shooting experience???"s

[ram1000]

My shooting experience is very limited- hunting only with a bow, never a rifle.  I moved to the NW about 20 years ago from San Diego and the only shooting allowed there was "drive by", of which I never participated.  My question is which would be more effective against a large charging animal (bear or ) a 44 magnum or AR15 assuming shots were placed toward the head?

[sqlbullet]

Well...on paper if I could be assured a CNS hit and just needed penetration, M855 should penetrate pretty good.  Similar sectional density to a 240 grain 44 mag but a lot more velocity.  I think Mk262 77 grain would break up before it got to the brain.

That said, I would never go up against a bear or a moose on the charge with an AR-15.  If I were picking a rifle platform from my safe, I would pick my AR-10 in 358 Winchester loaded with my 300 grain cast lead "thumper" from NOE. Or my 300 Win Mag.  Hits harder, but slower to cycle and only 4 shots.

Between the two options you list, to be honest, you are screwed.  Neither is going to reliably stop a charging BIG animal before they mortally wound you.  I guess I would pick the 44 mag.

[ram1000]

If I were to ask about the 44 mag being enough during the "Dirty Harry" era I think I might have gotten a different answer.  Seems like every ten years you need a bigger gun for such an event.  The 44 is only my back up gun for my can of bear spray anyway, I guess you simply can't protect yourself under some circumstances!!! 

[sqlbullet]

44 mag is great bear deterrent.  But you don't deter a charging bear.

[ram1000]

I guess its back to hiking in my tennis shoes...

[DM1906]

You don't have to be fast. You only need to not be the slowest.

[inv136]

As was mentioned, based on your choice of weapons - AR15 or .44 magnum- I'd pick the .44 magnum. But, considering that is a handgun ( a defensive weapon), you are still at a disadvantage. If I had a choice I'd be carrying the .44 magnum (as a backup) and at the very least a .308 rifle or a .12 ga. shotgun with slugs(might be OK for a Black Bear, but, not a large Brown Bear or a Grizzly). 

[ram1000]

As was mentioned, based on your choice of weapons - AR15 or .44 magnum- I'd pick the .44 magnum. But, considering that is a handgun ( a defensive weapon), you are still at a disadvantage. If I had a choice I'd be carrying the .44 magnum (as a backup) and at the very least a .308 rifle or a .12 ga. shotgun with slugs(might be OK for a Black Bear, but, not a large Brown Bear or a Grizzly).

Would a 5.56 go through the skull without bouncing off, assuming a direct hit?
Would you feel safe with a surface to air missile?

[Mike_Fontenot]

Would a 5.56 go through the skull without bouncing off, assuming a direct hit?

I've been told by my son (who lives in SE Alaska, and has to deal with lots of huge brown bears) that a head shot on a bear is almost always a bad idea.  From head-on, the skull has a gradual slope that tends to deflect the bullet.  He says the best target is the front shoulder, or the rear hip-joint if it's visible ... disabling a major joint immobilizes them, and that's what is most important in the case of an angry bear.  The brown bears just get madder and madder, each time they're hit ... they never give up until they can't move.

As far as the gun, you can't have enough (at least for the browns).  Probably nothing beats a 12-gauge with slugs.

[sqlbullet]

Would you feel safe with a surface to air missile?

Let's be serious.

Bears can fly.  You need a surface to surface missile.  And a really good targeting system.  Also, not the best for close quarters.

[Patriot]

.44 is plenty for NW bear. I lived in Washington state for many years and have seen tons of black bear taken with a .44. I've personally dropped a 300 pound black bear with a 10mm back in 2007 and obviously a .44 outperforms 10mm. Head shots are not necessary.

.44 will do the job easy. You can find videos on YouTube.

[ram1000]

.44 is plenty for NW bear. I lived in Washington state for many years and have seen tons of black bear taken with a .44. I've personally dropped a 300 pound black bear with a 10mm back in 2007 and obviously a .44 outperforms 10mm. Head shots are not necessary.

.44 will do the job easy. You can find videos on YouTube.

I'm more concerned with a Grizzly in Idaho or Montana as I do some camping out of my truck with a truck bed tent.  I figure it will be dark when they come a knocking also so I won't see them till i'm face to face.  There''s where the bear spray is the best product I suppose.  I just read an article about a guy being woke up by a bear chewing on his skull!  I think I need a home invasion alarm system around my camp as well.  I would be interested in hearing about wolves and the size of a weapon as well.  Just cause its interesting, I'm sure my 45 ACP would take care of a wolf.

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
  There''s where the bear spray is the best product I suppose. 
[...]

Maybe, but I've heard reports of browns wallowing in grass that has been sprayed with bear-spray!  Might be effective if you can get a lot of it in their eyes.

[my_old_glock]

My shooting experience is very limited- hunting only with a bow, never a rifle.  I moved to the NW about 20 years ago from San Diego and the only shooting allowed there was "drive by", of which I never participated.  My question is which would be more effective against a large charging animal (bear or ) a 44 magnum or AR15 assuming shots were placed toward the head?

IMO - An AR-15 would be better" It's really no contest. You can carry 30 round magazines in an AR (if your state allows it). You get 6 shots from a 44 revolver, or maybe 10 shots with a Lever-gun.




.

[my_old_glock]

I guess its back to hiking in my tennis shoes...

Or with a Slower and Larger friend. Maybe take them to lunch at a BBQ place and "accidentally" spill BBQ sauce on their shirt.



.