HikeArizona.COM

So if I went to Glacier, is it legal to borrow a friends gun to have with me? I believe in AZ I don't need a permit or any kind of registration, so he can give me a gun and I can drive around with it and carry it free of fear of legal trouble. What about if I cross state lines and go through Utah, Idaho, and Montana, what then? In the Park, I can carry in the back country with out issues, right, it goes by your home states laws, so I wouldn't need a permit in the park, right?

Al_HikesAZ wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Is a .45 small? Golly gee, I thought that was a good size.

Bears have thick skulls and dense bones. Even a .45 bullet can bounce off the skull or deflect off a bone and miss the vital organs.

Another point about this - the .45 is not a terribly good round ballistics-wise. Couple that with the short muzzle you have on a handgun, and the velocity of your bullet drops. Lower speed = lower kinetic energy = less damage and less distance. There is a reason why most people don't hunt bears with a handgun (even that crazy guy I saw on youtube with a .400 Nitro Express handgun). Rifles are going to be more of a "sure shot" - higher velocity and greater range and accuracy. Maybe not reasonable to tote around a rifle, you think, but there's a reason why a rifle, not a handgun, is standard issue on scientific expeditions to polar bear country.

A 44 magnum, using 300 or 310 grain bullets would yield adequate stopping power for most North American mammals, Bear included. While not exactly, light, a pistol is more portable than a rifle. Getting one into a NP is probably easier than a rifle, even with the new law that went into effect this year. I haven't tried bringing in a rifle so if someone tries (without a hunting permit) please update...

You're much better off with the spray against a bear. Ask an NPS Ranger if he would spray a bear or try to shoot it...don't take my word for it.

PageRob wrote:

Al_HikesAZ wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Is a .45 small? Golly gee, I thought that was a good size.

Bears have thick skulls and dense bones. Even a .45 bullet can bounce off the skull or deflect off a bone and miss the vital organs.

Another point about this - the .45 is not a terribly good round ballistics-wise. Couple that with the short muzzle you have on a handgun, and the velocity of your bullet drops. Lower speed = lower kinetic energy = less damage and less distance. There is a reason why most people don't hunt bears with a handgun (even that crazy guy I saw on youtube with a .400 Nitro Express handgun). Rifles are going to be more of a "sure shot" - higher velocity and greater range and accuracy. Maybe not reasonable to tote around a rifle, you think, but there's a reason why a rifle, not a handgun, is standard issue on scientific expeditions to polar bear country.

I'm not going to get into this on this forum but one tour in the sandbox carrying a Beretta 92F was enough to make me switch to .45 and never, ever look back at 9mm.

Before we all start making gun recommendations, I remind the HAZ community that I'm borrowing, not buying.

Borrow a Canon and stun 'em with the flash

Look into the spray.

jeffmacewen wrote:I'm not going to get into this on this forum but one tour in the sandbox carrying a Beretta 92F was enough to make me switch to .45 and never, ever look back at 9mm.

Oh, I'm not touting 9mm, 10mm, or anything else. Just simply stating that .45 is not the best ballistics-wise. As you say, though, maybe not the forum.

Rifle may not be as easy or as portable as a handgun, but it does have other advantages that a handgun doesn't. That is all I am saying.