Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Minimum 'caliber' for Kodiak Brown Bear?

Okay. I have read scores of posts on brown bear hunts for every few that I have commented on. I could easily prove that. But it would be a stupid pissing contest.

When someone �spout[s] off like they know something,� you mean have an opinion? On a forum which is, I think, to solicit opinions. So that makes you �get this way�?



Sitka, I said, as you quoted, above that a .270 �absolutely� can work. I didn�t say that using a .270 is wrong. My opinion was fairly reasonable that one might want to consider other options. My further point was just that �MANY, with practice, can hit well with rifles up-to or beyond the .375 H&H.� Meaning most. Meaning a normal guy, if he puts in the time. No ego there. I�m just saying that a lot of people, like I used to, have a mythical fear of recoil until they try a bigger gun. When I first got my .340, I was just like them. I took it to the range and was nervous about even pulling the trigger. I had bought some cartridges with lighter 200gr bullets, I tried first. It was nothing like I thought. Then, I put the 250gr rounds in and had no trouble. I had a shoulder pad on and even put a 1-lb bipod on for range purposes to absorb recoil, and it was nothing like I feared. I was just trying to make the point that a bigger gun might not be as bad as most normal people fear. I was trying to say that just about anyone else can do it. That�s not ego. I wasn�t saying that I can do something few others can, but that many (most) can do it if they just give it a try.

It probably won't work if you buy a big rifle, shoot it a few times, and then take it hunting. But it probably will work if you shoot a few hundred focused rounds through it. I'm talking about a .338, not a 700 Nitro.

As to the �How many BB have you shot?,� that was in response to someone who hasn�t shot any, and is criticizing me for lack of experience. For someone who hasn�t shot any, he is relying completely on word of mouth. That�s not necessarily bad. Word of mouth can be good. But to rely on some experience and word of mouth can�t be worse, can it? I never criticized his opinion based completely on word of mouth, he condemned me for having any opinion at all.



Forgive me for having a different experience, but from my own experiences, from others I have talked to, and even what I have read, recoil can be a PITA at the range shooting multiple shoots at a piece of paper, but I have never, ever noticed it while shooting at an animal. When I was 19, and could not afford a rifle, I hunted deer with a 12ga Rem. 870. Some of the slugs were abusive (probably more than my .340 or .375), and I practiced with them anyway. When I shot deer though, I never, ever even felt the recoil. Same with later hunts with my .300 Win. Mag. When I was focusing on a paper bullseye with my .375 over and over again, I would have to focus hard to gain the modest satisfaction of making a small group of holes on a piece of paper 100-200yds away. But, when I was aiming at the bear, I felt like I was shooting a Crossman pellet rifle. I don�t think I am alone in this.

There may be exceptions, and I am just saying that some may want to try other options out that are bigger than what they otherwise might.

Everyone is different. On a given day, some people might shoot pool or a basketball better when in a contested match. Others might do better when no one else is around. Everyone is different, but I don�t think it�s a vast majority of hunters who flinch at the thought of actually shooting an animal. No ego, just saying that most probably don�t do that.



FWIW, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I just stated an opinion on a forum, which solicits opinions. I never, I think, said anyone else�s view was incorrect. I just said that there may not even be such a thing as a minimum, as it could go down to anything that has ever killed any reasonable number of brown bear. It�s a subjective sliding scale going from whatever down to the .222s the Inuit have used.

But the original poster was, in fact, �from the lower 48, east of the [Mississippi] River and below the Mason Dixon line.� And I think that makes a difference. It�s different for an AK resident, who can hunt brown bear, moose, caribou, sheep etc� several times a year to go out hunting brown bear, perhaps along with other game on the menu, with a .270, .308, 25-06, etc �, than it is for someone from Arkansas, like the OP, to scrape together scarce resources to spend a huge amount of money and time on a once-in-a-lifetime or even a somewhat rare hunt--primarily for brown bear. So, I understand that you may not respect the opinion of people who don�t live in AK (or Montana in your case), but there might be a different set of factors that governs how you prepare, what you bring, and what you do on a hunt that you might not get to redo for a long time.

For example, my guide, who is not the greatest brown bear guide who ever walked the earth, but has guided alone and with other guides for many decades, told me that most of the brown bear shot have to be tracked after being hit, and some of them are lost. If true, and one is a hunter from below the Mason Dixon Line, who may only get one shot, he MIGHT want to spend some more time building up some competence with a larger caliber than he otherwise might bring if he was essentially hunting the big beasts in his backyard.

Again, I don�t know why someone expressing such opinions is considered so unseemly here.

FWIW, I got a very nice message from Phil, who I respect very much. I won't quote it since it is a private message, but it is consistent with what I am saying and undercuts some of the unnecessary diatribes on here.