Well, the name of the thread is "Minimum Calibers for Kodiak Brown Bear"....what that means to me is not what's ideal for them, or what we would choose on a once in a lifetime hunt, but rather what's the smallest "minimum" caliber you can safely and humanely kill them with; not what's perfect. I wouldn't know what that is to be honest. So many of them have been killed with 30-30's and 30/06's,etc. ...
Fair enough. The title does ask for a minimum. My problem with an absolute minimum is that there isn�t one. People argue convincingly that, if a 7mm RM or 30-06 can do something, then the right bullet from a .270 Win can do the same most of the time. True. However, then you legitimately can say that anything a .270 Win can do, a .25-06 can do most of the time. True. Then you can say that anything a .25-06 can do, a .243 Win can do. True. Then you can say that anything a.243 Win can do, a .223 can do. And anything a .223 can do, a .17 can do. And anything a .17 can do, a .22LR can do at reasonable range. The Inuit have taken thousands of brown bear with .22 cal. centerfire rifles at really close range. It�s not a good choice for modern hunting of brown bear, especially if you are hinting BB rarely at great cost and not in your backyard.
Think of people. Reagan was shot with a .22LR in 1980. In his late 70s, he didn�t even know he was shot for about 30 minutes. He would have died if he had not been taken to GWU Med. Ctr. If Hinckley had shot him with a .44 Mag in the same place (lungs), he likely would have died fairly quickly. A .22LR could be a minimum for anti-personnel shooting, but it�s considerably inferior to even a 9mm Para.
Bears can�t be different. A .270 can work with a good shot, but as 458 has suggested, a .458 WM works a lot better. It�s common sense. A .22LR is great on a squirrel. But less so on a deer. A .270 is great for a 150lb deer or even a 500 lb elk, but perhaps less than ideal for a 1,110lb brown bear.
Accuracy in the face of recoil is a different matter. If one can�t shoot a medium bore well (either because of a disability or because of lack of diligence and training), then that hunter is better off with the lighter caliber. But, I, likely like many others, have trained myself to shoot medium bores well. If you do so, and have one, it is better in terms of terminal performance.
If I could only shoot a .270 accurately (which may be true someday), I would be happy to hunt brown bear with one. It may fall within some gray area of a minimum caliber, but it�s obviously less than ideal for an animal potentially weighing more than 900lbs, especially if it is a difficult/expensive hunt.
I�ve shot a large bear with my .375 Wby. But I�ve also shot water vessels and wet, muddy berms with it. It�s MUCH more violent that when I do so with my .308 Win., my 7mm Wby, my .300 WM, etc� Much more violent. People at the ranges (with their own guns chambered in .270 or greater) gasp when they see it. It�s different. It matters. If you don�t want to, or can�t shoot something like that, it�s fine to hunt giant animals with something less. But, as I said, I�d rather shoot a Mk. VI Tiger with a 90mm long-barreled gun than with a short 75mm gun. Bigger is better when you are facing big game. Unless it degrades your accuracy, and, at least up to the .375 Wby in the field, it does not degrade mine and many others.
In other words, if you can shoot a pie plate at 200 yds with a .375 H&H etc ... its a better option for brown bear. If not, for whatever reason, a .270 Win is fine, but less ideal to me.
A bigger/deeper cavity on larger animals works better even if not a terrible gut shot, which no one would recommend with any caliber.
For example, a .270 will stop a cape buffalo (a little bigger than a large BB) if you do your part, but you're not allowed by law to even attempt it in most places. There is a reason for that.
