Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavee
Considering firearm Bear Defence in a region where Grizzlies are totally protected and Black Bear are protected by limited seasons means that any defensive shot with any type of firearm against either had best take place within a perimeter of about 20 feet and the shot be placed in the frontal area. Anything other than a frontal shot would require a lot of explaining to a CO or other enforcement agent as to it being necessarily defensive. That is the way the law would read it. Apart from that we are on our own.
That said, there is not a firearm or chemical made that will guarantee anything good will come out of any such confrontation under those circumstances. In the unlikely event that such a situation does arise, a handgun, of any caliber, would likely prove to be the most useless Bear defence tool ever considered. Second best I'm thinking, would be a large caliber heavy bullet or a 12 ga slug or heavy buckshot placed within a 5" target area in less than five seconds. Bear Spray, properly deployed ,will at least give you a much better chance as opposed to one strategically placed shot with any type of firearm. Depending on a handgun and luck alone probably won't play much of a role IMO.
|
Bold portion; there is 90+ years worth of literature & accounts (since at least the 20's) proving that otherwise. And to address your previous comment that fordtruckin already replied to; there is as many years in the same literature and accounts showing 250grain Hardcast 44 bullets @ or around 1200 fps that proves an inarguable standard that the 44magnum is a good choice as sidearm chambering. In the 20's through til the 50's, outdoorsmen utilized 44specials loaded-up to the above mentioned power levels with great success... those loads lead the way to the inception of the magnum in the 50's and with the magnum it provided an additional 200-300fps gain on the same bullet that held the outdoorsmens standard in heavy 44specials so long,
more recently the 300gr bullets have come into the picture and have-as-well added to that Standard & the 44mags widely accepted power level for field use..
We already know it's wise to have spray, we know the conditions and circumstances where it will and won't work. We also realize a 375H&H (or bazooka for that matter) would trump a sidearm where we have time to deploy such sizeable defense-arm, but physical capabilities and the logistical side to getting such things into play becomes obviously detrimental; so, there-enter your 44 or 475L (or what have you) and it allows us that last-resort piece that could save (& regularily does save) individuals from life-altering/& often fatal situaltions.
That's the part to drive home here. Where sprays and long-guns/slug guns, etc become moot points for use, the sidearm "comes into its own" so to speak. That's what they're for. And backcountry instances where their role is most logically called-on, we (Canadians) should have the ability to apply them so.
It's the permitting system we have and "who" is applicable (here) as an applicant that needs to be changed... that permitting system and the way it's written is what's failing us outdoorsmen here in Canada. Not the fact that a sidearm can't save our life if it had to.