Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Along the lines of big bear hand cannon medicine what is the vote for 'hard cast' vs Jacket and or hollow point bullets ??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Along the lines of big bear hand cannon medicine what is the vote for 'hard cast' vs Jacket and or hollow point bullets ??

    Along the lines of big bear hand cannon medicine what is the vote for 'hard cast' vs Jacket and or hollow point bullets ??

  • #2
    I would go with hardcast, with a big bear you need to go through thick muscle and hard bone. I think a hollow-point would be like shooting Mongo, it just going to make him mad!!! Seriously, I would think that you would have a greater chance of fragmentation with a hollow point on a big boars' skull!

    Comment


    • #3
      My other handgun option would be a TC .600 Nito Express with a 900 grain jacketed soft nose. This is an elephant gun so it should put a Griz down.

      Comment


      • #4
        Another, vote for hard cast.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah. I'd go hardcast.
          I'm thinking you'd want deep penetration and broken bones.

          Comment


          • #6
            A friend of mine that does some guiding in Alaska molds his own bullets for his .44 and they are hard cast for penetration.

            Comment


            • #7
              I vote Hard Cast #1 and Jacketed soft point #2 if Hard Cast was not Available.

              Comment


              • #8
                If hard cast are getting the majority of votes on N.American dangerous game, then why do we have jacketed bullets, some with hollow points?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wonder if there is anyone else on here besides myself who has even pointed a pistol at a grizzly bear?

                  Back in the days when I had horses I kept a .357 with semi-jacketed hollow points in the saddle bags. In the extremely unlikely event that it came down to having to take out a G-bear (and it almost happened one evening on the trail), I wanted as much stunning impact as possible with as manageable a recoil as possible. Was it enough firepower? One time I went out to a wrecking yard in the country and tested some loads that my dad made up for me. No problem shooting through the side of an old truck and into the engine block! And Dad wasn't known as a hot loader either. I think it would have done the job on a grizzly ... without bonking me in the head or flying off into space over my right shoulder. Or leaving my horses blinded, deaf, staggering, stunned, and emotionally disturbed at the sight of me for the rest of their lives. :-)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I contend that it makes absolutely no difference. Both slugs are likely to fully penetrate a bear at close range and go flying off through the timber. I contend that you could search the timber for a month and you are unlikely to find either. I also contend that neither is likely to stop an enraged charging bear in his tracks. They will both penetrate and they will both kill but neither of them is carrying enough velocity to or energy to stun the animal instantly.

                    The biggest angry thing I have had to shoot with a pistol is a charging Russian boar that weighed 325 pounds. One .44 Mag 240g JHP shot at 20 yards ricocheted off the skull and cut three spine vertebrea before exiting the back; fortunately it did turn the animal. One broadside shot at 70 yards penetrated the rear chest area from side to side. Following the second charge, a side-to-side shot from 10 yards broke the near shoulder at the socket, went through the heart and broke the far femur with absolutely no affect on the boar for 20 seconds.

                    I wouldn't worry about the bullet I use as long as it is a good hunting bullet. I WOULD worry that I might have forgotten to fill out my organ donor card. If a bear is charging you, a pistol is unlikely to stop it until it is too late.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree, Dakota. A pistol for bear protection should always be a last resort. The incident above was during fishing season when I was trying out a new horse. However, I even carried the Highway Patrolman in the saddlebag during big game hunting trips. It was a lot easier to get at than the rifle in the scabbard. My rifle then was a bolt action Springfield and, as I'm sure you know, the right handed bolt meant that the scabbard had to be slung on right side of horse to keep the bolt from poking her in the side. I automatically dismounted from the left side, making it very awkward (nearly impossible) to retrieve the rifle in a hurry. The pistol was in left hand saddlebag with only one cover strap secured. I could easily reach in it and grab the pistol. Also, the revolver was instantly loaded as soon as I squeezed the trigger. Would never ride the horse with a loaded rifle, especially not with the tricky safety on that Springfield. When actually hunting I was on foot and the rifle was sufficient to meet my needs for protection. Big pistol as a backup weapon while hunting is just extra weight.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree, Dakota. A pistol for bear protection should always be a last resort. The incident above was during fishing season when I was trying out a new horse. However, I even carried the Highway Patrolman in the saddlebag during big game hunting trips. It was a lot easier to get at than the rifle in the scabbard. My rifle then was a bolt action Springfield and, as I'm sure you know, the right handed bolt meant that the scabbard had to be slung on right side of horse to keep the bolt from poking her in the side. I automatically dismounted from the left side, making it very awkward (nearly impossible) to retrieve the rifle in a hurry. The pistol was in left hand saddlebag with only one cover strap secured. I could easily reach in it and grab the pistol. Also, the revolver was instantly loaded as soon as I squeezed the trigger. Would never ride the horse with a loaded rifle, especially not with the tricky safety on that Springfield. When actually hunting I was on foot and the rifle was sufficient to meet my needs for protection. Big pistol as a backup weapon while hunting is just extra weight.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think the choice of bullets makes a big difference, and wouldn't use anything but hard cast. No handgun is going to penetrate a large bear end to end. Most rifles can't do that. Why would you further handicap yourself by using a bullet that would do anything other than hold together and penetrate as deeply as possible? Bears have thick hides, large muscles, and thick bones. You need a serious bullet to get any penetration at all on that. And no, OHH, you're not the only one.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Things have changed a lot since I last packed bear medicine in the backcountry with my horses. The advent of bear spray has changed the game considerably. I always felt that my .357 with hollow points would be sufficient to do the job if called upon. The junked car test convinced me. Nowadays with bear spray on my belt I think wad cutters would probably do just as well! I see in the paper here that a ministry biologist up north used bear spray over the weekend to save his bacon ... repeatedly! A very large black bear stalked the fella and eventually got too close. He nailed it with bear spray. Bear was incapacitated and biologist heads for his truck. Next thing he knows the bear is on his tail again so he repeats it. Stops bear in its tracks. But again the same scene is repeated. Eventually the guy got back to his truck okay after putting the bear out of action repeatedly. The bear was obviously intent on doing no good but the pepper spray did its job. If the biologist had had even a machete or an ax he no doubt could have ended things after spraying the bear the second time. Certainly even a .38 special would have finished that bear if the guy was any kind of shot at all. Just walk up and shoot the damned thing in the head. A couple of times if necessary. A sprayed bear is fish in a barrel. But, of course, carrying a pistol up here in the bush is verboten unless you're a downed bush pilot or a trapper on his line (both of whom have to be willing to wade through a mountain of paperwork to be able to legally carry a handgun). Anyway, the point is this: with the advent of bear spray I think it's just plain silly to pack anything larger than a .357. Overkill could do the shooter more harm than good.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ontario, I pointed on many Grizzly bears inside Montana's Glacier National Park.
                              Guns were not allowed in the park instead I pointed with a set of binoculars from a safe distance.

                              Comment

                              Welcome!

                              Collapse

                              Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                              If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                              And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                              Right Rail 1

                              Collapse

                              Top Active Users

                              Collapse

                              There are no top active users.

                              Right Rail 2

                              Collapse

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to Cheaper Than Dirt
                                by PigHunter
                                I understand the reason someone would pick the heavier bullets. However, heavier bullets cause greater recoil and will affect recovery time and may result...
                                Today, 02:16 PM
                              • Cheaper Than Dirt
                                by jhjimbo
                                Lots of ammo back in stock, but the prices are right up there to....
                                Today, 12:21 PM
                              • Reply to 300 yard .22lr
                                by fitch270
                                I wouldn’t spend that much on a 10/22 but I might on a bolt gun. For that kind of money I expect some style to go with it, of the Cooper or Annie level....
                                Today, 01:40 PM
                              • 300 yard .22lr
                                by jhjimbo
                                Would you spend $900 for a Ruger 10/22 to shoot 300yds ? A little over 1" at 100 and a little 0ver 6" at 300yds. Lapua and SK ammo used....
                                Today, 11:28 AM
                              • Reply to Cheaper Than Dirt
                                by jhjimbo
                                I like the Remington Golden Saber Black Belt 147gr 9mm (not +P) and the 180gr in .40. Check out the statistics. Some LEO friends always suggest the heavy...
                                Today, 01:28 PM

                              Right Rail 3

                              Collapse

                              Footer Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X