Bear Spray Failed, a .357 Magnum Worked: The Irony of a National Park Service Video

AmmoLand ^ | October 27, 2026 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

An official National Park Video shows double meaning, irony, and tragedy in screenshots.

On July 25, 2014, Brian D. Murphy used both bear spray and a .357 magnum revolver to stop a charging grizzly bear. He probably shot the bear in the face. The shot stunned the bear, stopped the charge, but did not kill the bear. Murphy shot the bear after it had charged through the bear spray. Murphy helped keep other hikers safe. He immediately told park rangers about the incident.

All the physical evidence was consistent with Murphy’s account. The bear had left by the time the rangers arrived, but blood and hair and DNA confirmed it was a grizzly bear. Murphy was not charged by the investigating officers. His firearm was not taken.

Two months later, he was charged by officers of the National Park Service. Murphy hired an attorney who took the case before the local federal judge and the local Assistant United States Attorney. The case was dismissed with predjudice on October 9, 2014, meaning Murphy could not be charged again.

Murphy’s case made the local media and was widely known as a case where bear spray failed and a .357 magnum shot to the face worked.

On November 19, 2017, Glacier National Park created an official video titled: Using Bear Spray. The video is 2 minutes and 39 seconds long. According to the description, it is in the public domain.

The same two actors are seen in at least one other video where the uniformed actor is identified as “Ranger Simpson” and the non-uniformed actor identified as “Buddy”.  They star in a series of videos created in 2017. Sam Simpson identifies himself as a ranger with seven years experience. The video was written and produced by Scott Holmes.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; bear; nps; spray

[marktwain]

The Glacier National Park service actors laugh in the outtakes about the video content, where they say "It only works if you shoot the bear in the face."

[marktwain]

[marktwain]

Should have been: “It’s only effective if you shoot a bear in the face.”

[Lurker]

I’d love to know why he was charged.

L

[Gnome1949]

You know you are in trouble when you shoot a bear in the face with a .357 magnum pistol and the bear just looks stunned and then runs away.

[marktwain]

My speculation is the administration at Glacier National Park wanted to set a precedent. The Park rangers never charged him until two months later.

It seems likely to near certainty some administrator ordered a ranger to charge Murphy.

It backfired on them. Murphy fought it and won, and set the opposite precedent.

I have tried to get an interview with Murphy. So far, no luck.

[marktwain]

You know you are in trouble when you shoot a bear in the face with a .357 magnum pistol and the bear just looks stunned and then runs away.

---

The bear looked dead. Hours later, the rangers got there and the bear was gone.

[Big Red Badger]

Are You kidding Me ?
What an Absolutely Rediculous Joke !
That Video...
Is Dangerous.

[albie]

Bear spray barely works on pink haired, fat ass commies at “No Kings” riots

[Red Badger]

“I’d love to know why he was charged.”

Nobody is allowed to walk around bare in a national park................😜

[OKSooner]

Maybe another bear came and ate him.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

The same headline could be applied to any crime-ridden section of a city.

[Spacetrucker]

From Grok;

Roughly two months later, National Park Service officers charged him. The charge was discharging a firearm in a national park (a misdemeanor carrying a potential $500 fine). Federal law (post-2010) allows carrying firearms in national parks consistent with state law, but discharging them is generally prohibited in places like Glacier, even though self-defense claims can apply.​

[iontheball]

Lately I have been thinking about the dichotomy between lethal and non-lethal defense. This issue came into my mind with the advertising of the Byrna non-lethal impact weapon. The Byrna has a pepper ball and hard ball capability. The parallels are there, whether it’s in the outdoors or in the home domestic violence cases. The problem is having two separate weapons to deal with in a high tense situation. I wonder if a compact single weapon hip holster arrangement could be designed that would contain both options. The challenge would be packaging the two in a compact setup. Perhaps one is already out there? I would be interested to get your views.

[Lurker]

“Roughly two months later, National Park Service officers charged him. The charge was discharging a firearm in a national park.”

Everyone involved in the decision to charge him for that should be fired.

L