“Montana wildlife officials say a hunter who was attacked by a grizzly bear over the weekend is hospitalized in serious condition but didn’t suffer life-threatening injuries,” foxnews.com reports. “The father of the 47-year-old Stevensville man reported hearing a gunshot just before finding his son with serious injuries Sunday afternoon. This is another one of those “be careful what you hunt for” stories. “On Monday, his father led a bear specialist, state game wardens and U.S. Forest Service rangers into the area of extreme southwestern Montana where the attack occurred while the men were hunting black bear. Jones says the 10-year-old male grizzly died of a gunshot wound near where the hunter was mauled.” This isn’t a perfect example but I’d like to point out . . .
that you need a lot of gun to stop a grizzly bear. How much? I’m sure our Armed Intelligentsia will weigh-in on their choice of defense-against-bears carry. If I’m out and about in the “extreme” wilds of Montana – hunting grizzly bears or just hoping they’re not hunting me – I kinda like the idea of toting a .30-06 lever gun AND something suitably snappy in a revolver.
The basic rule: carry as much gun as you can.
The same rule applies to two-legged predators. Truth be told, all handgun calibers are pretty wimpy in the man-stopping arena. (In fact, the term “man-stopper” is as misleading as “quinquagenarian-friendly Israeli supermodel.”) Some guns are simply less wimpy than others. Carry the least wimpy caliber gun you can carry comfortably, draw efficiently and shoot accurately, quickly.
How you balance ye olde comfort/concealment/caliber factors is a subject of eternal debate, a lot of practice and no small amount of wasted money. While comfort is often the defining element, it pays to put some effort into finding a carry system that allows you to schlep a larger gun. Yeah, I know: three yards, three seconds, three rounds. But no one ever survived a gunfight or bear attack saying “I wish I’d carried a smaller gun.”
[h/t Tom in Oregon]