I understand but look at the way this story starts. Shooting at a bear at 460 yards is stretching any rifle let alone a 338 and it seems the results were rather predictable, wounded bear. Now given a choice between shooting an aggressive bear at let’s say 25 yards with a 454 Casull or a 300 Win mag which would you choose? We’re talking rock chunking distance not 460 yards where the round has already lost close to a third of it’s energy and starting to drop fast. Hey if a person wants to carry a pistol that’s fine but like I said in my first post carry enough and in my opinion the 10mm isn’t enough even for black bear, I’d start with a 44 mag or 45 LC and go from there.
The point is, in many cases, they do not have a choice. Rifles work well if they are carried ready to use, and people are diligent in always having them with them.
But rifles are simply much more difficult to carry ready to use and always available. They are more difficult to use in very close quarters, and as happened in the example, rifles can fail and run out of ammunition, where pistols are usually reserved for emergencies.
So... Rifles are fine, and work very well against bears... if you keep them ready to use and ready for use.
I recall another case, where a person just crossed a stream. He had a rifle. He heard the bear charging him. But, he carried the rifle without a round in the chamber, and by the time he had chambered a round, the bear was so close it batted the rifle aside and severely mauled him. He never got a shot off.
As I recall, he ended up killing that grizzly bear with a sheath knife. He survived... just. Terribly mauled, but able to walk half a mile or more before he found help.
I am not advocating for pistols exclusively. It is just the fact that pistols, by any objective measure, work well to defend against bears.
Rifles can work well to defend against bears, but the record is they are not quite as effective, primarily because people do not keep them ready to use and always at hand.