Posted on 10/26/2025 6:24:28 AM PDT by marktwain
The use of handguns to defend against bear attacks has been shown to be effective 98% of the time. This update details 16 more cases where a handgun was fired in defense against a bear or bears. In this study, all cases where a handgun was fired in defense against a bear are included. This guards against selection bias. Every case is described in detail, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.
If researchers refuse to disclose the data used to support their papers, it detracts from the validity of the conclusions. Extreme accuracy or speed with handguns does not appear to be required. Fifteen of the additions are handgun-only cases. One is a combination case. The total number of cases has become awkward to publish. Links are included to the last full list, published on June 21, 2021, of 104 incidents, and the updates published since then.
The first update was published on April 11, 2022. Eleven additional cases where handguns were fired in combination with other lethal instruments were published on March 16, 2022. The combination cases are not included in the handgun-only statistics. The second update was published on November 21, 2023. Total cases increased to 170. The third update was published on May 8, 2024. Total cases increased to 190.
In this fourth update, there are now 175 cases involving only handguns. Four of the handgun-only cases were deemed failures. Combination cases, where handguns were fired in combination with other lethal instruments, are included for completeness, but are not used to determine handgun effectiveness. The number of all documented cases where a handgun was fired in defense against a bear or bears now numbers 205. The 16 additional cases are listed below in chronological order.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
What about using my great grandfather’s 32 H&R? I joke that it’s more effective to beat an assailant with it than to fire it.
There are air guns which are more powerful.
Your comment reminds me of “Kill a commie for mommy” from the days of the Korean and Vietnam wars, when it was popular to kill a commie.
Have a bumper sticker like that today in a blue state and one will be arrested if not shot by a dem/commie.
Japan hits 10 deaths from bear maulings this year as attacks skyrocket across country
"Bear attacks are increasingly common in Japan. Since April this year 108 attacks on humans have been confirmed, including 7 deaths but likely the number is higher... Feeding wild bears is illegal but that doesn't stop stupid tourists from trying."
The Glock 20, which is a 10 mm, is the go-to handgun for bear protection in Alaska.
Those who fail at using pistols to defend themselves from bear attacks become lunch. People killed by bears become statistics, not study samples.
I live in NW Montana where we are blessed with black and grizzly bears. I carry three handgun calibers: .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and 10mm auto depending on where I will be working, what I will be doing, and how close I will be to my Marlin 1895 in .45/70. I have no doubt that handguns can be effective protection against bears but I’ll take a rifle every time if I can. A 12 bore shotgun loaded with Brenneke slugs is also acceptable. Proper handgun bullet selection is paramount with heavy for caliber hard cast lead bullets best.
You may be on to something.
Based on your suggestion Im going to start doing a bit of oppositional to Dean based on the number of self defense reports filed by bears.
There has to be a government grant in there somewhere.
.357 Mag from Buffalo Bore or Barnes in
Hard Cast bullets for penetration
Are Very capable.
.
I’ve Asked around and feel comfortable with My 4 inch Ruger Revolver.
Yes, “Wolves in Russia” is very good. In it, you do not see wolves attacking armed people, unless they are lured into doing so. Even then, they break off the attack when a wolf or wolves are killed.
Wolves don’t seem to kill enough people, certainly not enough armed people, to be confident in attacking them.
It may have been a bit different when most people were deliberately disarmed. But, even in Europe and Russia, I do not see records of wolf attacks being successful against a person armed with firearms, and certainly not with modern firearms.
Would a .357 Magnum be enough? Against a Grizz?
The idea you have to have superfast, super accurate shooting to stop a bear attack is not correct.
https://www.ammoland.com/2024/01/are-extreme-speed-and-accuracy-necessary-to-defend-against-bears/
Those who fail at using pistols to defend themselves from bear attacks become lunch. People killed by bears become statistics, not study samples.
Maybe, from 1870 to 1930... we did not have the printed records, and electric communication systems, before then. Even so, the idea of a person being killed by a bear was a powerful way to start a myth, and people investigated such situations.
About 45-50 people in the Lewis and Clark expedition killed at least 33 grizzly bears over a two year period. Even using relatively low powered muzzleloading rifles and muskets, not one person was mauled or killed, though there were several close calls. Several grizzly bears were shot and not recovered. They are not included in the 33.
On the other side, if a person is successful at stopping a bear attack, and is not injured, there are powerful incentives not to report it (to who?) and not to make a record of it (why?).
I am confident there are far more successful defenses which are not reported/recorded than there are unsuccessful defenses which are not reported/recorded.
Val Geist survived a pack attack. He said he wasn't sure even full auto would be adequate against a big pack, as they make their attack from behind going for Achilles tendons (which I have seen in coyotes).
Would you go skydiving knowing there’s a 2% chance the parachute wouldn’t open?
People are stupid enough on their own without having help from people who want them to believe “a handgun is plenty of protection against a bear.”
Thanks for the Lewis and Clark info.
Ken Burns has done a Fine PBS show.
I only have one incident which was documented, where it was pretty certain it was a big pack attacking a lone man. It occurred in Alaska and the man did not have a working firearm. He had a knife, but it wasn’t enough.
Here is the article:
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/05/man-killed-by-wolves-in-1939-undocumented-documented-case/
I have read Valerious Geist on wolf attacks. I understand his reasoning, but it does not seem to occur the way he thinks it would.
One of the items Valerious mentions is the timidity of wolves when attacking new prey. They do not want to be hurt, so they have clumsy initial attacks, especially on humans. This makes them vulnerable to a defense with weapons, especially with firearms.
True indeed. Their relative confidence is a function of habituation. Hence, that timidity can evaporate. As you mention, effective intimidation can keep that from happening. Therefore, the government's prohibition from "harassing" them is a very bad idea.
Wolves are far easier to kill.
Being pack animals after seeing a couple of their number are killed.
The rest will run off if not they well be killed also.
Feel free to find the evidence and send it to marktwain.
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.