Seems that with the passage of concealed carry in national parks where legal, there have been some, shall we say, issues.
First up, we have one Jerry Ruth. Mr. Ruth was on his own in Yellowstone NP and was attacked by a grizzly last month. Nearly losing his jaw in the fight, he shot and killed the bear with a .41 magnum revolver of undetermined manufacture. (My guess is it was a Ruger Blackhawk, but it may well have been a S&W Md 57, too.)
And now we have an incident in Denali NP in Alaska. Via the Fairbanks News Miner, we learn of a pair of hikers who had a run-in with a grizzly in a foul mood. What we know from the linked article is they used a .45 caliber pistol to defend themselves.
And in true hysterical fashion, we have an editorial from Anchorage high on emotion and rather short on logic or facts. Same with the commentors there. High on referenceto anatomical shortcomings, short on anything else.
Now, from what I have gleaned from discussions around the intertubz and with folks familiar with these types of situations is that neither cartridge is particularly suitable for large, pissed off bruin. While a .41 mag beats a .45 ACP, both beat a sharp stick hands down in fending off 1000 lbs of mad grizzly.
So now I have to ask, how would these situations ended had the ban on concealed carry not passed?