This thread goes on and on, and in some ways resembles the thread on Hi-Vel's reticle-truing device.
The original poster didn't ask whether the 7mm Remington Magnum was enough for brown bears. Instead he asked whether he should load up some 175 Partitions or 160 TSX's for a friend of his who planned to use his 7mm Remington Magnum on a brown bear hunt.
The second post, per usual, was some guy who totally ignored the question and said the guy should take a .338 or .375 instead. The next step was for a bunch of people to post THEIR preferences, of course not limiting it to the 7mm, .375 or any other round.
By now we have heard from a bunch of people, including many who've never even seen a grizzly or brown bear in the flesh, much less hunted one--and several who have hunted them, including one of the most experienced outfitters for really BIG brown bears in the business, because his guiding area holds not only more browns during the salmon runs than any other place in Alaska, but some of the biggest.
Now we're getting to the point where some people are insisting that because they're fine with the recoil of a .375, that's obviously the best choice. Which is exactly what happened to the Reticle-Tru thread, when some people said they'd never needed one, or preferred some other method, so obviously anybody who prefers to use a Reticle-Tru is blind, incompetent or gullible.
As I pointed out in that thread, humans aren't all the same in their ability level a scope reticle. Similarly, they're not all the same in recoil tolerance. Some who are recoil tolerant (as apparently I am, since I've used not just the .375 H&H but various rounds from the .338 Winchester Magnum to .416 Rigby on a lot of big game) apparently think this means anybody can shoot harder-recoiling rifles well.
Phil has repeatedly pointed out that he much prefers clients who can shoot accurately with the rifle they bring, because the vast majority of wounded bears he's had to follow up have been due to recoil the hunter couldn't handle. He's also listed several hunters who successfully used cartridges considered completely inadequate by many who posted here, with bullets apparently also considered inadequate. He's also repeatedly said that a .338 or .375 is a very fine choice--IF the client can shoot one well.
My experience in observing numerous other hunters is the same as Phil's: While a few can handle pretty stout recoil, most can't. And like Phil I've seen plenty of other hunters in action, partly due to some guiding, but partly due to spending lots of time with a lot of other hunters, including a month-long cull hunt in Africa where two dozen other hunters showed a wide variety of recoil tolerance. All had previously hunted considerably, but by far the vast majority of wounded animals were due to hunters who pulled shots with harder-kicking rifles, NOT because of inadequate cartridges or bullets. One hunter even admitted he couldn't handle the recoil of his 9.3x62 after a few days, so switched to his 7x57, and quit wounding animals, taking gemsbok and zebras with one shot each. Others were more stubborn, like the guy who brought a lightweight .300 magnum and ended his safari by shooting a big kudu through the jaw. (It was found a couple weeks after the guy left.)
That trend also been noted many other hunters who spent considerable time observing other hunters in the field, including Finn Aaagaard, who said in his experience only about 1/3 of his clients could handle the .300 Winchester Magnum. A long-time guide I know here in Montana is even less generous, saying around 20% can shoot .300's straight.
Obviously some who've posted here think anything less than a .375 isn't adequate, and a few have even said anybody who can't handle the recoil shouldn't hunt brown bears. Do they actually think that if they continue to insist that THEY would bring a .375 that somehow Phil will cave and say, yeah, you're right, anything less is inadequate? He's already said the .375 is one of the best choices--if the hunter can shoot it accurately.
The original poster hasn't even logged onto the Campfire since the day he posted. He posted twice, once for the original question, and then once specifically asking again about the 175 Partition and 160 TSX, because his friend's guide, like Phil, said he was fine with the 7mm.
If the OP original question would of been answered and nobody else would of advised what they would use this thread would of died way to soon. Were is the entertainment in that?
I've always been different with one foot over the line.....
