Safety in Bear Country

[Arctos]

The recent "44 Special for Grizzly" thread reminded me of a US Forest Service article I came across some years ago: Safety in bear country: protective measures and bullet performance at short range.

Their study included rifles, handguns, and the 12ga shotgun. Although it was published in 1983, some of you may find it interesting.

A link to the PDF is located on this webpage: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/5573

Description: Bears are frequently encountered by people working in or enjoying the outdoors. Some
government agencies have regulations concerning the firearms their personnel carry for
protection against bears.

Guidelines to prevent hazardous encounters with bears are presented, and the performance
of commonly used weapons and ammunition is discussed. The ballistic performance
of bullets at short range is often considerably different from performance of the same bullet
at the longer ranges generally encountered while hunting.

Recommendations are made for weapons and ammunition used as protection from bears.

 

[toroflow]

That was an excellent read, thank you for posting. I wonder if, since the advent of better bullet construction available today, any of the article's recommendations could be revised. It would be interesting to see it updated with the heavy handguns now available, that weren't around in 1983.

My favorite (due to "understatement of the year") quote of the article:

Hitting a brown bear with a load of
buckshot at ranges beyond 5 yd may
mean a nonlethal wound and a very
angry, active bear.

 

[LuckenbachTexas]

Good reading, somebody went to the trouble.

I pick the 44 Special with one of them Barnes Copper HP's

 

[toroflow]

If I were to pick, it'd be an Alaskan in .480.

 

[powder smoke]

Very Good read although probably never need all that info it is
enjoyable eye opening and interesting. Thanks. ps

 

[wwb]

I note with some smug satisfaction that the ol' .30-06 gave some high-falutin' newcomers a beat-down.

First time I've seen this subject approached with intellect rather than emotion.

 

[GunnyGene]

That was an excellent read, thank you for posting. I wonder if, since the advent of better bullet construction available today, any of the article's recommendations could be revised. It would be interesting to see it updated with the heavy handguns now available, that weren't around in 1983.

My favorite (due to "understatement of the year") quote of the article:

Hitting a brown bear with a load of
buckshot at ranges beyond 5 yd may
mean a nonlethal wound and a very
angry, active bear.

I'm sure the recommendations/ranking would change due to better bullet ballistics etc., and of course with different handguns and barrel lengths. For example the .41 mag that came in 10th place in the chart, was a 210grn LFN at 952 fps & 423 ft.lbs out of a 4.8" barrel. My .41mag is a 6.5" barrel shooting 210grn XTP at 1560 fps & 1135 ft. lbs. Big difference in terminal ballistics given equal shot placement. In fact, it would surpass the 1st place ranked .44mag performance they used in their testing.

As for shotguns, they also don't state which slug design was used - Foster or Brenneke, or any details relative to weight, mv, ft.lbs, penetration and so forth, such as what is contained in the Rifle and handgun chart, so I'd ignore their comments on that altogether.

Bottom line is to know what your particular firearm and ammo combination is capable of, not what some study says it is.

 

[Rodfac]

Love these Bear medicine threads...always a good excuse to pop some corn and open a beer...

That said, while I agree with gusto that any hand gun is a poor substitute for a large caliber rifle, the handgun may be the only option left in some situations.

'Bout 15 years ago, I killed a fair to midlin' cow elk at near 10,000' elevation. For a flat-lander from Kentucky, this presented a big problem as the pack out distance was about a half mile. By 5 pm, I'd quartered her out and got one of the hind quarters strapped down to my pack board and began the trudge back to the jeep two-track where I'd parked. The trip out was uneventful, and I was carrying my still fully loaded Remington 700 in .35 Whelen.

I figured I had enough daylight left to get a 2nd quarter out before full dark, but the thought of adding that 9 lb. rifle to the load was just too much. In 6" of mushy snow, I trudged back to the kill sight, completely unarmed, and while following my back trail, I found fresh bear tracks in my outbound foot prints. To say that the hair was up on the back of my neck is an understatement of monumental proportions. I was nervous as a "fancy lady" in church.

It turned out to be no problem, and I got the 2nd quarter out without incident, even taking time to tree cashe the remainder of the kill up off the ground. But it did give me plenty of time to consider just what I needed in my back country gear...one item was and still is a good, big caliber hand gun that I'm thoroughly familiar with. Since then I've toted .44's, 41's, and even a .357 (this last here in KY only). While the rifle or a shotgun is too much weight and too unwieldy to pack back and forth with fresh meat on your back, the handgun is easy to carry in a suitable holster...mine is a 'tanker' type strapped across the chest between the pack straps.

The short gun may not be enough...hell, it probably won't be enough...but it does give me an alternative to being on the menu along with the meat I'm carrying...hope I never find out just how effective it is...give it some thought...that extra 2 lbs. of insurance might be a life saver.

Best Regards, Rod BTW at 70 yrs old, my Colorado elk trips are at an end, sadly, but I still carry a side arm while hunting here in KY, in the more remote woods and ridgelines...more for the two-legged threat that's a possibility from drug farmers.)

 

[Arctos]

That was an excellent read, thank you for posting. I wonder if, since the advent of better bullet construction available today, any of the article's recommendations could be revised. It would be interesting to see it updated with the heavy handguns now available, that weren't around in 1983.

My favorite (due to "understatement of the year") quote of the article:

Hitting a brown bear with a load of
buckshot at ranges beyond 5 yd may
mean a nonlethal wound and a very
angry, active bear.

I'm sure the recommendations/ranking would change due to better bullet ballistics etc., and of course with different handguns and barrel lengths. For example the .41 mag that came in 10th place in the chart, was a 210grn LFN at 952 fps & 423 ft.lbs out of a 4.8" barrel. My .41mag is a 6.5" barrel shooting 210grn XTP at 1560 fps & 1135 ft. lbs. Big difference in terminal ballistics given equal shot placement. In fact, it would surpass the 1st place ranked .44mag performance they used in their testing.

As for shotguns, they also don't state which slug design was used - Foster or Brenneke, or any details relative to weight, mv, ft.lbs, penetration and so forth, such as what is contained in the Rifle and handgun chart, so I'd ignore their comments on that altogether.

Bottom line is to know what your particular firearm and ammo combination is capable of, not what some study says it is.

The 12ga results are in the Rifle table, about 3/4 of the way down.

 

[GunnyGene]

That was an excellent read, thank you for posting. I wonder if, since the advent of better bullet construction available today, any of the article's recommendations could be revised. It would be interesting to see it updated with the heavy handguns now available, that weren't around in 1983.

My favorite (due to "understatement of the year") quote of the article:

Hitting a brown bear with a load of
buckshot at ranges beyond 5 yd may
mean a nonlethal wound and a very
angry, active bear.

I'm sure the recommendations/ranking would change due to better bullet ballistics etc., and of course with different handguns and barrel lengths. For example the .41 mag that came in 10th place in the chart, was a 210grn LFN at 952 fps & 423 ft.lbs out of a 4.8" barrel. My .41mag is a 6.5" barrel shooting 210grn XTP at 1560 fps & 1135 ft. lbs. Big difference in terminal ballistics given equal shot placement. In fact, it would surpass the 1st place ranked .44mag performance they used in their testing.

As for shotguns, they also don't state which slug design was used - Foster or Brenneke, or any details relative to weight, mv, ft.lbs, penetration and so forth, such as what is contained in the Rifle and handgun chart, so I'd ignore their comments on that altogether.

Bottom line is to know what your particular firearm and ammo combination is capable of, not what some study says it is.

The 12ga results are in the Rifle table, about 3/4 of the way down.

Thanks, missed that buried in the rifle chart. Federal 1oz Foster slug. Which means it pancakes on impact. Avg. performance. To compare with Brenneke Green Lightning: 1 1/4oz hard lead designed to penetrate. MV and ft.lbs roughly equivelent (1476fps & 2538 ftlbs at the muzzle)

The Forest Service chart states theirs at 15 yds (1398fps & 1902 ftlbs)which is nearly the same as the Brenneke @ 25yds (1310fps & 2000ftlbs) . The major difference in this comparison is the composition and design of the slug itself. The Brenneke would hit harder & penetrate deeper.

Bottom line remains the same: Know your weapon and ammo combo. Charts like this are mildly interesting, but the bear can't read & wouldn't care anyway. :wink:

 

[Arctos]

Thanks, missed that buried in the rifle chart. Federal 1oz Foster slug. Which means it pancakes on impact. Avg. performance. To compare with Brenneke Green Lightning: 1 1/4oz hard lead designed to penetrate. MV and ft.lbs roughly equivelent (1476fps & 2538 ftlbs at the muzzle)

The Forest Service chart states theirs at 15 yds (1398fps & 1902 ftlbs)which is nearly the same as the Brenneke @ 25yds (1310fps & 2000ftlbs) . The major difference in this comparison is the composition and design of the slug itself. The Brenneke would hit harder & penetrate deeper.

Bottom line remains the same: Know your weapon and ammo combo. Charts like this are mildly interesting, but the bear can't read & wouldn't care anyway. :wink:

For what it's worth, James Gary Shelton in Bear Encounter Survival Guide (1997) recommended only Federal 1-1/4 oz magnum slugs if a shotgun is your weapon of choice. The shotgun should have rifle sights and be shot accurately like a rifle.

By the way, Shelton has a wealth of experience with bears, and all of his books are excellent in my opinion.

 

[GunnyGene]

Thanks, missed that buried in the rifle chart. Federal 1oz Foster slug. Which means it pancakes on impact. Avg. performance. To compare with Brenneke Green Lightning: 1 1/4oz hard lead designed to penetrate. MV and ft.lbs roughly equivelent (1476fps & 2538 ftlbs at the muzzle)

The Forest Service chart states theirs at 15 yds (1398fps & 1902 ftlbs)which is nearly the same as the Brenneke @ 25yds (1310fps & 2000ftlbs) . The major difference in this comparison is the composition and design of the slug itself. The Brenneke would hit harder & penetrate deeper.

Bottom line remains the same: Know your weapon and ammo combo. Charts like this are mildly interesting, but the bear can't read & wouldn't care anyway. :wink:

For what it's worth, James Gary Shelton in Bear Encounter Survival Guide (1997) recommended only Federal 1-1/4 oz magnum slugs if a shotgun is your weapon of choice. The shotgun should have rifle sights and be shot accurately like a rifle.

By the way, Shelton has a wealth of experience with bears, and all of his books are excellent in my opinion.

I agree with him except for his choice of ammo, which I'd consider minimum for large game like bear. There are more powerful slugs available now. The 3" 1.5 oz Brenneke Magnum Crush would be my choice but it wasn't available in '97.

 

[coach]

I remember watching a documentary about people doing research in Alaska on an island known as "bear island" because it was full of Grizzlies . Their choice of weapon was a 12 ga pump shotgun loaded with slugs. Don't remember if they actually had to shoot any. I do remember that fast follow up shots were part of the reason.

 

[toroflow]

Since the 220 grain .30-06 slug seems to have scored high, a used $300 Remington 742 auto with a 10 round magazine full of 220 grainers might do the trick!

 

[CraigC]

That test is terribly outdated. Virtually nothing on that list should even be considered today. It does tell us how poorly a poor choice does.

 

[toroflow]

That test is terribly outdated. Virtually nothing on that list should even be considered today. It does tell us how poorly a poor choice does.

Craig, you don't believe a 458 with 510 grain soft points is a great choice? The "old standby" as it were?

 

[CraigC]

I forgot about that one. I haven't looked at it in a while and am going strictly on memory. What I remember is that they condemned the .44Mag, though only tested a 240gr JHP. Same for the .45/70, though only tested the tender Remington 405gr soft point. I know from more recent testing that the 220gr Core Lokt .30-06 load doesn't fare as well as it looks in that test. We have MUCH better options today.

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

That test is terribly outdated. Virtually nothing on that list should even be considered today. It does tell us how poorly a poor choice does.

Of all the things talked about above and later in this thread, this comes the closest to being accurate. I remember reading that '83 report and was impressed at the time. Truth is a LOT of things have changed over the years. The biggest leap in technology is the quality of handgun ammunition. Most of this was became common knowledge with John Linebaugh and the media events he's put on through the years. It's not just speculation through a chronograph, it was actual testing and measuring to determine how much of a factor the speed of bullets is. He also discovered that there is a law of diminishing returns with the speed of ammunition. In other words there are loads of 45-70 loads that were as effective or more than a 458WM. It becomes especially obvious in many of the heavier hard cast bullets. Many of which outperform many rifle cartridges. It's important that you don't use that 33 year old guide as gospel. Thankfully I've not had to use my handgun in Alaska on any attacks or charges. But I have been in multiple situations where I came very close to the magic "fear for my life" that my 44 Mag was out and cocked, and I had the full confidence in it's ability to do the job should I have caressed the trigger. But I have always used premium ammuntion, and good HC loads.

 

[CraigC]

For example, I didn't test a 240gr .44Mag JHP yet but look at what the 300gr XTP did. Only 9" and it should be much better than your average 240gr. While the best cast load went 25". That's a huge difference. That's the major point is that many perceptions are based on old tech, old loads and old wives tales.

Cartridges like the .45/70 have improved by the same leaps & bounds as the handgun cartridges. If you simply inserted a 420gr hardcast +P load into that test, you'd see a new champ. Even the big bore stopping rifle cartridges are finally seeing big improvements over the old tech, roundnose Kynoch loads. Folks are finally realizing that they can get deeper, straighter penetration with a tough flat point and a bigger wound channel.

Not to even mention the newer controlled expansion rifle bullets. A tough, controlled expansion 180gr would penetrate and hold together much better than the old 220gr CorLokt. I don't even own a .30-06 but a 100gr Barnes TSX penetrated double that of the 100gr CorLokt, which came apart in testing and through three deer last year. I expect to see similar results out of the .338.

 

[LuckenbachTexas]

Firearms become weaker even when better, animals apparently are harder to kill.

If you decide to wait for the animal to charge you thats your decision. I kill them upon "close enough" visual contact or audible warning, stash the gun till my return, and move on (didn't hear nuthin, didn't see nuthin if asked). I've been charged by bears, elk, deer, moose, and K-9's, Its other than optimal regardless of caliber.