The definitive answer of what defensive caliber for a bear attack

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,880
Likes
2,513
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/08/2359636/gun-is-no-insurance-policy-in.html

Longtime bear biologist Tom Smith and colleagues analyzed 269 incidents of close-quarter bear-human conflict in Alaska between 1883 and 2009 in which a firearm was involved. They found the gun made no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters, which resulted in 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities.

"It really isn't about the kind of gun you carry. It's about how you carry yourself," said Smith, lead author of the study published online in the Journal of Wildlife Management.
While Smith said his data set was not perfect, it did tease out some surprising findings. For instance, handguns slightly outperformed long guns, resulting in a positive outcome -- meaning the gun stopped the bear's aggression -- 84 percent of the time versus 76 percent.

"That's surprising because some believe that handguns have no place in bear safety," Smith said. "But they are much more maneuverable and carried more accessibly. A majority of bears go to extreme lengths to avoid people. When an encounter occurs, it is in close quarters and poor visibility. They are on their back shooting the bear in the mouth."
Caliber doesn't matter nor does the type of gun. It's avoiding the confrontation and if you have the confrontation, it appears to be the speed at which you respond.
 

hpm

Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,458
Likes
507
Location
Norfolk County, MA / Piscataquis County, ME
They found the gun made no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters, which resulted in 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities.
Sounds like an anti gun study to me...as I assume those 172 dead bears did not die from pepper spray - the gun MADE a difference in the outcome of these encounters.
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,920
Likes
2,012
Location
Free 'murica
Sounds like an anti gun study to me...as I assume those 172 dead bears did not die from pepper spray - the gun MADE a difference in the outcome of these encounters.
Sounds like someone is purposely misunderstanding a slightly ambiguous sentence in the hopes of finding a way to claim that the study was "anti gun"
 

ToddDubya

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
11,458
Likes
4,649
Location
Berkshires
Sounds like an anti gun study to me...as I assume those 172 dead bears did not die from pepper spray - the gun MADE a difference in the outcome of these encounters.
I think he meant the "choice of gun" made no statistical difference. You'd think a scientist reporting the outcome of a statistical analysis would be more precise in his answer.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,880
Likes
2,513
Sounds like someone is purposely misunderstanding a slightly ambiguous sentence in the hopes of finding a way to claim that the study was "anti gun"
Yeah, it looked at the impacts on the people attacked and not on the bears. i.e.; if someone died or was injured (negative) v. untouched (positive), etc. So the number of casualties from bear attacks does not change with the presence of any firearm, hence there is no caliber better than another.
 

hpm

Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,458
Likes
507
Location
Norfolk County, MA / Piscataquis County, ME
Yeah, it looked at the impacts on the people attacked and not on the bears. i.e.; if someone died or was injured (negative) v. untouched (positive), etc. So the number of casualties from bear attacks does not change with the presence of any firearm, hence there is no caliber better than another.
The study only focused on bear attacks where a firearm was present...how can that lead to conclusions about incidents where no firearm was present?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,091
Likes
30,162
So Dave what do the bears do in the Tenderloin district? or is that unsuitable for NES? [rofl]

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,647
Likes
411
Location
Franklin
Only two things are required in bear country. A .22 caliber handgun and a partner. A .22 caliber handgun is more than sufficient to slow your partner down enough to effect your escape. Favorite targets on your partner are the Legs ,Knees and Feet. One small word of warning it is best to take Tree Huggers as parters as other hunters of gun nuts are likely to be carrying something a lot bigger than your .22 and now you must rethink your strategy .
 

M1911

Moderator
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,570
Likes
7,761
Location
Near Framingham
Some years back I read a first-person account from a resident of Kodiak Island who had been badly injured by brown bear. He was out hunting with a rifle in his hand, moving through some alders when the bear attacked. He never knew the bear was there before it was on him. The bear may have been sleeping and was awoken by him. Before he was able to react, he was on the ground with the bear biting his thing and his rifle long gone. He was not carrying a handgun at the time.

His conclusion was that he absolutely should have been carrying a handgun.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
So, not a definitive answer at all, only typical statistics abused to make a point that the underlying data does not support.

What government agency, news or anti-gun organization do you work for again? [laugh]
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
11,006
Likes
1,398
Location
Spokane, WA
So Dave what do the bears do in the Tenderloin district? or is that unsuitable for NES? [rofl]

-Mike
Ever have the experience of walking by a woman who hikes up her skirt and starts pissing on a wall, only to realize it's not a woman? It goes downhill from there. After 3 years of going to school on the edge of the 'loin, I don't miss THAT part of the neighborhood.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,880
Likes
2,513
The study only focused on bear attacks where a firearm was present...how can that lead to conclusions about incidents where no firearm was present?
I meant any as in any caliber, not between gun and no gun. The spread between 82% and 75% of handgun and long gun is noise.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
11,006
Likes
1,398
Location
Spokane, WA
no it's not noise, but it's not a huge difference.

It comes to utility, a long gun, even a nice lever action isn't going to help you if that bear is basically in ground and pound (aka-buffet) mode.

What it does tell me though is that if I have both a long gun and hand gun, I'll have a 157% success rate. [smile]

It does make a good argument for use what you're good with, not some exotic that you might never use, but have "for bear".
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1,160
Likes
81
Location
Saugus, PRM
Sounds like someone is purposely misunderstanding a slightly ambiguous sentence in the hopes of finding a way to claim that the study was "anti gun"
No, I found it pretty anti as well - "Study finds no statistical difference in outcome when human is armed, unarmed." That sounds like guns don't help.
 

hpm

Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,458
Likes
507
Location
Norfolk County, MA / Piscataquis County, ME
No, I found it pretty anti as well - "Study finds no statistical difference in outcome when human is armed, unarmed." That sounds like guns don't help.
Yeah - besides the fact that the study shouldn't come to that conclusion at all...

Longtime bear biologist Tom Smith and colleagues analyzed 269 incidents of close-quarter bear-human conflict in Alaska between 1883 and 2009 in which a firearm was involved. They found the gun made no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters, which resulted in 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities.
So if they only looked at incidents where a firearm was present - how can there be any conclusions about incidents where no firearm was present?

How would those 172 encounters where a bear was shot have ended when no gun would have been present?? Yeah right....

They didn't look at no gun incidents, they didn't look at human fatality rates when no gun was present... they only looked at outcomes when a gun was present (used or not).

So yes they can make conclusions about caliber, handgun or rifle and so on, BUT they can not make any conclusions about the outcome of having no gun (because they didn't look at those cases) - that's why I think the agenda was anti gun!
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
12,482
Likes
2,369
Location
Let me check my GPS
Y

So yes they can make conclusions about caliber, handgun or rifle and so on, BUT they can not make any conclusions about the outcome of having no gun (because they didn't look at those cases) - that's why I think the agenda was anti gun!
It wasn't really anti-gun. If it was, in all 269 cases the bear would have taken the gun away and shot the human....
 
Top Bottom