Originally Posted by Speedo
I've heard a report of a griz killed with a .22 lr, bear had it's mouth open and the .22 went in through the roof of the bear's mouth an into the brain. I wouldn't even think to tell anyone to carry a .22 because a grizzly was killed with one.
I wouldn't carry a pistol after a bear as a first choice but I do carry a Ruger Super Redhawk .454 with a barrel cut to 5" loaded with Cor-Bon 300 gr. flat nose when I don't have a rifle with me.
Well, comparing a .22 to a .357 Magnum is a bit of silly logic strawman, is it not? Could you tell me with a straight face that a .357 is more similar to a .22 than a .44?
You do realize that the .454 Casull is fairly new on the scene, and plenty of bear attacks were stopped before it was invented?
I think it stands to reason that any rifle is better than any handgun...and, consequently, the largest handgun you can control is better than anything smaller. I would rather have a .357 Magnum than an empty hand because the .454 I had on hand was too heavy or intimidating. Of course I'd rather have a 338 Magnum than a .454.
I was relating a real-life example....which, to me, is worth a lot more than rambling internet opinions.
That said, I chose a 41 Magnum as the smallest I was comfortable with.