Post
by timmy » Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:49 am
This is an interesting subject and I wish I had available an interesting article I've xeroxed from some old publication -- maybe an old Guns Digest or Handloader -- about the US Forest Service examining the usefulness of rifles for personnel in Alaskan Bear country. It would be most interesting to post the article here in its entirety, but I don't have it in electronic format.
This article ran about 30 tests on a variety of guns for use un Alaskan bear country. Some that I can recall included a 12 gauge shotgun with slugs, .30-'06 in several bullet weights, .338 Magunum, 375 H&H, 458 Winchester, .45-70, 444 Marlin, and yes, the 44 Magnum handgun. The idea here was to identify an alternative to the commonly carried 375 H&H, a proven performer, due to the need for smaller people and women to handle the rifle in the back country. For these folks, a 375 H&H was a bit too much to control. Various aspects of each choice were considered, including penetration and bullets.
Here, I'd like to note that most of us have observed (correctly, I think) that bullet placement is the #1 most important aspect to successfully shooting game effectively, especially dangerous game. (Not because dangerous game are more vulnerable to a well placed shot than non-dangerous game, but because the consequences of a poorly placed shot in the case of dangerous game is likely to be -- well -- dangerous!)
Again, most of us have noted that proper shot placement is paramount over cartridge selection, but we all recognize that cartridge selection is very important, as well.
Another aspect that has not received so much attention here is the construction of the bullet. Those of us who study African hunting have read time and time again about certain cartridges having poorly constructed bullets, which break up on some dangerous game like elephant, rhino, or buffalo, and fail to deliver a fatal wound in a timely manner, despite being correctly placed and coming from a cartridge that, on paper at least, has enough power to do the job in most people's books.
So I think that bullet construction plays a part as important as cartridge selection when discussing the dispatch of large grizzly/brown bears. Indeed, those old African hunters seem to discuss the cartridge and the bullet as one subject, using terms like "an effective killer" or "a reliable killer," and we ought to pay attention to both aspects of a cartridge, as well.
I will note that some folks here in the USA have long hunted deer with a .357 Magnum handgun. This cartridge was developed because some folks felt that the .38 Special was lacking in power for police work. Here, I'd note that the .38 Special was very commonly used in police work into the 70s, at least, in the USA, and that the .38 Special, especially when fired from shorter barreled revolvers, was more or less on par with the 380 ACP. The 357, on the other hand, is more in the 9mm parabellum range and above in power.In Europe and the USA years ago, such weapons were thought to be excessively powerful for police work, although that has changed in our present day.
Please recall that a "bad guy" is going to weigh between 60 and 100 Kg, whereas a buck is likely to weigh up to twice as much as that. Furthermore, when hunting, one might well expect to encounter longer ranges than in a defensive situation. So, what is normally considered a fearsome weapon when talking about shooting a person becomes something very marginal when taking something the size of a deer in the field.
Now, when considering the grizzly bear, one should keep in mind that he is much much larger than the ordinary buck, especially those of the Alaskan type. Furthermore, while North America does not have the "armored" dangerous big game like Africa (elephant, rhino, and buffalo), a grizzly has a massive bone structure, thick skull, layer upon layer of thick muscle, and a dense matting of hair, all of which serve to impede the penetration of a bullet.
So, while a grizzly may not have battleship-scale armor like the African species, he is a lot different from deer when considering how to penetrate to a vital area. Remember, an enraged grizzly needn't survive being shot to kill a hunter -- all he needs to do is stay alive long enough to do you in to spoil your day, and one swipe of his massive paw is sufficient to turn your head into a polo ball. At that point, whether the bear eventually dies from your gunshot or not becomes rather moot. I think we can all agree on that.
44 Magnum pistol bullets are not meant for big game hunting -- indeed, most bullets used in handgun ammunition are not meant for that kind of use. Handgun bullets usually are made to expand quickly, due to their relatively slow speed, compared to rifles. The availability of rifle cartridges in handguns like the Thompson Contender and Encore is not just for the extra performance even a lowly .30-30 gives over a 44 Magnum -- it's also because a .30-30 will have a true hunting bullet, rather than one intended for target shooting, police work, or self-defense. There is a world of difference between these two kinds of bullets, and the tougher and more dangerous the game, the more this makes a difference.
For instance, what happens to a 44 Magnum bullet, meant to expand in a human at 15 to 25 yards, strikes the rib of a grizzly at 50 yards? (Or, does one propose to let the bear come closer before shooting??) In this instance, a 44 Magnum bullet is not going to be dependable for continuing on intact to destroy the heart, is it?
From remembering the test I referred to, the 444 Marlin was rejected for just this reason. The 444 Marlin cartridge is essentially a 44 "Super Magnum," and is the 44 magnum with an extra long case and larger powder charge suitable for the longer barrel of a rifle. At the higher bullet velocities this cartridge affords, the tests found the 44 Magnum bullets to be undependable, breaking up when encountering solid objects. This, to me, is proof of the unsuitability of the 44 Magnum bullet: it is made too light for dealing with such large, dangerous game as a grizzly, much less an Alaska-style grizzly, because it is either too slow to ensure sufficient penetration or is not built robust enough to survive impacts with bone at velocities that will give sufficient penetration.
I hardly think any serious, knowledgable hunter would take the field with a 44 Magnum handgun to hunt grizzlies, whether in Alaska or anywhere else. As for the person who carries protection against grizzlies because that person works or travels through grizzly country, my opinion would be that being satisfied to carry a 44 Magnum as protection against such animals is a bit short sighted.
By the way, the test, as I recall, named cartridges for use against grizzlies to be ones that are no surprise: 458 Winchester, 375 H&H, and the like were ranked at the top of those tested. The minim reliable cartridge was considered to be the 338 Winchester (with a heavy bullet, as I recall), again, hardly a surprise. Ballistically and bullet-wise, the 44 Magnum is a mere pipsqueak compared to such rounds.
As far as shooting a 44 Magnum, they are not such a big deal. I will admit that my hands are larger than normal, which gives some advantage to shooting such guns. My experience was with a Model 29 Smith & Wesson with a 6" barrel. It was easier to shoot than the loads I'd worked up for my Ruger in 45 Colt, 23.5 grains of 296 under a Hornady 250 grain. But then again, the large Smith & Wesson is ergonomically superior to the old Colt "plow handle" grips of the Si ngle Action Army and its clones.
I think that it's wise to recognize that there are many different kinds of guns for many different kinds of jobs. That's my opinion on this matter.
“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”
saying in the British Royal Navy
