Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

AnswersASK YOUR QUESTION

Answers

Q:
Along the lines of big bear hand cannon medicine what is the vote for 'hard cast' vs Jacket and or hollow point bullets ??

Question by jhjimbo. Uploaded on June 10, 2013

Answers (16)

Top Rated
All Answers
from RJ Arena wrote 5 days 8 hours ago

I would go with hardcast, with a big bear you need to go through thick muscle and hard bone. I think a hollow-point would be like shooting Mongo, it just going to make him mad!!! Seriously, I would think that you would have a greater chance of fragmentation with a hollow point on a big boars' skull!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from allegnmtn wrote 5 days 7 hours ago

My other handgun option would be a TC .600 Nito Express with a 900 grain jacketed soft nose. This is an elephant gun so it should put a Griz down.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gary Devine wrote 5 days 7 hours ago

Another, vote for hard cast.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

Yeah. I'd go hardcast.
I'm thinking you'd want deep penetration and broken bones.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

A friend of mine that does some guiding in Alaska molds his own bullets for his .44 and they are hard cast for penetration.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Treestand wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

I vote Hard Cast #1 and Jacketed soft point #2 if Hard Cast was not Available.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

If hard cast are getting the majority of votes on N.American dangerous game, then why do we have jacketed bullets, some with hollow points?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 5 days 5 hours ago

I wonder if there is anyone else on here besides myself who has even pointed a pistol at a grizzly bear?

Back in the days when I had horses I kept a .357 with semi-jacketed hollow points in the saddle bags. In the extremely unlikely event that it came down to having to take out a G-bear (and it almost happened one evening on the trail), I wanted as much stunning impact as possible with as manageable a recoil as possible. Was it enough firepower? One time I went out to a wrecking yard in the country and tested some loads that my dad made up for me. No problem shooting through the side of an old truck and into the engine block! And Dad wasn't known as a hot loader either. I think it would have done the job on a grizzly ... without bonking me in the head or flying off into space over my right shoulder. Or leaving my horses blinded, deaf, staggering, stunned, and emotionally disturbed at the sight of me for the rest of their lives. :-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 5 days 2 hours ago

I contend that it makes absolutely no difference. Both slugs are likely to fully penetrate a bear at close range and go flying off through the timber. I contend that you could search the timber for a month and you are unlikely to find either. I also contend that neither is likely to stop an enraged charging bear in his tracks. They will both penetrate and they will both kill but neither of them is carrying enough velocity to or energy to stun the animal instantly.

The biggest angry thing I have had to shoot with a pistol is a charging Russian boar that weighed 325 pounds. One .44 Mag 240g JHP shot at 20 yards ricocheted off the skull and cut three spine vertebrea before exiting the back; fortunately it did turn the animal. One broadside shot at 70 yards penetrated the rear chest area from side to side. Following the second charge, a side-to-side shot from 10 yards broke the near shoulder at the socket, went through the heart and broke the far femur with absolutely no affect on the boar for 20 seconds.

I wouldn't worry about the bullet I use as long as it is a good hunting bullet. I WOULD worry that I might have forgotten to fill out my organ donor card. If a bear is charging you, a pistol is unlikely to stop it until it is too late.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 5 days 2 hours ago

I agree, Dakota. A pistol for bear protection should always be a last resort. The incident above was during fishing season when I was trying out a new horse. However, I even carried the Highway Patrolman in the saddlebag during big game hunting trips. It was a lot easier to get at than the rifle in the scabbard. My rifle then was a bolt action Springfield and, as I'm sure you know, the right handed bolt meant that the scabbard had to be slung on right side of horse to keep the bolt from poking her in the side. I automatically dismounted from the left side, making it very awkward (nearly impossible) to retrieve the rifle in a hurry. The pistol was in left hand saddlebag with only one cover strap secured. I could easily reach in it and grab the pistol. Also, the revolver was instantly loaded as soon as I squeezed the trigger. Would never ride the horse with a loaded rifle, especially not with the tricky safety on that Springfield. When actually hunting I was on foot and the rifle was sufficient to meet my needs for protection. Big pistol as a backup weapon while hunting is just extra weight.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 5 days 2 hours ago

I agree, Dakota. A pistol for bear protection should always be a last resort. The incident above was during fishing season when I was trying out a new horse. However, I even carried the Highway Patrolman in the saddlebag during big game hunting trips. It was a lot easier to get at than the rifle in the scabbard. My rifle then was a bolt action Springfield and, as I'm sure you know, the right handed bolt meant that the scabbard had to be slung on right side of horse to keep the bolt from poking her in the side. I automatically dismounted from the left side, making it very awkward (nearly impossible) to retrieve the rifle in a hurry. The pistol was in left hand saddlebag with only one cover strap secured. I could easily reach in it and grab the pistol. Also, the revolver was instantly loaded as soon as I squeezed the trigger. Would never ride the horse with a loaded rifle, especially not with the tricky safety on that Springfield. When actually hunting I was on foot and the rifle was sufficient to meet my needs for protection. Big pistol as a backup weapon while hunting is just extra weight.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greenhead wrote 4 days 13 hours ago

I think the choice of bullets makes a big difference, and wouldn't use anything but hard cast. No handgun is going to penetrate a large bear end to end. Most rifles can't do that. Why would you further handicap yourself by using a bullet that would do anything other than hold together and penetrate as deeply as possible? Bears have thick hides, large muscles, and thick bones. You need a serious bullet to get any penetration at all on that. And no, OHH, you're not the only one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 4 days 7 hours ago

Things have changed a lot since I last packed bear medicine in the backcountry with my horses. The advent of bear spray has changed the game considerably. I always felt that my .357 with hollow points would be sufficient to do the job if called upon. The junked car test convinced me. Nowadays with bear spray on my belt I think wad cutters would probably do just as well! I see in the paper here that a ministry biologist up north used bear spray over the weekend to save his bacon ... repeatedly! A very large black bear stalked the fella and eventually got too close. He nailed it with bear spray. Bear was incapacitated and biologist heads for his truck. Next thing he knows the bear is on his tail again so he repeats it. Stops bear in its tracks. But again the same scene is repeated. Eventually the guy got back to his truck okay after putting the bear out of action repeatedly. The bear was obviously intent on doing no good but the pepper spray did its job. If the biologist had had even a machete or an ax he no doubt could have ended things after spraying the bear the second time. Certainly even a .38 special would have finished that bear if the guy was any kind of shot at all. Just walk up and shoot the damned thing in the head. A couple of times if necessary. A sprayed bear is fish in a barrel. But, of course, carrying a pistol up here in the bush is verboten unless you're a downed bush pilot or a trapper on his line (both of whom have to be willing to wade through a mountain of paperwork to be able to legally carry a handgun). Anyway, the point is this: with the advent of bear spray I think it's just plain silly to pack anything larger than a .357. Overkill could do the shooter more harm than good.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gary Devine wrote 3 days 16 hours ago

Ontario, I pointed on many Grizzly bears inside Montana's Glacier National Park.
Guns were not allowed in the park instead I pointed with a set of binoculars from a safe distance.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 3 days 15 hours ago

I once pointed on a grizzly across the river from the Park. And it wasn't with binoculars either. Fortunately it backed down. I actually only encountered a few in all the years in the woods. I generally avoided the park. It had too many habituated bears ... and way too many people.

The worst problem I recall was with a really big black bear. Had to admire that old boy. He was quite the accomplished raider. He knew if anyone was about and would leave things alone. But if there were no horses in camp, he'd help himself. Became a big problem for the dude outfitters. I put my stuff on a platform between three fairly skinny lodgepole pines. When I came in the following week with the other half of my camp, I found that he had stripped all the bark trying to climb the support trees (he was too big) so he climbed a larger tree about four feet away and skydived onto the platform breaking it down. No kidding! Cirque de bruin! Then he went through everything and bit one hole in each item to sample it. One hole in my sleeping bag, one hole in the gas can, one hole right through my alarm clock (which I still have and it still works). If he liked it, he ate it. Otherwise he left it alone. Curiously, he didn't like canned peas! Can't say as I blame him. It was a darned good thing I shot a couple of spruce grouse for dog food on the way in. Nothing went to waste on those birds that night! A month later one of the clients for Desert Mountain Lodge shot the bear. He was a real monster. The outfitter estimated he was easily over 500 lbs. I suspect they baited him which was illegal but he was too much of a nuisance and had to be taken care of. No way to get a barrel trap into that country (which also uses bait). The remarkable thing about that bear was that for all the trouble he caused no one ever saw him until he was shot. But his huge track was quite distinctive. Whatta guy!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 10 hours 1 min ago

Greenhead... the point is: "Penetration does not stop big enraged bears" when using low velocity, low energy projectiles like a pistol bullet! Therefore the "amount of penetration" is irrelevant. Unless you hit a charging bear in the brain (with either type of bullet), it will most probably HURT you. If you are serious about stopping a bear charge, think "Rifle", "Slug" or "Bear Spray". If you can't use one of these, a pistol is better than a sharp stick, but not by much, regardless of the bullet composition.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post an Answer

from Ontario Honker ... wrote 3 days 15 hours ago

I once pointed on a grizzly across the river from the Park. And it wasn't with binoculars either. Fortunately it backed down. I actually only encountered a few in all the years in the woods. I generally avoided the park. It had too many habituated bears ... and way too many people.

The worst problem I recall was with a really big black bear. Had to admire that old boy. He was quite the accomplished raider. He knew if anyone was about and would leave things alone. But if there were no horses in camp, he'd help himself. Became a big problem for the dude outfitters. I put my stuff on a platform between three fairly skinny lodgepole pines. When I came in the following week with the other half of my camp, I found that he had stripped all the bark trying to climb the support trees (he was too big) so he climbed a larger tree about four feet away and skydived onto the platform breaking it down. No kidding! Cirque de bruin! Then he went through everything and bit one hole in each item to sample it. One hole in my sleeping bag, one hole in the gas can, one hole right through my alarm clock (which I still have and it still works). If he liked it, he ate it. Otherwise he left it alone. Curiously, he didn't like canned peas! Can't say as I blame him. It was a darned good thing I shot a couple of spruce grouse for dog food on the way in. Nothing went to waste on those birds that night! A month later one of the clients for Desert Mountain Lodge shot the bear. He was a real monster. The outfitter estimated he was easily over 500 lbs. I suspect they baited him which was illegal but he was too much of a nuisance and had to be taken care of. No way to get a barrel trap into that country (which also uses bait). The remarkable thing about that bear was that for all the trouble he caused no one ever saw him until he was shot. But his huge track was quite distinctive. Whatta guy!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 5 days 8 hours ago

I would go with hardcast, with a big bear you need to go through thick muscle and hard bone. I think a hollow-point would be like shooting Mongo, it just going to make him mad!!! Seriously, I would think that you would have a greater chance of fragmentation with a hollow point on a big boars' skull!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from allegnmtn wrote 5 days 7 hours ago

My other handgun option would be a TC .600 Nito Express with a 900 grain jacketed soft nose. This is an elephant gun so it should put a Griz down.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gary Devine wrote 5 days 7 hours ago

Another, vote for hard cast.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

Yeah. I'd go hardcast.
I'm thinking you'd want deep penetration and broken bones.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

A friend of mine that does some guiding in Alaska molds his own bullets for his .44 and they are hard cast for penetration.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Treestand wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

I vote Hard Cast #1 and Jacketed soft point #2 if Hard Cast was not Available.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 5 days 6 hours ago

If hard cast are getting the majority of votes on N.American dangerous game, then why do we have jacketed bullets, some with hollow points?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 5 days 5 hours ago

I wonder if there is anyone else on here besides myself who has even pointed a pistol at a grizzly bear?

Back in the days when I had horses I kept a .357 with semi-jacketed hollow points in the saddle bags. In the extremely unlikely event that it came down to having to take out a G-bear (and it almost happened one evening on the trail), I wanted as much stunning impact as possible with as manageable a recoil as possible. Was it enough firepower? One time I went out to a wrecking yard in the country and tested some loads that my dad made up for me. No problem shooting through the side of an old truck and into the engine block! And Dad wasn't known as a hot loader either. I think it would have done the job on a grizzly ... without bonking me in the head or flying off into space over my right shoulder. Or leaving my horses blinded, deaf, staggering, stunned, and emotionally disturbed at the sight of me for the rest of their lives. :-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 5 days 2 hours ago

I contend that it makes absolutely no difference. Both slugs are likely to fully penetrate a bear at close range and go flying off through the timber. I contend that you could search the timber for a month and you are unlikely to find either. I also contend that neither is likely to stop an enraged charging bear in his tracks. They will both penetrate and they will both kill but neither of them is carrying enough velocity to or energy to stun the animal instantly.

The biggest angry thing I have had to shoot with a pistol is a charging Russian boar that weighed 325 pounds. One .44 Mag 240g JHP shot at 20 yards ricocheted off the skull and cut three spine vertebrea before exiting the back; fortunately it did turn the animal. One broadside shot at 70 yards penetrated the rear chest area from side to side. Following the second charge, a side-to-side shot from 10 yards broke the near shoulder at the socket, went through the heart and broke the far femur with absolutely no affect on the boar for 20 seconds.

I wouldn't worry about the bullet I use as long as it is a good hunting bullet. I WOULD worry that I might have forgotten to fill out my organ donor card. If a bear is charging you, a pistol is unlikely to stop it until it is too late.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 5 days 2 hours ago

I agree, Dakota. A pistol for bear protection should always be a last resort. The incident above was during fishing season when I was trying out a new horse. However, I even carried the Highway Patrolman in the saddlebag during big game hunting trips. It was a lot easier to get at than the rifle in the scabbard. My rifle then was a bolt action Springfield and, as I'm sure you know, the right handed bolt meant that the scabbard had to be slung on right side of horse to keep the bolt from poking her in the side. I automatically dismounted from the left side, making it very awkward (nearly impossible) to retrieve the rifle in a hurry. The pistol was in left hand saddlebag with only one cover strap secured. I could easily reach in it and grab the pistol. Also, the revolver was instantly loaded as soon as I squeezed the trigger. Would never ride the horse with a loaded rifle, especially not with the tricky safety on that Springfield. When actually hunting I was on foot and the rifle was sufficient to meet my needs for protection. Big pistol as a backup weapon while hunting is just extra weight.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 5 days 2 hours ago

I agree, Dakota. A pistol for bear protection should always be a last resort. The incident above was during fishing season when I was trying out a new horse. However, I even carried the Highway Patrolman in the saddlebag during big game hunting trips. It was a lot easier to get at than the rifle in the scabbard. My rifle then was a bolt action Springfield and, as I'm sure you know, the right handed bolt meant that the scabbard had to be slung on right side of horse to keep the bolt from poking her in the side. I automatically dismounted from the left side, making it very awkward (nearly impossible) to retrieve the rifle in a hurry. The pistol was in left hand saddlebag with only one cover strap secured. I could easily reach in it and grab the pistol. Also, the revolver was instantly loaded as soon as I squeezed the trigger. Would never ride the horse with a loaded rifle, especially not with the tricky safety on that Springfield. When actually hunting I was on foot and the rifle was sufficient to meet my needs for protection. Big pistol as a backup weapon while hunting is just extra weight.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greenhead wrote 4 days 13 hours ago

I think the choice of bullets makes a big difference, and wouldn't use anything but hard cast. No handgun is going to penetrate a large bear end to end. Most rifles can't do that. Why would you further handicap yourself by using a bullet that would do anything other than hold together and penetrate as deeply as possible? Bears have thick hides, large muscles, and thick bones. You need a serious bullet to get any penetration at all on that. And no, OHH, you're not the only one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 4 days 7 hours ago

Things have changed a lot since I last packed bear medicine in the backcountry with my horses. The advent of bear spray has changed the game considerably. I always felt that my .357 with hollow points would be sufficient to do the job if called upon. The junked car test convinced me. Nowadays with bear spray on my belt I think wad cutters would probably do just as well! I see in the paper here that a ministry biologist up north used bear spray over the weekend to save his bacon ... repeatedly! A very large black bear stalked the fella and eventually got too close. He nailed it with bear spray. Bear was incapacitated and biologist heads for his truck. Next thing he knows the bear is on his tail again so he repeats it. Stops bear in its tracks. But again the same scene is repeated. Eventually the guy got back to his truck okay after putting the bear out of action repeatedly. The bear was obviously intent on doing no good but the pepper spray did its job. If the biologist had had even a machete or an ax he no doubt could have ended things after spraying the bear the second time. Certainly even a .38 special would have finished that bear if the guy was any kind of shot at all. Just walk up and shoot the damned thing in the head. A couple of times if necessary. A sprayed bear is fish in a barrel. But, of course, carrying a pistol up here in the bush is verboten unless you're a downed bush pilot or a trapper on his line (both of whom have to be willing to wade through a mountain of paperwork to be able to legally carry a handgun). Anyway, the point is this: with the advent of bear spray I think it's just plain silly to pack anything larger than a .357. Overkill could do the shooter more harm than good.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gary Devine wrote 3 days 16 hours ago

Ontario, I pointed on many Grizzly bears inside Montana's Glacier National Park.
Guns were not allowed in the park instead I pointed with a set of binoculars from a safe distance.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 10 hours 1 min ago

Greenhead... the point is: "Penetration does not stop big enraged bears" when using low velocity, low energy projectiles like a pistol bullet! Therefore the "amount of penetration" is irrelevant. Unless you hit a charging bear in the brain (with either type of bullet), it will most probably HURT you. If you are serious about stopping a bear charge, think "Rifle", "Slug" or "Bear Spray". If you can't use one of these, a pistol is better than a sharp stick, but not by much, regardless of the bullet composition.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post an Answer