different adaptations of polar bears, i.e. the black skin, hollow hair, steamlined neck and head, just didn't figure they had the opportunity to be as omnivorous as the other types and that their teeth would be more adapted to their mostly meat diet.

Not doubting you either JJ, you seem to get around, but could you post some good pix of the different skulls and teeth you have from the species, Now you boys done got my curiosity in high gear, liable to be a dead cat in the morn <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hey Art you know what, I'm not gonna persue this. I respect and have admired your posts for a long time. It's gonna be up to you to sort this out for yourself. I have posted photos of both brown and grizzly and polar bear on this subject already in this thread. Aside form the size and age there is no visible divverence. IE nobody here can tell me which jaw goes with which species and nobody here can tell me which skull is frome what species. With the exception of the pair I have already identified.

As far as my powers of observation well I'll let that stand on its own merrit from a fella who does not know me and has never met me. It is very hard to convince me otherwise when I'm the one with the skulls in posetion and nobody else has a dog in this fight that does! I will go so far as to post other photos if there are some other angles you would like. But for me I know what I have in my posetion and what I can see right in front of me. It's plain as day that they are the same. AS I said there is just as much difference within the same species as there is between them. Polar bears teeth are smaller when compared to an equal size brwon bear. However they hove no functional difference in design.

As I showed in the last photo. The Brown bear is a smaller skull and the old worn teeth are easily larger then the Polar bears teeth which are in a much bigger skull. The audobon folks missed the boat on this or the dozens of polar bear skulls and the 100's of brown bear skulls I have come through here are all "freaks"

JJ,

Didn't know you had posted pic's already will scroll back through and take a look. Thanks, 1ak

Just took a look at the pic's. Good photos JJ thanks for sharing them with us, have to agree with Paul ( I believe it was him) that said the internet is so coool!

Also as David stated .458 was right on the money, while I have had .44's I had a guy tell me a test to take a long time ago that shook my confidence in my proficiency with a handgun, at that time I shot handguns pretty regular and had a notion of myself as a bit of a pistolero. Anyway he said get somebody that you can trust and get them to take an old worn out basketball and get behind a tree, have em whip it around the tree towards you in a low bounce pass sort of style, supposedly the bouncing of the bball resembles a bears head bobbing up and down while hightailing it for you, however many times you drill the ball is how many times you can expect to hit the bears head, granted it doesn't take into account near head misses that would hit the body, but it was enough of an eye opening experience for me that I started carrying a shotgun instead of a pistol <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I guess growing up quail hunting had been helpful, even though the quail didn't normally fly at me! So yeah if a guys good enough with a handgun to get the job done, he most likely isn't asking for advice as to what one to get <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> That's not meant to be disrespect to the original poster, just a very valid point that .458 brought up. Good thread and really enjoyed the pics.

Now JJ what's the answer to the distinguishing features between black and brown bears? I've only been in on two black bear kills and a dozen or so brown bears, guess I didn't pay enough attention, just remember that the one black bear was a pinhead in relation to his body size, an honest 7' 10" squared hide (no pulling or stretching) and he only had a 19 and change inch skull, didn't even make book, but a good hide and a nice bear. So I'll be the dumbazz, how do you tell for sure JJ? 1ak

Ok here is the secret way to make identificaton 100% NEVER a mistake. I know never is a strong word but with the literally 1000's of skulls I have seen here it's been 100% so far.

You need to see the last molar in the skull not the jaw. The very back one before the throat. If that molar is 1.2" long or less it's a black bear. If it's over 1" long its a brown or grizz. I have seen grizz cub skulls only 10-14 months old with a bigger rear molar then a 400 pound 25 year old black bear having a 22.5" skull.

With practice you can see the difference instantly without any measurement. It's clearly obvious once you have seen both together. Here are a similiar sized black and Grizz to see for yourself:



While I'm at it here is a couple photos of brown bear and polar bear molars. The photo of the polar bear was taken using a skull that scores over 29" B&C
The photo of the brown bear skull was taken using a brownie skull that score almost 28". They are simliar in size visibly but when actaul measure is taken the polar is just over 1" bigger by standard B&C measure.


This is the brown bear molars photo



This is the polar bear molars. Clearly the brownie has much bigger molars. They also have no functional difference in sharpness or design. You folks can be the judge. I suppose it's just lucky that I have so many actual skulls to choose from here at the shop!

BMT - "Thanx for the good story. Its also good to know that the 350 Remington can do serious damage to a Big Bear."
___________________________________________________
BMT, I know a man, now retired from the U.S. Park Service, Law Enfocement Div., who lived in Alaska for many years. Among other duties, he was charged with dealing with "problem" bears deemed to be a threat to people visiting the Parks, especially Denali.

He told me he had killed 33 Grizzlies, most of them with the .350 Rem. Magnum. Several he killed with a .338 Win. Mag., and a couple with a .30-06. He said it was hard to tell the difference between the .338 and the .350 on a Griz.

He also had to kill one Grizzly with his .44 Mag. handgun. He told me that a Griz came at him unexpectedly when he did not have his rifle with him, and that was why he used his S&W revolver. He used factory ammo in his firearms.

FWIW. L.W.

JJ
Clearly you are right... the Audobon book, every bear book on my shelf, every bear biologist at fish and game, my lying eyes, every site I Googled with "polar bear teeth" and the remainder of the free world are wrong.

I lack the polar bear skull to photograph with all things in perspective. Intended to run down to fish and game and photograph their skulls today, but ran out of time and the weather stinks for running around in Anchorage weather.
best to you
art

Hey Art,

Kurt and I both have bare skulls, I wonder if our teeth are similar? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Jeff

Interesting thread. Like others have posted, it would make sense that polar bears have at least some dentition differences from a Brown/Griz, although IIRC Brown Bears and Polar Bears are pretty close genetically, able to interbreed in captivity the young also fertile.

I would throw out that in a field guide "identical" or "similar" dentition might encompass the range of variation pictures in those two skulls, meaning the teeth are "similar" compared to something with an entirely different dental formula.

JJHack, the polar bear molars pictured have a smoother crown than do those of the brown. Are they from an older bear? or are polar bear molars also more rounded and smoother than those on brown bears?

Birdwatcher

Well art I said I was not going to persue this for the exact reason I was afraid of. I'm not going to debate what I know 100% and I have proven to all with the photo's attatched to this thread. I wish you well and have no bone to pick. I have a lot of respect for your posts and opinions. On this topic we differ. When you can post photos of actual skulls the way I have from Actual polar, brown and griz, and they show the "clear difference of the sharp cutting teeth specially designed for meat" I will listen and offer my apology to you and the readers. Until then I only have the real skulls here right in front of me to form my opinions with. If all I had were a single skull or two to base this on which might be old and warn out teeth I would not be taking a strong stand. I have these few polar bears now and have had about a 12 or maybe 15 in the last few years. Many for the state of Alaska. Very likely when you see them they will be the skulls I have processed for the state of AK!

Regardless of the wildlife biologists opinion, google and the Audobons books I actually have the real skulls here. If they did have them they would see exactly what I have shown in my posted photos. As far as the credibility of the game biologists, let me offer this. In Washington state quite often a question of skulls teeth or genetics come up in some sort of discussion. Do you know where they turn for the answers where skulls and bones are concerned?

Yep you guessed it, they come to my shop to measure and inspect the collection I have here since it's the biggest private collection of skulls around. 20 years of collection and processing for many of the game dept's and museums in the USA and Canada. I was also contracted to set up the colonies for the cape town museum in RSA. Not to mention the Human remains from many city coroners! In anycase I don't want folks who know of my business to assume it's some kind of hobby back yard project. You don't handle evidence for cororners offices as a hobby in your basement. My knowledge of skulls is not a passing fancy but a real investment of my time throughout my entire adult life.

This subject of the huge difference or similiarity between them is not my opinion, it's fact as seen right here on this website in these photos. What more would any sane and logical person think?

"File the front sight smooth....."

I guess he did not have to use a file,maybe who has the handgun may count,better to have one than not?,Kev

He also had to kill one Grizzly with his .44 Mag. handgun. He told me that a Griz came at him unexpectedly when he did not have his rifle with him, and that was why he used his S&W revolver. He used factory ammo in his firearms.

JJ
The fact the state come to look at your collection is not the same as asking directly for the information. The fact is I have held them in my hands and seen glaring differences. There is a local guy that set up his skull collection for the children in my son's school to look at and handle. He has some incredible skulls.

He borrowed one of my Kodiak brown bear skulls to show the kids how different the teeth are. Third graders were impressed by the difference. I was too.
----------------------------------------------------------
From a paper extract from the internet;
Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.

Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."

Ursus minimus (Pliocene) First little bear, with very bearlike molars, but still had the first premolars and slender canines. Shows gradual tooth changes and increase in body size as the ice age approached. Gave rise to the modern black bears (U. americanus & U. thibetanus), which haven't changed much since the Pliocene, and also smoothly evolved to the next species, U. etruscus: Ursus etruscus (late Pliocene) A larger bear, similar to our brown bear but with more primitive dentition. Molars big & square. First premolars small, and got smaller over time. Canines stouter. In Europe, gradually evolved into:

Ursus savini (late Pleistocene, 1 Ma) Very similar to the brown bear. Some individuals didn't have the first premolars at all, while others had little vestigial premolars. Tendency toward domed forehead. Slowly split into a European population and an Asian population.

U. spelaeus (late Pleistocene) The recently extinct giant cave bear, with a highly domed forehead. Clearly derived from the European population of U. savini, in a smooth transition. The species boundary is arbitrarily set at about 300,000 years ago.

U. arctos (late Pleistocene) The brown ("grizzly") bear, clearly derived from the Asian population of U. savini about 800,000 years ago.. Spread into the Europe, & to the New World.

U. maritimus (late Pleistocene) The polar bear. Very similar to a local population of brown bear, U. arctos beringianus that lived in Kamchatka about 500,000 years ago (Kurten 1964).

Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. [collection of symposium papers, most in French with English abstracts provided, some in English.]

Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus (Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26.
Kurten, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Aldine, Chicago.
Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New York. adapted from a number of sources, including Transitional Fossils web site.

---------------------------------------------------------
Not trying to get too far with this, but simply because you fail to see the differences proves neither the absence of differences nor the correctness of your assertions. My point is not about what my opinion is worth or what others say about it. My point is simply that the teeth are different and I find the difference impressive. You fail to see the differences. You are saying that I am 100% wrong based on the fact you fail to see the distinctions.

I see the differences from your photo, birdwatcher commented on one of the notable differences and you know the angle is not conducive to showing the differences. I cannot make you see, but it is there.
art

FYI... On occasion, I can produce a pendent made of polar bear canines. I fill the hollow tooth with epoxy, and cover the top of the tooth with baleen. On top of this I fasten a carving of a Eskimo hunter with harpoon. (This hunter is roughly an inch tall).
Also, as an alternative, a seal skin "cover' is attached, with polar bear fur on it's border.
As of today I don't have any teeth, but first come, first served when I do. I'm an Inupiaq Eskimo, legally able to work with polar bear teeth.
www.nwabor.org
(search the artist index)
As to the topic... I carry a Silverhawk 45LC, sporting 315 grain HC LBT style bullets (soon will load 340 grainers I got from '458 Lott'. I've no proper powder yet).
The way I see it, its better to have a revolver then to swing your fists, screaming for your mama! ~~~Suluuq

Jeff
Will let me boil out your skulls for Riley's collection?



I thought not <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
art

Art what this all comes down to is very simple. Your post regading the fella who had his leg bitten was lucky in your opinion to have had very little injury due to the type of teeth a polar bear has.

My reply was that they don't have teeth that are any different then a brown bear. Then somebody maybe you or another poster claimed that they have sharper shearing teth special for meat eating.

Look at the photo's I posted and think with out emotion and just using common sense and tell me how the molars of the polar bear could in any way inflict more damage to that fella then the brown bears molars.

That's it, end of the debate. You stated something about polar bears teeth being far more capabale of damage to a human leg in a bite. I'm saying they are not any different.

Now the conversation is changing to some tiny litte subtle difference between the two. Well certainly they are different because the polar bear teeth are smaller and have far less grinding surface for two identical sized bears of different species.

Here is your cut and pasted quote:
"the primary point I wanted to make was the incredible teeth poar bears have and how much sharper they are than any other bears... being designed as they are for tearing meat... You were lucky!!!"

Here are the photos:
This photo is of a brown bear just under 28" B&C score. To my eye the edges of these teeth look much sharper then the teeth in the photo below!

This photo is of a polar bear whose skull was just about 29" B&C score. Simply put I do not see how these smaller rounded teeth are genetically designed for meat shearing. It's plain to see they are actually less sharp then the molars in the photo above.

Here is the quote from your other post: It is the molars that differ most... but the canines are different, too. I see the differences as huge

I say again look at the pictures and tell me how your comment that the man was lucky he did not recieve a greater injury because of the more damaging type of teeth a polar bear. The teeth would have no bearing on the damage due to the identical "morter and pestal" design! The photos are here for all to see, so nobody is buying into the "huge" difference you seem to be hung up on! I have said several times now that there is as much difference between the same species due to size and age, as there is between polar and brown bears. If you are now going into some scientific definition of size shape and design that is a far different direction then your original comment which started this, regarding how lucky shrike was to have so little injury because of the polar bears dangerous tooth design.

Frankly I am very surprised that you continue to push this with nothing to go on. There is really no more I can comment on. Shrikes lack of serious injury was not relevent to tooth design as you stated, that's the bottom line!

"I have processed about 15-20 polar bear skulls here. One of them being the Number 2 B&C polar bear only 1/16" shy of number one. None of them had canine or molars that are any different then a brown or black bear. I can post a photo of all the teeth of both or even all three species if needed as I have skulls of all three here in the shop now. They are so similiar infact that if they were taken out and all mixed up there would not be an easy way to determine which came from which. WIth the exception that the brownies and Polar would be bigger then a black bears."

"...or the dozens of polar bear skulls and the 100's of brown bear skulls I have come through here are all 'freaks' "

"Not even a forensic anthropologist could sort through a bin of mixed teeth and tell what species they came from."

"However the teeth are not any different, not even a small amount."

"As I said a big female polar bear molar and a medium male brown bear molar cannot be distinguished from one one another. Nor could the canines."

"nobody here can tell me which jaw goes with which species and nobody here can tell me which skull is frome what species."

"They also have no functional difference in sharpness or design. You folks can be the judge."

"This subject of the huge difference or similiarity between them is not my opinion, it's fact as seen right here on this website in these photos."

JJ
I have to assume you have seen old worn-toothed bears and young bears too. You know the differences. Having been able to upgrade your skull collection with the biggest ones around is a wondeful thing, but leaves you with old worn teeth.

I see waffling in your posts, but your fact is different from mine. You posted no one could tell the differences in the teeth. I know I can. You posted no one could tell the differences in the lower jaws. I know I can.

I suppose I need to run down to Fish and Game and get photos of the smaller skulls you might have processed for them, so everyone can tell the differences.
art

So, how about them Yankees? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Flinch

Yankees suck, How 'bout them Red sox? ( but I get your point Flinch)