In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Dead bear hunter in northern Montana
oldbuckaroo
Member Posts: 56 ✭✭
I've googled all the stories I can find on the unfortunate hunter in northern Montana that was mauled by a grizzly and died last week. Apparently he and his hunting partner both shot what they thought was a black bear, and when they went into the bush to retrieve the carcass, it turned out to be a severely injured grizzly that still had enought fight left in him to maul one of the hunters to death. He was finally shot again by another hunter in the party. What I haven't seen so far in any of the stories is what caliber rifle they were using and why the ammo they used didn't stop the bear (grizzly or otherwise) in his tracks. Was it a poorly placed shot, or too weak of a caliber, or what? I spend a fair amount if time in the Montana back country and always figured a 44 mag Anaconda with a 240 grain Underwood XTP JHP was sufficient to stop most large predators, but then again, maybe not. Does anyone know any of the specific for this bear attack and why or why not the rifles they were using may not have been sufficient to stop a 400 lb grizzly. Most importantly for the hunter who lost his life, RIP and sincere condolences to his family. Thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to shed some light on the particulars of this most unfortunate incident.
Comments
I've googled all the stories I can find on the unfortunate hunter in northern Montana that was mauled by a grizzly and died last week. Apparently he and his hunting partner both shot what they thought was a black bear, and when they went into the bush to retrieve the carcass, it turned out to be a severely injured grizzly that still had enought fight left in him to maul one of the hunters to death. He was finally shot again by another hunter in the party. What I haven't seen so far in any of the stories is what caliber rifle they were using and why the ammo they used didn't stop the bear (grizzly or otherwise) in his tracks. Was it a poorly placed shot, or too weak of a caliber, or what? I spend a fair amount if time in the Montana back country and always figured a 44 mag Anaconda with a 240 grain Underwood XTP JHP was sufficient to stop most large predators, but then again, maybe not. Does anyone know any of the specific for this bear attack and why or why not the rifles they were using may not have been sufficient to stop a 400 lb grizzly. Most importantly for the hunter who lost his life, RIP and sincere condolences to his family. Thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to shed some light on the particulars of this most unfortunate incident.
With an Anaconda on your hip in Grizzly country you are just a Happy Meal with an Anaconda on its hip. Grizzly bears have been shot multiple times with .458WM and had 3" of spinal cord blown out before mauling the shooter to death. There are a number of books with accountings of hunters and Grizzlies; reading them is quite an education. Fact is, with the wrong Grizzly at the wrong time, it doesn't matter what you're carrying.
Maybe this'll turn into a 'General Discussion' topic?
If you're following a wounded Griz into thick brush all bets are off. Best to use your 240 grain Underwood XTP on yourself.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
If you're wanting protection from Griz, for the circumstance where you happen upon one and startle it, or verse vice-a, there is documented evidence that bear spray is effective to deter them.
If you're following a wounded Griz into thick brush all bets are off. Best to use your 240 grain Underwood XTP on yourself.
There's also documented evidence that he'll think that bear spray is a tangy appetizer, much like salad dressing....
One thing that I do see wrong with your choice is that a hollow point bullet is likely to spread out before it gets to the bear's vitals. I'd want either a cast lead solid or solid copper barnes bullet to use on dangerous game, and perfect shot placement on the head or heart.
There's also documented evidence that he'll think that bear spray is a tangy appetizer, much like salad dressing....
I think its more akin to Tabasco sauce. [:D]
The biggest practical problem with pepper spray is that the bear has to be literally within 25 feet for a good chance at an effective dose.
Meanwhile a bear can cross 25 feet in literally a fraction of a second, certainly faster than you can draw or aim pepper spray. Pepper spray does have some advantages (ie is lighter to carry than a gun, cheaper, and potentially legal for people who can't have a gun), but its certainly no panacea.
As to the original question, I don't know the details of that incident, and I suspect they haven't been made public knowledge. Whatever they are, it seems clear that the first shot that hit the bear wasn't good enough, leading to the incident described. "More gun" can't make up for a poorly placed shot.
My response in general is that the ONLY way to ensure an instant drop of any animal (two or four legged) is to hit it in the brain or spinal cord. Anything less than that. . .including a perfect hunting shot that literally destroys the heart. . .can leave an animal still able to function normally for 30 seconds or more. Its not a lot of time, but its an eternity if you're being mauled by a 1200 lb Grizzly bear that can run at 40mph (or say, by someone shooting back at you).
For bears, it also doesn't take a lot for one to kill you. One bite or swipe of its paw in the wrong spot, and you're potentially done.
Meanwhile the brain of a Grizzly is protected by dense cortical bone over an inch thick. Anything less than an absolutely perfect shot will literally glance off its skull like a skipped stone over water, and that's even with a powerful handgun round like a .44 magnum. Spinal cord is also an difficult to hit and fairly tough target.
The point is, even under the BEST of circumstances, stopping a Grizzly attack with a gun is going to be tough. If the animal has the element of surprise (eg if you stupidly walk over to a wounded Grizzly bear you think is dead to check it out), you may literally not have ANY reaction time to respond before you get mauled.
quote:jonk:
If I had to pick a handgun [for grizzly bear defense], I think I'd go with a 45/70 BFR.
Caliber choice seems OK [;)], but personally I think I'd prefer something double-action, just because I don't want to have to bother cocking the thing if the bear is within bad-breath distance!
My response in general is that the ONLY way to ensure an instant drop of any animal (two or four legged) is to hit it in the brain or spinal cord.
Not a grizzly.
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
My response in general is that the ONLY way to ensure an instant drop of any animal (two or four legged) is to hit it in the brain or spinal cord.
Not a grizzly.
With due respect, the story you cited above isn't credible, at least not as cited.
Grizzly bears are tough, yes, but so far as I know, they haven't yet evolved supernatural powers enabling them to convey signals from the brain to limbs without a spinal cord in between.
If you were to transect the spinal cord of any animal (say, by blowing out a three inch chunk with a rifle) the brain/muscle connection is lost, causing instant paralysis of voluntary muscle control distal to the cut. That's basic anatomy/physiology and its true from frogs to mice, to rats, to racoons, humans, brown bears, and up to polar bears, grizzlies, etc.
Now that said, there are a few caveats here.
-As mentioned, the CNS of a grizzly bear (spinal cord and brain) is potentially protected by 2+ inches of dense cortical bone. Even a good shot with a powerful weapon can glance right off that.
-Next, the vertebral column of a bear is wide enough that its possible to make a good solid hit, even potentially blowing off a big chunk of bone without actually damaging the actual cord inside (the cord only being maybe about as wide as your thumb).
-Severing the spinal cord only serves to disable voluntary muscle activity distal to the cord. So if you were to hit a bear (or anything else) in the lumbar spine, that could knock out its rear legs. A bad injury, yes, but its front legs and mouth would still be perfectly functional and potentially able to rip your head off.
The only way to take out its front legs would be to hit it in the neck or higher.
Along those lines, if your shot were to damage the spinal cord, but not necessarily sever it entirely, the animal in question could still retain full use of one, or even potentially both legs (depending on where the injury was made). Again, it might never quite walk the same again after that, but it would still be perfectly capable of running over on its three good legs and biting your head off.
The point is this, its tough to make a brain shot on a brown bear, even under the best of circumstances. Its tougher yet to make an effective spine shot, and in practice, that target is so narrow its probably not even something you should try.