# S&w 29



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

So after spending 3 terrifying nights in the woods I finally broke down and bought a S&W 69 44mag for Black Bear Protection. 
Now I pray this is enough gun for the job because I can't buy anything else for a long time.
To all the 44 Mag owners out there what loads do you use for Self Defense against a Black Bear or the 2 legged varmints. 
I currently have the Winchester 240 gr JSP for protection.

Sorry I made a mistake: The thread should say S&W 69. I wanted the 29 but the 69 was lighter but 1 less bullet capacity so I will have to do it in 5 shots. 
I am scared of the recoil so I think I will practice with the special rds then move up to magnum rds later.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

That load will do just fine, if it is placed properly. Just like in any other defensive use, placement is everything. A heavy, hard-cast bullet is preferred by many, but just because some folks think there is a slightly better choice, that doesn't mean everything else is useless (it isn't).

The S&W Model 29 is a classic and versatile revolver; defensive uses aside, if you get some high-quality lightly-loaded target ammo, you'll probably be surprised at how accurate one can be (given a good operator, of course).

EDIT 5-27: I see the model we were discussing has changed. While the model 69 is probably just as mechanically accurate as the 29, it will recoil considerably harder, and for most folks, that will make it much more of a challenge to shoot well. Your idea of using .44 Special ammo initially is a good one, and I might even suggest an intermediate step of practicing with a mid-range/power .44 Mag load before stepping up to the full-house .44 magnum ammo in such a small/light revolver.

I looked at several S&W model 69 revolvers when they first appeared in my area, and was very disappointed by the roughness and weight of the DA trigger pull. I think it approached "unusable" in the first two revolvers I handled, and only improved slightly to "horrible" on the third and fourth examples I checked. At that point, I lost interest in getting one, at least until S&W can make it borderline shootable as it comes from the box.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

It's more than enough gun. Hold on.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

You may want to spend some time shooting the magnum loads if that is what you plan on using for defense. I Found myself starting to flinch when when shooting full magnum loads. I'm talking completely off the paper flinch. Took some time and practice for me to be able to shoot 44 mag well. I prefer to shoot it outside as opposed to an indoor range as well. I really never gave the load I use much thought as long as it says 44 mag should be good.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

The venerated .44 Magnum is not that bad on recoil. I have owned three, and still own one, but granted all of them were heavier than your Model 69. The muzzle blast is going to be something to consider with that shorter barrel length. And you are going to give up a little muzzle velocity was well. But it is still a very formidable revolver and with the right load and good shot placement, can take down a black bear.

If the animal is broadside to you, aim form his foreleg shoulder mass. If he is facing you, shoot just under the chin. You want to bring this beast down quickly and breaking his bones while messing up his lungs and heart is the way to go.

I've seen pictures of moose, lions, Alaskan brown bear, and even elephants taken with the .44 Magnum. You can bet someone was behind these hunters with a rifle designed for the chosen game. This caliber has taken most of the big game animals on the planet.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

.44 Mag is 'interesting' in a _heavy_ revolver. Mind saying why you chose S&W over Ruger?


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

Buffalo Bore, CorBon or Double Tap loads for just about any critter you'll likely encounter.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> .44 Mag is 'interesting' in a _heavy_ revolver. Mind saying why you chose S&W over Ruger?


All three of the .44 Mags I've owned have been Rugers and the one I still have is a Ruger Redhawk 5 1/2" barrel cicra 1985. I installed a set of Omark springs, Pachmayr grips, and the (then) Ruger "Hunting" sights. Very accurate and pretty comfortable to shoot.

I used to load for .357 and .44 Magnum rounds so my .357's and .44's have had a good variety of loads through them.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

That's the gun I would carry in bear country. My puzzlement was directed to the OP. Guessing that he may have gone for 'name brand'.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> That's the gun I would carry in bear country. My puzzlement was directed to the OP. Guessing that he may have gone for 'name brand'.


The S&W Model 29 is a classic and one fine revolver, and of course it is the original .44 Magnum. I have handled one with the 8 3/8" barrel but never fired one. The S&W 69 the OP got looks like a fine gun and I doubt he will be disappointed with it. The one less round might give rise for concern but then it is quite a bit lighter so packing it along is going to be easier.

If he had waited a bit and check in here first, I might have suggested that he Glock 20. Sixteen rounds of the very hot Double Tap or Underwood 10mm ammo is nothing to sneeze at and would probably be my choice.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

This is a good video comparison 10mm and 44 mag. Definitely see why a hollow point would not be good for something like a bear skull.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

*Do not use Buffalo Bore "Heavy .44 Magnum +P+ Ammo - 340 gr. L.F.N. - G.C. (1,478 fps/M.E. 1,649 ft. lbs.").* It should only be used in specific guns that are designed to handle that type of ammunition. S&W .44 Magnums are not listed. The manufacturer (Buffalo Bore) issued warnings regarding this:



> This new load is designed ONLY for certain firearms. They are as follows; Ruger Red Hawk, Ruger Super Red Hawk, Ruger Super Blackhawk or Vaquero, Freedom Arms Model 83, Taurus Raging Bull, Colt Anaconda and Dan Wesson Revolvers. Suitable rifles include T/C Encore, "modified" Marlin 1894 (see next paragraph), Winchester 1894, any rifle with a falling block action and the Handi Rifle. We get hundreds of emails asking if this load can be fired in S&W revolvers or some firearm other than what is in the above list. The answer is *NO*. The above list is all inclusive. If some shooters continue to irresponsibly use this product, we may have to discontinue it and that would be unfortunate as it is our best selling 44 mag. load and it gives great performance for those that use it responsibly however, as is always the case, irresponsible use of any product ends up penalizing responsible users. It would also be wise to read our "Technical Article" on "Dangerous Pure Lead Cowboy Bullets", before using this (ITEM 4D) product.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

hillman said:


> .44 Mag is 'interesting' in a _heavy_ revolver. Mind saying why you chose S&W over Ruger?


I like a Ruger but cost factor was the issue. The gun shop sold it to me for 730 + tax and he was asking 799 + tax so I jumped on it but I guess I should have look to see how much the Red Hawk was. I love my gp100 .357!
The trigger on this S&W is very good.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> The S&W Model 29 is a classic and one fine revolver, and of course it is the original .44 Magnum. I have handled one with the 8 3/8" barrel but never fired one. The S&W 69 the OP got looks like a fine gun and I doubt he will be disappointed with it. The one less round might give rise for concern but then it is quite a bit lighter so packing it along is going to be easier.
> 
> If he had waited a bit and check in here first, I might have suggested that he Glock 20. Sixteen rounds of the very hot Double Tap or Underwood 10mm ammo is nothing to sneeze at and would probably be my choice.


My next gun will be the Glock 10mm. I have to save up for 6 months before I can get another gun. I have been using the G23 & 36 with Underwood Extreme Penetrating bullets because the biggest bears in GA/SC rarely reach 250 lbs and I was confident that a rd to the head and neck till he be dead would get achieved by solid hits to nervous system. I like the fact that the 44 will break bones and grit and still reach deep enough but I am afraid of the recoil & blast. It will be a gun I have to shoot till I get unafraid of it.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

shaolin said:


> I like a Ruger but cost factor was the issue. The gun shop sold it to me for 730 + tax and he was asking 799 + tax so I jumped on it but I guess I should have look to see how much the Red Hawk was. I love my gp100 .357!
> The trigger on this S&W is very good.


The Model 69 is slimmer, weighs 10 to 15 ounces lighter and will be much easier to pack and generally will have a better trigger. You did well. If it were me with what your planning on using it for I opt for the 69 over any semi 10mm.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

rustygun said:


> This is a good video comparison 10mm and 44 mag. Definitely see why a hollow point would not be good for something like a bear skull.


I hunted with a handgun for years and when I was using one of my .44 Magnums, I loaded it with a Speer 225gr JHP pushed by 23 grains of Hercules 2400 powder. In my Redhawk 5 1/2" barrel, this came in around 1500 fps as I recall and was very accurate. This was for deer and there were black bears in the area. Were I to specifically be hunting black bear, I would have used the 240gr Speer JSP with 22 grains of 2400. I still have some of these loads.

The Sierra JHC would have been okay for black bear. I tested that load in thoroughly damped fine sand and spaced 2x4's and it was fine.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

shaolin said:


> My next gun will be the Glock 10mm. I have to save up for 6 months before I can get another gun. I have been using the G23 & 36 with Underwood Extreme Penetrating bullets because the biggest bears in GA/SC rarely reach 250 lbs and I was confident that a rd to the head and neck till he be dead would get achieved by solid hits to nervous system. I like the fact that the 44 will break bones and grit and still reach deep enough but I am afraid of the recoil & blast. It will be a gun I have to shoot till I get unafraid of it.


Back in the late 50's or early 60's, don't recall which, Skeeter Skelton, a famous gun writer, and a friend of his tested the new .44 Magnum on slaughter steers in Texas. Shots were made to the head of the animals with the Keith 240gr load and a .30-06 rifle cartridge. In every case, the .44 Magnum penetrated further than did the .30-06 bullet and there's a good reason for this. The rifle bullet travels at a higher velocity and is longer. This translates into more rapid expansion and a large frontal area hitting the resistance of the animal's internal structures. This slows it down more quickly than what happens with the revolver ammunition. This is not to say that a .44 Magnum is more powerful than a .30-06, which of course it's not. Just that physics come into play.

Don't worry about recoil. A firm grip on the gun will work fine. I've shot thousands of loads in .44 Magnum and have yet to find any that gave me concern. It's not a cannon, just one of the best hunting handgun calibers you can own.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> The Model 69 is slimmer, weighs 10 to 15 ounces lighter and will be much easier to pack and generally will have a better trigger. You did well. If it were me with what your planning on using it for I opt for the 69 over any semi 10mm.


For packing in the woods and trails of the eastern U.S., I'd go with a Glock 22. If I was in bear country, which most of these areas are, I would go with the Glock 20. These guns are light, wear very well on the hip, and have good capacity. Add in a couple of extra magazines and one would be very well equipped against most any threat. We even have black pumas here in western Virginia so there are some dangerous 4-legged predators which abound in our mountain forests.

I love my Ruger Redhawk but I also love to have capacity. Stoking one of those guns I just mentioned with the right loads and you would be very well armed.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> For packing in the woods and trails of the eastern U.S., I'd go with a Glock 22. If I was in bear country, which most of these areas are, I would go with the Glock 20. These guns are light, wear very well on the hip, and have good capacity. Add in a couple of extra magazines and one would be very well equipped against most any threat. We even have black pumas here in western Virginia so there are some dangerous 4-legged predators which abound in our mountain forests.
> 
> I love my Ruger Redhawk but I also love to have capacity. Stoking one of those guns I just mentioned with the right loads and you would be very well armed.
> \


Another forum I read had a long thread on this general subject. It was/is western country specific, so grizzly and cougar attacks were focused on. One debated factor was the real utility of gun capacity. If you can - _at most_ - hope for two aimed rounds...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Another forum I read had a long thread on this general subject. It was/is western country specific, so grizzly and cougar attacks were focused on. One debated factor was the real utility of gun capacity. If you can - _at most_ - hope for two aimed rounds...


Grizzlies are a whole different matter than black bears. I would not want anything less than a .44 Magnum loaded with the most powerful loads I could find. A .454 Casull or perhaps a .480 Ruger would be even better.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Grizzlies are a whole different matter than black bears. I would not want anything less than a .44 Magnum loaded with the most powerful loads I could find. A .454 Casull or perhaps a .480 Ruger would be even better.


Not arguing that. My point (not the one on my head) is that black bears move very fast when they want to. Somewhere over 90% of the time that's away from a man in the woods, but those other times a 10 round magazine won't get more than 20% emptied.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Not arguing that. My point (not the one on my head) is that black bears move very fast when they want to. Somewhere over 90% of the time that's away from a man in the woods, but those other times a 10 round magazine won't get more than 20% emptied.


Yes they can move fast... a lot faster than most people realize. However, they do move slowly when going downhill. I don't want to argue with a black bear and I certainly don't have a Timothy Treadwill syndrome.

This black bear was just inside of the entrance to the new residential development where my youngest daughter and her family live. I would guess its weight to be not far from 300 pounds. They live two miles, in a straight line from our house. And their development is very nice with single family home prices in the 1/2 million range.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

I know that I have more to fear from bees or feral dogs but I worry that a bear will eat my buns while sleeping and I wish that wasn't the case. I wanted a round that would break bone and travel deep and I only hope 5 rds will do it. Most black bears are wimps and even a 9mm will make them run if they are hit according to one site. I don't want anything smaller than a 357 mag with 158 gr bullets. I never want to shoot a bear not even for food or sport but if one is acting aggressive with me on Mt LeConte I will shoot it just like the rangers did. I put the blame on people for feeding them but sometimes we are the food and it has to be a horrible way to go.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

shaolin said:


> I know that I have more to fear from bees or feral dogs but I worry that a bear will eat my buns while sleeping and I wish that wasn't the case. I wanted a round that would break bone and travel deep and I only hope 5 rds will do it. Most black bears are wimps and even a 9mm will make them run if they are hit according to one site. I don't want anything smaller than a 357 mag with 158 gr bullets. I never want to shoot a bear not even for food or sport but if one is acting aggressive with me on Mt LeConte I will shoot it just like the rangers did. I put the blame on people for feeding them but sometimes we are the food and it has to be a horrible way to go.


I think you have 'aholt' of the situation. The 'wimp' thing is way too unreliable to, ah, rely on though. There is a 180 grain WFNGC bullet from Cast Performance (I get mine at Midway) in .357 or.358. With a sensible charge behind it, and Properly Placed, it ought to work. Unless the bullet - any bullet - finds the central nervous system though, there is apt to be a time interval. What the beastie manages to accomplish during that interval may be of interest.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

hillman said:


> Not arguing that. My point (not the one on my head) is that black bears move very fast when they want to. Somewhere over 90% of the time that's away from a man in the woods, but those other times a 10 round magazine won't get more than 20% emptied.


And.......if that's the case, in which I fully agree with the premise you would want that 20% to have the most muzzle energy within reason .44magnum>10mm and by a very wide margin.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Just remember, recoil is your friend. The more, the better. :shock:


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> Just remember, recoil is your friend. The more, the better. :shock:


It may not be your friend, nor enjoyable, but if something very big is attempting to eat you in a hurry, who the heck would care or probably even notice?

Here's a guy that probably needed to change his pants after this encounter, and as hillman posted the stats, this story indeed coincides. No time to aim, just barely enough time to pull the trigger.

http://www.adn.com/article/20090813/twig-snap-alerts-dog-walker-charging-grizzly

"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?" Quote by Clint Eastwood.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Wow. That's a hell of a story, _denner_. Thanks for the link.

The follow-up text, which mentions the different situation on Kodiak Island, rings a bell I've been banging on for years. Where bears are actively and systematically hunted in season, they don't tend to wander into settlements when people are about.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

If you're on a bear's dinner list, felt recoil would be the very last issue on my list, if I survived long enough to have one.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Just ask Timothy Treadwell. Oh wait, we can't. He was the main course for a bear's dinner.

My older daughter and her, then, boyfriend now husband, and their dog were walking in a wooded area one day close to Charlottesville, VA when they came upon a female bear and her cub. The five of them stared at each other for a few moments, then the mother bear turned and headed back in the other direction with her cub following her. That can be scary.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Just ask Timothy Treadwell. Oh wait, we can't. He was the main course for a bear's dinner.
> 
> My older daughter and her, then, boyfriend now husband, and their dog were walking in a wooded area one day close to Charlottesville, VA when they came upon a female bear and her cub. The five of them stared at each other for a few moments, then the mother bear turned and headed back in the other direction with her cub following her. That can be scary.


Damn right, scary. Your people gave the sow a chance to figure out the situation, and her cub wasn't isolated or threatened. The dog could have tipped things the other way; and didn't. I might have lit a candle first chance I had - and I ain't Catholic.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

I had a friend chase a cub and the mama was hidden in the bushes. I begged him to leave the cub alone but he wanted pictures. He is lucky the mama didn't tear him a new one. The only gun I had was a 9mm with fmj at the time but it would have taken a lucky CNS shot to stop it. I am glad I have a gun now that can do more. I worry about muzzle blast and recoil but I will not care if I had to shoot in a SD situation. I need some practice with 44 special rds for sure and then some with the magnums. I regret not having 6 shots or more but I have a feeling that if I can't do it in 5 rds then I am going to be bear food.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Damn right, scary. Your people gave the sow a chance to figure out the situation, and her cub wasn't isolated or threatened. The dog could have tipped things the other way; and didn't. I might have lit a candle first chance I had - and I ain't Catholic.


The dog was a fairly large Rottweiler and yes, he could have made a very negative difference in things. Fortunately, he was pretty well trained. As far as Catholic, the boyfriend, now husband is Catholic and my daughter joined that denomination prior to their wedding. I'm quite sure she was most thankful that nothing bad happened.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

shaolin said:


> I had a friend chase a cub and the mama was hidden in the bushes. I begged him to leave the cub alone but he wanted pictures. He is lucky the mama didn't tear him a new one. The only gun I had was a 9mm with fmj at the time but it would have taken a lucky CNS shot to stop it. I am glad I have a gun now that can do more. I worry about muzzle blast and recoil but I will not care if I had to shoot in a SD situation. I need some practice with 44 special rds for sure and then some with the magnums. I regret not having 6 shots or more but I have a feeling that if I can't do it in 5 rds then I am going to be bear food.


Your first line of defense is going to be your situational awareness. Never let that down when you are hiking in bear country. Next up is going to be your ability to get that gun into action. Don't cover it up, unless legally you have no choice. Carry it openly and at a position where you can pull it quickly if need be. The choice of holster is also going to be critical. You want something that secures your sidearm and at the same time, doesn't impede your access to that gun.

Lastly, practice, practice, practice. If you encounter a bear that is coming at you, you're not going to be able to fire that gun in single action mode and get off shots. Double action shooting is going to be your friend against a charging bear.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

When in bear country and packing a revolver for protection, I don't think I'd want to have one less round than the typical six. 

Speed-loaders! Anyone mention speed-loaders?


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

I watched some you tube videos of bear attacks after reading this thread. From some of the ones I seen you may also want to get some practice actually sh**ing your pants while pulling the trigger. Very impressive animal. Can run at speeds of 30mph for a good distance, that compares to the "fastest" humane at 28 mph for a short sprint. I would say 5 shots is plenty doubt there would be time for more and I would want those shots to count.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

rustygun said:


> I watched some you tube videos of bear attacks after reading this thread. From some of the ones I seen you may also want to get some practice actually sh**ing your pants while pulling the trigger. Very impressive animal. Can run at speeds of 30mph for a good distance, that compares to the "fastest" humane at 28 mph for a short sprint. I would say 5 shots is plenty doubt there would be time for more and I would want those shots to count.


I suspect that in the potential timeframe, 5 rounds is probably 2 extra. Unless bears attack in packs... (jeez, there's a pleasant thought).


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

shaolin said:


> So after spending 3 terrifying nights in the woods I finally broke down and bought a S&W 69 44mag for Black Bear Protection.
> Now I pray this is enough gun for the job because I can't buy anything else for a long time.
> To all the 44 Mag owners out there what loads do you use for Self Defense against a Black Bear or the 2 legged varmints.
> I currently have the Winchester 240 gr JSP for protection.
> ...


What a brave statement, "I'm scared of the recoil". Thank you.

You will , in my opinion have that 44mag mastered in a very short time.

Where heavy ear protection, where a pair of leather gloves, wear a full face shield if possible. What could go wrong? And Shoot them 44mags. 
:smt1099


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> What a brave statement, "I'm scared of the recoil". Thank you.
> 
> You will , in my opinion have that 44mag mastered in a very short time.
> 
> ...


"Where heavy ear protection, where a pair of leather gloves.."
He won't be doing this in the woods but definitely on the ear protection when practicing. Why the leather gloves?

*"..wear a full face shield if possible."*
What's this and why?

Not being facetious... just curious.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I'm looking at three recoil sensitive factors. Grip,hearing,face protection.

Leather gloves will absorb some recoil and any sharp edges, plus it will add strength to your grip.

Face protection Is something I feel *may*add to a better sense of security . I sometimes think recoil sensitivity could be related to an exposed face, not just the eyes.

I have worn a motorcycle helmet n shield, firing a gun that I wasn't quite sure of in the past. 
Never looked into a full face protector at the gun store, I always had hard hats screen shields, plastic shields n motorcycle helmets lying around.

As your confidence builds , your trust in the gun builds, eliminating recoil sensitivity


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> Leather gloves will absorb some recoil and any sharp edges, plus it will add strength to your grip.


I put thousands of rounds through both my 7 1/2" Redhawk and 4" S&W Model 29 without wearing gloves, no issues. I bought a 2 3/4" Redhawk Talo no big deal I thought until I ran eighteen 240 grain JHP's through it. The back strap beat the hell out of the web of my hand drawing blood. *I think I'll wear gloves next time.* I was really surprised at how much of a difference that 2 3/4" barrel made. In hindsight and taking into consideration that everyone has their own sensitivities to recoil. Practicing with a pair of padded leather gloves would be a good idea. They make shooters gloves specifically for that purpose.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

denner:


> http://www.adn.com/article/20090813/...arging-grizzly


Damn! After all the times I've been out in the desert, I haven't even come across a rattlesnake. A lot of lizards, been startled by roadrunners but no rattlers. The roadrunners hunt the rattlesnakes. They are my friends, along with an S&W Governor and a Glock G30 .45ACP.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

SouthernBoy said:


> Just ask Timothy Treadwell. Oh wait, we can't. He was the main course for a bear's dinner.
> 
> My older daughter and her, then, boyfriend now husband, and their dog were walking in a wooded area one day close to Charlottesville, VA when they came upon a female bear and her cub. The five of them stared at each other for a few moments, then the mother bear turned and headed back in the other direction with her cub following her. That can be scary.


Timothy Treadwell pushed his luck much too far. No firearm, and not even bear spray. He predicted his own death days before by a mean old starving bear that he knew and filmed, was a previous problem bear that charged him once in the past, and eventually got them. Timothy and his girl friend stayed abnormally late in that last season and while the rest of the bears in the area left to hibernate that mean one stayed behind. Coupled with the fact a severe lack of rainfall, a dismal salmon run, and a dismal berry crop, sealed their fate just one day before they were to depart..

Black bear mothers with cubs are much less protective and much more tolerant if you were to have a chance close encounter. A Grizzly mother and her cubs in a chance close encounter, uh oh.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> Timothy Treadwell pushed his luck much too far. No firearm, and not even bear spray. He predicted his own death days before by a mean old starving bear that he knew and filmed, was a previous problem bear that charged him once in the past, and eventually got them. Timothy and his girl friend stayed abnormally late in that last season and while the rest of the bears in the area left to hibernate that mean one stayed behind. Coupled with the fact a severe lack of rainfall, a dismal salmon run, and a dismal berry crop, sealed their fate just one day before they were to depart..
> 
> Black bear mothers with cubs are much less protective and much more tolerant if you were to have a chance close encounter. A Grizzly mother and her cubs in a chance close encounter, uh oh.


Treadwell projected anthropomorphic characteristics upon "his" bears and would talk cutesy to them... like talking to human toddlers. I suspect this tended to distance his conception of their very real potential danger from how he grew to view them.

Your assessment sounds very astute to me.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> I'm looking at three recoil sensitive factors. Grip,hearing,face protection.
> 
> Leather gloves will absorb some recoil and any sharp edges, plus it will add strength to your grip.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

From a mild concern about recoil and black bears he now has an intense bear phobia where's a motorcycle helmet and gloves and smells like poop at the range. I think we helped him enough.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

SouthernBoy said:


> Treadwell projected anthropomorphic characteristics upon "his" bears and would talk cutesy to them... like talking to human toddlers. I suspect this tended to distance his conception of their very real potential danger from how he grew to view them.
> 
> Your assessment sounds very astute to me.


Yes, i agree, likewise, his story intigued me. I did some research, read official reports, and watched 'the movie "Grizzley Man" a couple times. In the movie you will see the bear that got them.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

That 'story' describes a fuckedupedness so self-destructive that it nauseates me. I hope you guys wear out the subject soon. It is the mother holding her baby over the fence to the bitch wolf (who bites the baby's face off), multiplied 10X.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)




----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> Yes, i agree, likewise, his story intigued me. I did some research, read official reports, and watched 'the movie "Grizzley Man" a couple times. In the movie you will see the bear that got them.


Yes I saw most of that movie when it was shown on The History Channel (I think that's the one). I didn't know whether I should feel sad for him and his lady or just chalk it up to a mixture of ignorance mixed with over confidence and some self-aggrandizing thrown in for good measure. The local folks obviously thought he was out there and just didn't know that with which he was dealing.

Bears are not human, they don't have names, they are not loving creatures, they are very large and dangerous predatory carnivores, and they have no clue what a human is and that it is distinctly different from other mobile air breathers. To them we are an annoyance, a curiosity, a threat, and at times a potential meal.

Anyone who thinks differently is more than likely fooling themselves. And anyone who projects humanistic characteristics upon them may have watched too many Disney movies.


----------



## casurvivor (Jan 23, 2015)

I don't know what a model 69 is ? when i boar hunt I use a 629 classic, one day I encountered a black bear while vacationing in a cabin in Tennessee, all I had on me was a Glock 23, I shot, on purpose, a few feet ahead of the bear and it took off in a hurry.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

It's only recoil.

What doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. :smt033


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

casurvivor said:


> I don't know what a model 69 is ? when i boar hunt I use a 629 classic, one day I encountered a black bear while vacationing in a cabin in Tennessee, all I had on me was a Glock 23, I shot, on purpose, a few feet ahead of the bear and it took off in a hurry.


The Model 69 is a (mostly) stainless steel, 5-shot, L-frame .44 Magnum, with a 4.25" barrel, and has a non-reflective bead-blast finish. It has a round-butt grip frame, but comes from the factory with rubber grips that "convert" it to a square-butt profile. From a distance, at a glance, or when seen in a photo, it is easily mistaken for a 4" model 66 in .357 mag.

Specs here:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57769_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Quick overview video on YouTube:


----------

