Huh? Guns ARE More Effective for Bears than Bear Spray? (Guns vs. Bears Episode 3)

James Reeves
by James Reeves

In this episode of TFBTV – the third in a series about bear defense – James Reeves discusses the results of a new study that tends to prove that guns are, indeed, more effective than bear spray for deterring grizzly bears. But does that mean that you should ditch bear spray? Not so fast…


PLEASE check out our Patreon and Subscribe Star pages if you enjoy our program, and consider helping us at TFBTV out! We give away hundreds of dollars of gear a month to our supporters!

NOTE: These giveaways are not affiliated with, associated with, or in any way endorsed by YouTube and TFBTV is solely responsible for the giveaways mentioned in this video and this description. No purchase required for gear worth over $250.


««« SPONSORS »»»

Please Support Them! They help make our videos possible.

Ventura Munitions –

Federal Premium –

Blue Alpha Gear –

Top Gun Supply –


Want to join the TFBTV chat room? Use our Discord Invite:


James Reeves
James Reeves

Owner, Neutral Ground Gun Co. NRA/Louisiana State Police certified concealed weapons instructor, 2012-present Maxim Magazine's MAXIMum Warrior, 2011 TFBTV Executive Producer Champion, Key West Cinco De Mayo Taco Eating Competition Lawyer Instagram: gunshorts Twitter: @jjreeves

More by James Reeves

Join the conversation
2 of 46 comments
  • Julius Ebola Julius Ebola on Apr 07, 2020

    Hopefully this helps to red pill the gun community on the liberal bias that's absolutely rampant in the scientific community, academia, and virtually all Western government agencies. Don't mindlessly believe the findings of a scientific or government study because you think that the scientific community and the government is objective. And don't be afraid to be skeptical because you don't want to be viewed as an anti-science moron. Once I realized that academia and the scientific community was literally conspiring to cover up politically incorrect truths about IQ science and mislead the masses, not only did that cause a crisis in my own progressive worldview, but it also caused me to be a lot more skeptical of the left-wing narratives that academia, the scientific community, the media, and the government were pushing onto the public. That *doesn't* mean that I'm anti-science, I'm just more aware of their agenda-driven activism.

    And how that relates to this topic is realizing that our government agencies that are responsible for wildlife protection/management have an inherent bias towards wanting to protect wild animals like bears and an inherent bias against civilians carrying firearms in public parks and other wild places and using them to defend themselves from wild animals. As a former far-left environmental activist myself (and I still am an environmentalist even though I'm Alt-Right now), I can attest to the fact that the modern environmental and conservationist movement is absolutely rife with excessive nature worship, misanthropy, and anti-gun views. Most modern environmentalists and conservationists (including within government agencies tasked with protecting the environment and wildlife) basically view humans as a cancer on this planet that is destroying the natural world. And while they aren't entirely wrong since human overpopulation and environmental destruction are very real problems, you have to understand that their bias is towards protecting wild animals like bears. And so they really don't want a bunch of yahoos running around in our parks and blasting wild animals into oblivion. And that's why they produce these BS studies which claim that pepper spray is way, way more effective than firearms for bear defense. They're basically trying to brainwash the public into thinking that they don't need guns while hiking and camping.

    And while I can sympathize with their motivations to a certain degree, at the end of the day, I personally wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I'm intentionally misleading the public in order to protect wild animals like bears. People are literally going to get eaten alive, including little kids, because they were mislead by U.S. government agencies into thinking that bear spray was more effective than firearms.

    Also, why didn't you mention the must-read article by Dean Weingarten in Ammoland about how surprisingly effective even relatively weak handguns are for bear defense?

    That article completely debunked all of the old school firearm and hunting community wisdom about how ineffective handguns are for bear defense. I thought that my choice to use a Glock 20 for bear defense was borderline irresponsible since virtually everyone in the gun community says that you need *at least* a .44 Magnum revolver, or even better a large-bore rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with solid slugs. But heck, after reading that article I might as well carry my SIG P365 in order to save a ton of weight.

  • Fintroll Fintroll on Apr 08, 2020

    That outdoor article is completely flawed. For the spray they had only 14 cases (with 12 successful) Yes that is an 85% success rate but the sample size is way too small to be relevant. (One different outcome and it jumps with over 7%). It is completely unsuitable to draw any real conclusion out of that, apart from the fact that bear spray seems to be a damn effective non-lethal option. So keep carrying bear spray, it probably is just as effective as a firearm.