Quote:

---

I may have posted this before, if so I apologize.. it popped up again in my news cycle..find it very interesting as I live in the middle of griz and black bear country.. Fact is I picked up 2 new handguns in the last week.. A Walther PDP compact in 9MM and a S&W M&P 2.0 in 10MM ..The Smith was purchased with bears in mind.. I really like the feel of the M&P line..have carried one in 9MM for CC for the past 8 years or so..Anyway, this is a good article


Defense Against Bears with Pistols: 97% Success rate, 37 incidents by Caliber
Ammoland Inc. Posted on February 19, 2018 by Dean Weingarten

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/defense...0#axzz7GWHwP1Z1

---

I referred to this thread recently. Also on other threads.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The article still proves that a hand gun is way more effective then Bear/Pepper spray. Thanks for posting Ripp.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I tried a pepper, chilli, capsicum, paprika type spray on plants , sprinklers etc designed to stop dogs from chewing them. Siegfried my GSP puppy at the time, it didn't bother him at all. Never used it again.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The article still proves that a hand gun is way more effective then Bear/Pepper spray. Thanks for posting Ripp.

---

How does it prove that? It doesn't prove or say anything about spray. It's just a collection of gun anecdotes. In the article, guys get mauled, get off shots before or after being mauled, or their buddy kills the bear while they're being mauled. The article proves nothing other than that sometimes you can kill a bear with a gun. How is being mauled a gun success. Maybe none of them would have been mauled at all if they were walking with spray in their hand.

The only meaningful stat to me, is whether spray will cause bears to back up.

Because I have carried handguns, shotguns, and spray. And I *know* spray can be deployed faster and with more certainty than a gun. You can dangle spray on your finger like car keys as you walk. You can't keep a gun in hand while you walk ten miles. And even if a bear crashes through brush from 6' away and lands on you, if you squeeze the spray you might gas yourself but you'll gas him too. With a gun, you won't get off a shot, and probably won't be able reach the gun while being mauled.

The problem with guns is that they are harder to carry, slower to deploy, and difficult to make a solid hit on a speeding bear at close range.

BUT if you have spray ready to deploy instantly, and it causes the bear to back up and regroup, then the spray has *bought you the time to use your gun effectively."

I would carry spray specifically to buy space and time to use a gun. And stats show that after using the spray the gun probably won't be necessary.

---

You are correct about the article itself by itself. I made that comment in relation to other articles I have read about Bear Spray use, sorry I did not make that clear.

What you say about carrying the Bear Spray ready for use sounds very reasonable.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The article still proves that a hand gun is way more effective then Bear/Pepper spray. Thanks for posting Ripp.

---

How does it prove that? It doesn't prove or say anything about spray. It's just a collection of gun anecdotes. In the article, guys get mauled, get off shots before or after being mauled, or their buddy kills the bear while they're being mauled. The article proves nothing other than that sometimes you can kill a bear with a gun. How is being mauled a gun success. Maybe none of them would have been mauled at all if they were walking with spray in their hand.

The only meaningful stat to me, is whether spray will cause bears to back up.

Because I have carried handguns, shotguns, and spray. And I *know* spray can be deployed faster and with more certainty than a gun. You can dangle spray on your finger like car keys as you walk. You can't keep a gun in hand while you walk ten miles. And even if a bear crashes through brush from 6' away and lands on you, if you squeeze the spray you might gas yourself but you'll gas him too. With a gun, you won't get off a shot, and probably won't be able reach the gun while being mauled.

The problem with guns is that they are harder to carry, slower to deploy, and difficult to make a solid hit on a speeding bear at close range.

BUT if you have spray ready to deploy instantly, and it causes the bear to back up and regroup, then the spray has *bought you the time to use your gun effectively."

I would carry spray specifically to buy space and time to use a gun. And stats show that after using the spray the gun probably won't be necessary.

---

Similarly anecdotes and stories about using bear spray are similar.

In fact videos exist showing it having zero effect.

But I guess better than nothing for hikers without a gun.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

All of the hikers I know have a quick draw holster on their hip for the bear spray. I think it's a cross draw, iirc.
They do practice with them, at least my wife's hiking group (all old people LOL) practice drawing their spray. Of course, with 7 of them in the group there might be time for one to get out the spray. Someone's gonna get it, but with that many noisy people, they're unlikely to be challenged by a bear.
I personally would not go where they go, without my 12 bore rifle, loaded with Challenger Gualandi DG slugs.

---

Exactly Daryl on the last paragraph.

Quick draw might be fine but irrelevant if the spray doesn't work

And stories are still stories. Actual stories and accounts of real encounters are what the opening post was about.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: