.357 magnum for grizzly defense

[Fedorgasm]

So in my hunt for the perfect hiking gun, I've now narrowed it down to the Ruger gp100 revolver in .357.

I'll explain each decision along the way in case it helps any of you.


1. Are you stupid?

Yes.


2. Why not a .44? Everyone knows that's the bear killer.

I've read all 170 documented accounts of a human using a handgun to defend against a bear. And learned that handguns are highly effective (though not guaranteed) regardless of caliber.

Source: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/ha...-bears-170-documented-incidents-98-effective/

Basically any gun can scare off a curious bear, but if it's on full-on attack mode, you'll get 1-3 shots off before the bear is on top of you. So accuracy, speed of shots, and penetration are key.

I'm simply not confident that I can get 3 shots accurately in a split second with a .44 due to the massive recoil.

However, a .357 on the other hand, should penetrate roughly the same as a .44 but with manageable recoil. I recognize the wound channel will be smaller, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to accept.


3. Why a revolver? Are you 79 years old? All the cool kids use a 10mm semi-auto.

I seriously considered a 10mm, but in researching them I discovered that a ton of them seem to have feed issues with the hot loads like buffalo bore and underwood hard cast ammo that I'd be using for bear defense.


4. But a 10mm ammo holds way more ammo! Are you stupid?

Yes.

Remember what I said above about having 3 shots at most before the bear is on you? So the extra ammo capacity is not as important as having something that shoots 6 (or 7) reliably.


5. Ha! My 10mm is as reliable as they come! I've never had a problem with it!

Limp wristing is not a problem for you on the range, but when a bear is chewing on your arm and you have to use your other arm to shoot from whatever odd angle you can manage, your chances of limp-wristing go up by a bajillion percent. Now add the fact that the ammo I'm using is already more likely to jam, I'm really not liking my odds of survival.

Now add one more fact to the mix. If you do get a jam, you will have to clear it with one hand. Can you do that? I mean I can, but not every time. And it will be even harder with a bear tossing your salad.

Better to have 6 shots that always fire than to have 12-18 that will jam every time you don't brace your arm properly while your face is being eaten.


6. Ok but then why a Ruger and not a Smith and Wesson?

S&W has a great reputation for sure, but it seems like in recent years their quality control is lacking and their customer service sucks balls.

Ruger doesn't have quite the stellar reputation that S&W has, so they have to work harder to keep their customers happy. And I've heard really good things about the quality of their revolvers as well as their customer service if something goes wrong.

Plus they're not ridiculously expensive like colts or korth. I'm trying to save my arm and leg from being eaten, not spend them on a gun.

 

[mjmj]

Probably a bit late, but the .357 is simply not a good bear gun. No way, no how should it ever be considered as such. I don't know where you read that it would penetrate the same as a .44, but all things being equal it will not. The biggest requirement in a bear defense gun is force, or stopping power, and the .44 beats the .357 by a big margin. But since we're talking big, bear stopping revolvers, the .454 Casull would be my first choice. Mostly because I've just always wanted one.

 

[Scrody]

I carry a .44 mag or the 10mm. .357 magnum is a solid bear gun. The biggest thing you need to be concerned about is the actual projectiles that you're using. A buddy of mine has killed multiple bears with a .45acp using no name ball ammo. Get some hard cast rounds and practice with them as well. Buffalo bore and Underwood have much more noticeable pop to them then target loads.

 

[ricc505]

I love my .44 Magnum revolver. Highly accurate and obviously never jams. S&W 629 classic ported barrel. If I was carrying I'd have a .357 8 shot.

 

[ricc505]

Probably a bit late, but the .357 is simply not a good bear gun. No way, no how should it ever be considered as such. I don't know where you read that it would penetrate the same as a .44, but all things being equal it will not. The biggest requirement in a bear defense gun is force, or stopping power, and the .44 beats the .357 by a big margin. But since we're talking big, bear stopping revolvers, the .454 Casull would be my first choice. Mostly because I've just always wanted one.

.454 casull has a lot of pop. A friend has a raging judge and he liked to play load roulette, when you got the .454 you knew it. E
The problem I find with the .44 mag and .454 is my accuracy of the second shot.

The first mag round I shot was a .357. we set up a range and shot .22, .45acp, 9mm and .357. we had a cinder block wall, commercial steel exterior doors and multiple feet of cardboard and plywood stacked as a backdrop. The .357 Ruger security six penetrated through feet of cardboard and wood before going through the steel doors, sheetrock and finally stopped in the center of the block wall. Plenty of penetration

 

[mjmj]

.454 casull has a lot of pop. A friend has a raging judge and he liked to play load roulette, when you got the .454 you knew it. E
The problem I find with the .44 mag and .454 is my accuracy of the second shot.

The first mag round I shot was a .357. we set up a range and shot .22, .45acp, 9mm and .357. we had a cinder block wall, commercial steel exterior doors and multiple feet of cardboard and plywood stacked as a backdrop. The .357 Ruger security six penetrated through feet of cardboard and wood before going through the steel doors, sheetrock and finally stopped in the center of the block wall. Plenty of penetration

No doubt about it, the recoil with the 44 and 454 is brutal. But in a bear attack, there’s no aiming. Its an extremely close quarter, point and pull the trigger situation. Honestly I’d prefer a 12 guage, but that wasn’t the question. But if I was buying a new revolver strictly for bear defense, I wouldn’t choose a .357. It’s a mediocre deer caliper, a charging bear is a far tougher target.

 

[ricc505]

Good point about close quarters. I've read the close quarters possibility it's why some prefer a revolver to a slide semi auto as a hunting back up. I know some semis won't fire pressed against something.

The .454 my friend has looks like a prop from who framed Roger rabbit. It shoots 410 shotgun as well and I've fired some pretty decent loads in it. It's a big framed gun. Raging Judge Taurus, it wasn't expensive and seemed of adequate quality

I really like my S&W .44 but I'm not sure about carrying it.

 

[mjmj]

Good point about close quarters. I've read the close quarters possibility it's why some prefer a revolver to a slide semi auto as a hunting back up. I know some semis won't fire pressed against something.

The .454 my friend has looks like a prop from who framed Roger rabbit. It shoots 410 shotgun as well and I've fired some pretty decent loads in it. It's a big framed gun. Raging Judge Taurus, it wasn't expensive and seemed of adequate quality

I really like my S&W .44 but I'm not sure about carrying it.

I had considered getting a Raging Bull, like you say they’re built realy solid and aren’t priced too bad. I have no practical use for one, but thats hardly a reason to not buy a new gun.

 

[ChickenBrother]

I'm not disagreeing with any posts above but based on documented incidents, pistols of all calibers have been effective at deterring bear attacks. Out of 143 cases where only a pistol (calibers including .22LR, .38 SPL, 9mm, etc.) was used, only 3 were deemed failures i.e. pistols were 98% effective. I found this surprising.

Handgun Defenses Against Bear Attacks - 170 Documented Incidents, 98% Effective

There are now 170 documented cases, with 146 of those cases where handguns only are fired in defense against bear attacks. Handguns are effective 98% of the time.

www.ammoland.com

Update of Pistol Defenses Against Bears 123 Cases, 98% Effective

In the 2022 update, 20 more incidents have been documented where pistols or handguns have been fired in defense against bears, with a 98% success rate for 123 total incidents.

www.ammoland.com

While this makes the case that low caliber handguns can do the job, if you read the cases there are some holy phuc moments. Personally I'd go with the highest caliber I can reliably put rounds on target which for me is .357 mag.


September 27, 2021, 10mm and .45 ACP pistol September 27, 2021, Grizzly Bear Wyoming Two Oceans Pass

Tyler reported the son remembered seeing the red dot of his pistol sight on the bear for every shot.

The bear continued to advance, slowed down by Tyler and the son’s shots. Tyler advanced to a position a few feet to the side of the son, shooting a couple of more times on the run. The bear was continuing the charge toward them. It had been slowed by multiple hits.

Tyler remembers he and the son shot, and shot, and shot. The pair fired a total of 31 shots. Numerous hours at the range paid off for the son. He finished one magazine and completed a speed reload while Tyler was still shooting.

There are a few cases where a person being attacked by a bear is able to reload. This is the first one I have encountered where the reload was accomplished while the bear was charging.​

As the bear got within 10 feet, its speed had slowed considerably. Tyler was concentrating on chest shots. Tyler believes he broke one or both shoulders. The bear veered hard right into a tree. Tyler took a step forward and shot the bear in the side of the skull, through the brain, twice. The Buffalo Bore bullets penetrated through the brain and lodged in the skull on the other side. The distance was five feet. The deadly fight was over.

EDIT: didn't see that the article link is already posted in the OP. But I still stand by my comments.

 

[Woldog]

So in my hunt for the perfect hiking gun, I've now narrowed it down to the Ruger gp100 revolver in .357.

I'll explain each decision along the way in case it helps any of you.


1. Are you stupid?

Yes.


2. Why not a .44? Everyone knows that's the bear killer.

I've read all 170 documented accounts of a human using a handgun to defend against a bear. And learned that handguns are highly effective (though not guaranteed) regardless of caliber.

Source: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/ha...-bears-170-documented-incidents-98-effective/

Basically any gun can scare off a curious bear, but if it's on full-on attack mode, you'll get 1-3 shots off before the bear is on top of you. So accuracy, speed of shots, and penetration are key.

I'm simply not confident that I can get 3 shots accurately in a split second with a .44 due to the massive recoil.

However, a .357 on the other hand, should penetrate roughly the same as a .44 but with manageable recoil. I recognize the wound channel will be smaller, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to accept.


3. Why a revolver? Are you 79 years old? All the cool kids use a 10mm semi-auto.

I seriously considered a 10mm, but in researching them I discovered that a ton of them seem to have feed issues with the hot loads like buffalo bore and underwood hard cast ammo that I'd be using for bear defense.


4. But a 10mm ammo holds way more ammo! Are you stupid?

Yes.

Remember what I said above about having 3 shots at most before the bear is on you? So the extra ammo capacity is not as important as having something that shoots 6 (or 7) reliably.


5. Ha! My 10mm is as reliable as they come! I've never had a problem with it!

Limp wristing is not a problem for you on the range, but when a bear is chewing on your arm and you have to use your other arm to shoot from whatever odd angle you can manage, your chances of limp-wristing go up by a bajillion percent. Now add the fact that the ammo I'm using is already more likely to jam, I'm really not liking my odds of survival.

Now add one more fact to the mix. If you do get a jam, you will have to clear it with one hand. Can you do that? I mean I can, but not every time. And it will be even harder with a bear tossing your salad.

Better to have 6 shots that always fire than to have 12-18 that will jam every time you don't brace your arm properly while your face is being eaten.


6. Ok but then why a Ruger and not a Smith and Wesson?

S&W has a great reputation for sure, but it seems like in recent years their quality control is lacking and their customer service sucks balls.

Ruger doesn't have quite the stellar reputation that S&W has, so they have to work harder to keep their customers happy. And I've heard really good things about the quality of their revolvers as well as their customer service if something goes wrong.

Plus they're not ridiculously expensive like colts or korth. I'm trying to save my arm and leg from being eaten, not spend them on a gun.

In my evidence with pigs - 44 Magnum, I've never seen a pig hit by it run further than 100 yards before dropping. 357 I've seen pigs run off never to be found multiple times after being shot 2 or 3 times.
Both instances is out of a rifle however. I've killed a lot of pigs with a 44 magnum and my friend uses a 357 so I've seen their use quite a lot.

 

[mjmj]

I'm not disagreeing with any posts above but based on documented incidents, pistols of all calibers have been effective at deterring bear attacks. Out of 143 cases where only a pistol (calibers including .22LR, .38 SPL, 9mm, etc.) was used, only 3 were deemed failures i.e. pistols were 98% effective. I found this surprising.

Handgun Defenses Against Bear Attacks - 170 Documented Incidents, 98% Effective

There are now 170 documented cases, with 146 of those cases where handguns only are fired in defense against bear attacks. Handguns are effective 98% of the time.

www.ammoland.com

Update of Pistol Defenses Against Bears 123 Cases, 98% Effective

In the 2022 update, 20 more incidents have been documented where pistols or handguns have been fired in defense against bears, with a 98% success rate for 123 total incidents.

www.ammoland.com

While this makes the case that low caliber handguns can do the job, if you read the cases there are some holy phuc moments. Personally I'd go with the highest caliber I can reliably put rounds on target which for me is .357 mag.


September 27, 2021, 10mm and .45 ACP pistol September 27, 2021, Grizzly Bear Wyoming Two Oceans Pass


EDIT: didn't see that the article link is already posted in the OP. But I still stand by my comments.

Those studies can be extremely misleading. In the vast majority of cases, the guns are fired before the bear is on them, and the bears aren't "attacking", they're bluff charges. So it's a combination of the bear not actually attacking, and the gun noise that stops the "attack". If the studies were restricted to only real attacks, the effective rate would drop to single digits success I'm afraid. The fact is, once a bear commits to an attack, they'll run through most calipers without hardly slowing down. That's why "stopping power" is so important. Just like for personal defense weapons, adrenalin can really make a big difference.

 

[ChickenBrother]

Those studies can be extremely misleading. In the vast majority of cases, the guns are fired before the bear is on them, and the bears aren't "attacking", they're bluff charges. So it's a combination of the bear not actually attacking, and the gun noise that stops the "attack". If the studies were restricted to only real attacks, the effective rate would drop to single digits success I'm afraid. The fact is, once a bear commits to an attack, they'll run through most calipers without hardly slowing down. That's why "stopping power" is so important. Just like for personal defense weapons, adrenalin can really make a big difference.

Agree the documented cases can be misleading, but I think you're missing the other takeaway which is that only 3 documented encounters were failures with any caliber handgun and in all three, the victim(s) did not properly use the handgun.

But like I said, I'd go with the highest caliber I can reliably put rounds on target and as with anything, training is paramount. Stopping power doesn't matter if you can't hit the broad side of a barn. I wouldn't risk it but there have been documented cases of grizzlies and polar bears being killed by .22 to the brain. But agree that if a determined bear gets reasonably close and decides to charge you, you're probably fucked no matter what.

We found three (3) failures of handguns against attacking bears.​

The three failures included failures against the three bear species found in North America, one each of polar, grizzly, and black bears.

Here are the details of the three cases, presented in chronological order, followed by analysis and commentary:

August, 1995, Norway, Svalbard Archepelago, .22 rimfire, Failure, Polar Bear, From Spitsbergen: Svalbard, Franz Josef, Jan Mayen, 3rd Brant travel Guide, by Andres Umbreit​

Kiepertoyo Hinlopen Strait, August, 1995

Another five people of the crew set out separately with only a .22 pistol and a flare gun. After an hour’s march, the second party were met by a bear, 75m away and openly aggressive. The bear was distracted neither by warning shot nor flare and attacked one of the party. As he did so, he was shot, from a range of only 15m and turned against the man who had fired at him. This man tossed the gun to the first, who shot again. The process was repeated, with first one man being attacked and then the other. By the time the pistol was emptied and a knife drawn, one man was dead and another badly injured. The survivors retreated to the ship.

(snip)

On examination, three shots to the head were discovered, none of them piercing the cranium.

The victim had three years experience with the Origo, with many bear observations, and there were sufficient weapons on board to equip everybody.

Analysis: There have been several cases where large bears have been killed with .22 rimfire cartridges. One of the most famous is that of Bella Twin, who killed a world record grizzly bear with a .22 single-shot rifle, near the village of Slave Lake in Alberta, Canada.

A .22 can penetrate the vitals of a large bear. To kill a large bear quickly with a .22 caliber means the shot or shots have to be precise and to the brain. None of the shots from the .22, in this case, were to the vulnerable points in the bear’s head, where the brain would have been hit. It is very difficult to do this if the target is moving and 15 meters (50 feet) away. A more powerful cartridge could have made a difference. Shooting the bear from very close range, and knowing where the brain is located inside the bear’s head, might have made a difference.


Tossing the only firearm to another person, multiple times does not appear to be a good tactic.

But as we will see in the next case, merely having a more powerful firearm may not be enough.

June 20, 2010, Alaska: Geologist Pistol Defense failure Grizzly Bear, .357 Magnum​

Miller managed to pull out his .357 Magnum revolver and squeeze off a shot, possibly grazing the animal. Then he fell onto his stomach, dug his face into the dirt and covered his neck.

The bear went for his exposed right arm, gnawing and clawing it and chipping the bone off the tip of his elbow. The attack lasted 10 to 15 seconds, then the animal lumbered away.

As Miller rolled over and was getting to his knees, the bear, only about 40 yards away, came at him again.

He managed to fire two more shots, but with his right arm badly injured he thinks he missed the bear. Then he lay still as the animal gnawed and clawed at him.

After the second attack, Miller played dead again, lying still for three to five minutes. He tried to move and realized he couldn’t. He was too badly injured.

“I was just hoping my radio was still in my vest pocket and it was,” he said. “I got it out and started radioing mayday, which nobody answered.”

Analysis: The account shows Robert Miller did what he was trained to do. His training failed him. It seems likely he did not hit the bear with any of the three shots he fired.

Playing dead when you have the means to stop the attack, is a bad strategy. It may provoke an attack.

Miller seems to have been more concerned with playing dead than with actually hitting and killing the bear. He might have escaped injury if he had concentrated on stopping the attack by killing the bear. Many bears, even grizzly bears, stop the attack and leave if they are severely hurt, even if they are not mortally wounded.

September 6, 2015, Ocate, New Mexico: Failure, .38 revolver black bear​

The hunter received bite injuries to his foot through his boot as he climbed a tree to try to escape the bear. He was taken to Alta Vista Hospital in Las Vegas, N.M., where he was treated and released.

(snip)

In Thursday’s attack, the hunter told officials he was eating lunch under a tree when he spotted the bear and her cub in a watering hole. He took photographs and started shooting video of the animals when the mother bear got angry and charged. The hunter, who officials did not identify, climbed the tree to escape.

At one point, the hunter fell 15 feet from the tree and then managed to climb back up. He fired his pistol into the air and at the female bear in attempt to scare it, but the animal didn’t leave. He then radioed for help. His guide told officers he found the hunter clinging to the tree nearly 50 feet from the ground.

Analysis: The hunter was particularly concerned with preventing injury to the bear rather than in protecting himself. It appears he never hit the bear while he emptied his .38 revolver. While climbing a tree to escape a bear appears reasonable, there is a good chance it will trigger an “escaping foe” or “escaping prey” reflex in a bear. It is similar to running away, another bad idea.

Black bears usually retreat if they are hurt. Standing your ground and concentrating on stopping and/or killing the threatening bear is a better tactic, especially for black bears.

If a person is carrying a handgun to protect against bears, they should be mentally prepared to use the handgun to kill a threatening bear.

As clearly demonstrated in these three cases the reluctance to use the handgun in an effective way increases the danger of injury or death.

Lessons From Handgun Defense Failures Against Bears

Of 123 documented cases where handguns were fired in defense against bears, three failures were documented. Here are the three cases, analysis and commentary.

www.ammoland.com