Recommendation for a bear gun.

[The Heretic]

Feeding bears happens more often than people think and it's a danger to everyone in the community. I have seen this first hand and countless bears have died because of human stupidity

Humans feeding any wildlife is not good for the wildlife - whether it causes problems for humans or not.

 

[Mono1]

My 2 cents is .357 Magnum shooting 125 Grain Hollowpoints through a revolver (as you stated is your preference). No switches / buttons / safeties for an 81 YO to try to remember. Just point and squeeze.

Marshall - Sarnow study. Works for 2 legged predators as well.

Amazon.com

 

[daropowlison]

I would recommend bear spray for your dad or anyone for that matter. It works great and you don't have to be fast, accurate or trained. Point and sweep, the bear goes away.

Still carry a gun of course and I personally carry a Glock 29 (10mm). It's heavy, kicks hard (compared to a 9mm) but can carry plenty of rounds and has good energy for stopping power... For your dad, he's not getting younger or stronger, and when you decide to get him something, I hope you pick something that will be sustainable. I got my grandfather a Ruger .22 pistol, LCR. It has 8 rounds, light weight, hammerless, and goes bang. Primarily as a noise deterrent as he can't see well enough to hit a bear even if he tried with an full size pistol. ha But he does it and carries bear spray.

Good luck, I don't think you can go wrong.

In Summary:

• Bear Spray
• A gun he is comfortable with and will carry
• Buy something that is sustainable for his age

Just my thoughts.
-Daro

 

[Spitpatch]

This is wishful thinking based on politicized studies with predetermined outcomes.
Bear spray failure are orders of magnitude more likely than handgun failures.
You won't usually have time to shift to firearm after your bear spray enrages the bear or blows back in your face.
Google Dean Weingarten and bear attacks database.

Thank you for the Dean Weingarten reference wherein he destroys the mistaken belief that handguns are not effective toward a bear attack.

...and mentions bear spray only once , and early, and in passing reference as another method absent any negative data whatsoever.

"Politicized studies with predetermined outcomes" performed by multiple Game Commissions, wildlife organizations such as RMEF, Wild Sheep Foundation, renowned biologists and some of the most highly regarded hunters in the field. Eastman's recognizes situational advantages to spray AND gun. This is apart from asking what would be the imagined motivation for "politicized studies" of the issue. Are bear attacks somehow political now?

"Bear spray failures...more likely than handgun failures." Data? The darling Weingarten sure didn't go there in his strong defense of handgun effectiveness. His avoidance is telling. He advocates admirably for the firearm's effectiveness while never even approaching discussion of bear spray's record. My guess is because he knows it, advocating for the firearm while never discounting spray.

Toward valuable references (WITH data) I would offer this. Somewhat more lengthy and detailed than Weingarten's effort:

https://bearwise.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/efficacy-of-bear-spray-smith-et-al.-2010.pdf

Having worked for an Outfitter in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, multiple trips to Alaska including numerous meetings with bears, I would have traded a right arm in those days for an effective option other than a firearm in those encounters. Having killed a number of bears (two with bow and arrow, BOTH of which came back to "the scene of the crime" to investigate what had mortally wounded them), I believe I know what it takes to make a bear quit doing whatever he is doing that is disagreeable. Having been "dosed" with capsicum more than once in military and law enforcement training, I wished for more than one moment that they'd used a gun on me.

My decision to rely on BOTH implements (and knowing spray's documented record) is based on experience (admittedly none in usage against a bear) and far from "wishful thinking". The hard data is in, still being developed from numerous unbiased sources including people who regularly spend time with bears testifying to spray's effectiveness.

Pack 'em both. In the heat of the moment when an accurate shot may not be possible (and with a handgun on a big bear, it MUST be surgically accurate), bear spray IS (and has been demonstrated repeatedly) the better option for all concerned.

...unless of course (as some here have noted) you wanna kill a Bear.

 

[leverite]

Thank you for the Dean Weingarten reference wherein he destroys the mistaken belief that handguns are not effective toward a bear attack.

...and mentions bear spray only once , and early, and in passing reference as another method absent any negative data whatsoever.

"Politicized studies with predetermined outcomes" performed by multiple Game Commissions, wildlife organizations such as RMEF, Wild Sheep Foundation, renowned biologists and some of the most highly regarded hunters in the field. Eastman's recognizes situational advantages to spray AND gun. This is apart from asking what would be the imagined motivation for "politicized studies" of the issue. Are bear attacks somehow political now?

Bear spray failures...more likely than handgun failures." Data? The darling Weingarten sure didn't go there in his strong defense of handgun effectiveness. His avoidance is telling. He advocates admirably for the firearm's effectiveness while never even approaching discussion of bear spray's record. My guess is because he knows it, advocating for the firearm while never discounting spray.

Toward valuable references (WITH data) I would offer this. Somewhat more lengthy and detailed than Weingarten's effort:

https://bearwise.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/efficacy-of-bear-spray-smith-et-al.-2010.pdf

Having worked for an Outfitter in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, multiple trips to Alaska including numerous meetings with bears, I would have traded a right arm in those days for an effective option other than a firearm in those encounters. Having killed a number of bears (two with bow and arrow, BOTH of which came back to "the scene of the crime" to investigate what had mortally wounded them), I believe I know what it takes to make a bear quit doing whatever he is doing that is disagreeable. Having been "dosed" with capsicum more than once in military and law enforcement training, I wished for more than one moment that they'd used a gun on me.

My decision to rely on BOTH implements (and knowing spray's documented record) is based on experience (admittedly none in usage against a bear) and far from "wishful thinking". The hard data is in, still being developed from numerous unbiased sources including people who regularly spend time with bears testifying to spray's effectiveness.

Pack 'em both. In the heat of the moment when an accurate shot may not be possible (and with a handgun on a big bear, it MUST be surgically accurate), bear spray IS (and has been demonstrated repeatedly) the better option for all concerned.

...unless of course (as some here have noted) you wanna kill a Bear.

Without doubt we must trust the word and works of wildlife agencies, goverment bureaucrats, bear spray peddlers and the wolf happy RMEF.
They are all dedicated scientists without a trace of anti-gun or woke bias.
In Canada it's not even an arguable contention. Their studies prove there is no need for a backup handgun on a hunt...so turn yours in.
The public servants are aways looking to increase game populations, hunt areas and hunters' safety.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Why does this have to be a mine is better that yours kinda thing...?

Admittedly I have no experience with bear spray....
And truth be told my idea bear gun would not be most people's choice.

However...
If...someone likes the idea of bear spray over a firearm choice...
Of if they prefer a firearm over bear spray...
Who cares...?
It's their choice.

Also is there a reason or law why someone couldn't carry both..?

All that said...
I do understand the frustration with sources that cite data that only shows the result that they want.
Andy

 

[slimmer13]

Without doubt we must trust the word and works of wildlife agencies, goverment bureaucrats, bear spray peddlers and the wolf happy RMEF.
They are all dedicated scientists without a trace of anti-gun or woke bias.
In Canada it's not even an arguable contention. Their studies prove there is no need for a backup handgun on a hunt...so turn yours in.
The public servants are aways looking to increase game populations, hunt areas and hunters' safety.

Acknowledging that some tools are better at some jobs than guns isn't anti gun.

Think about it. How many times have you put a good shot, square in the vitals of a thin skinned deer under ideal conditions, and still had it run a hundred yards before it dropped? Then think about the less than ideal conditions that you'd be facing with a bear encounter. Makes a lot of sense to me and a bunch of other gun loving people that statistically spray probably works better.

 

[slimmer13]

Also is there a reason or law why someone couldn't carry both..?

No and that's the best solution.

 

[Spitpatch]

Without doubt we must trust the word and works of wildlife agencies, goverment bureaucrats, bear spray peddlers and the wolf happy RMEF.
They are all dedicated scientists without a trace of anti-gun or woke bias.
In Canada it's not even an arguable contention. Their studies prove there is no need for a backup handgun on a hunt...so turn yours in.
The public servants are aways looking to increase game populations, hunt areas and hunters' safety.

Well done. An impressive array of unsubstantiated blanket statements complete with "woke" and "anti-gun" ("politicized", anyone?) woven in (somehow remotely related to defense against bears), absent any personal experience noted. Points awarded also for consistency: still no data, and glaringly absent of any suggestion as to who SHOULD be trusted to present it, in favor of bashing those that have. Attacking the source rather than the information certainly does work quite often, especially when one lacks the latter.

Exploring and documenting successful bear defense strategies may now be believed as some nefarious central strategy toward gun control. Such lack of critical thinking skills could certainly be a negative attribute during a bear attack, so this is offered as a panacea toward the expressed great concern of "hunter's safety":

In YELLOWSTONE PARK (an area of more than adequate bear population and artificially created number of human/bear encounters), even a person lacking critical thinking skills would have to visit 2.7 MILLION times in order to expect an attack. 8 fatalities since 1872.

That's called data. Hard to politicize it, even with the admirable skills of some here.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

To be honest here...

I don't overly worry or think 'bout being attacked by any animal...bear of any kind included.
I keep a clean camp...and do my best to be aware of my surroundings.

Many times I have camped , hiked and hunted in bear country...all while armed with what many would think would be be a totally inadequate "bear gun"...yet somehow I have survived .

Also to be honest...while I ain't ready to die just yet...
If I was attacked , I would do my best to survive...but it I didn't...well....
It would be a historically correct way to go....

While out in the wilds...
I am out in the animals living room so to speak...I am the guest there.
It would behoove me to be on my best behavior.
So...again for me....keeping a clean camp...being aware of my surroundings / situation and not looking like lunch...
Has worked....and will be my first choice .

What someone else does...is on them..
Andy

 

[Spitpatch]

Why does this have to be a mine is better that yours kinda thing...?

Admittedly I have no experience with bear spray....
And truth be told my idea bear gun would not be most people's choice.

However...
If...someone likes the idea of bear spray over a firearm choice...
Of if they prefer a firearm over bear spray...
Who cares...?
It's their choice.

Also is there a reason or law why someone couldn't carry both..?

All that said...
I do understand the frustration with sources that cite data that only shows the result that they want.
Andy

My money'd be on that one shot from the Hawken long before I'd put a bet down on any dude with his brand new .47 caliber "bear medicine" hand cannon that he will never have any hope of mastering against a full blown charge from a paper target.

Chances are, he would neither be be privy to the veteran Bob Marshall guide's sage advice to dudes to file off the front sight of any handgun expected to be used as bear defense.

Not for quick deployment from the holster.

Rather, so (in the guide's words), "When the bear takes it away from ya and crams it up yer arse, it don't hurt so much."

 

[Tlock]

To be honest here...

I don't overly worry or think 'bout being attacked by any animal...bear of any kind included.
I keep a clean camp...and do my best to be aware of my surroundings.

Many times I have camped , hiked and hunted in bear country...all while armed with what many would think would be be a totally inadequate "bear gun"...yet somehow I have survived .

Also to be honest...while I ain't ready to die just yet...
If I was attacked , I would do my best to survive...but it I didn't...well....
It would be a historically correct way to go....

While out in the wilds...
I am out in the animals living room so to speak...I am the guest there.
It would behoove me to be on my best behavior.
So...again for me....keeping a clean camp...being aware of my surroundings / situation and not looking like lunch...
Has worked....and will be my first choice .

What someone else does...is on them..
Andy

I've never been worried about them coming into camp, I also keep a clean camp. Coming across a kill or cubs/kittens is always the biggest threat in my opinion.

 

[slimmer13]

To be honest here...

I don't overly worry or think 'bout being attacked by any animal...bear of any kind included.
I keep a clean camp...and do my best to be aware of my surroundings.

Many times I have camped , hiked and hunted in bear country...all while armed with what many would think would be be a totally inadequate "bear gun"...yet somehow I have survived .

Also to be honest...while I ain't ready to die just yet...
If I was attacked , I would do my best to survive...but it I didn't...well....
It would be a historically correct way to go....

While out in the wilds...
I am out in the animals living room so to speak...I am the guest there.
It would behoove me to be on my best behavior.
So...again for me....keeping a clean camp...being aware of my surroundings / situation and not looking like lunch...
Has worked....and will be my first choice .

What someone else does...is on them..
Andy

I spend a lot of time in the Cascades and.typically carry what I carried in the car on the way there. Probably a (gasp) 9mm. More for general protection than bear protection though I have seen bears. I also spend a lot of time in the Selkirks, the Cabinets, and the Bitterroots where I want a more robust bear defense.

 

[leverite]

Carry what you want. The US is still semi-free.

I know I Iack the reflexes and muscle memory to have time to effectively use the gun if the bear spray misses or fails to work as touted.
That's why I will carry both...handgun and silver virgin of Guadalupe medallion.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Like most things firearm related...
"Best" is very subjective.

At the end of the day...
Use what works for you...and your situation.

Whatever that is....needs to work for you...since it is your life...and not the dude on you tube's life...
Or any other source ...it's your life...so use what works for you.
Andy

 

[Spitpatch]

Carry what you want. The US is still semi-free.

I know I Iack the reflexes and muscle memory to have time to effectively use the gun if the bear spray misses or fails to work as touted.
That's why I will carry both...handgun and silver virgin of Guadalupe medallion.

I dunno about that second line of defense, man. Every bear I ever saw appeared to be an agnostic (or had at least skipped Catechism).

 

[OneArgus]

My 2 cents is .357 Magnum shooting 125 Grain Hollowpoints through a revolver (as you stated is your preference). No switches / buttons / safeties for an 81 YO to try to remember. Just point and squeeze.

Marshall - Sarnow study. Works for 2 legged predators as well.

Amazon.com

This.

 

[OneArgus]

My opinion, what ever firearm you can get to, faster then the bear can get to you.

But my perspective ( maybe based on experience).
I do not need a Bear Killer, as much as a good carry system. So my " bear gun " is not under a jacket.
Or like two hikers that were killed in Alaska in your backpack.

Second get one you are comfortable with and in my opinion no complications.
Safety etc. One you can aim. You would be surprised how much smaller a bear is then a Deer or Elk
when coming at you at full tilt. And probably wont just stop for you to get your firearm out from under your clothes.
And why you are trying to not hit every rock and tree in between you and it. You will get probably only one or two good shots
before they close 50yrds your shoes.

So OP one they can get to easy, and not fiddle around with. I have a couple so called bear rounds for a .357.
Has a nice kick and loud. But might be something that is easily managed.


Argus.

 

[Bobbygun]

and the wolf happy RMEF

I don't know about the RMEF being exactly "wolf happy". I've been a member for years and regularly read their Bugle magazine. They may not tell their members to "shoot, shovel and shut up", but I think being "wolf happy" might be detrimental to their membership drive.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I'm in the .357 club.

GP100 - longest barrel he can handle.

A 6" weighs about 3lbs loaded and the kick from a heavy bullet is very manageable.

Exactly what I would recommend. I have a beautiful one with wood grips and its a joy to shoot. No I am not selling it. Period.