General Gun Discussion

[Angus]

BTW, since this is a gun thread, we had some polar bear shootings in the last days. Came with drif-ice from Greenland.
Anyway, there were attempts to catch them alive, but failed. So, them being to dangerous to wander, - got shot.
An experienced boar hunter (and more) told me that if a Polar bear takes the leap on you, nothing less then a 30cal would penetrate. You would not be safe to drop him with a handgun, definately not a 9mm.
So I wonder, since the situation was being tackled by the police, and they just have 9mm Glocks and Mp3's (Possibly), they don't have the "stopping" or rather "penetrating" power to avoid injury if the bears had closed on them.
(They were trying to close in to 30m to shoot darts)
So, the question is, what of a handgun would do? .357? .44? 44 mag? or .45???????
BTW, I have shot a bull straight upwards between the eyes with a .22 magnum, and he walked away.
Caught him (poor guy  ) for humanity with a normal .22. He dropped dead.
Not all absolute science, but wondering....good to know if you have a white teddy knocking IN the front door

[Charon]

So, the question is, what of a handgun would do? .357? .44? 44 mag? or .45?

Not an expert, but from what I've heard in a variety of similar discussion (a fairly common topic), you would be in mortal peril relying on a handgun against most brown or polar bears. Better than nothing, one would suppose, if you didn't want to pack a rifle on a hike, etc. and made a really well placed shot and got good bullet penetration with a heavy, non expanding round. Some even say that most regular .30 cal rifles are marginal, but they were used for many decades (a century or more perhaps) along with a variety of lesser calibers in bear country.

Again, not an expert but I don't know that you'll find many people who actively hunt a grizzly or polar bear with a handgun

Charon

[Angus]

The Greenlanders use 30-30.
I was once on boarhunting in Germany, we had a 30-06, and a .357 as an extra.

[lazs2]

lots of polar bears have been killed with both a 357 and 44 mags.   I have heard that polar bears are not particularly tough to kill.    I would say that at close range a 44 mag is close enough in killing power to a thirty thirty to not really matter.

New rounds like the 454, 460, 480 and 500 are being chambered in handguns not much larger and heavier than 44 mag guns.

For me.. the 44 mag is the best all around handgun round with a good balance of manageable recoil and practical size firearm.  All the bigger rounds are a bit too much in too unwieldy a gun and all the smaller rounds are just not quite good enough.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Went and did a little shooting with the Argentine and the semi house gun yesterday.
Handed the Argentine to the wife, she threw it up, BOOM....dead center bullseye.
The smile said it all. Back to shopping.

[Charon]

lots of polar bears have been killed with both a 357 and 44 mags.   I have heard that polar bears are not particularly tough to kill. I would say that at close range a 44 mag is close enough in killing power to a thirty thirty to not really matter.

Lots of black bears have been killed easily with large caliber revolvers. Polar bears and brown bears have been killed with large caliber revolvers and by natives and other skilled woodsmen using rifles as light as 30-30 or even .223. But, especially with the pistol rounds you have no margin for error with the larger bears. As Chuck Hawk states:

Remember that bullet placement is absolutely crucial, so whatever handgun you choose for protection in the field, make sure that you can shoot it with great precision. You can't miss (or even score peripheral hits) fast enough to come out on top in a deadly encounter with a large predator!
http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm

The pistol hunting stories with polars or brown bears you come across typically involve large magnum-level rifles as backup. Here's one account of a hunt against a brown bear with two hunters using .500 revolvers.

I trained my revolver at the bear and watched as my hunting partner lay on the ground in a firing position. I nodded my head to him and a second later, the blast of his .500 Smith & Wesson echoed against the distant hillsides.

The bear never flinched when the bullet hit him and it continued to get up. Immediately I fired my .500, the bullet striking the great bear center mass and, again, it never flinched.

We were about 20 yards from it and in a spot where we could be readily seen by the beast. In a blur we continued firing, then our backup with his 45/70 fired twice into the bear on the seventh or eighth shots.

When the first 45/70 bullets hit it, the bear went down and it got back up; the second hit didn't seem to phase it. Alsworth and I advanced and kept firing at the bear.

We stopped 15 yards from the wounded brownie. I heard one of the most terrible sounds I have ever heard in my life. My hunting partner's gun went click; he had run out of ammunition.

Immediately I leveled off at the animal and squeezed the trigger; the Smith & Wesson exhaled its fire breath. The bear went down and stayed.

 Close inspection of the bear's revealed the body parts of another bear buried beneath the vegetation. The bear had been eating a bear. Then something caught my eye to the left along the riverbank. It was a another brownie. 

Our labored breathing is all that could be heard for that moment as the great bear lay dead.

Collecting our wits, we stayed back from the beast just in case it came back alive. It's a very good idea not to go charging in after a kill, especially with bears.

I like to give a minimum of 30 minutes after the bear goes down before going up to it. Simply said, it's too dangerous.

In the end, the bear had been shot 12 times. Two bullets found their mark from the 45/70 rifle and there were 10 slugs from the pair of .500 handguns.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_fea_bear_brown_AK_handgun_J.Oltersdorf2

The first recorded polar bear killed by a .44 magnum in 1965 was killed as part  of a similar hunt with lots of backup. It was hit center of mass with 5 shots by a very experienced pistol shooter and hunter at 25 yards, three of which penetrated for the kill.

The bear was now in the open just 25 yards away and presented a perfect broadside position to Petersen. He quickly lined up the sights and carefully squeezed off his first shot, using the two-handed hold he favors. The aiming point was just behind the huge shoulder and had been decided on as the best spot in prehunt discussions. It was felt that the shoulder itself would present too massive an object for good penetration of the 240-grain .44 Norma bullet.

At the shot, the bear staggered perceptibly and the tell-tale red spot, indicating the point of impact, appeared exactly where it should. It still had not spotted the three men.

Also as planned, Petersen fought down the big sixgun out of recoil and squeezed off his second shot, hitting the bear just three inches lower than the first bullet. Again the bear staggered, then he bellowed and swapped directions, facing the other way. He simply stood there swaying as the third slug slammed into him, quartering behind the left shoulder. This one bowled him over, but he bounced right back up. The fourth and fifth rounds also hit back of the diaphragm and ranged forward into the chest cavity, and the bear simply toppled over with hardly a quiver. The whole scene lasted seven or eight seconds.

Taking no chances, the trio stood there with Thompson covering the bear with his rifle as Petersen quickly reloaded. But the first recorded polar bear ever to fall to a .44 Magnum had had it.

Denny's first words were that he had never believed it possible for the big sixgun to be fired that rapidly and accurately under those conditions. His look and tone of admiration for Petersen's performance was justified. Petersen, with the slightest trace of perspiration visible beneath the fur piece of his parka, grinned weakly and simply said, "Phew!"
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/classics/polar_1007/

Charon

[lazs2]

yep.. I would agree with all of that.  What I am saying is that whatever revolver is considered "the most powerful" at the time has been taken on these hunts and polar bears have been included...  elephants and lions and whatever up to and including grizzly bears..   this was true when the .357 mag came out and is true today with the 500 mag.   

I recall reading all the stories of handgun hunting every dangerous game known to man with the 44 mag when it came out and even up till today.. while no one seriously thinks a .357 is the gun to take.. it is still being done and.. recent cast solids in 44 mag of up to 330 grains have shown a resurgence in 44 mag hunting of large dangerous game.

I would want a rifle..  a really powerful one but..

Backup or just a hiking gun?  the 44 mag is still king for balance between something you can and will carry and something with some real knockdown power.. you can get 24 ounce 44 mag revolvers.. they are not much fun to shoot but they carry well and pack a 44 mag punch.

lazs

[Angus]

Charon:
"Remember that bullet placement is absolutely crucial, so whatever handgun you choose for protection in the field, make sure that you can shoot it with great precision. You can't miss (or even score peripheral hits) fast enough to come out on top in a deadly encounter with a large predator!"

The point I had from the hunter was that once the bear goes low and into your general direction at good speed, you need absolute penetration for success. And the 9mm for instance might be bouncing off the sloping head and chest like nothing. You'd want something that doesn't deflect, so that would have to be fast and heavy.
Tommygun?
 

[Angus]

Oh, how about the Desert Eagle then? That's a .50 right?

[moot]

IIRC it's made in that and .357, at least.
Good reading.

[wrag]

Something I've been seeing more and more is reports of people openly carrying a sidearm in public.

Something many don't SEEM to know is that in many places in the U.S. it IS lawful and legal to openly carry a firearm in public!

BUT...............

this is what usually happens to you if you do.................

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4010/83/

when I say carry I refer to the sidearm HOLSTERED on a belt at the persons side.

Something else to consider!!!!

If you are bearing a firearm you will be held to a HIGHER standard of the law then someone that is not.

example: You should NOT get into a heated argument with anyone! (you're armed and some would say you were trying to incite.....)  Another way of saying it is the court would probably say you either have to disarm or BACK away from said argument.

There are many things that become VERY different if you are ARMED!  Don't matter if it's open carry or concealed carry if you are armed you are held to a different.. HIGHER standard then someone not armed.

It is POSSIBLE that open carry became unpopular due to the standard you placed your self under while doing so.

[Charon]

The point I had from the hunter was that once the bear goes low and into your general direction at good speed, you need absolute penetration for success. And the 9mm for instance might be bouncing off the sloping head and chest like nothing. You'd want something that doesn't deflect, so that would have to be fast and heavy.
Tommygun?

Well, you're probably about to be mauled and or eaten at that point A well placed revolver magnum firing a heavy, non-expanding round could work if, in your panic, you hit it enough times in a critical area in those few seconds of last opportunity. A full central nervous system or heart/lung failure shot (s). They charge at about 25 mph / 40kph

Me, in that case I would hope to have a much slower, more out of shape hunting partner. If that didn't work, perhaps a rifle in the 300+ magnum range, or or better yet a .458 win mag. with a 500 grain bullet at about 2200 fps and 5000 lb + energy. A pintle mounted M2 would be even better.  A charging, angry, hungry polar bear or grizzly at 20 yards or less just readjusted the food chain. maybe play dead and hope he just ate a walrus and doesn't maul you that much before he gets bored.

Again, I've never hunted a bear, but big game hunters tend to take large charging predators very, very seriously. Look at the double rifles used in Africa. Only two shots, really powerful shots. No bolt to work, few mechanicals to malfunction, less chance for operator error. Don't need more than two. If its not dead by two you better hope your guide has killed it because it's starting to chew on you at that point, or trample you if its a big buffalo or Rhino or Elephant. Same applies in the predator bear world.

Doesn't mean people don't peacefully coexist with brown or polar bears regularly. They try to avoid humans, usually. Just that in a violent confrontation we really, really need our tools to survive.
Charon

[SSgtHam]

I'm going to have to agree with wrag on this one.  As a hunter and sport shooter, I know all about the responsibility necessary to not only use a firearm, but to own and carry it in public, whether it be openly or concealed.  You definitely are held to a higher standard when you have a firearm on your person, specifically when it is carried openly.

I think the whole "open-carry" law is okay for smaller towns or cities, but when it's a big old city like here in Los Angeles, not so much.  I'd prefer that they allowed a CCW permit in California, mainly for safety, but we can't all be winners.

[Shamus]

Just remember that some of you CCW holders give up the right to open carry.

shamus

[wrongwayric]

So what's your point, was he right or wrong i don't get it? Because grandma or some gun activist called in when she/he saw his gun he got harassed by officers sadly lacking in knowledge of the laws they are supposed to uphold?
I'd rather know the guy i was facing had a gun, than not know, for my own piece of mind. I personally don't like concealed carry, i'd like to see it openly carried.
It's funny that people fear the legal gun owners that have the right, the training and skill to lawfully, and i stress, LAWFULLY, carry a gun. But yet they'll go with any idiot that promises them a good deal on something into a dark alley.
Gun debates never come out good but IMO we don't need more laws. We need knowledgeable police to enforce the laws we have, we need to hold the sellers of illegal guns and the owners/user of the illegal guns accountable fully for their actions.
In other words, you sell a gun illegally, Joe Schmoe kills someone with it, your tried right along with him as an accessory to murder.