best handgun for bear??

jamesgray

January 10, 2003 20:45

I've got a buddy who is not really a shooter, but he's a hiker and is involved in wilderness first aid, cold weather camping, search and rescue, etc. He's way up north and may encounter very large bears. He's sold on glocks because of their reputation for reliability. I'm not so sure any of the glock calibers would serve best him as a weapon of self-defense against very large bears. I wanted to tell him to get a revolver in 44 mag or if he couldn't handle it get a .357 mag. Before I advise him I'd like to ask the experts. Of course he should try some out if possible, but where should he start?

0

• 

  bambihunter

  January 10, 2003 21:01

  I'll probably get bashed all over the boards for saying this, but compare the ballistic data between a .357 magnum and a 10mm. They are almost identical. For your friend, a model 20C (compensated) model sounds ideal. They also make the model 21 in .45 ACP.
  My only concern with a hiker (non-hunter) is the glocks safety. However, it's simplicity would also be an asset in a high-paced situation such as a bear attack.
  I have my model 20 equipped with internal laser sight, night sights, tac light, and 2 15+2 magazines loaded with hydro-shocks... I'd bet my life that it'd pull me through.
  
  Also, it is probably better for a person to be comfortable with a smaller gun than to over-power the gun and the person to never practice with it because they are scared of it. (IE, I wouldn't recommend the .454 Casull or .50 AE). I'd sure recommend a compensated gun for the novice!

  0
• 

  idsman75

  January 10, 2003 21:28

  When you say "up north" do you mean Alaska or Minnesota? Is he in the lower 48? If you are going to be carrying a gun capable of dropping a big bruin in Alaska then you better get something better than a 10mm. If your friend is most likely to see nothing more than a few Minnesota black bear then 10mm MIGHT be potent enough for the job but I'd still lean towards a .44 magnum just to be on the safe side. When you are dealing with something capable of killing you that quickly, why would you want to carry a marginal caliber? Why wouldn't you want to go all the way? If you feel that you could be in possible danger then you don't belong treading there if you aren't willing to practice and become familiar with an appropriate caliber. I fired a .454 last summer. I had previously fired nothing more powerful than a .357 and I had no problems controlling the .454. I am 5'10" and weigh 185. I'm not large by any stretch. A marginal gun is better than no gun but your friend needs to figure out what's more important--surviving a bear attack after investing in an appropriate caliber and range time or wishing he did.
  
  I'd still like to know what species of bear your friend feels he would encounter should something like this ever happen.

  0
• 

  Shootist3006

  January 10, 2003 21:34

  quote:very large bears Have him get a .41 Rem Mag.
  
  Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

  0
• 

  idsman75

  January 10, 2003 21:37

  "Very Large" is a subjective term. A small black bear would probably appear "very large" to me if it reared up and swiped at me with one of it's paws. An accurate assessment of caliber can only be made when the species of bear is known.
  
  At one point during the last couple of years a story was reported of an Alaskan hunter who dropped a big Alaskan Grizzly. Upon further inspection there were multiple slugs buried in its skull which were believed to come from a .44 magnum. This bear had taken shots to the skull by a .44 and survived. It makes me wonder what happened to the hunter.

  0
• 

  nord

  January 11, 2003 03:40

  Given state regulations and restrictions having to do with short arms, wouldn't it pay to consider a Mossberg or Remington 12 ga. pump?
  
  At the range we're talking about there's nothing in North America that couldn't be stopped. No maybe's, no questions, no hassles... Just certainty that in a given situation you'd walk away.
  
  By the way... Black bears don't really count. They mess up from time to time, but they don't hunt humans, nor are they a serious threat under anything but extrodinary circumstances.
  
  Nord

  0
• 

  queeksdraw

  January 11, 2003 06:31

  Some years back I was setting up for my first dangerous big game hunt and I wrote to the outfitter that we hired and I asked him if it would be possible to take a bear (Brown) with a hand gun. I got a three word responce. it said " HA-HA-HA " That was the whole letter.
  
  You'v gota kill it to grill it

  0
• 

  4000fps

  January 11, 2003 07:58

  Dan Wesson Alaskan Guide .445 SuperMag!
  Item #6855091

  0
• 

  rsnyder55

  January 11, 2003 08:56

  I agree with Nord. I get this question at least two or three times a year.
  
  Any handgun caliber will be ineffective unless bullet placement is precise and big bore handguns are not the most easy things to be exact with unless someone is easy to practice, practice,practice.
  
  Semiautos add to the problem. Shooting in IDPA and other semi-auto events, shooters still stop and pause for a moment or more wondering why their gun didn't go bang. Add the fact that a large carnivore is running faster than a horse does not reduce the pressure any.
  
  I recommend a shotgun with rifle sites.

  0
• 

  aglore

  January 11, 2003 10:11

  41 mag on up with a heavy for caliber cast bullet in the 1200 to 1500 FPS range will work fine in a pinch if he can hit with it.
  
  AlleninAlaska
  
  He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
  -- Thomas Paine

  0
• 

  Nighthawk

  January 11, 2003 10:21

  Im with Allen on this one,but if he insist on a Glock go with the Glock 20 10MM it has near .41 Magnum Ballistics.
  
  
  Best!!
  
  Rugster
  
  
  Toujours Pret

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.