A question for those Freepers who have more experience with handguns than I. Does the description of the killing of the bear sound plausable? Is it be possible to shoot a grizzly bear nine times, having it then stop charging, walk off into the bush and die? The article does not say where and how many bullets actually struck the bear, but is it possible?
Don't ever confuse stopping an animal with killing it. In this case, I don't know what caused the bear to turn and walk away. Pain, fear, walking away from something that hurts? The shots didn't stop it, but certainly killed it. These shots may not have been enough to stop a large enraged bear. You have to have penetration and shot placement for vitals or central nervous system damage.
I have heard that a grizzly bear’s skull in the forehead region is thick enough to deflect .44 magnum rounds at close range.
Absolutely. I think one thing to keep in mind is that the story doesn't sepcify the size of the bear. When we hear the words "Grizzly Bear" our mind automatically leaps to the huge specimens we might see in the zoo, in a movie or on the pages of hunting magazines. The fact is that in the wild, there will be some bigger bears, and some smaller ones, so there's a chance this was a (relatively) small grizzly of say 3-400 lbs or so.
Any firearm is capable of fatally wounding virtually any creature....even a lucky shot with a .22LR that enters an eye socket and tunnels into the brain pan will kill a large creature...of course, the reliance on luck in such situations is far more likely going to result in a mauled hiker than a dead bear.
Bears are in a sense, "heavily armored" given their heavy bone structure, thick hide, and layers of subcutaneous fat. There are a number of considerations behind bullet selection. First, you want the projectile to stop in the target. A bullet that blows right through an animal transfers the bulk of its kinetic energy into the backstop and not the target. In light skinned game, this is accomplished by using rapidly expanding bullets, typically with a hollow point and a thin copper jacket. This allows the bullet to expand, and ideally expend the entirety of its energy in the target. It also has the secondary effect of creating a larger wound channel as the diameter of the bullet increases...doing additional damage to blood vessels and contributing to a quicker "bleed out." In heavy game, expansion is generally not an issue, because the density of muscle, bone and sinew is going to stop the bullet anyways, and in such cases, penetration is the desired result. A lot of big African game and large American bears have been hunted with either FMJ bullets or soft points, that deform far less than a hollow point, but stand a much greater chance of retaining their integrity and momentum as they smash through muscle, bone and sinew and hopefully do some damage to internal organs.
How does this translate to a .45 (presumably an ACP)? Well, you already have a comparatively large wound channel based strictly on the diameter of the projectile. What you lack are some of the secondary effects you'd obtain with the velocity of a rifle or even a magnum chambering in a revolver. The account to me seems more than possible, but also quite likely. I doubt any reasonably intelligent person would deliberately go bear hunting (poaching) with just a .45 ACP...so I'm guessing it was a defensive scenario. If they hit the bear with it, the bear was probably close enough to be a credible threat. And yes, I think a bear that sustained a few hits would have enough left in it (especially considering the adrenaline) to saunter off a good distance to die.