anti-black bear

[Alaska444]

Now lets look at a 45-70 vs .338 penetration with milk jugs:

Which one do you think goes through the most milk jugs full of water?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3ac...95152470E2F234

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6CrP...eature=related

I believe that this is great justification for the big and slow approach to bear defense that you get with the large bore rifles such as 45-70, .450 and the .444. If you want penetration, throw a large hard cast bullet as fast as it can be pushed and that will get the bears attention for sure. Once again, just my own opinion.

[Newton24b]

no offense but how do you guys manage to go around the woods entire year with loaded shotguns and rifles as "bear defense" for your dog when most state game departments consider it a crime to go in the woods with a rifle or shotgun during bowseason?

[RaySendero]

Y'all against buck shot for black bears look up/google Tri-Ball loads from Dixie!

[Alaska444]

Great question, but a lot of states have varmint hunting 12 months of the year. All you need for that is a valid hunting license. Yes, carrying adequate bear protection in many places becomes a legal logistics nightmare. But most states have no season and allow year round hunting of feral pigs and coyotes. All that is required in most states is a valid hunting license. Follow the attached link for your state (the second search result on the page)

I think you can take a pig or coyote with a .44 magnum or a .444 in Marlin? Sounds good to me. You just need to know what to tell the game warden.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[dahermit]

Dear Dahermit, yes you are correct, we would all like some data on this to make a good decision. I have a 20 ga loaded right now in my home with buckshot that is my home defense weapon of choice since I live in a duplex. In this instance, I want close quarter penetration with low wall penetration should a shot go astray toward my neighbor which I would try my best to avoid. I also have a .357 that can penetrate beyond what I would want in this situation.

Here is a video of shooting #4 buckshot from a 12 ga. Look at the pattern at 25 yards. Seeing this pattern tells me I don't want to shoot a bear at 25 yards with a 12 ga with buckshot. The person doing this video notes a one inch spread per yard with 00 buck meaning at 25 yards it is a 25 inch spread. Even at 10 yards, it will be a 10 inch spread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASCsvtjiYQc

Finally, this video goes over shot pattern of 00 buck AND penetration of this vs slugs and rifle rounds. I believe that this video is all the evidence we need to answer the question with real life data.

The answer, there is no way I would want to depend on 00 Buck for bear defense. Folks are welcome to their own opinion.

Here is a another video of various shot shell penetration patterns with typical wall board. This was at 5 meters which still showed about 6 inches of spread. I would have expected a tighter pattern at this distance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRToW2d1XU

I hope that this gives us some reasonable data to actually make a decision on this issue that keeps coming up time and again on several websites.

This is not the data I had in mind. I would prefer that the "data" be black bears shot with buck shot, the results posted (did it stop the bears?) and the carcases examined to determine how much the double ought penetrated. Performance on wall board does not interest me much inasmuch as it is not bear hide, bear muscle, or bear bone.

[Alaska444]

Dear dahermit,

I couldn't agree with you more that I would greatly appreciate having real life bear penetration data, but to the best of my knowledge that data does not exist anywhere easily obtained on the internet.

On the other hand, looking at the spread patterns of 00 Buckshot as well as the door penetration test in the link above, or rather lack of penetration in vs the incredible penetration of two doors with the slugs, the issue in my mind is quite easy to settle. The spread pattern limits any effectiveness to 15 yards or less since the spread at 25 yards will only get one or two pellets into the CNS area but without any degree of accuracy. At 25 yards, any CNS hits would be by random chance variation.

So, even with the lack of real life data, I do believe we have enough real life demonstrations of how buck shot performs at different distances. If I have a charging bear, I won't wait until they are in a five yard kill zone. I would have to wonder whose kill zone it was at that point.

In the end with the lack of real life data, it will in part come down to individual choice. From the several videos I have seen on buck shot performance, my choice is to go with a large slug of lead.

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php...t_detail&p=156

Just my own choice.

[Alaska444]

Here is an article by Chuck Hawks on 12 ga for protection in the field. He lists some interesting data on buckshot and states that there are documented cases where the buckshot didn't even penetrate the hide.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotguns_protection_field.htm

In addition, in some states it appears to be illegal to hunt bear with buckshot:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearhuntfaq.htm

So if you live in New Jersey, don't go hunting for bear with buckshot. It is against the law.

[Alaska444]

Here is a well written article PREFERRING buckshot over slugs.

http://www.biggamehunt.net/articles/...s-double-ought

I suspect that this debate will continue since I see other similar debates on TFL in the rather distant past of 2002.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=1204284

[medalguy]

WileyP, we're not too far from you and we have several bears running the hills around us, escapees from the fires. I carry a .357 whenever I'm out in the yard and keep a .44 carbine pretty close by.

As far as using a shotgun on a bear, I too wouldn't want to let him get that close so that I had a small shot pattern. Those bad boys run damn fast, faster than I do. Those of you who want to use a scattergun for bear protection, let us know how that works out for ya.

[Mobuck]

I vote for a slug with some sort of expansion control(not a soft lead Forster type). The Brenekke is said to be popular in Africa for cats. The argument for a buckshot pattern spread is not good since a pattern bigger than 8-12" is going to allow a lot of pellets to miss the vital area. In addition, the most likely shot presentation for a true attack scenario is going to be a frontal with skull and front shoulders foremost. Unless the buckshot is delivered at very short range, it may not provide the required penetration to make a killing shot. I have little experience with a lever action rifle but considerable with a pump shotgun and would be comfortable with it for this purpose. On a bear hunt in Ontario years ago I helped recover 3 bears shot with slugs. No discernable difference in wounds compared to the 30/06 I carried and not much difference in the reaction to the hits. The animals fell at the shot, but were instantly back up and ran in whatever direction they happened to be pointed until they ran out of blood.

[alloy]

Just never get tired of looking at these things.

[Gehrhard]

And Teddy Roosevelt took a Fox shotgun with buckshot on his big African safari for the cats, right. Did this novice make a serious mistake a century ago too?

[dahermit]

Here is an article by Chuck Hawks on 12 ga for protection in the field. He lists some interesting data on buckshot and states that there are documented cases where the buckshot didn't even penetrate the hide.

But then he did give any sources (no "documentation") for his data, we were left having to accept his word for it. Also his list did not include black bear:

"There have been a number of cases where buckshot failed to make it through the tough skin and muscles that protect the chest wall of a lion, tiger, or even a leopard. A lion is maybe half the weight of your average grizzly bear and about 1/4 the weight of a brown or polar bear. Leopards are about the weight of a human being, so think carefully before stoking your shotgun with buckshot."

In addition, in some states it appears to be illegal to hunt bear with buckshot:

So if you live in New Jersey, don't go hunting for bear with buckshot. It is against the law.

But then, the O.P. was not concerned with hunting black bear, but with random encounters, which implies non-hunting situations. The fact that in New Jersey has a law against using buck shot for B.B. has no bearing at all to his question.

In regard to buck shot's poor pattern missing vital areas, it begs the question: Is a single projectile more or less likely to miss the vital area of a charging black bear than a charge of buck shot?

Would someone please just shoot a Black Bear with buck shot and report the results? Then we can dispense with all the suppositions, will nots, should nots, can nots, shooting of wall board, lions, leopards, etc.

[dahermit]

...the most likely shot presentation for a true attack scenario is going to be a frontal with skull and front shoulders foremost...

"...The front shoulders foremost..." Only if the bear attacks with the dreaded "side-way" charge. However, if he uses the old tried and true frontal attack, he presents his chest...not his shoulders.

[Alaska444]

Dear dahermit, you are trying to prove a negative which is logically impossible, or so I am told by popular media outlets. Specifically, you acknowledge the lack of evidence directly with bears, yet you do dismiss a lot of good evidence on spread and penetration

Certainly, on the basis of spreading of buckshot 1 inch per yard, then anything over 25 yards needing defense of another person would make buckshot very unreliable. To be effective, 5-10 yards is the most effective range, but few would wait till that small of a distance. Slugs and large hard cast bullets have much better penetration and accuracy than buck shot.

To state we have NO data is quit in error in my opinion. If your only acceptable evidence is live, in vivo accounts with a black bear, it looks like so few people choose this to have any sensible measure. That in itself is data to take into account since we have thousands of live, in vivo accounts of slugs and large hard cast bullets working well in hunting and defense against black bear. So, you keep asking for data yet ignore the real life data of the lack of evidence of 00 buck shot as in indication that most folks have already voted on this issue with a resounding no.

[dahermit]

Dear dahermit, you are trying to prove a negative which is logically impossible, or so I am told by popular media outlets. Specifically, you acknowledge the lack of evidence directly with bears, yet you do dismiss a lot of good evidence on spread and penetration

Not trying to prove a negative, just trying to show that opinion is not data, opinion is not the same as proof. I have not dismissed any evidence on spread...I just have not responded to it, but you on the other hand, have not taken into account that there are variables in buck shot spread such as choke, cartridge, and individual guns. There has been no evidence on penetration of buckshot on black bear...only wall board.

Certainly, on the basis of spreading of buckshot 1 inch per yard, then anything over 25 yards needing defense of another person would make buckshot very unreliable. To be effective, 5-10 yards is the most effective range, but few would wait till that small of a distance. Slugs and large hard cast bullets have much better penetration and accuracy than buck shot.

Why would not a person begin shooting buck shot at 25 yards and continue shooting with as many rounds as possible instead of wait? Carrying a Single shot? And again, since there was no answer offered when I first asked: Is a single projectile more or less likely to miss the vital area of a charging black bear than a charge (or multiple charges) of buck shot?

To state we have NO data is quit[Sic, quite], in error in my opinion. If your only acceptable evidence is live, in vivo accounts with a black bear, it looks like so few people choose this to have any sensible measure.

Most of the "evidence" that has been posted in this thread is opinion , and not accounts of those who have been attacked by a black bear and responded with gun fire...and more importantly, have not used buck shot. Hunting, with shots through the vitals at a non-attacking bear is of questionable value in this discussion.

So, you keep asking for data yet ignore the real life data of the lack of evidence of 00 buck shot as in indication that most folks have already voted on this issue with a resounding no.

"real life data", is that people have accepted the platitude that buck shot will not be effective so they do not use it? It will not work because people think that it will not work? Circular logic? As for those who have voted, I suggest that a vote be taken on changing the speed of light from 186,000/sec. to something more reasonable.
May I remind older posters (and inform younger ones), that one time, it was a general "truism" that big heavy bullets were deflected less by brush than smaller, lighter bullets...until The American Rifleman, et. Al., actually performed some tests to see if it was true, not just "voted on" or accepted as truth.

[zfk55]

In Montana in our particular neck of the woods we use a hardcast bullet, center drilled with a panhead machine screw screwed right into it. Its a regular skull caracker and the old guys around here have been carrying those kinds of bullets while berrypicking, fishing or walking in the woods for as long as anyone remembers. You just have to pay attention to your seat depth.

[Alaska444]

Dear Dahermit, yup, we have almost nonexistent data on buck shot in bears in real life. On the other hand, we have thousands upon thousands of real life data with all sorts of rifle bullets and shotgun slugs on bears over several decades and in fact, more than a centuries worth of data. The data reveals that the bullets with the greatest penetration are the most effective.

So, it appears it is not really lack of evidence or data that is missing, but willing volunteers to test buck shot in real life on live bears. I wonder why?

[Vermonter]

I live in a tourist town in vermont. There are black bears that may as well be wearing blue jeans strolling all over my place. My bear defense for the home is a winchester pdx round which is buck shot followed by a slug. My largest handgun is a. 40 cal s&w sigma. The pdx is convinente as it is my hd round as well. Does anyone have an opinion on the pdx for yogi?

[dahermit]

Dear Dahermit, yup, we have almost nonexistent data on buck shot in bears in real life. On the other hand, we have thousands upon thousands of real life data with all sorts of rifle bullets and shotgun slugs on bears over several decades and in fact, more than a centuries worth of data. The data reveals that the bullets with the greatest penetration are the most effective.

To follow your logic "A " (heavy bullets) is effective so therefore, "B" (buck shot)is not. Or, in other words, Black people (A)are effective baseball players. Therefore, Hispanics (B) are not. That is an illogical conclusion.

So, it appears it is not really lack of evidence or data that is missing, but willing volunteers to test buck shot in real life on live bears. I wonder why?

Because they are dissuaded from using it because "everyone" says (but no one proves), that buck shot will not penetrate a black bear, will spread out too much to hit the vitals. Whereas, a heavy bullet is sure to hit the heart of a charging bear every time despite it is a four inch target at 30 miles per/hour?
Black Bear speed:
http://www.sierrafoot.org/waterford/wildlife/bears.html

[dahermit]

I live in a tourist town in vermont. There are black bears that may as well be wearing blue jeans strolling all over my place. My bear defense for the home is a winchester pdx round which is buck shot followed by a slug. My largest handgun is a. 40 cal s&w sigma. The pdx is convinente as it is my hd round as well. Does anyone have an opinion on the pdx for yogi?

You will get all kinds of opionions...but no proof. You could save us a whole lot of wasted rhetoric if you would provoke a bear to attack you and shoot him in the chest...then we will have something more useful than "opinion". When you gut it, examine the organs, heart, lungs, liver, for buck shot holes, and then let us know what you have found out about the effectiveness of buckshot on a Black Bear.

[dahermit]

Here is a well written article PREFERRING buckshot over slugs.

http://www.biggamehunt.net/articles/...s-double-ought

I suspect that this debate will continue since I see other similar debates on TFL in the rather distant past of 2002.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=1204284

Well, it seems there is data concerning using buckshot for bear defense. And somewhat iconoclastic at that.

[Alaska444]

dahermit
Senior Member

Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Here is a well written article PREFERRING buckshot over slugs.

http://www.biggamehunt.net/articles/...s-double-ought

I suspect that this debate will continue since I see other similar debates on TFL in the rather distant past of 2002.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=1204284
Well, it seems there is data concerning using buckshot for bear defense. And somewhat iconoclastic at that.

Dear dahermit,

Sorry, I posted that link and secondly, I didn't see a real life bear kill in that story. In addition, the author recommends keeping distance such that you can limit the spread of buck shot to 9 inches. At 1 inch per yard, that means about 10 yards max effective range according to this author.

Buck shot is nothing I would want to be on the receiving end, but the data you so sorely keep asking for is NOT found in this article either. Once again, that was my post for the sake of balance to the discussion. It is all based on HIS OPINION, something you have over and over again disallowed as evidence in this discussion.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, let's find a real life incident if possible since that is the standard you have previously set in this discussion.

[Vermonter]

My thinking is that i am using the best of both worlds with buckshot and a slug in the same round. Perhaps a goddam .50 cal on a turret is in order lol. Let me present it another way.
If shooting a bear for a true defensive reason it will be close up. My home is not huge and just like a human it would have to be inside or on its way in to be of real danger to me. I have other long guns but all are scoped. I have handguns but they are meant for human defense. If outside i will send as many of the fifteen .40 cal rounds at him as i can and pray. Therefore the one true go to for me is the short pump gun. If it had only buck i figure i may as well spread honey on my ass and go for a strool. If i only have a slug i could easily miss a bg in the dark without my glasses. With the pdx 1 i figure i get a little of the best of both worlds.

[Alaska444]

The combined weight of the 9 pellets is roughly 486 grains. With an average muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps, the result is point blank energy of 1,800 foot pounds with 1,200 foot pounds being retained at 30 yards. It is important to understand that this energy exists only if all 9 pellets hit the target. For every pellet that misses, the load's energy drops by the energy of one pellet.

Penetration is hard to quantify for 00 buckshot. A spherical projectile has inherently poor penetration capabilities. A pellet that strikes the chest between the ribs might pass through a deer, one that strikes on the thick part of the shoulder blade might not penetrate the vitals at all - I've seen both scenarios.

My own experience has indicated that if shots are kept to a distance in which all 9 pellets strike a 9-inch circle (roughly the size of a deer's boiler room), enough penetration is accomplished to cause the tissue damage required to ensure an ethical harvest.

From the article above, buck shot is only good for close up work and spherical projectiles lack penetration. Isn't that the entire point we have been discussing? Something just as thin as a shoulder blade can prevent it penetrating vital organs, let alone penetrating to CNS in a large bear. I don't believe that this article is as helpful to you as you believe it is. It starts with a muzzle energy of 1800 foot pounds which is only half that of a .450 or top loaded 45-70 let alone a 45-70 loaded with a 540 gr Garrett Hammerhead.

This source has contradictory statements while advocating for buckshot. It is well written but at the same time, I don't believe he has convinced a whole lot of folks.