So the person survived a Grizzly bear attack by killing the bear, but the rest of us should do it differently. Makes sense, right?

[displacedtexan]

But avoidance is the key. I often bow hunt without either. Also I don’t try to feed them sandwiches and take pictures with cute little cubs like our flip-flop wearing friends in Yellowstone

How do you get sweet content for the gram then?

 

[cowboybart]

It's NEVER windy in WY, ID or MT, so bear spray is very effective in those locations!!
I've never calculated wind drift of a 320gr 45 cal bullet at 1200fps. With a BC of something like .14, I'm sure it is not pretty, but the bullet only has to travel 40'. Bear spray has to "hang" where you spray it for 10 seconds.
I don't care weather you carry bear spray or a gun - just don't tell me what I MUST carry. If you are comfortable with spray or a 9mm - good for you.

 

[GMax]

I don’t go anywhere without a firearm, let alone bear country

 

[TaperPin]

Under the pressure of nothing more than a coyote up close, I’ve seen a number of experienced shooters get so excited they’re unable to even hit the thing - anywhere. 50% of the guys I’ve gone hunting with have no business with a pistol. Of that half, half would be ok with a rifle, and the group left over are incapable of defending themselves with any firearm. The guy that cracks me up the most was bear hunting with me - we saw a black bear a hundred yards away and he froze - unable to engage his brain, let alone aim his rifle - no pressure, nothing scary, just total brain mush. The other guy that cracks me up, bragged about shooting under pressure, but I never saw him shoot other than slowly. I pinned up a new 18” square target at 25 yards and said, “Go ahead like it’s a bear trying to steal your pot.” A pistol mag dump with every round hitting under the target. That wasn’t even under pressure - he was just trying to show off.

 

[AK_Skeeter]

I spent over 30 years in interior Alaska, had 5 bad bear encounters,
sprayed 2 and it was effective.

The problem with handguns (I own a .44 magnum redhawk) is the
brain of a grizzly bear is about the size of a baseball and they can
charge at a speed faster than a horse. If that first shot does not
hit the brain or spine, the shooter could be in trouble.

The first shot needs to hit a small and fast target,
either the brain or spine so yes only if the shooter is an expert pistol shot,
otherwise a .338 or larger caliber or shotgun.

 

[JeffRaines]

Under the pressure of nothing more than a coyote up close, I’ve seen a number of experienced shooters get so excited they’re unable to even hit the thing - anywhere. 50% of the guys I’ve gone hunting with have no business with a pistol. Of that half, half would be ok with a rifle, and the group left over are incapable of defending themselves with any firearm. The guy that cracks me up the most was bear hunting with me - we saw a black bear a hundred yards away and he froze - unable to engage his brain, let alone aim his rifle - no pressure, nothing scary, just total brain mush. The other guy that cracks me up, bragged about shooting under pressure, but I never saw him shoot other than slowly. I pinned up a new 18” square target at 25 yards and said, “Go ahead like it’s a bear trying to steal your pot.” A pistol mag dump with every round hitting under the target. That wasn’t even under pressure - he was just trying to show off.

And here’s where my argument for a lighter cartridge starts.

We already know based on known events that bears don’t like being shot regardless of cartridge size(well, maybe excluding 22lr).

The guys who are all about the big honkin 44/460/500 revolvers - are they actually practicing with these handguns or is this a once or twice a year box of shells(if that) and calling it good because shooting them absolutely sucks(and is also expensive as hell). We both know for 95% of the guys carrying any pistol - just like a great majority of deer hunters - they’re not practicing nearly as often as they need to be.

It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to shoot 9mm and 10mm. Putting 150-200 down range a few times a month is only ~$45-$60 a trip for 9mm. 10mm is more expensive understandably, but it’s still cheaper than 44/460/500. For 150 rounds of 500 the cheap stuff will run you $200, and that’s not taking into consideration that very few people would tolerate that amount of recoil for 150 rounds. Most will come away shooting worse than they started.

You’re only good with the tool if you actually practice with it. Once a year isn’t practice.

And as silly as it may sound, doing things like practicing drawing from your holster to shot, doing doubles, etc is actually beneficial and makes practice a lot more fun than just slow firing at a piece of paper.

 

[Thegman]

As I say,, "spray is gay".

Bear spray's high "99% efficacy" is due to it being used 99% of the the time on "problem" bears, not aggressive bears. In those types of cases rocks, sling shots, etc are about as effective as bear spray.

About three years ago we had two separate bear fatalities here (AK) where bear spay was used. In both cases, the victims were armed only with bear spray. In at least one case (predatory black bear) almost any handgun would have saved the woman's life, but bear spray didn't.

In my case, I actually think carrying bear spray makes the situation more dangerous. I don't want my brain questioning for a second about "what to grab, what to use". If there's a potential problem, firearm is out. If it turns out it's not a serious problem, there's 100 other ways to deal with the situation. If it is a problem, and I decided to grab bear spray instead of the firearm, it may well be too late to deal with it.

All that said, bear spray is great for problem moose IME. That's actually been pretty entertaining. Moose spray?

I don't know these people, but you can see my point.

 

[Smtn10pt]

You say the first shot needs to hit the brain..this guys first shot hit his own leg and he was still able to survive the attack.

 

[2ski]

What are you going to do if the wind is in your face and you spray the bear? Be thankful that even though you got some spray in your face, the bear ran off and you lived.

Carry what you want. I have a 10mm and spray. So I'm in no means advocating for spray only.

 

[TaperPin]

And here’s where my argument for a lighter cartridge starts.

We already know based on known events that bears don’t like being shot regardless of cartridge size(well, maybe excluding 22lr).

The guys who are all about the big honkin 44/460/500 revolvers - are they actually practicing with these handguns or is this a once or twice a year box of shells(if that) and calling it good because shooting them absolutely sucks(and is also expensive as hell). We both know for 95% of the guys carrying any pistol - just like a great majority of deer hunters - they’re not practicing nearly as often as they need to be.

It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to shoot 9mm and 10mm. Putting 150-200 down range a few times a month is only ~$45-$60 a trip for 9mm. 10mm is more expensive understandably, but it’s still cheaper than 44/460/500. For 150 rounds of 500 the cheap stuff will run you $200, and that’s not taking into consideration that very few people would tolerate that amount of recoil for 150 rounds. Most will come away shooting worse than they started.

You’re only good with the tool if you actually practice with it. Once a year isn’t practice.

And as silly as it may sound, doing things like practicing drawing from your holster to shot, doing doubles, etc is actually beneficial and makes practice a lot more fun than just slow firing at a piece of paper.

Yes, regular practice is key.

With the urbanization of many rural areas, and increasingly restrictive shooting rules, I feel bad for kids that don’t have an easy to get to place to plink, and for adults that limit their range days and try to make up for it with high volume a few times a month. The NRA used to do a lot more to help encourage ranges, but I can’t remember the last time I’ve heard anything other than NRA money going directly into the pockets of politicians.

 

[Beendare]

Not everyone can keep their shit screwed down well enough to shoot through the situation.....so I understand.

True in many cases.

I think the key to all of the this bear advice is just like any internet advice;
CONSIDER THE SOURCE

The wildlife folks don't want those bears shot- of course they want you to use spray. Heck, some of those Animal rights folks have never even shot a firearm- of course they recommend spray.

How many of the guys carrying spray have actually practiced opening the two safeties and actually test fired a can of spray? Fumbling your way through the steps for the first time when a Griz bear is bearing down on you is a bad idea.

In fight or flight, we fall back on training. I've had close bear encounters out hunting with a buddy who was reaching for his pistol on his belt....but it was in his chest holster.

 

[Thegman]

True in many cases.

I think the key to all of the this bear advice is just like any internet advice;
CONSIDER THE SOURCE

The wildlife folks don't want those bears shot- of course they want you to use spray. Heck, some of those Animal rights folks have never even shot a firearm- of course they recommend spray.

100%

I've actually had people of this ilk say to me, "You would kill a bear? I'd rather die than kill a bear".

I also suspect 99.9% of those would change their tune if that eventuality ever came to pass.

 

[taskswap]

How far away do you think you can use bear spray? You think switching from spray to a gun at 50 feet is plausible? Are there any mfgs or study's that say it is effective that far away? If I found out I can use it that far away I might start carrying it again. I still have some.

Share what you find if you research. I am curious.

Not being sarcastic. I have never discharged bear spray, or seen it discharged anywhere but a youtube video. My research into mfg recommendations and youtube vids I have seen put the number at 40 feet or less. Counter Assault says on their web page 40 ft which I think they intend as a maximum? At least the way I took it.

I can't really quote any specific advice here but 50' is probably a bit far. I went with UDAP, the orange canisters, and their instructions say up to 30'. They also say to test it so you understand what kind of cloud/fog it makes. Tell you one thing, I did that once at the edge of a meadow about 100' from where we were camping and a slight breeze made it drift back over the camp. I was not a popular person that night. It hung around awhile and was pretty unpleasant for about an hour after. And that was just a thin residual. Nothing with lungs and eyes is going to get far through a cloud of this stuff.

That's an important detail, by the way. You are not supposed to spray the bear, and I have a suspicion that a lot of folks who report it not being effective don't use it right. You're suppose to spray it in a pattern to create a fog cloud BETWEEN you and the bear, so the bear has to run through it. That's what stops it, especially if you do it while the bear is huffing, before it actually charges.

 

[cowboybart]

Several folks mentioned "practice" and the frequency and cost of it. How much are you going to practice with bear spray?? Yes, they do make practice canisters. I don't know the cost (because I have never practiced with bear spray), but the cost of 50 rds a month of 45 Colt (my loads) is negligible. Yes, a 338 or bigger and a 12 ga w/ slugs is a better answer. The question is - "will you carry them" or set them down and walk over to the tree to relieve yourself? I think it was Jeff Cooper that said - Handguns are only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
The cost of practice is a very small consideration with a firearm. I don't know what modern ammo costs, because I haven't bought any in 3 decades or so. The cost of enough bear spray to become proficient can be a factor though.
I spent 8 years in Uncle Sam's canoe club, some of which was on a submarine. I look at bear spray like escape hatches on a submarine. They are there to give the wives and mothers peace of mind. In practicality, everything has to be JUST RIGHT in order for them to save your life. I feel the same about bear spray.
I'm not saying you shouldn't carry bear spray. I'm saying I choose not to. My wife, on the other hand, is afraid to shoot anything bigger than a 380 or 38 Spl. She carries bear spray (and no she does not practice with it). It just gives her a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing she has it.

 

[BuckSmasher]

I can't really quote any specific advice here but 50' is probably a bit far. I went with UDAP, the orange canisters, and their instructions say up to 30'. They also say to test it so you understand what kind of cloud/fog it makes. Tell you one thing, I did that once at the edge of a meadow about 100' from where we were camping and a slight breeze made it drift back over the camp. I was not a popular person that night. It hung around awhile and was pretty unpleasant for about an hour after. And that was just a thin residual. Nothing with lungs and eyes is going to get far through a cloud of this stuff.

That's an important detail, by the way. You are not supposed to spray the bear, and I have a suspicion that a lot of folks who report it not being effective don't use it right. You're suppose to spray it in a pattern to create a fog cloud BETWEEN you and the bear, so the bear has to run through it. That's what stops it, especially if you do it while the bear is huffing, before it actually charges.

I see what you are saying. I didn't know that was an acceptable use for spray. I am leaning toward, or thinking about carrying both now. That is what is so confusing. Gun or spray, accurately shooting a moving target under duress or having a cloud of spray? Then if you choose spray how far to deploy, what if the wind is in your face? Then if you choose a gun do you choose powerful and heavy recoil or lighter recoil and more shots? I guess that is for everyone to decide for themselves based upon careful research from knowledgeable sources. Not a internet discussion forum. Interesting how some are all 100% one way or the other. It seems the only 100% sure way to prevent bear injury or death is not to go outside in bear country.

 

[Thegman]

How far away do you think you can use bear spray? You think switching from spray to a gun at 50 feet is plausible? Are there any mfgs or study's that say it is effective that far away? If I found out I can use it that far away I might start carrying it again. I still have some.

Share what you find if you research. I am curious.

Not being sarcastic. I have never discharged bear spray, or seen it discharged anywhere but a youtube video. My research into mfg recommendations and youtube vids I have seen put the number at 40 feet or less. Counter Assault says on their web page 40 ft which I think they intend as a maximum? At least the way I took it.

Yes, 50' is way too far for it to be effective IME. 30' is -MAX- IME.

The first moose charge I used it on (had never used it before) I started when he was probably 30' away. Wind was 90° and nothing reached him. Fortunately the sound startled him and he stopped. I circled 90° to get the wind at my back and started out again and he charged again. This time I didn't start spraying until he was within 20'. He ran right into the cloud, immediately turned 90°, ran about 50 yards and stopped, with drool -pouring- out of his mouth. I actually approached him again to see what he'd do. He ran like hell and never tried that again.

Did something similar a couple of years later with a particularly nasty charging cow. Worked the same. Later in the day when I got home she was actually standing at my front porch...waiting for me?

I held up the bear spray and said "We're not gonna have any problems are we?"

She took off running and never bothered me again.

Sorry about the detour...but yeah, 20' and in is where it seems to work best.

 

[Rotnguns]

Not taking sides here - I always carry a handgun in bear country - but here is an article describing an interesting study of the effectiveness of bear spray v firearms in bear encounters. Some of the methodology is equivocal and the conclusions drawn are questionable in some ways, but a good read nonetheless:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/montana-outdoors/2014/bear-spray.pdf

 

[taskswap]

Several folks mentioned "practice" and the frequency and cost of it. How much are you going to practice with bear spray?? Yes, they do make practice canisters. I don't know the cost (because I have never practiced with bear spray), but the cost of 50 rds a month of 45 Colt (my loads) is negligible.

It's not apples-to-apples. It takes hundreds to thousands of rounds of practice to get proficient with a pistol, and you have to cover details beyond just shooting accuracy, like drawing and presenting it safely without putting a friend in the line of fire. (Or your leg.) Bear spray produces a very long 20-40ft stream that expands into a cloud at its terminus. Once you've practiced a single shot of bear spray you're pretty much good. It's like hornet-killer spray. You don't need to use it every week to still get the job done next summer when the next nest goes up.

As I said, I carry both. But I don't think alot of these arguments really carry much weight "against" bear spray so far. IMO the first REAL argument against is that it's a one-shot deal (maybe two, if the can is large.) I think the best argument for a firearm is that I can carry SIX backup shots (more with my Glock). And you'd better believe I'm emptying that thing. But I'll still reach for the bear spray first. That's one less awkward conversation with a ranger, and yes, I do believe it is effective - within the limits of what it's designed to do.

 

[Thegman]

Not taking sides here - I always carry a handgun in bear country - but here is an article describing an interesting study of the effectiveness of bear spray v firearms in bear encounters. Some of the methodology is equivocal and the conclusions drawn are questionable in some ways, but a good read nonetheless:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/montana-outdoors/2014/bear-spray.pdf

I realize you're not saying this article is definitive, but it's definitely biased in favor of bear spray.

"In Alaska, there have been no human fatalities in encounters where bear spray was
used." A little behind the times, there have been at least two since the article was printed. Zero where a firearm was used.

I also have to wonder about cherry picking data. They don't mention the fatalities in the rest of NA where bear spray was used, just that there were none (at the time) in Alaska.

Bias as mentioned above:

"In addition to a far better record for human safety, another advantage of bear spray is that it leaves bears alive and healthy. Smith and Herrero found that bears died 61 percent of the time when people used firearms. Many of the encounters involved females with cubs, and a dead sow meant orphaned cubs. No one knows how many of those encounters were bluff charges where the bear would have pulled up short of an actual attack."

Reading between the lines. "We don't want bears killed, so wait and see if it's just a bluff charge. If it isn't and you're using bear spray...well, at least you didn't hurt the bear."

From "Wikipedia bear fatalities"

"Blais was communicating with her father from a satellite phone while camping with her two children and husband at a family cabin on McKie Lake when the bear attacked her. Her husband, Curtis, was inside the cabin's kitchen 98 feet (30 m) away. The investigation showed the attack was unprovoked and predatory in nature. Curtis subsequently sprayed the bear with pepper spray, but this only aggravated the animal. He grabbed a gun and shot it twice, killing the bear."

Too late to save his wife. Obviously should have grabbed the firearm first.

In reading about these fatalities, I have to wonder how many times bear spray failure isn't even mentioned. For example:

"Johnson, a contract employee for Pogo Mine, was killed while collecting soil samples. The bear was shot and killed by mine personnel."

There are lots of descriptions like this, but what's left out, at least in this case that I'm familiar with is the total failure of bear spray. It's not mentioned that there were two women together. They sprayed the bear to no avail (weren't allowed to carry a firearm for the job). One escaped and went for help. Armed workers came back and killed the bear while it was feeding on Johnson. This is the case I mentioned that any sort of firearm would have saved her life. Once again, bear spray didn't.

For some reason, with multiple examples of serious bear spray failures, and almost no human fatalities when firearms are used, people keep touting bear spray. I understand the Sierra Club ideological thinking, but don't quite understand it for people comfortable with firearms.

 

[RockAndSage]

Reading between the lines. "We don't want bears killed, so wait and see if it's just a bluff charge. If it isn't and you're using bear spray...well, at least you didn't hurt the bear."

^^ This, exactly.

When you dig just below the surface on almost anything related to environmentalism, and the professional fields that often attract people with those leanings, it reveals an anti-human bias. This must, must start being recognized.