Hi, I am thinking about getting a side arm for bears. I think my choices are 357 mag, 41 mag, or a 44 mag. I am up for sugestions. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />
Thanks
Rich

Just stay away from bears<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> if your carrying a rifle of any caliber capable of taking a deer you got more power then any of your sugested calibers. if you just want an excuse to buy another gun then i say go for the 44 i love em, got 4 myself.
Regards,
Paul

get a Smith and Wesson 45 colt mountain gun.

But I really agree with Paul, stay away from bears!

justed picked up a 44 S&W 329 Alaska backpackerIII, nice and light 26oz's

I guess it would probably help to know what i cary when not hunting and just screwin off. I have a taurus M44 stainless with 4" ported barrel. Nice little pistol. i also cary a S&W 29 classic hunter with 8 3/8" barrel or a Ruger super black hawk with 6" or a ruger super black hawk with 6" and Lupy 2X on top. It's all personal preference. I've carried a 357 with hard 158gr hard cast that i never felt uncomfortable with in bear country.
the main thing you want to look for is something that will educate you on what to look for in bear country. i.e. the best defence is a good offence! it really is best to know when your gettin into something that you shouldn't. But the pistol does bring some piece of mind.
The S&W 629 alaskan back packer is a pretty good gun for the money.
Regards,
Paul

Rich:
I reckon that the 44 Mag would be the best, but if it were me I'd hafta load it down some, so I could handle the recoil enough for more than one shot. Maybe the same for a 41, but I don't own one. OR, a 44 but I've shot them. I carry a .357 Ruger Blackhawk, with a long barrel, when I'm not carrying a rifle.

Something I consider ESSENTIAL whether using any of the 3 cartridges you name, is to use Hard Cast SWC bullets. They will give you the most penetration. (an important consideration for bears.) (Especially with a .357) The best information on this (penetration, of hard cast bullets) is from the writings of Brian Pierce, Handloader & Rifle Magazines.

I've never shot a bear with a handgun, and hope I don't have to, but if I had to, I'd want something that had manageable recoil, and with bullets that would penetrate. Please understand, I don't claim to be an expert. Just trying to help. I'm sure there are various opinions.

Smitty of the North

The bigger and the harder the slug the better, but I agree with Paul. Stay away from bears, all bears, anywheres. I have killed them with a head shot with a 38 spl. I do NOT recommend that as an effective bear round. I have killed them with a 40 S&W, and I do not recommend that as a bear round. 12 guage slug is good, but they're hard to find in a legal handgun. 45-70 is also good, but there are only a couple repeaters in handguns around. My brother has a T/C Contender in 45-70, and that thing works good on the "little blackies" we have around here. I prefer a rifle everytime, but if you don't have one, use what you got. Pick something that you will be able to shoot well. If it is not one of the larger recoiling models, try to do a Central Nervous System hit. Brain or spine always worked for me.

I think our Alaska residents are more qualified to answer this than I.
However, the idea of having my gluteus maximas chased or whipped by bear, quite frankly isn't my idea of fun.

With that said, according to www.ruger.com new for 2005, they have a new revolver fittingly called, "The Alaskan".

FWIW,

J Scott

A 2.5" .454 or .480? Yikes. That Alaskan is going to be an ear-full.

Ruger can keep that POS! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> It hurts to shoot 325hard casts out of my taurus 454 with 8 3/8" barrel! wouldn't want to find out if it was worse with this thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
Anyway, get what makes you happy and use the hardest boolits you can get. then, if your ever in the situation, don't schit yourself! Aim for spine! or up the shnoz.
Regards,
Paul

File the front sight smooth..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

he he he he<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> and grease it up real good!
Paul

Well, gentlemen, a fellow by the name of Bob Brown shot a griz with a .454 in the head. The range was zero yards inside the tent. The 300 grain factory load exited after penitrating three vertibrae. Not much fight left after that. Needless to say, the hardest part was gettng a big, dead bear out of the tent. Since he was an Alaskan game warden at the time, his explanation was suficient to his buds.

If you have not experienced the power of these big revolvers, don't expect those of us who have to respect your posts.

10 mm Glock-hard cast- double thump head, then double thump chest, then double thump head-

I've never had to shoot a bear in DLP with either a rifle or handgun ( and hope I never do! ). That said, I'll at least chime in with what I carry, ONLY when it's not convenient to have a proper rifle in my hands. My current woods carry gun is a 4-3/4" Freedom Arms .475 Linebaugh. Yes, the recoil is fairly substantial, but I find it more shootable than a .454 Casull. The .475 kick is heavy but slow, compared to the .454, which I found heavy and very fast/sharp. I would equate it with the recoil difference between a .375 H&H and a .338 Win Mag. I can shoot a .375 till I'm bored; the .338, on the other hand, hurts like hell( to me, anyway). Before going to the big bore, I carried one .44 Mag or another. No matter what I carry, it's loaded with heavy hard cast bullets. If I never test any of the various bear defense theories, I'll be a happy man. As always, the most potent bear defense, is the gray stuff between our ears.

Jeff

It's interesting to read so many posts with very strong opinions from folks with very little personal experience. The Magazines have done a pretty good to mis-inform the average "joe" in the hype of several things. Not the least of which involves hand gun power and hard cast bullets! I tried to sort through this a few years ago and wrote this article for a national magazine. It should shed some light on what the deal is really like and what the reality of a handgun for bears will do for you. In my opinion with many years of hands on experience, a handgun will more then likely give you a false sense of security. This will lead to getting into places and situations you should not be in. The fact that your packing a side arm does not give you an invinceable saftey margin. If you truely believe that your going someplace where bears could be a problem you need a 375HH or bigger, if you can handle it. That is the bottom line. It's a long article but probably worth the read if this is a serious concern of yours. Here ya go:


I have had quite a few guys over the years ask about handgun cartridges for bear hunting. I really like hunting bears with handguns. I have likely taken more with a handgun then by any other means myself. Handguns have some limitations and some, even though referred to as handguns are more like little handheld rifles then handguns. The general term of handgun seems to stretch the definition quite a bit to include these single shot cannons!

When I think of a handgun I see a revolver or semi-auto pistol in my mind. However today the Thompson Contender and other single shot
handguns seem to have taken over as the handgun of choice for serious big game hunters. I have owned many contender barrels and several contender actions in my life so I�m quite familiar with them.

During my early years as a Professional Hunter I was using dogs to hunt lions and bears. I took out a number of guys from the mid-west and eastern states for bears during the spring Idaho hunts and the fall Washington hunts. It was not unusual to take 20 or 30 hunters out per year and shoot 30-40 bears per season. The Idaho regulation allowed 2 bears per hunter per year and the Washington regulations allowed only one fall bear per person.

We booked a hunter from Ohio early in our guiding business. He was a police officer that wanted to hunt using his on duty carry gun. In Idaho any gun .22 center-fire or larger was the minimum for big game. Washington State had muzzle energy minimum requirement at that time. We took the policeman out on the hunt with his 45 ACP shooting 250-grain soft point bullets. His first bear was treed and shot without much trouble. The bear was in the tree about 20 yards above us. We caught our breath, took a couple photos and then he prepared for the shot and fired. The impact was solid, smoke could easily be seen coming out of the hole in the bear�s chest. The bear was angry and peeling bark from the tree after being hit! He began to climb further up the tree when I yelled hit him again. I did not want the bear coming down with the dogs tied up and unable to escape from this angry wounded bear. He was about 225-240 pounds. A nice brown colored typical Idaho spring bear. At the second shot which hit nearly the same place as the first the bear really started going up the tree fast and I yelled to shoot again. I think the third shot missed but the forth hit him solid sounding like a baseball bat hitting a homerun.

The bear was barely visible up in the branches of the tall fir tree when all of a sudden we heard him crashing down and falling to the ground. When he hit the ground he was up in a flash and rolling and running down the hill. He was dead when he came to a stop on the flat, about 100 yards below us.

This experience was really educational for me. I saw this bear shot quite a few times with little effect from that 45 ACP shooting good 240 grain soft point bullets. The hunters accuracy was great, the bullets were big and heavy, and the bear was close. Why would this combination not be a much better killer? The hunter was thrilled and excited to go shoot another bear! This time he loaded his 240-grain HP�s for the hunt. We had a conversation regarding the lack of �crumple power� his gun had shown. He was surprised I felt that his gun was weak, or exhibited a lack of power. He asked what I was expecting from a handgun. I said I expect a bear shot in the center of the chest with a bullet to die in seconds, not continue to climb a tree and growl or be in a fighting mood. I also said if the bear comes out of the tree alive next time, I would also have to shoot him to protect my dogs. The hunter, although he understood the issue with the dogs, was still surprised by my opinion of his guns performance. He also respected my need to guard the dogs should a problem occur with the next bear.

The second bear was bayed and running and bayed and running all day. It�s a trait big bears have so I was quite worried about the gun he had. Eventually this bear also treed and we were able to get to the base of the tree before he jumped out again. It was a big bear of at least 300 pounds. I also carried my .44 magnum revolver this time, as backup. At the shot, which the bear took in the center of his chest all he did was growl and slap the tree with his paw. I said keep shooting until he falls, if he comes down alive I�m going to have to shoot him too.

This bear started to come down the tree. At the next shot he stopped and began to climb further up the tree but fell dead when he hit the ground in a moment or two. The Ohio policeman was thrilled again and really excited to see that his carry gun was so good at killing a big animal like this bear. Far-be it from me to ruin his feelings on the hunt or his gun, but I thought the performance was pathetic! He returned home amongst the most satisfied of all the clients I have ever had. He must have done a great sales job too, because for the next several years the majority of my hunters were mid western police officers using their carry guns for hunting. During this time I relived many of these types of multiple shot hunts at close range with various types of handguns. I suppose it�s where my opinionated feelings have come from regarding handguns for bears or other big game. I also have to laugh when I hear guys talking about �back up� guns for hikes in bear country, or while fishing in Alaska. I also see this kind of chat on the Internet hunting forums. Many of the guys who really believe their handgun is the �be all-end all� choice for protection. They would likely be leaving the dead weight of their gun home if they saw it�s pathetic performance on a 300 pound black bear, much less an angry 1000 pound brown bear or grizzly!

There have been a lot of handgun cartridges used over the years that I would consider worthless hunting guns for big game. The first is the 38
special. It�s lack of penetration and poor bullets are not meant for hunting. A human being is a very soft and mentally weak animal. A Human shot in the leg will go down for the count screaming for help. A deer or bear shot the same way will be a 100 yards away or more before you realize you made a bad shot. I have seen 30 pound coyotes shot with a 357 magnum run a long way before falling down. A man shot the same way would be praying for his life. There are so many drug induced mental problems with humans that those dopers who are shot might be as hard to stop as a bear or deer. The drugs would likely make them more worry free and likely to flee or fight with a serious wound. If I were a policeman watching how my carry gun performed on a bear that allowed him to climb a tree, after a perfectly centered chest shot I would certainly consider a bigger gun! It seems to me many criminals are on dope and they would be like shooting an adrenalin filled bear!

So what are the cartridges which are failures, and the cartridges which are gems in the handgun world according to my experience with hundreds of bears killed? The bad choices are the 38 caliber the 9mm, and the 40S&W. These three should be strictly police work, targets or plinkers. The 40 S&W, and 9mm need cleaning and attention daily. I have seen plenty of these semi-autos fail to cycle with pine needles jammed into them and leaf mulch or dirt in the action. They seemed to have the highest level of cleaning and maintenance needed by far. Revolvers on the other hand seem to be trouble free and made for hunting!

The next group of guns can kill bears but I would certainly not consider them hunting guns. The 357 magnum is able to kill a bear much better then the 9mm and the 38 special even though they actually shoot the same bullets. The 357 mag is much better then the 40S&W as well. The 357-magnum case is just a bigger capacity shell able to provide much better performance. If I were a cop it�s likely what I would carry based on what I saw it do to bears of all sizes. Don�t mistake me here, I don�t like it as a hunting gun for big game especially bears. The 45ACP is another gun which worked but not what I would like in a bear, or big game crumpling handgun. I think soft point bullets with maximum loads would give you a false sense of security for bear backup as well. I don�t see the hard cast bullets in 357 mag being enough better to trust 100 percent of the time. They are not what I would carry and I would never suggest anyone hunt even the smaller black bears or deer with one. The .44 special was a decent performer but again it fell short of the crumple effect I like to see in a bear hunting gun.

This next group is where I think the minimum line is drawn. The 41 magnum and the 10mm seem to have the power to really make an impression
on a bear. I have seen both these cartridges knock bears down and break leg bones. Something the others just don�t seem to be able to manage
consistently. These guns shoot over 1000 fps with bullets well into the 200-grain weight category. They seem to have nearly equal power and
accuracy as well. This is where I would suggest a minimum bear hunting handgun for close range start. They are certainly less than 50 yard guns but a great tool for bait and hound hunting. I would not suggest this cartridge as a backup or self defense against bears, only for hunting.

Finally the best group of guns. These are cartridges, which have never failed to decide matters and have the ability to crumple a bear in his tracks most of the time. The .44 magnum, the 45 long colt, and the 454. I have killed dozens of bears with the .44 magnum in my life and I don�t recall a single one running off after the first shot. I have recovered very few bullets and have broken the bones of the shoulder and legs countless times. These guns are more like rifles in performance then the typical police handguns I�ve seen so often. With a 240 grain hollow point going 1200 or more FPS the .44 magnum revolver is at the top of the heap as a commonly used hunting handgun. With Randy Garrett's hard cast ammo it will whistle though the shoulders of any bear in America. My .44 magnum was a Ruger Red hawk with a 7.5� barrel. It was an easy to shoot gun with plenty of crumple power. The same gun in 45 Long colt or 454 would be as good at getting the job done. I also have a 4� barrel Smith and Wesson Mountain gun that is as good but do to the lower Velocity of the short barrel it has a distance limitation of about 40-50 yards in my opinion. I consider these the proper size handguns for hunting the big game of the world.

The final �sub-category� are the wildcats, the contenders, and the new big bore revolvers. There is now a whole host of big bore revolvers like the 480 Ruger, the 50 caliber S&W, and the 50 Linebaugh. There is even a 45/70 revolver available now! Clearly all these are excellent bear killers if you decide to pack the additional weight and handle the massive recoil forces.

Keep these three factors in mind when deciding on a handgun for big game or bears. Make certain it has 1000 fps impact velocity, not muzzle velocity. .40 caliber or greater diameter, and finally, heavy bullets in the mid 200-grain weight range or bigger. With handguns so long as the impact velocity is about 1000 fps the best way to improve power and visual effect is by increasing diameter and weight of the bullet.

Remember also there are ways of having an effective increase in bullet diameter without changing caliber. Make sure if you use hard cast bullets you have the largest flat nose on the bullet possible also known as the �meplat�. Randy Garrett loads a bullet in his ammo which has a large flat nose which is almost bore diameter! This has an enormous effect on bullet impact over a pointed or rounded nose bullet. Granted the over all diameter has not changed but the bullets impact diameter has improved by a whole bunch with such a big flat nose.

One other thing to consider, don�t think that just because you load a heavy hard cast bullet you have the most powerful load for your gun. This is a very common mistake. Those big heavy bullets will often whistle clean through a big bear like a field tipped arrow. The bears will die but often show little bullet impact reaction. They also tend to run off and die a great distance away. In my experience a high velocity hollow point bullet will cause a significant impact reaction and almost always allow an additional shot while the bear is stunned. The bullets about 240-260 grains in weight as fast as you can drive them will always show a greater impact effect then the heavy hard cast bullets do. They don�t penetrate as well or break big bones as well, but they don�t need to on a black bear. I have shot clean through many many black bears broadside with a 240-grain hollow point bullet at 1200-1300fps muzzle velocity. Upon impact the bears will stop and spin around biting at the wound and struggle to move away. With the many I have shot using a 300 plus grain hard cast bullets, they have launched out of sight like a rocket. Showing little if any reaction to being hit.


Don�t mistake those big heavy hard cast bullets for the most powerful ammunition your gun can use. They are when matched to the proper game, like buffalo, moose, elk, and many African species. However for the typical 250 to 500 pound soft skinned black bear they are a mistake to use.

Consider what works better on a deer shot through the lungs. A 375HH with a 300 grain solid having 4500 foot pounds of energy, or a 270 caliber rifle shooting a 130 grain soft point bullet with only 2400 foot pounds of energy? Clearly you see the energy is far greater and the bullet weight and diameter is bigger on the 375HH. Upon impact the 300-grain solid blows a hole right through and you cannot even tell if you hit the animal. With the explosive 130-grain bullet from the .270 the deer will launch into the air with a nerve reaction and fall within a few steps. It�s the projectile that decides the result much of the time, not the perceived, or calculated power your gun has.

Don�t focus so much on muzzle energy, or the hype surrounding heavy hard cast bullets. The hard-cast bullets do have exceptional penetration, but at the cost of small diameter wounds which don�t often have the same effect as the bigger diameter hollow point wounds which have much more of a shocking or stunning effect. The benefits an explosive soft point or hollow-point will provide you with is a certain visual reaction, and significant tissue trauma. The heavy hard cast bullets are designed for exceptional penetration only. Randy is a friend of mine we have sat and talked about this paradox of bullet choice many times. Black bears absolutely realize more trauma from higher velocity soft bullets, or hollow points. The super hard-cast heavy bullets pass through so quickly with so little transfer of bullet impact that the reaction is poor. Yes both designs will kill bears, but the faster pass through of the solids will make your effort to locate the bear much longer. Often I have seen hunters consider their shot a miss because the bear will show no reaction at all to being hit. If this kind of bullet is chosen the best solution is to break bones and hope the fragments of projected bone will assist in the penetration of important organs like the lungs and heart. If brown bears are the main target then the heavy hard cast bullets make sense. They can be 4-6 times the weight of a black bear and you will likely be shooting for shoulder bones on these big bears. Then the big hard cast bullets are the perfect choice.

I have not come to these conclusions by seeing one or two bears killed, but by seeing as many as several hundred killed. Anyone can see a bear shot with spectacular results once or twice and assume the cartridge bullet combination is perfect. However seeing the same combination twenty, thirty, or more times really starts to give you higher resolution repeatable results. The results that carry the most weight are the ones with the greatest resolution or highest numbers. I have heard countless hunters claiming that their XYZ caliber and bullet is the perfect choice. When asked why they think this, the reply is that they shot a bear with it one time and it worked perfectly. Well in my opinion one time does not make for a very scientific or credible set of facts! This works the other way as well. Plenty of people will make or see a bad shot on game and assume they need a bigger gun. When in fact they only needed to make a better shot!

jj

Jim,
Would the .45ACP be reasonable if you were carrying it for defense, rather than actually hunting bears? I would think the primary goal here would be to break off an attack, whether the bear dies immediately or not. Using hard cast bullets, that punch clean through, the bear might have time to do a lot of chewin' before he dies. Your Ohio bear hunter example leads me to believe that it's possible the bear might feel the sting of those 240gr soft points more than he would a cast bullet.

If he's almost on top of you, a face full of those soft points might break off the attack? I think I remember you saying once that bears hit with cast bullets from big magnums didn't necessarily react as much to being shot, though they died quicker...and bears hit by the soft points definitely reacted more, such as turning to bite at the wound?

Again, the Ohio hunter example makes me think that bear would have been scrambling to get the hell away, were it an attack situation rather than a hunt.

Just wondering what you think.

dave

If you got a griz that's bent on having you for dinner, trust me, you're not even going to FEEL any recoil.

The advice above is good. Stay away from bears. If you get into an unfortunate situation where retreat is not an option or in the aforementioned dinner scenario, then you better be packing the biggest, baddest thing you can shoot. If I were in griz country I would have my Ruger SRH in .454C with me. Yes there's recoil, but if you practice with it and get used to it it's managable. If that bear was after me I guarantee you I'd swear after the incident that I felt nothing more than the recoil of a .22rf...

It's amazine what adrenaline can do.....

ps.. (always hunt with a partner. Make sure you have lighter and better shoes than he has. Remember, all you have to do is outrun HIM, and if you're luckier still, he'll be slipping and sliding in the crap you're dropping down your pants leg......)
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The best "sidearm" for a bear?
Some studies I've read show you have almost a fifty percent chance of getting mauled if you open up with a side-arm at a charging bear.
On the oher hand - with an EPA recognized and approved bear-spray- your chance of getting hurt drops to less than 5%!
So, my answer would be to go with a premium brand holstered bear spray.
Failing that a .22 pocket derringer will work well - shoot one of your parteners in the knee cap - and then run like hell. The bear will get your crippled buddy - and you'll be able to get away! LOL!

For bears, and with the choices presented, I'd go with the .44 Mag and a 300g bullet. (I find my 300g loads have less recoil than my 240g loads.)

Lets be realistic, the odds on being chared by a griz or blackie are very slim. The point i'm making about the ruger is that you can't practice enough with it to be comfortable to shoot anything with it. if you hit anything its just lucky!
Good points about handgun power.
The problem is that you won't have what you want when and if you need it. you'll just have to use what you got at the time and make due. I'd use an Ax if that's all i had on hand. better that then to go down without a fight. You'll probably loose but the stories they'd write would be worth it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Basicly use what gives you the warm and fuzzy and do your best to avoid getting into the situation.
Regards,
Paul

well what can you shoot more accurately? what one can you get into action the quickest?

HI,

I carry this a 500Linebaugh made by MR. Clements, I use a 475 grain WFN at 1200fps,Kev

That's a subjective question. For ME with a 454 i need at least 4" of barrel and a solid grip to be comfortable PRACTICING with it. Accuracy can only come with practice. I concede that a 2" barrel would come faster from a holster and that in the case that you needed to shoot it in defence then you wouldn't notice it. Practice on the other hand is a different story. I know, use 45colt and your fine. cool ammo is cheeper but i still wouldn't own one! YMMV!
Any pistol is better than a rock or pointy stick! IMHO. I'm sure these rugers will sell like mad! good for them. i'm certain that someone else can handle the recoil from the little beast but i am comfortable in saying that i'm not that man. If someone here gets one and can give a comparison with the longer barrelled version then i would entertain the idea.
No flame intended to anyone. Just my opinion.
Regards,
Paul

Las,

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

Good idea - it won't hurt so much when the bear rams the barrel up my... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

When I was engaged for 11 years drugging and tagging polarbears I used to carry a .44 Magnum S&W and a .338 Win, or a .350 Rem. rifle. We always kept the rifle handy but since we were only working with two men, who needed their attention fully on the job at hand, there was always the possible danger of surprise of another bear suddenly appearing from behind that block of ice 3 yards away with the rifle leaning against another ice block 5 yards away. For that reason we had the .44mag handguns as a last ditch defense. Only once did a co-worker of mine have to use the .44 mag., kiling an overly agressive sow with one shot in the head. The bullet a soft point factory load did terrible damage to the 500 lbs. sows skull.
In another instance I had a surprise attack of a 2year old weighing about 350 lbs after I had drugged the littermate and his mom.
This one never read the book about bear behaviour, which teaches that young bears should be timid and shy, hiss and chomp their teeth a bit, but stay hidden at all times behind mom. I was walking in a circle around the group, trying to shoot a dart into him.
The chopper could not do it while hoovering like we do normally, due to a heavy load. Well, suddenly the youngster shot like a bullet low to the ground from behind mom and sissy towards me from about 15 yards. I knew that due to the short distance I had no time to draw my .44 mag. My back-up man, with a loaded .350 rifle at the ready, being a local inuit stood oblique behind me. At that moment of the charge, I saw him turn and run. I threw the dart gun at the bear, since I was holding the dart under my arm to prevent the drug from freezing in the -25 degrees temp. It did not stop the bear and he slammed hard into me bowling me over. I pulled in my legs and kicked out hard at the bear. He reacted by grabbing my left foot into his mouth, and shake me around. I recall yelling shoot....shoot....shoot to my backup man who by then had pulled himself together, turned around and fired a shot with the .350 into the bears shoulder. At the impact point of the bullet, I remember seeing a handfull of blood flying. The bear let go almost immediatly of my ankle and ran back to mamma, but fell over just before reaching her. Save for a couple of bruise marks on my ankle I was not hurt, thanks for the heavy duffles in my snowboots. When I was lying down with the bear shaking me, I reached for the holster strap of the hand gun but could not find it in the snow in that short time. A quickdraw type of holster would have been more suitable, so I could have yanked the revolver out, while occupying the bear during that time with my less essential body parts. This ofcourse incase my back-up man would have permanently departed for the relative safety of the chopper 50 yards away, leaving me to fend for myself.
The chopper pilot who had a good view of the ruckus said that from the moment the youngster charged to the shot was no more then 7 seconds. The Inuit hunter appologized for his initial panic moment and made me swear not to tell anything in the village about it. Lucky for me it was only an inexperienced youngster and not a large angry 1200 lbs. boar that probably would have crunched most of my skeleton and killed me in short order.
This was the only real serious run in I had with a polar bear over 11 years and tagging close to 1200 polarbears.
Luckily for most of you the only likely bear trouble you might encounter is in camp, when they want to eat your grub uninvited. You will then usually have some warning of impending trouble. A well aimed well constructed .44mag. bullet will do almost any bear in. A Norwegian scientist by the name of Nils Oritsland whom I knew in the 1970's, worked on polar bears in the Svalbard Islands. He had shot 4 polar bears with his Ruger single action .44 mag and factory soft points. He found it quite effective at 10-20 yard range.

Shrike
I have spent some time talking with the polar bear darters out of Prudhoe Bay and gotten several of the same sorts of stories about the relative ease in killing polar bears. But frankly have not found blacks or browns too hard to kill generally...

But 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!!!
art

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.

Where will you used this in CA? Why not carry bear spray it is very effective in stopping bears, it's much lighter to carry though not as fashionably macho, it's what the rangers use and swear by in Yellowstone. I rather not carry six extra pounds of weight myself the rifle is heavy enough.

That bear spray is very effective if it is completely calm. I have had it burn the heck out of my eyes when the wind is the wrong direction. It does not take a direct hit to blind you or create difficulty seeing. I sure would not want to be charged and spray a bear only to temporarily blind myself as well. With my experience in using bear spray I would opt for the gun now. That mist comming off the main stream is enough to burn you eyes for at least an hour or more. The other issue is that the great majority of first time users will begin discharging the spray way to soon to hit the bear. by the time it close the power is gone and your empty. To Be 100% effective or nearly safe you would have to wait until the bear was within 30 feet and that is WAY to close for my taste. The arching stream and the very fast discharge is just not very confidence inspiring. For bears that have been sprayed before it's a nearly perfect deterent. Much like a skunk is after the first experience or a porcupine. Once a park bear has been sprayed it only requires the sound of the discharge, or the faint scent of the pepper to spook them. Those bears are a much different set of conditions then a pure wild grizzly who has never even seen a human before.

In anycase imagine being charged or even attacked and then also being blinded at the same time with that spray. Not for me!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Frankly, I don't consider any of my parts "less essential." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Thanx for the good story. Its also good to know that the 350 Remington can do serious damage to a Big Bear.

Great Story,

BMT

JJ
My experience with bear skulls does not begin to match yours... but I can tell a polar bear from a brown, 100% of the time, blindfolded. I am frankly shocked you do not see the difference...
art

It was not he skulls I was talking about. In your post you said it was the teeth. The Skulls are absolutely different in shape. Polar bears being much more flat and "otter" shaped then a black or brown bear. Brownies are high/taller and tend to be much wider too. However the teeth are not any different, not even a small amount. They are not sharper and they do not have more pointed canines or more sheaing type of molars. They tend to be smaller then brownies for a comparible size skull but not differently shaped. Not even a forensic anthropologist could sort through a bin of mixed teeth and tell what species they came from. I'll take a few snaps and post the differences here. I have two polar bears here right now. I have about 100 black bears and a dozen or so brown/grizzly in the shop to use for comparison.

Well I figured I would just add these photos to my post here:

These are all of Brown/griz and polar bear. None are black bears. Anybody know the 100% way of identifying a huge black bear from a medium griz skull? Guess if you like and I will tell you 100% never any doubt regardless of sex or age method.






not really the best comparison between these two as the older bears teeth are well worn. However with some consideration of age you can see they would be the same shape and "sharpness" or pointed identically.

Well this would have to be a ruger redhawk or dan wesson double action 44mag and buy garrett 44mag +p hammerhead ammo 330 gr i own a redhawk that i carry this ammo in and have taken bear with execelent results.garretts site is www.garrettcartridges.com

JJ
It is the molars that differ most... but the canines are different, too. I see the differences as huge.

"...canine teeth larger and moleriform teeth sharper than in other bears." Audobon Society field guide to NA mammals... it is more convenient than digging out the big books which give specific ratios for the different teeth as I recall.

As for the characteristic to delineate black bears from a small grizzly... I am certain someone will get it straight...
art

I don't pretend to be a cranium expert, nor a Richard cranium <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyhoo, to the question of self protection handguns for bears, this is my thought. Anyhow who is sufficiently proficient in the use of handguns to effectively use one for defense against dangerous game will come to his own conclusion.

To those that just want to pack something to feel comfortable in bear country, you're just packing extra weight and giving yourself a false sense of security. I'd venture to say the vast majority of folks who pack defensive handguns aren't proficient in their use. Heck, even though I've put some 3000 rounds through my 480, I have been so busy with work and other projects that I don't consider myself proficient with it.

Good post....

Art, the audobon text is bizzare wrong! The last photo is of a brownie and Polar bear. The Polar bear scores over an inch bigger B&C and the brown bear teeth are massivly bigger by just looking at the photo. Look at the root mass and just the whole tooth is bigger. Also Polar bear molars are far smaller then the equal brown bear, maybe as much as 1/2 the size for an equal size bear. However by design or physical function they are no more sharp or pointed. They are still big reletively flat grinding molars just like a black bear or brown bear has. With the exception of size they are the same design. 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.

I suppose those folks writing that text have seen a few bears but I have seen hundreds too. There is without any doubt as much variation between bears of the same species as there is between between polar and brown.

I guess I'm kinda strange, but it's threads like this that awe me of the power of the internet. A simple question was asked and look at the mass of information, ideas, and experiences shared. JJ Hacks first post was a beauty. I don't know how well he types, but that post would have taken me hours. It just so happens that JJ has a couple bear skulls laying around the house and the technology to let us look at them. That's just cool to me. How fortunate are we to have someone with Shrikes experience ring in. 1200 Polar Bear encounters. If I'd had that many bear encounters I'd bee keeping Fruit of the Loom in business all by myself. This thread even has a little tasteful disagreement.

I don't post real often. If I'm typing I'm not learning. I don't often have experience relative to the topic at hand. As for this topic, I have a little. I spent three years in Kodiak. If I was fishing or hiking and did not want the burden of a longarm, I packed a Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum with a 5 1/2 inch barrel in a standard holster. I had it stoked with 300 grain factory ammo. While not ideal, I feel it was not so cumbersome as to get in the way, not so powerful as to be hard to control, and it provided the added measure of security I was looking for.

Paul

I just wanted to second Paul W.'s comment on handling a short barreled .454. I have had a 4 3/4" FA for years and have fired thousands of rounds through it. Speaking only for myself, full house 300gr bullets are almost beyond my ability to handle effectively. If I shoot it most every day and work my way into the heavy 300's, I can be passably competent. If that barrel were any shorter, I just don't think it would be within MY ability. Now when I back down to cast 270gr. Keith type Leadhead bullets, its just a fine pistol.

On another note in regards to the picture of the Clements .500 Bisley, I had David Clements convert a 1956 Ruger flattop to .44 special for me and he did a fantastic job. He is a great sixgun 'smith. I recommend his work highly.

S

"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)

from:

Pasitshniaka-Arts, M. 1993. Ursa arctos. Mammalian Species No. 439, pp 1-10.

"Crown length and width of the first mandiublar molar are always > 20.4 and 10.5 mm respectively (Gordon 1977). Greatest crown length of the second maxillary molar also is > 31 mm (Storer and Tevis 1955). These features differentiate U. arctos from U. americanus and other Ursus."

Brent

Suluuq, just use H-110 and and drop down 1 gr from top loads for a 300 gr cast bullet.

Thank you, Paul...
Load info I have, H-110 I don't. Importing gun powder into North Alaska is more then expensive, its outragous. One of the local stores wanted roughly $50.oo for a pound of BL-C2! I had pre-paid for it at a mis-quoted price, about $35.oo. On occasion powder can be added to a haz-mat order for much less then ordering just the powder alone (they orderd the BL-C2 alone). I'm waiting for them to order the powder at the same time they order haz-mat items. ~~~Suluuq

Paul, I've been lucky enough to have read posts by JJHACK for the better part of 7 years. If he's not a writer for some hunting mag, then he SHOULD be.. I've learned more good, common sense info from him than any other poster, bar none. I'm glad to see him back on here. I know he's busy with his guide business in Africa so his posts are now a little rare.

To those who promote 'bear sprays'.. LOL . Maybe they've worked once or twice. I wonder if any of those same promoters have considered asking the bear to sit down and discuss the reasons why they're considering a human for breakfast? (Poking gentle fun here, no flames, honestly...), but I'd rather stake my life on my Ruger..

If carrying an extra 3-4 pounds of a tool that might save your life is too strenuous, there's an option: stay closer to camp. I'll chance the weight, but obviously this is JMHO....

Blacks don't worry me, unless one gets in the wrong position and happens to get in between a sow and her younger cubs.. Even then, most of the time, one can extricate yourself.

Any handgun takes practice to become proficient. Some above posters have been absolutely correct in stating that most people do not practice enough to become proficient. The big bores take not only practice but good discipline. Basics in stance, grip etc., must also be practiced to tame the recoil down a bit. And, let's face it, some shooters are recoil-shy. I know a lot of guys around here who think a .44M is just not fun to shoot and stay away from them. For me, a .44M is comfortable but the .454 is a handful. That's about as big as I want to use. I have not fired the Linebaugh, and I've had some Encores with short barrels and chambered in things like 45-70 that make me cringe. I'm not shooting those. LOL...

The Ruger I have in .454 has a 7.5" barrel. That's about the minimum size I'd recommend for that caliber anyway. As to hitting something with it? I can poke holes in a gallon-sized plastic jub filled with water at least 4 out of 6 shells at 75+ yards, and I don't practice with that particular revolver all that much. I use my other Ruger SRH in .44 a lot more.

It all boils down to what you feel comfortable with. If you're ok with sprays, go for it. If not, get something you can handle and practice, practice, practice.

Best to all of you for the holidays.

When I lived in Alaska we always told the tourists the way to tell black bear scat from brown bear scat was black bear had roots and shoots and fruit pits in it; brown bear scat has cow bells, and little jingle bells, and smells like a tamale.

Redneck:

I just can't develop confidence in pepper spray for bear either. I've seen humans who scarcely sneeze when hit with it. I have heard that the bears keen senses play into how negatively it affects them, but I'd rather have a 44 magnum.

Be careful not to underestimate the black bear. I've read that there are more black bear attacks and injuries than there are with the others. I'm sure this is due to there larger numbers and broader geographic distribution, but there are also more accounts of man eating black bears. I'd hate for a 100 pound doberman to get hold of me. Using that as a baseline, imagine what a 250 pound black bear could do.

I'm still reading this thread with great interest. I'm with JJ on the shape and size of the teeth being inconsequential to the nature of injuries. With their jaw strength they could have a mouth full of 2x4's and still rip you apart. Throw claws into the mix and you are indeed fortunate to ecape serious injury in an attack.

Paul

Dang, I love this site! JJ and Art both have superb credibility IMO. To see them get into a cat fight- well, that's just great!

I have no basis for a dentition opinion one way or the other as polar bear tracks 5' outside my tent in the morning were about as impressive as brown bear tracks 5' outside my tent in the morning. I didn't hear either one of them, much less examine their teeth! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> They both probably had bad breath anyways.

I wonder how much the perceived differences in teath has to do with diet, rather than speciation. Polar bears feeding nearly exclusively on meat won't get much wear due to grit or high silicon content, while a brown bear of the same age, feeding on vegetation of various sorts, not to mention salmon rolled in sand, may experience more wear.

Despite my comment about filing the front sight (it was meant as humor), I concur any gun is better than no gun. But beware of over-confidence. Short arms are not only less powerful than long arms, but far less accurate in the hands of most of us. I personally am not overly optimistic of 240 grains of slow lead vs 800 plus pounds of pissed-off, fast moving bear.

Taking a short-arm - or even a long-arm - to a bear in DLOP should only be done as a last resort - preferably after one has pre-planned so as not to put one's self into that position at all, if possible.

For example- I know of a couple dandy moose hunting areas close on to salmon spawning streams. I don't go there.

Most bear attacks are surprise in nature. If you look at enough accounts of them you'll see a common thread in that guys that are armed with any kind of holstered weapon or even one that's not in their hands and ready for use (like a shotgun on a sling) rarely get off a shot before the bear grabs them anyway.

Most of the bear attacks that I've read about that were stopped with firepower were those where the individual already knew the bear was there, had their rifle ready, and commenced firing at the start of the charge. In all of those cases it was a guide backing up a hunter that made a bad shot or was (in my opinion) stupid or crazy enough to go after a grizz with a bow.

Your milage may vary but for me the idea of a handgun in a holster as any measurable increase in safety in a bear attack just doesn't wash. Always going afield with a friend, hopefully a slow one with a pronounced limp, is the best bet...:)

There are many recorded instances of bear attacks in which the victim had plenty of time to realize the threat and even attempt to avoid it, but was mauled while unable to fight back effectively simply for lack of a firearm.