I agree with you that it should be a large bore weapon, something like .45-70 or .44 magnum.
If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either". With this mindset it is better to carry some salt and pepper and prepare yourself to be tastier :)
I used to be with a woman that was on the extreme end of "it won't happen", and in some cases was outright denial of bad things happening
mention any precaution and she would always resort to saying that Americans are so afraid of everything
so I did a little introspection while I was with her, and there was a bit of truth to what she said, I've had great experiences that I would have avoided, and it is clear that many of my American friends and colleagues are overly cautious on a cultural level
but at the same time you still have to call it. some of the stuff she was talking about was dumb and fraught with disaster.
Perhaps, but this is unclear. I've seen tests that corroborate and contradict the statement that "a .22LR can't penetrate a big bear's skull".
I've read more stories about .22LR's killing bears than the wielders perishing. It could be argued that people eaten by animals don't do much writing. Truth be told, I can't find data to pin to the bushy mustachioed alaskan guides who suggest "don't go in bear country without something that shoots ammo with a "4" in it.
Since I love being obstinate, I'm definitely comfortable arming myself for the Alaskan wilds with my 7.62x51mm rifle, and 10mm side arm. If I ever made it in the paper, maybe the "4" police would get curious enough to learn more about metric.
If you're going into country inhabited by natures best predators, it's a risk analysis problem that should be evaluated individually. If the idea of getting devoured by gnashing teeth and claw is more unsettling than the rarity of such events is comforting, might I suggest defense in depth?
Air horn, bear spray, and yes -- maybe a high velocity long range paper hole punch. I wouldn't recommend the last one lightly. Carrying a gun with which you aren't intimately familiar and well practiced is stupid and dangerous.
The data shows that way more than caliber, shot placement determines "stopping power". That's why practice is more important than your gear. Being able to bring a gun up to eye level, sights aligned, from muscle memory, has to be learned through practice. There's also flinch control, malfunction clearing, gear proofing, accurate and prompt follow up shots.. It's a lot of things you have to learn if you want to carry right. (Start with the 4 rules..)
Whose the better guide into Alaska. Pat, who hits up the local range regularly, IDPA sometimes, and carries a self assembled custom .223, or Robin who saw happy feat, bought a .50cal and decided to take the fight to the bears?
Robin pays 16$ a round and only carries match grade armor piercing incendiary. Robin's gun should be able to bore a kevlar bear stem to stern, from 2 miles away, through a cinder block wall.
The answer is Pat.
Human stupidity is way more dangerous than any natural predator.
Can you please explain this?
Edit: Another google search just found a 2012 article [0] that is pro Bear spray to protect against Bears. (I did not read it all...) I'm more worried about Mountain Lions in my area. I do not carry bear spray or a gun. But I have thought about it quite a bit because I love being out there... The problem with Mountain Lions is that they are stealth hunters. So you you may not know they are there until it's too late. "Horizontal jumping capability from standing position is suggested anywhere from 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 ft)." [1]
[0] https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-wa... [1] https://twistedsifter.com/2010/09/top-ten-cougar-facts/
The second study is lacking in determining any important factors of the firearm, just splitting into handguns and long guns is not telling anything about efficiency. In 25% of the cases the user was not able to use the gun (it was empty, safety on or too close) which is highly dependent of the magazine capacity, loading and safety mechanism (ex: bolt action), readiness (empty chamber of full chamber), carrying style (on the shoulder, in a closed holster, open holster). For the other cases caliber, one of the most important parameters in stopping power, is missing.
So the studies are an interesting reading, but not proof of comparative efficiency.
Note that during an overwhelming majority of the encounters in the bear spray study, the bears were classified as "not aggressive." Contrast this with the firearms study, which specifically looks at bear attacks in which the human defended him/herself with a firearm.
One should not be surprised that the study of bear attacks yields more injuries to humans! Most of the bears in the bear spray study were doing things like rummaging for food, not attacking people.
The best takeaway, in my opinion, is in the conclusion of the firearms study:
>Firearms should not be a substitute for avoiding unwanted encounters in bear habitat. Although the shooter may be able to kill an aggressive bear, injuries to the shooter and others also sometimes occur. The need for split-second deployment and deadly accuracy make using firearms difficult, even for experts. Consequently, we advise people to carefully consider their ability to be accurate under duress before carrying a firearm for protection from bears. No one should enter bear country without a deterrent and these results show that firearms are not a clear choice. We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms.
Carry the deterrent or deterrents of your choice, try to avoid encounters in the first place, and practice using whatever it is that you carry, because neither firearm nor spray works if you miss.