my bear thumper

Today I took my 4.2" Redhawk in .45 LC to the range with my "bear thumper" load. It is a 275 gr. hard cast flat point pushed by 21 grs. of 2400.

Velocity came out to 1157 fps and at 25yds I shot 2 6 shot groups sitting with my feet drawn up so I can rest my wrists on my knees....my favorite hunting position. the first one was 2.75" and the second one was 3.5".

It is almost enough to make me wanna hunt again. 8)

Sounds like a good "get it done" load! I have some 250 gr. XTP .45 Colt loads over 20 gr. of 2400 that I shoot out of my Alaskan. I see around 1100+ FPS with those.

Looks like you have a good bear load & that's a very fine handgun you're shooting it out of. Good luck with the bears!

Dick

I have also had good accuracy with the 250gn XTP Hornady bullets and 20 grains of 2400 in my blackhawks. Good whitetail deer load up here and good for more than 50 yards. Mine clocks at 1160 fps from my 7.5" Blackhawk

Mine. .45 Colt

I'd personally want a heavier bullet. Something 300+, with a strong lean towards the 335gr WFN.

I made up a load for my Bisley Vaquero 45lc using a 335 grain gas checked semi-wadcutter bullet over 23.5 grains of H110 and a Magtech small rifle primer in Starline 454C brass shortened to 45lc case length, that ran 1193 ft/sec. This load in regular 45 brass would cause bullets to jump crimp and jam the revolver. I consider this good bear medicine, though I have not shot anything other than paper with it. BTW, it is an accurate load but not for the timid.

My bear thumper is a 4 inch Redhawk 45 with 345 grain Beartooth bullet at 1235 fps.

My other bear thumper is a 5.5 inch Redhawk 44M with 355 grain Beartooth bullet at 1221 fps.

I couldn't help it.... One of my 500 gr. 45-70 bullets for the 1895 High Wall....45 ACP on left. :mrgreen:

Now that is a Thumper

Your OTHER left!

mus408, now that's just about unfair! I too would want a bullet heavier than a 250 gr. although I've taken black bears with that weight using my cast slugs. If you're going to hunt up north you might want a little heavier bullet. More velocity depends on your tolerance but that heavy bullet is good insurance because angles on bears aren't always what you want them to be.

Dick

If I was to go LOOKING for a bear whilst armed with (only) a handgun, it would most likely be my .480 Super Blackhawk loaded with a relatively slow (950~ish FPS) 400 grain cast bullet. It makes big holes in things, and makes them leak, badly. Otherwise, a .45 Colt with something in the 300-315 grain range cast at somewhere near the same velocity should work.

Well I don't know but a 9mm does the job!
https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2016/8/10/alaska-outfitter-defends-fishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol/

Buffalo Bore 9MM +P OUTDOORSMAN
147gr. Hard Cast FN @ 1100 fps

I am not downsizing because some have gotten lucky with too small of a gun.

We have liberty in this country. Those who want to pack undersized guns for their safety are free to do so that are insuffcient for bear protection. I recall a long article he wrote several years back extolling the advisability of carrying a 357 revolver while guiding clients. After all his long verbiage he admitted he had actually given his 357 to his daughter (she is a guide as well) and had started packin a 44!

I would ask why defend a choice one has already turned away from but push it on others? Further more push it on his very own daughter?

I am glad the above altercation turned out satisfactorily if even for Shoemaker's clients but excuse me if the writings of Phill Shoemaker just goes in one ear and out the other.

As many here on this forum have I have read Elmer Keith's books, Sixguns and Hell I Was There. In one of those there is an account of a fellow pouring bullets from a 9 mill into a charging black bear. The shooter's dog got tangled up with the bear as it rolled off a steep hillside and into a river below. The bear sank into the deep water still hold on to the dog and neither were ever seen again.

Elmer surmised that a bigger gun would have been better. I concur.

Best regards

Three44s

If I had started with a Redhawk in 45 Colt and the 4+" barrel had been available back then I would have likely taken a different tack on outdoor protection tools. But they were not made yet and I was not savvy on the LC at that time.

A very nice 7.5" 480 in SRH came into my radar and one of my Rugers in 44 went to trade for the bigger bored gun.

Besides that 480 I still have my 44 Mountain Gun and my Redhawk in 44 with a 7.5" barrel. I have a couple of 41's just out of curiousity and I am sure they would do in a pinch.

I have noticed something about the 41 bore. As you move into heavy slugs in the 41 Mag it becomes just another head of the same coin as to recoil.
If I want to reduce recoil in a 44, I can get more accomplished with less fan fair by just backing off the 44!

The 41 turned up with sufficient slugs feels so close to a heavy 44 load I fail to see the point of it!

While it true the 480 carries more steam than a heavy 44 Mag. I find the 480 Ruger in the SRH to recoil about 30% more and the grip and weight of the gun are well suited to anyone already accomplished with a 44 Mag.

Anyway, that's how it looks "from my house".

Three44s

I somewhat agree with you. The 41 has little advantage over the 44 if any. If a gun is hard to shoot you don't practice and the whole thing becomes a dangerous waste. The guide using the 9mm didn't get the big eye and got every round on target. If you don't hit it the caliber is irrelevant! I was being a little sarcastic about the 9mm as I see a lot of folks at the range with 357, 41, 44 etc. who have problems hiting the target. If you don't hit it it doesn't matter what you shoot at it! Most of these folks have light revolvers with short barrels. These are hard to shoot accurately even when not stressed.

Everyone has a duty to defend themselves, and whether defense or hunting to finish off dangerous critters, not leave them to attack someone else.

Don't get me wrong. If you like a big gun and can use it effectively by all means go for it. But a big gun isn't the answer to every situation. If it were we'd all be using a Magnum Research BFP (45/70).

grobin,

Ok, I get where you are coming from.

I get that many folks can not or will not handle the big bores.

I was phobic about the 44 Mag once upon a time. The stupid gun magazine writers had me buffaloed. When a close friend told me about their experience with they said was a grizzly bear on my mountain cattle range I took serious note. I spent a significant amount of time and studying the problem.

After much though I concluded that only a hand gun was part of the answer. I owned a Smith 4506 at the time. It got traded for a used 44 Mag Redhawk 7.5".

Under taking firing it was not much of a treat. It still sported the original wood grips and I was shooting 44 Mag factory ammo to boot.

In time I smartened up and bought brass to expand my supply rather than loaded ammo. As I learned how to exploit the versatility of the clambering I also came to own a K22 Smith. That revolver was used a lot by me with the 44 being loaded at several power levels to aid in the transition.

I say that given a person of decent strength, not a super human but just an average person, that with a little work and some judicious hand loading that I can get a person determined to save themselves up and running on a 44 Mag revolver fairly easily.

We are not talking about "bear loads" proper but middle of the road power that makes even a modulated 44 Mag still more capable of saving one's self than a 9 mm or some rough equivalent.

After a year with my Redhawk I decided I wanted another 44. This time a certain Smith Mountain Gun was singing to me and I caved.

A third 44 ...... a SRH 44 Mag 9.5" wiggled into my collection about two years later.

This revolver was later traded for a SRH in 480 Ruger.

Three44s