I'm not sure I would use a .22 rimfire against a polar bear.

Article

Can't find the link, so going off memory.

I think it was Outdoor Life magazine that polled Alaska bush pilots as to their preferred sidearm. I think 12 pilots polled, and something like 9 of them carried a .44 Mag.

Really wishing I didn't delete my Facebook right now. I'd love to rub this one in some people's faces, namely a couple of my anti gun in-laws

You deleted the wrong thing if you still have anti-gun in-laws. 8TF^ I tell ya.

Maybe you are right.

But facebook is the fastest, easiest waste of time in my life, and I hate it.

Besides, best progress I made with them is face to face conversation.

As crazy as it may sound, it was the Obama administration that created changes in Federal laws that made it legal to carry firearms in our National Parks. It was something that I uncovered before taking the wife to Yellowstone and Glacier National Park. While their use as defense against bears falls into a gray area, visitors often carry them when hiking based on what I read in various park-related forums.

That is an interesting article and it appears that bears may not be nearly as hard to turn as most people (myself included) have been lead to believe. Looks like most people's normal carry gun would be plenty of gun, without having to deal with a bunch of weight. Not what i expected

This makes me think of the thread not too long ago where most comments stated that a .357 was not enough gun to use as bear defense. In the article, it listed 3 uses of 357 mag, two successful, and one unsuccessful. The unsuccessful one was unsuccessful because he missed. Not to get too far off topic, but I would be comfortable with my 357...especially with my heavy hand loads.

Another mis-conception is actual size of both brown and black bears in the lower 48. Just wait someone always gives a Kodiak example in reference to the Greater Yellowstone/lower 48 bears. What’s an extra 1000lbs in a conversation anyways.

I think i would be fine with that too. Up until this article i would have said to use a 44 and up, and that would still be a fine idea, but seems to be unnecessary. It is always interesting when something like this article comes along and changes perspective. It seems well documented and more than just internet conjucture :-)

Were there any references to big browns in the article? I was noticed browns, polars, and blacks, but did not see anything about the big browns. Could be a game changer for sure, i skimmed some of so i could have missed it

I have bear hunted quite a bit, but these were black bears. Usually they were pretty spooky and ran away UNLESS it was a boar over a kill or other food, a wounded bear or a sow with cubs in the spring, I carried a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 mag with HOT 240 gr rifle loads as a backup and did not feel the least bit over gunned. I have hunted black bears in areas with a small grizzly population and saw their tracks, I did not want to find out if the 44 was enough gun.....

Polar bears in general are considered larger the coastals.

It’s safe to say average Brown bear in the lower 48(Yellowstone eco system) is under 450lbs(per national park system, Yellowstone ). The “record” is 715 male and 436 female... average is 413/m and 269/fm

Hope I'm never in a situation that I have to use a handgun against any bear. But if I were to go into bear country and only hand a handgun with me, it will be loaded with a hard-cast bullet.

I've read several write ups on the effectiveness on handguns vs rifles against brown bears.

I can't find the article that discussed the issue with regular defensive ammo, but the just of it explained that the animal has so much fat, that even fatal hits don't put the animal down quickly. The fat can actually help seal up the wound. And an aggressive grizzly is going to continue to come at you. That article had info on hard-cast ammo, which per the article explained why it is more effective on an aggressive bear.

The hard-cast ammo is designed for deep penetration, so shot placement into vitals can lead to the bears death. Of course shot placement is still important, which is why many state that bear spray is still more effective than handguns.

But those same folks that adovcate bear spray say it only works 97% of the time, which means 3% of the time, you have a ticked off bear coming at you hard.

With that said, here is some info on buffalobore's site:

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=108

And if you want to see how fast a brown bear is, check out this video (goto 1:25)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhx0dHUM33s

In that video I see the point about bear spray as more effective. Do you think you could get the right shot off?

Imagine that bear jumping not out of a trap, but thick covered brush unexpectedly on you.

Certainly weighs on the mind if you're thinking of a solo backcountry DIY hunt.

Interesting stories.

Not that I prefer to carry a .22, but Dad always said "something is better than nothing"! Shooting pistols at potatoes 30 yards out; me with .22 and others with 9mm and larger. Got told to stop as I was knocking out the targets before they got a chance. (Browning Buckmark). Granted one hit from them cleared the target, but I had potatoes flying with every shot. LOL!
If I were in Bear country, the .22 would be my last choice.