Does anyone really think this is a good idea?
I had to chuckle when I came across this Remington advertisement in an old pre-WWI era sportsman's magazine, advertising the newly-introduced .380 ACP. The .380 ACP, aka 9-mm Short, would not be my first choice for a 150-pound junkie let alone a 400-pound grizzly sow.
“Da Bears.” In particular, da grizzly bear. Even its Latin classification, given it by the naturalist George Ord in 1815, conjures up fear…Ursus horribilis (“terrifying bear”)…and the mountain men would come to call the grizz “Old Ephraim”. Native American tribes afforded these fierce bears the utmost respect; there was greater honor in slaying a grizzly bear than a human foe.
Initially,
Corps of Discovery Captains Lewis and Clark regarded the Indians’ fear and awe
of grizzly bears as rather quaint and actually looked forward to their initial
encounters with the grizzly. After all, the Indians had only bows and arrows
and inferior smoothbore trade muskets while the Corps of Discovery was armed
with the latest greatest military technology in the form of .49-caliber
Pennsylvania-style flintlock Model 1792 Contract Rifles. They opined that the
grizzly would be no match for skilled riflemen.
After the
first few encounters, they changed their minds, with Lewis noting that grizzlies
were “extreemly hard to kill” and Clark describing the grizz as a “verry large
and a turrible looking animal.” Clark and one of the men required a total of
ten shots from their rifles to finally kill a 600-pound grizzly encountered on
May 5, 1805. On May 14th six hunters tried to tackle a grizzly; all
six hit the bear with their rifles on the first go-round, after which the bear
chased some of the men into the river and some into the bushes as they
desperately tried to reload their single-shot front-stuffers. It took a total
of eight hits, the last one a headshot, to kill the bear.
The explorers
of the Corps of Discovery would hardly be the last white men to underestimate
the strength of the grizzly or over-estimate their own firepower.
As previously noted, I find the “fact” that pepper spray has
been statistically “proven” to be 97% effective in stopping bear charges
dubious to say the least. On the other hand, I don’t believe that simple
acquisition of a .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum instantly makes you magically
bear-proof either.
Joe Blow can’t
just waltz into any sporting goods store, purchase some cannon-sized hogleg
revolver with a half-inch bore, and instantly transform himself from
mild-mannered Clark Kent into Dirty Harry Callahan. You have to be familiar, proficient and well-practiced
with your firearm. I remember an article in an outdoor magazine (Fur-Fish-Game, IIRC) many, many years
ago where the author encountered a trout fisherman who was packing a Smith
& Wesson Model 29 for protection against bears. When asked how well the
Magnum shot, the fisherman replied he did not know because he’d never actually fired the gun.
Not to burst
anyone’s bubble, but it really does not
matter how purely “American” your family tree is, your highest score playing Call of Duty, or how many asinine
Quentin Tarantino movies you’ve watched…you were not born with some innate ability to handle a pistol like the
Sundance Kid.
As a pistolero, I consider myself no
more than slightly above average although I started shooting a single-action
Colt .22 revolver in my early teens, was later trained on and qualified expert
with both military and police sidearms over the years, and still get in routine
range practice to this day. In my youth I hunted raccoon with a .22 revolver
and I’ve harvested a great many more mountain grouse on the ground with a .22 pistol
than I have on the wing with a shotgun. Living where we do, I can do a little
plinking whenever I get the urge to. My wife doesn’t do quite as much shooting
as I do, but she also practices regularly and has ten years worth of law
enforcement training, practice and qualification with handguns.
Elmer and Clint: I bought my .44 Magnum because I watched the guy on the right. I kept it because I learned a great deal from the writings of the guy on the left.
Having seen too many Clint Eastwood
movies, I had to purchase a 6-1/2-inch
Model 29 on my 21st birthday. I have no idea how many thousands of
rounds I’ve put through it in the three decades since, but feeding that .44 was
the reason I bought my first reloading kit and I took a whitetail and a mule
deer with it while hunting weapons restricted areas back when I still had two
fully functional eyes and 20/15 vision in the important one. Nowadays, since I
just carry it for protection rather than hunting, I wear a handier 4-inch Model
629, but the principles remain the same.
From a sheer usability standpoint,
one of the first things I did was to install a soft black rubber Hogue Monogrip
on my Model 29 to replace the original S&W Goncalo Alves checkered walnut target-style grips.
I’m an average guy, not quite 5’10” anymore, and apparently my hands and fingers
must be kinda short and stubby compared to Dirty Harry’s, because my hands
never did fit around those wood grips very well. When firing pull-patch Magnum
loads, in fact, the recoil usually required me to readjust my own grip on said walnut
grips after just about every shot. The Hogue grips on the old Model 29 and the
black synthetic S&W grips that came on my 629 fit our hands much better,
offer more positive control, and seem to help a great deal with at least
perceived recoil. I was pleased to later learn that Major John Hatcher had similar
problems with the S&W wood grips way back in 1956, so at least I know it’s
not just me.
The point of certain military and
police training is to become so familiar with particular tasks that muscle
memory and “instinct” take over in a crisis when the brain might temporarily
draw a blank or you’re distracted by shit filling your britches. The nice thing
about revolvers especially is that you can teach yourself much of what you need
to know through dry-fire drills (with Snap-Caps) before honing your technique
with live fire. Dry firing (a whole lot of it, anyway) also helps wear in and
smooth out the double action on a new revolver. No, I don’t stand in front of
the mirror practicing my John Wayne quick draw. I do still occasionally
practice, sometimes at home with dry-firing and sometimes at the range with
live fire, a smooth draw and transition into a firing stance followed
by an accurate double-tap. If you practice smooth, fast will come on its own.
Thankfully I’ve never had to actually
butt heads with a bear, but I have had a few surprise encounters, mostly with
black bears, at close quarters out in the woods. None of these encounters
required any shooting. The one grizzly bluff charge I witnessed fairly close up
was delivered so half-heartedly I knew it was a bluff charge. More often than
not, you really can’t tell if it’s a bluff or not until they’re still coming at
you full bore inside of twenty yards. When it comes to black bears, every
single one of them I’ve personally bumped into immediately swapped ends and
headed for the nearest horizon as fast as they could go as soon as they figured
out what I was. A couple have risen up on their hind legs initially, but that
was just o get a better look at what I was; afterward figuring it out, they
also took off running. I’m glad I never had to shoot but nonetheless was quite
pleased to note that in each and every encounter my revolver just seemed to
appear in my hands, aimed and ready, before I gave the action any deliberate
conscious thought. That’s what muscle memory is for.
Even if you
personally happen to be some kind of uberpistolero
whose gun play makes Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name in A Fistful of Dollars look like a lame sloth on Quaaludes, not all
handguns are created equal and when it comes to grizzlies heeding Robert
Ruark’s advice to Use Enough Gun is
critical.
Use as much gun as you can effectively manage.
I carry a
compact .45 ACP for social occasions and wouldn’t want anything but an
automatic against two-legged threats. I honestly never understood why American
law enforcement agencies clung to the revolver as long as they did. As nice as
it might be to have a semi-auto, common defensive handgun calibers like the
9x19mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and even the much-touted 10mm aren’t really
enough gun against a big bruin in a situation in which you are quite literally
betting your life.
There’s an
incredible true instance (Bella Twin of Slave
Lake, Alberta in
1953) of a Canadian woman killing an extremely large grizzly bear with a .22
Long Rifle. While this proves that it can be done, it’s not something any sane
person would set out to do deliberately and/or on a regular basis.
No matter how
big your bore, however, bullet selection is still extremely important. The most
commonly available defensive pistol loads are some form of hollowpoint bullet. A
hollowpoint is designed to expand quickly upon contact with the target,
transferring its energy into the target itself and creating a larger wound
cavity. In the grand scheme of things, and especially against two-legged
predators, this is greatly desirable, but it is not necessarily universally so.
Against a big bear’s thick skull, tough hide, large and dense bones, and
multiple stout layers of ropy muscle and watery fat, you need enough penetration
for the bullet to reach something vital.
Case in point,
the first time I hunted deer with a .44 Mag, I connected on a rather long
(75-80 yards) shot on a forkhorn mulie standing broadside. I was later to find
out that the 240-grain JHP did indeed expand well and transfer energy rapidly.
Unfortunately, my shot was a bit too far forward on the body and hit the
shoulder itself instead of landing right behind it. The JHP hit the shoulder
blade and essentially exploded that entire front quarter, leaving the leg literally
hanging by a thread. Not a single bullet fragment, however, even came close to
penetrating the rib cage beneath and nothing touched the vitals. The result was
a long, slow three quarter mile (away from the truck) stern chase across the
section before the deer ducked down into an arroyo and I was able to get close
enough to administer the coupe de grace.
I also
remember when the Remington Yellow Jacket truncated cone hollowpoint ammo for
the .22 Long Rifle came out. When we used those bullets raccoon hunting, where
the shot was directed right between the eyes, on more than one occasion this
caused the coon to drop from the tree but then hit the ground fighting mad and
tangling with the dogs. Later examination revealed that sometimes the
hollowpoint would mushroom flat against the exterior of the coon skull inside
the hide but not penetrate it. Once upon a time we also needed to put down an
injured feeder pig weighing perhaps 125-150 pounds. At a range of only about
three or four feet, I drilled him neatly between the eyes with an 85-grain .32
S&W Long jacketed hollowpoint. He just ran off squealing and was later
dispatched with a .22 Long Rifle behind the ear.
For handguns, the heaviest available
jacketed soft point (JSP) is greatly superior to the jacketed hollow point in
this respect, but a heavy hardcast flat-nosed semi wadcutter is even better.
Hardcast refers to a bullet constructed with a much harder heat-treated lead
alloy which will not easily fragment and/or lose its penetrative power even if
it hits solid bone. Expansion isn’t near as important as penetration with a
handgun slug that cuts a wound channel damn near a half an inch in diameter the
whole way. As Elmer Keith once put it, “A large entrance hole is just as
important as a large exit hole; both let blood out of an animal and cold air
in.
Avoid cowboy action shooting loads
like the plague as bear medicine. Even though some are advertised as
“hardcast”, this sport calls for low recoil which comes hand in hand with low
velocity as well as lead projectiles soft enough to flatten and fall safely to
the dirt after they hit steel targets.
I personally consider the .44 Magnum
a good choice since it is about as powerful a package as the average Joe (or
Joan) can master. Although it never really caught on as a popular cartridge,
the .41 Magnum also comes very close to .44 Mag performance. It’s personally
all the smaller I would go and I still know three guys right around my area who
carry N-frame Smith & Wesson revolvers in this caliber. What may have been in
1971 Dirty Harry’s “most powerful handgun in the world” has long since been
eclipsed in that title by the likes of the .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .475
Linebaugh, .500, etc. Any of these cannonesque calibers would certainly fill
the bill when it comes to bear defense if
you can handle the weapon effectively and, I might add, if it’s not so big
and heavy and cumbersome that you tend not to carry it and thus wind up at the
moment of truth armed only with a pocket knife and a nearby rock.
Beyond a certain point, bigger does not
always necessarily equate to better. My wife and I once watched a guy at the
range playing with his brand-new X-Frame .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum. It had
a 10-1/2-inch barrel, a variable power Burris 2-7x32mm scope mounted atop it, and
sling swivels fore and aft for a leather cobra strap. IMHO, when a handgun is
too big to be carried in a holster and has to be slung over the shoulder like a rifle, it’s not really a handgun
anymore. One really would be better off just toting a decent rifle-caliber
carbine at that point.
1 comment:
While you scoff at the idea in your post, I think that it would be a rather clever tactic to shoot a grizzly with a .380 in the hopes that the beast would become so cross that it might make a mistake.
Post a Comment