For those that carry Guns and Overlanding

[Matt.H]

You can legally carry firearms into National Parks (excluding certain administrative areas and buildings).

Some states have a requirement that you have a resident/non-resident permit from their state to do so. So even though you do not need a license to carry in Maine you do in some parks and state property. Be careful out there.

About Maine, from the National Parks Service.

• A permit is required to carry concealed
weapons. Some concealed-weapons permits
are recognized in multiple states, but many
are not. It is the gun owner’s responsibility to
know and understand what laws apply.

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/Firearms-in-IMRparks2-2010.pdf

 

[Dalko43]

Some states have a requirement that you have a resident/non-resident permit from their state to do so. So even though you do not need a license to carry in Maine you do in some parks and state property. Be careful out there.

About Maine, from the National Parks Service.

• A permit is required to carry concealed
weapons. Some concealed-weapons permits
are recognized in multiple states, but many
are not. It is the gun owner’s responsibility to
know and understand what laws apply.

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/Firearms-in-IMRparks2-2010.pdf

Yep, but that's applicable to pistols, not firearms in general.

Most states that have extensive federal lands (especially parks and wildlife preserves) allow for open carry of rifles and shotguns, as well as pistols. But it behooves the individual to check with the state's regulations.

My point really was that, barring any specific state laws, National Parks do allow people to carry firearms.

 

[FlipperFla]

We had a ****** moment while hiking in Nantahala N.F. in North Carolina. As we came around a bend in the trail we were approached by a guy in full military garb sporting an AR with a red dot site. This was years ago before ARs were as popular as they are now. Right off the bat I had a really bad feeling about him. First I thought ****** is a guy dressed in full military outfit right down to his boots doing with an AR and not even hunting season and you could tell he wasnt real military with long greasy hair. Playing Army? Prepper? Nutball? He came up to us and said he was lost and missed a trailhead to a waterfall. I could feel the hair standing up on the back of my neck. He was acting very strange. He pulled out a map and layed it on the ground, I made sure I stood behind him and not letting my back to him. I pointed out the trail to the waterfall which was the same direction he was walking which I thought was also strange. No thank you, nothing, just started walking down the trail where we just came from. My wife looked at me and said something is not right and I could see it in her eyes she was scared. I whispered to her if you see any red dots on our clothing shout it out. I slowly pulled my pistol , popped the safety off, being careful the keep it in front of me out of his view. We got about 20 yards down the trail and I turned around and he was GONE! There were no side trails where we were and the trail he was going to take was about a 1/4 mile back so apparently he went off trail and back into the woods. We still talk about it to this day. It was a very scary moment we will never forget.

 

[jadmt]

The nice thing about Montana, is everybody carries and you expect everyone to carry, maybe that is why people are friendlier LOL. We did the Rubicon trail and Dusy and we all carried. I did have a friend who carried up to Canada while traveling on his motorcycle and ended up shooting himself in the leg. It was about an international incident.

 

[DieselRanger]

You can legally carry firearms into National Parks (excluding certain administrative areas and buildings).

Black bears really don't warrant firearms, unless you're hiking in areas with lots of trash. But if you do carry, 9mm, while better than nothing, is not ideal.
.357 mag is generally considered a bare (no pun intended) minimum for bear (black and brown).
.44 mag is the called the go-to round for brown bear defense by a lot of internet experts. But I don't think most people are truly proficient and prepared to shoot that cartridge in a life-or-death, stressful situation, especially in a small, light-weight .44 platform. Those small .44's can literally snap roll right out of your hands, even with a deliberate grip.

I'll generally push people to .357 for that reason. At the end of the day, no pistol cartridge is truly optimal for dealing with large game. 12 gauge and centerfire rifles are exponentially better for such duties. Bear spray is very effective as well. Everyone just has to weigh the pro's and con's with their carry decisions.

Check out this article summarizing predatory bear attacks in AK and CAN. Most are from black bear, because they're more common. Bear Spray is just tabasco for a hungry brown bear, when it blows back in your face - don't even bother with bear spray. A hungry, 300lb black bear will barely feel a 9mm unless you happen to get lucky with a shot through the mouth or eyeball - otherwise he'll be mauling you as he's bleeding out, if you're only slightly less lucky. Bear attacks are rare - generally in the lower 48, black bear are more afraid of people than we are of them - I've treed several while mountain biking in Colorado, surprised some feeding on berries in New Hampshire, and watched others peel bark from downed trees in the Sierra from 50 yards away.

If you're in the northwest or AK and you're in Grizz territory, .44mag is a *minimum* - more like a .454 Casull or .444 Marlin / .45-70. And you need the strength and practice using it. You need something quick to draw/swing to target and that packs a punch to stop an 800lb brown bear at close range - a .44mag will not likely do the trick, nor will 000 Buck. And even then, at a full 35mph charge the bear is probably still going to get on top of you or take a good swipe or two before he bleeds out.

But, as others have noted, it's not usually wildlife of the four-legged kind one needs to be worried about.

 

[Dalko43]

Check out this article summarizing predatory bear attacks in AK and CAN. Most are from black bear, because they're more common. Bear Spray is just tabasco for a hungry brown bear, when it blows back in your face - don't even bother with bear spray. A hungry, 300lb black bear will barely feel a 9mm unless you happen to get lucky with a shot through the mouth or eyeball - otherwise he'll be mauling you as he's bleeding out, if you're only slightly less lucky. Bear attacks are rare - generally in the lower 48, black bear are more afraid of people than we are of them - I've treed several while mountain biking in Colorado, surprised some feeding on berries in New Hampshire, and watched others peel bark from downed trees in the Sierra from 50 yards away.

If you're in the northwest or AK and you're in Grizz territory, .44mag is a *minimum* - more like a .454 Casull or .444 Marlin / .45-70. And you need the strength and practice using it. You need something quick to draw/swing to target and that packs a punch to stop an 800lb brown bear at close range - a .44mag will not likely do the trick, nor will 000 Buck. And even then, at a full 35mph charge the bear is probably still going to get on top of you or take a good swipe or two before he bleeds out.

But, as others have noted, it's not usually wildlife of the four-legged kind one needs to be worried about.

For the record, brown bear have been killed with pistol cartridges as small as 9mm (Alaskan Guide Kills Brown Bear). So 9mm is definitely capable of killing a bear (either black or brown), though it can be argued it is not the optimal cartridge for such uses.

As for .44 magnum being a bare minimum for brown bear, I just have a hard time accepting that, especially since much of that is derived from internet wisdom (people on the internet who claim to know a lot but have little real world experience).

I've shot .44 magnum. It's not an easy cartridge to handle especially in a light-weight, portable platform (despite what many forum-goers will claim). And as you add some stress and time constraints to that scenario, accuracy tends to suffer even further for most people. It's also quite expensive compared to other handgun cartridges. I'm sure some people can achieve good accuracy with it given enough practice, but most people have neither the inclination nor the money to practice with that cartridge. .357 and 10mm, while offering a bit less energy, do usually enable better accuracy and quicker follow-up shots with most shooters. And both have proven themselves well capable of penetrating grizzly bone and hide, with the appropriate loads of course.

Also, there was a time (prior to the invention of .44 and the more powerful magnums) when hunters and explorers went into polar bear and grizzly territory with nothing but .357's, or sometimes less powerful cartridges. Those people didn't have any problems dispatching aggressive bear back then. So why did .357 magnum all of a sudden become an "inadequate" cartridge when the .44 was invented?

 

[2025 deleted member]

Dalko makes some good points. I find my glock 20 easy to shoot, so follow-up would be fairly accurate. Hard cast buffalo bore will do the job. I bet no one, not even dirty harry could make a follow up shot on a grizzly with a 44 mag. The second shot would be so high its not even funny.

 

[dwh]

Dirty Harry used a light .44 Special load.



And for the record, I'm 6'4" with 14" forearms. I can rapid fire 240gr. .44 mag all day no problem. But then, I'm a gorrilla who used to show off shooting skeet one-handed with a 12ga with a pistol grip. And usually didn't miss.

Gods above, I hope I never have to actually open fire on a charging bear. By the time you get to that point, it's almost certainly too late.

 

[DieselRanger]

If you punch enough little holes in something living, it will die given enough time - time a victim may not have. What good is killing the animal if it kills you in the process, or you die before you get to medical treatment? In the referenced article, the couple was lucky that the bear didn't take the bite it was close enough to deliver. Had that happened, at least one of them would likely have died.

The idea of large-bore weapons is to punch one large, deep hole in a critical area. Additionally, while the shooter was able to get off seven shots into the bear without hitting his clients, the chances of him hitting his clients went up with each shot. And it's a good thing the bear wasn't coming from him - because he may only have got 1 or 2 shots off before the bear was on him. Then what?

The energy imparted by a single large-caliber bullet at high velocity will do a lot of damage. If the guide had been carrying a larger bore, such as a .454 or maybe a .44mag, the shot to the neck may have been the only one he would have had to take - maybe one more follow up to center of mass to hasten the process. A .454 Casull will deliver up to 2,000lb-ft of energy whereas even the BuffaloBore 9mm +P 147gr only maxes out at around 400lb-ft. A .44mag heavy BuffBore +P - if you can find a firearm that can safely handle the pressure - delivers about 1600lb-ft.

I'd much rather be prepared to make one good shot to a critical area - the face, behind the shoulder, base of neck, rear of skull - than have to rely on emptying my magazine, consistently maintaining a clear field of fire, and risk being low on ammo deep in the backcountry. Strength and accuracy can be remedied with exercise and practice - two things you should be doing anyway if a) you spend time in the backcountry and b) if you own and regularly carry a firearm. Know your firearm, and know yourself. If you're 110lbs soaking wet and have wee hands, a 10mm semi-auto double-stack G20 may be more gun to handle than a .44mag Vaquero.

Before the advent of the repeating rifle, hunters, explorers, and fur trappers went into the wilderness with .50cal+ musket ball or black powder rifle. And they "loaded for bear" when they were in bear territory - meaning extra powder for higher velocity. And they only had one shot to kill - follow-up shots were impossible with a single-shot muzzleloader.

 

[Buliwyf]

We had a ****** moment while hiking in Nantahala N.F. in North Carolina. As we came around a bend in the trail we were approached by a guy in full military garb sporting an AR with a red dot site. This was years ago before ARs were as popular as they are now. Right off the bat I had a really bad feeling about him. First I thought ****** is a guy dressed in full military outfit right down to his boots doing with an AR and not even hunting season and you could tell he wasnt real military with long greasy hair. Playing Army? Prepper? Nutball? He came up to us and said he was lost and missed a trailhead to a waterfall. I could feel the hair standing up on the back of my neck. He was acting very strange. He pulled out a map and layed it on the ground, I made sure I stood behind him and not letting my back to him. I pointed out the trail to the waterfall which was the same direction he was walking which I thought was also strange. No thank you, nothing, just started walking down the trail where we just came from. My wife looked at me and said something is not right and I could see it in her eyes she was scared. I whispered to her if you see any red dots on our clothing shout it out. I slowly pulled my pistol , popped the safety off, being careful the keep it in front of me out of his view. We got about 20 yards down the trail and I turned around and he was GONE! There were no side trails where we were and the trail he was going to take was about a 1/4 mile back so apparently he went off trail and back into the woods. We still talk about it to this day. It was a very scary moment we will never forget.

Sounds like your average Army Lt. He's likely still out there lost and wandering around.

 

[Dalko43]

The idea of large-bore weapons is to punch one large, deep hole in a critical area. Additionally, while the shooter was able to get off seven shots into the bear without hitting his clients, the chances of him hitting his clients went up with each shot. And it's a good thing the bear wasn't coming from him - because he may only have got 1 or 2 shots off before the bear was on him. Then what?

The energy imparted by a single large-caliber bullet at high velocity will do a lot of damage. If the guide had been carrying a larger bore, such as a .454 or maybe a .44mag, the shot to the neck may have been the only one he would have had to take - maybe one more follow up to center of mass to hasten the process. A .454 Casull will deliver up to 2,000lb-ft of energy whereas even the BuffaloBore 9mm +P 147gr only maxes out at around 400lb-ft. A .44mag heavy BuffBore +P - if you can find a firearm that can safely handle the pressure - delivers about 1600lb-ft.

As I said earlier, there probably is a very good argument against having 9mm as a dedicated bear-defense cartridge. It can work, but that's not the same as being well-suited for such duties.

That said, the trending mentality on the internet is that 'bigger is better' (insert sexual innuendo here) as it relates to pistol cartridges for bear-defense. I disagree:
1) Because I don't think most shooters are capable of handling .44 magnum, especially in a stressful scenario. It's one thing to take your time shooting at a 10 yard paper target...it's an entirely different experience when you're attempting to get 1-2 quick shots off on a charging animal.
and
2) There are other cartridges which are effective and have less recoil to contend with (10mm and .357 being good examples).

I'd much rather be prepared to make one good shot to a critical area - the face, behind the shoulder, base of neck, rear of skull - than have to rely on emptying my magazine, consistently maintaining a clear field of fire, and risk being low on ammo deep in the backcountry.

You can still take good, well-aimed shots with a 10mm semi-auto....just because you have the capability to dump an entire magazine with inaccurate fire doesn't mean you have to. There are also hardcast bulllets for 10mm, and .357 mag, which offer adequate performance on large-bodied animals.

Before the advent of the repeating rifle, hunters, explorers, and fur trappers went into the wilderness with .50cal+ musket ball or black powder rifle. And they "loaded for bear" when they were in bear territory - meaning extra powder for higher velocity. And they only had one shot to kill - follow-up shots were impossible with a single-shot muzzleloader.

You're missing my point here. .357 magnum preceded the invention of .44 magnum by some 20 years. Prior to .44 mag, .357 was considered a go-to cartridge for wilderness defense; according to many outdoor writers, hunters and guides, it provided effective penetration on large-bodied animals, including brown bear and polar bears. But in present times, with the plethora of magnum cartridges (some of which are highly impractical to shoot), it is now considered by many armchair experts to be "inadequate" for bear defense.

What changed between back then and now? Did the bears get bigger and meaner?

 

[DieselRanger]

As I said earlier, there probably is a very good argument against having 9mm as a dedicated bear-defense cartridge. It can work, but that's not the same as being well-suited for such duties.

That said, the trending mentality on the internet is that 'bigger is better' (insert sexual innuendo here) as it relates to pistol cartridges for bear-defense. I disagree:
1) Because I don't think most shooters are capable of handling .44 magnum, especially in a stressful scenario. It's one thing to take your time shooting at a 10 yard paper target...it's an entirely different experience when you're attempting to get 1-2 quick shots off on a charging animal.
and
2) There are other cartridges which are effective and have less recoil to contend with (10mm and .357 being good examples).

If you can't handle the firepower, then practice, practice, practice until you can, or travel with someone who can. Lots of sporting clays, cans on strings waving in the wind, that sort of thing, will help you learn the art of leading a target.

You can still take good, well-aimed shots with a 10mm semi-auto....just because you have the capability to dump an entire magazine with inaccurate fire doesn't mean you have to. There are also hardcast bulllets for 10mm, and .357 mag, which offer adequate performance on large-bodied animals.

True, but you have to *know* that you can take a well-aimed shot in that situation. Firepower can make up for a less-than-optimal placement. If you aim for the face and blow out a shoulder, you want that animal to stop or at least slow down for a second - maybe that will happen with a 10mm, I don't know. .44mag, sure, probably. .454, no question.

You're missing my point here. .357 magnum preceded the invention of .44 magnum by some 20 years. Prior to .44 mag, .357 was considered a go-to cartridge for wilderness defense; according to many outdoor writers, hunters and guides, it provided effective penetration on large-bodied animals, including brown bear and polar bears. But in present times, with the plethora of magnum cartridges (some of which are highly impractical to shoot), it is now considered by many armchair experts to be "inadequate" for bear defense.

What changed between back then and now? Did the bears get bigger and meaner?

.357 Magnum is an effective *hunting* round at moderate ranges for large game - when the game isn't feeling threatened or even knows you're there. You can then track the blood trail until you find it and finish it off if it's still suffering. But it just will not create a large enough wound channel or do enough damage to major joints or bones in a large animal to stop it in a charge. Black bear, sure, maybe, but not a grizzly, polar bear, or a 1,000lb moose. You will get mauled/gored/stomped before it expires - there was a report I read some time ago that details defensive use of firearms against large animal attacks and those with standard pistol and even small-caliber hunting rifle rounds generally were injured or killed in sudden bear attacks, even after hitting their targets. Survivors stated that an injured animal (quite logically) became more aggressive when injured but not incapacitated. I'm still looking for it. The .454 Casull was developed in part for bear defense and large game - the faster you can drop your target, the more humane it is. The goal is to stop the attack, but personally I would prefer not to leave a seriously wounded animal to suffer and die - I'd rather be able to put it down quickly. And once a bear becomes aggressive or predatory towards humans once, especially in backcountry/sidecountry areas that see high human traffic, policy is generally to hunt it and destroy it.

 

[Dalko43]

If you can't handle the firepower, then practice, practice, practice until you can, or travel with someone who can. Lots of sporting clays, cans on strings waving in the wind, that sort of thing, will help you learn the art of leading a target.

Practice with a cartridge that costs 2x as much .357 or 10mm (two cartridges that are already relatively expensive) and has significant recoil?

From my own experience, .44 mag is not a cartridge that I would want to practice with extensively. I'm sure a large, +6" stainless steel revolver with a weighted barrel would mitigate some of the recoil issues, but that's not exactly the type of pistol I'll be lugging around in the woods. I'm sure some people can and do practice enough to be proficient with a .44 mag. Most probably don't and they're better off using a lighter cartridge.

.357 Magnum is an effective *hunting* round at moderate ranges for large game - when the game isn't feeling threatened or even knows you're there. You can then track the blood trail until you find it and finish it off if it's still suffering. But it just will not create a large enough wound channel or do enough damage to major joints or bones in a large animal to stop it in a charge. Black bear, sure, maybe, but not a grizzly, polar bear, or a 1,000lb moose. You will get mauled/gored/stomped before it expires - there was a report I read some time ago that details defensive use of firearms against large animal attacks and those with standard pistol and even small-caliber hunting rifle rounds generally were injured or killed in sudden bear attacks, even after hitting their targets. Survivors stated that an injured animal (quite logically) became more aggressive when injured but not incapacitated. I'm still looking for it. The .454 Casull was developed in part for bear defense and large game - the faster you can drop your target, the more humane it is. The goal is to stop the attack, but personally I would prefer not to leave a seriously wounded animal to suffer and die - I'd rather be able to put it down quickly. And once a bear becomes aggressive or predatory towards humans once, especially in backcountry/sidecountry areas that see high human traffic, policy is generally to hunt it and destroy it.

Go read about the development of .357 mag. It was widely popular at the time of its conceptions (1930's) with outdoorsmen and hunters because of its ability to handle big and dangerous game. When it first came out, no one considered "inadequate." But with .44 mag and all the other magnum cartridges being developed in later decades, that mentality has changed for some reason.

.44 magnum and the other bigger pistol cartridges are likely more effective on dangerous game...I'm not arguing otherwise. But that doesn't mean that .357 mag or 10mm are "inadequate" by comparison.

Shot placement matters, regardless of the cartridge being used. .44 mag isn't some magic cartridge that will take a bear out of action irregardless of the shot location. Central nervous system and/or heart are the areas that need to be targeted in a bear confrontation. A .44 mag is well capable of penetrating and destroying those areas of the bear, but so is a .357 mag or a 10mm with the appropriate ammo.

You don't need a .44 mag or .454 casull to be safe in bear country. Most of the people who claim that you do need those heavy-hitters have never even been in a bear confrontation and I doubt that most of them could accurately shoot such cartridges. There is a lot of internet BS and hype surrounding this topic.

 

[crazysccrmd]

Shot placement matters, regardless of the cartridge being used. .44 mag isn't some magic cartridge that will take a bear out of action irregardless of the shot location. Central nervous system and/or heart are the areas that need to be targeted in a bear confrontation. A .44 mag is well capable of penetrating and destroying those areas of the bear, but so is a .357 mag or a 10mm with the appropriate ammo.

.

Central nervous system and skeletal structure. A bear with a hole through heart and lungs will still kill or seriously injure you before dying. I carry 305gr hardcast in my .44 and my wife carries 180gr hardcast in her .357. The intent is for the heavy, non-deforming bullet to punch through and hit either CNS (brain/spine) or major joints (shoulder/hip) to kill, stop or slow the bear for subsequent shots.

We both carry 4” barreled revolvers which is the best combination between shootability, bullet velocity and ease of carry.

 

[Dalko43]

.. And practicing is punishing... but I have from time to time...But how much do you really need to practice for a 10-15' shot..

In case of emergency, break glass...

It's like health insurance.. I hope I never use it...but good to have...

Disagree vehemently with that mentality. Shooting at a stationary target at your own pace is an entirely different experience from shooting at something that wants to kill you.

You should be practicing frequently with a firearm if you intend to quickly employ it in a life-or-death scenario, especially if the firearm is one that has a heavy recoil. LE, military, and responsible gun owners practice all the time for that reason.

Central nervous system and skeletal structure. A bear with a hole through heart and lungs will still kill or seriously injure you before dying. I carry 305gr hardcast in my .44 and my wife carries 180gr hardcast in her .357. The intent is for the heavy, non-deforming bullet to punch through and hit either CNS (brain/spine) or major joints (shoulder/hip) to kill, stop or slow the bear for subsequent shots.

We both carry 4” barreled revolvers which is the best combination between shootability, bullet velocity and ease of carry.

Skeletal structure is a broad and ambiguous target. Shooting a bear in the leg bone for example may not be a fatal or even crippling shot. Moreover, you have to be very precise with those shots to actually connect with and break a bone.

Central nervous system (brain, spinal column at base of skull) or heart shot will kill the bear relatively quickly. Lung-shot animals can persist for a little bit. Heart-shot animals go down almost right away (assuming the heart in its entirety is destroyed). As well, even if the shot itself doesn't necessarily destroy those areas of the bear, the hydrostatic shock imparted in that area can often stun or delay the animal to allow for more follow-up shots.