Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve Bell's avatar

As per pistol defense versus grizzly bear: Glock 20 Loaded: 1120 grams=2 1/2 lbs.

Sirius Dog Sled Patrol - "The standard SIG210 Neuhausen sidearm was recently replaced by the 10mm Glock 20, as the stopping power of multiple 9mm rounds proved to be insufficient against a polar bear."

Which begs the question, Will the G20 w/buffalo bore be enough?

We had to consider these questions on a recent trip to Tongass back country.

We did a lot of back packing and encountered grizzly bears with no threats.

Gear weight became an important issue. Gear gets wet. I get fatigued.

Just map your article on GVWR onto the human machine and it all adds up.

I carried my EDC G-19 w/buffalo bore and we each had bear spray.

You Have to carry bear spray, but I might leave the pistol home next time just because of weight. But if it's a day hike in bear country I'll be carrying.

Both the pistol and bear spray are problematic in a direct charge.

But we are carrying a pistol instead of a rifle because of weight and choosing the cutoff point between convenience and weight versus ability to stop a high speed direct charge.

I've been false charged and that bear head is a moving target. I would have shot at that sow w/cubs if I'd been armed. That day it all worked out.

Dave's avatar

A very interesting article from a viewpoint I’ve never really considered or needed to think about. I’m typically an anti-handgun type of guy, with the thinking that if I were a hunter (I’m not) I’d invest in a rifle, and if I were worried about home defense (I’m not) I’d invest in a pump-action 12-gauge.

I see the appeal of target shooting, but living in suburbia and rarely hiking anything beyond state and national park trails I never considered a handgun as anything other than unnecessary. I appreciate them as machines and quality design, but it’s interesting to see the scenarios you outline where they are of legitimate use.

44 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?