The pictured S&W would be among my top choices for a self-defense handgun where bear were involved. Hard to beat a .44 magnum performance.
To be honest, however, having shot a 4" .44, it's not an easy gun to handle. Not everyone would be able to accurately place shots with it, certainly the follow up shots would be difficult for some. And they sure wouldn't want to spend time at the range with it...
It's all a matter of practice and grip and stance..
Thanks - I've got no issue with a .44 magnum. That orand a .454 Casull. Never fired anything bigger.
My point wasn't about what I can shoot - I'm fine with large bore guns.
My point was that the .44 is in that realm of guns that exclude many shooters. I don't care how much grip and stance training you give someone, there are many shooters who will not be able to handle a .44 Magnum. I'm not picking on my kid brother when I say this, he's former military, 6'5", has hands that can palm a basketball, owns several dozen guns and shoot regularly, but he's not accurate with his 4" Model 57 S&W (a .41 Magnum).
Big, strong, well trained. Still doesn't like it.
While a .44 might be the minimum, ballistically, recommendation for bear defense, I would argue (as I have countless times before) that the largest caliber that the shooter can handle, in a weapon that they have selected, is the best choice.
For example, the Danish Sirius Patrol, in Greenland, examined and tested .44 Magnum Revolvers as an alternative sidearm for Polar Bear defense. They came back to the Glock 20 (in 10mm) as the caliber/weapon that their soldiers (not small, not weak, not poorly trained) were best able to employ.
Caliber discussion can be interesting, academically, but how the shooter/caliber/weapon performs is paramount.
