Posted on 01/05/2024 4:05:03 AM PST by marktwain
In the debate about effective defense methods against aggressive bears, some people claim extreme speed and accuracy are essential to stopping a bear attack with firearms. Here are some quotes.
From Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska:
The need for split-second deployment and deadly accuracy make using firearms difficult, even for experts.
Many experts seem to favor bear spray. One drawback of firearms they cite is the inability of many shooters to make accurate, quick-kill shots under the extreme stress of a bear attack.
From backcountrychronicles.com:
If you shoot something as big as a grizzly bear and are not lucky enough to penetrate their skull or clip the spinal chord on the 1st shot, it might just piss them off. The average elk can run 100 yards after a double lung shot, so how long do you think grizz can continue to whip your ass before it dies? The bear will eventually die, but you will still die first.
To test the theory of the necessity of a central nervous system hit, delivered very fast (roughly less than three seconds) the incidents were evaluated to determine if both a central nervous system hit was required and the hit had to be delivered very rapidly.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Animals respond to pain. Getting shot hurts.
Seems simple enough to me.
L
Firearms have the added advantage of inflicting structural damage and death.
A dead bear doesn't come back to attack you some more.
A dead bear doesn't learn and go attack another person.
A dead bear doesn't pass on its propensity to attack humans to new bear generations.
Who was it that said “When gunpowder speaks beasts listen.”?
L
If these “bear spray journalists” were being dropped off in the middle of grizzly country and told they have to hike out with only with a map, a compass and a choice between bear spray and a handgun.......which do you think they would choose?
The true believers will take bear spray.
Some are far more concerned about saving bears then themselves.
The propaganda that favors spray has been pushed hard and heavy.
Charles Darwin is smiling in his grave.
The same “speed and accuracy” arguments about handguns also apply to bear spray.
To be effective at all, you need to get it out of your pocket quickly and hit the bear in the face with the stream.
You also have a big range disadvantage. A handgun can hit a bear from over 50 yards away. Bear spray range is much shorter.
Handguns have become intuitive "point and bang" devices. Holsters have been developed to be secure and safe, while facilitating fast, easy access.
Bear spray and bear spray holsters don't have anywhere near the level of ergonomic development which handguns and handgun holsters do.
Bullets fired into the wind won’t blow back in your face.
You really seem to be obsessed with bears.
Heavy caliber, high expansion resulting in maximum energy dump would seem to be the order of the day.
CC
I too noticed lots of bear spray vs pistol articles of late.
But I don’t believe it’s an obsession. And if it is, it’s more fruitful than Russia - UK or DeSantis vs Trump.
What seems to be up (Mr Twain can confirm) is that there has been some wellspring of “all you need is spray” adherents. That is being countered by Ammoland.
What I can’t figure out, is who in their right mind would argue AGAINST a firearm?
Perhaps, with Covid, many anti-gunners started going on walks and hikes. It turns out they like the wilderness. Now, they’re walking alongside “gun nuts’ and spouting their spray gospel.
This is all conjecture. Your mileage may vary.
No, I just have to be faster than whoever is with me!........
We are up to our ears in bears here in FLORIDA!!!!!........
I’ve spent many nights on the Yukon River by myself farrrr away from any people. I always carried a .500 S & W on a homemade holster suspended from a both shoulders harness which reduced/eliminated back pain after hours of wear.
Practicing SAFE camping (ate/cooked one place then moved downriver 10 miles) and no fires at my 2nd (sleeping) campsite and all food in a bear barrel, I never saw a bear close up. Thank you lord because I did not want to shoot one.
But I don’t believe it’s an obsession. And if it is, it’s more fruitful than Russia - UK or DeSantis vs Trump.
What seems to be up (Mr Twain can confirm) is that there has been some wellspring of “all you need is spray” adherents. That is being countered by Ammoland.
What I can’t figure out, is who in their right mind would argue AGAINST a firearm?
Some of it is random. I write full time, with hundreds of drafts in progress. During the holidays, there seems a downturn in court cases and other common subjects.
Bear articles may be the most popular series of mine at AmmoLand. Most of the articles I publish at AmmoLand are published in an excerpt here on freerepublic.
Freerepublic is a home on the Internet for me. Freerepubic offers great feedback and debate, lively discussion, and much expertise. Freerepublic helps to keep me sharp and careful to make sure what I write as fact, holds up to examination.
Bear spray proponents have made many claims which do not hold up to examination. Those claims have almost certainly gotten people killed. The problems with the "research" published about bear spray are very similar to the "climate change" pseudo-science, but much easier to debunk.
You say that like it’s a problem.
Guns and pepper spray…
No one ever mentions ninjas
Great quote. I would love to find a source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.