Today’s DGU: Alaska

The Armed Citizen Links this interesting story:

A backpacker shot and killed a grizzly bear with his handgun in Alaska’s Denali National Park, officials said.

A man and woman reported that they were hiking Friday evening when the bear emerged from trailside brush and charged the woman, park spokeswoman Kris Fister said in a statement.

The man fired nine rounds from his .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol at the animal, which then stopped and walked into the brush.

The two reported the shooting to rangers, who restricted access to the Igloo Canyon area for fear that the bear was wounded and dangerous.

On Saturday, rangers found the dead bear about 100 feet from the shooting site.

Again guns aren’t just for violent people. Anything from a Coyote to Urban Dogs can pose a deadly threat.

What’s really neat about this story is 9 rounds of “.45 Caliber” sound like when I carry my 1911 with one round of .45 ACP +P in the pipe, and 8 waiting in the mag. Generally I would have thought more 5-6 .454 Casull.

I know people who carry 1911s in bear country, and I generally consider the round marginal for bear. I guess it worked damn good in this case.

As Breda sez: “Carry your gun, its a lighter burden than regret”. And a 1911 on your hip beats a shotgun left in the truck!

This entry was posted in Biology, DGU, Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Today’s DGU: Alaska

  1. mike w. says:

    Why would anyone need to carry a gun in a national park?…….. oh wait.

  2. Bob S. says:

    I was thinking that people need a firearm in the park as much as they need a fire extinguisher in the car…..oh wait πŸ™‚

    From what I’ve read, many folks simply carry– sounds like it was the situation here. I would think that 9 rounds of .45ACP would discourage most critters – two or four legged. The reasoning is the same for 4 legs as 2 — stopping the attack.

    I wonder what the most common animal reaction to loud noises and flashes — to run or to attack?

  3. Ed Hering says:

    It’d be interesting to know how many of those rounds actually hit the animal. Anything that can take nine rounds of .45 without dying right there scares me.

    • ZerCool says:

      We’re talking about a grizz. Three-quarters of a ton or more of hair, skin, fat, flesh, teeth and claws… Penetration is king in this case, and if the guy was carrying a normal defensive round (JHP) it may not have penetrated as well as need be… at least not the first one. In grizz country, something that ends with “MAGNUM” and begins with “HARD CAST SWC” sounds about right to me.

      Also of note – this bear went 100 feet with up to nine rounds of .45 in him. If he’d kept coming, there would be at lease one dead hiker.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        +1, Bears are pretty scary. Grizz and Browns are REALLY scary, but the number of stories on the toughness of the small but solid black bears that inhabit the Maine woods also says to me that bears are not what you want to mess with. (My favorite story is a guy who snared one in a coyote snare. He popped it between the running lights with a .357 Magnum, and then went to get and ATV to retrieve the carcass. When he returned with the ATV the bear had “Returned to life” and was a bit on the pissy side.

        A few more hits to the boiler-room made him real-dead. The first round had just mushroomed against the thick skull.

  4. I’d be interested to know if it was really a .45, or rather a .460 Rowland. You know how “Authorized Journalists” can be.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I’d imagine with a charging bear those 9 shots were what was in the gun. Even if he was an IPSC champ, a reload would be the time when the bear closed the gap and started mauling. Something tells me the gun held at LEAST 9 (and 9 being the number most full-size 1911s hold all topped off, that sounds like a winner right there) meaning that big-assed wheelie rounds likely weren’t in the question.

      I’m betting it was .45 ACP.

      • big-assed wheelie rounds likely weren’t in the question.

        Oh, absolutely, but if you’ll remember, the .460 Rowland was developed for the 1911; the only dimensional difference is the OAL, 1.275″ for the .460 vs 1.260″ for the .45. So I think the 1911 would hold as many rounds of .460. I could see someone taking a .45 ACP into bear country, though I’d still have to ask them what the hell they were thinking. If I was gonna run with an autopistol I’d take my 10mm.

  5. Wally says:

    The article says 9 rounds fired but didn’t say how many rounds connected.

    I was in the woods yesterday, within a quarter mile of a bear. I felt confident with 14 rounds of 357 in the flatgun.

    Unrelated but later we were in a gunstore and the GF called me over with a squee of delight. Purple Cobra Derringer. This is going to be a LOOOONG road!

    • mike w. says:

      Did she pull the trigger? Once she does that delight will turn to disgust.

      • Wally says:

        Heh, no, she’s still at the “guns are for killing people and should all be kept locked up” stage. It was a major breakthrough that one caught her fancy. She also liked a Ruger Alaskan in .454 with crimson trace grips, but the four figure price tag for a 454 with a 2.5in barrel didn’t seem like a sound investment for a first firearm.

        • ZerCool says:

          Nevermind the investment, the wrist-spraining recoil is probably not ideal for a “first” either. It’d be like 19-year-old catholic school graduate losing her cherry to Ron Jeremy!

          • Wally says:

            I thought about it, and figured it wouldn’t be too hard to get a 185gr bullet at 750-800 fps for mild shoting, but the whole short barrel was the big negative.

            Was it Libertyman who brought an Alaskan to the blogshoot last summer? It wasn’t horrible (but then again, I’m not really too sensitive to recoil – i can flinch for any reason, not just a big boom!) and managed to catch some video of it finally breaking the butcher block.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          But guns ARE for killing people and that’s EXACTLY why we should keep at least a few accessible!

          • Wally says:

            Absolutely true. I have yet to find a gun with too much killing power.

            Probably not going to start with a lecture about the importance of a CNS hit. I think the venture would be more sucessfull with some 22s against paper plates, and maybe a conversation about life in conditon completely-farking-oblivious-permawhite.

  6. NightPaws says:

    I’m not too fond of .454 Casull. If I’m carrying something heavier, I’d rather it be .50AE or even the .500SW. (Those don’t have the kick and feel of getting one’s ass kicked as the Casull does.

    Usually folks I know have some sort of sling-able 12 guage when out hiking here (those 500 series Mossbergs are very popular). Slugs alternated with 000 buck tend to be the “bear cure.” Don’t get me wrong, I keep a sidearm too and make sure to swap to ammo for the four legged varment rather than the two legged variety when in the woods… I still like having something else nearby too.

    I’m bummed. I didn’t see anything this weekend other than a bunny, a dead bunny, and nearly 50 dead tires on the trip to Anchorage.

    At least we didn’t have to unload every gun outside of Denali anymore when traveling down the highway. That was just flippin’ rediculious.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      .454 Casull is a bit more than .50 AE, but a bit less than the .500 mag. I’m betting your experience with the .500 feeling “Less” than the .454 might just be the guns you fired the two out of. .500 S&W mag offers more muzzle energy (of course revolver loads can be tweaked to ridiculous levels) and a higher SAAMI pressure limit, which means a “snappier” recoil impulse. But generally I suspect you shot the .500 on one of the monstrous S&W X-Frames, vs. .454 which is often placed in smaller revolvers, and for their size I believe the SA revolvers tip the scales lighter than their DA relatives.

      I just really like .454, no good reason why.

      • NightPaws says:

        The .500 was on a far-nicer gun to begin with (thanks to an awesome coworker). It wasn’t on a gigantic frame, but it was a long barrel with better porting than the .454 I tried. Even so, the brass looks pretty nifty, and the piece I found this weekend at the range is going in an art project involving some pre-ban Polar Bear hide. If only I could find a pre-ban claw too…

        One guy who works with Joe swears the .454 is insane since he’s shot a few different calibers out of a mutual friend’s Desert Eagle (he has all of the conversions). I have no idea why but Carlo swears it’s true. I’m more concerned about picking up the .357 conversion for mine and then maybe worrying about the more oddball stuff since I’d REALLY like to start expanding my guns in a way that isn’t ungodly expensive to feed.

        Oh, and you’ll be proud. This weekend I kind of started looking into wheel guns. I shot a Ruger that wasn’t all that miserable to shoot. Plus I keep seeing a couple of shiny ones, and not having to worry so much about policing brass would be fan-freekin’-tastic at times.

  7. Thomas says:

    Last trip to Alaska, I carried a .375 Brno, next planned trip I’m taking one of the .338s most likely…

    Less convenient, but ACP is be marginal. Friend that works there contracting every summer carries one of these http://www.wildwestguns.com/copilot.html in .50 Alaskan everywhere he goes. There’s no such thing as killing a bear “too dead” but there is such a thing as “not dead enough”. Statistically, in human bear kills where a firearm is used the victim human gets off one shot, at best, often no shots fired. Cousin works for fwp.mt.gov …has pretty reliable data as he gets to go do clean-up when somebody has a bad bear day. He carries a .450 Marlin in the field, RIFLE.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      That .50 Alaskan looks kinda like a .50-70 +P….which would be a hell of a cartridge to bring back if you ask me!

      • Thomas says:

        I load my 50 by 2 & 4/10 to .50 Alaskan specs. Works good. One shot stops on every hog so far. Probably decently tumble a bear. 400 grain FN solids cruising along at ~2200. I could push it harder, as it’s a strong rolling block action, but I decided to “let my shoulder be my guide” as to what was “enough”. It’s perhaps less pleasant to shoot than my .458 Lott, dunno, gets the job done for sure.

        I like the .338 Garand a LOT though, so that’s the next Alaska trip rifle, pretty sure…If 5 fast rounds of .338 Winnie won’t kill it, I don’t know what will, short of a Ma Deuce πŸ™‚

        One of my best friends is a gunsmith in town with similar tastes and he’s got the .338 Winnie bug now too. It’s really just such a nice versatile KILL ANYTHING ON THE CONTINENT caliber and a bit flatter shooting than .375…

        If you’re gonna make a hole, why not make it a BIG ONE?

  8. SHAWN OH says:

    Personally I will stick with my Ruger 44 Mag ‘Hawk and my 12G 870, but…….thats if I ever enter bear territory, which I try to avoid πŸ™‚

  9. Pingback: Weer'd World Β» Bear Gun

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *