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

Sure, but the disparagement of Mike�s comment as "clueless" simply for saying �some folks might desire more range� is unfair for a couple of reasons. I don�t know exactly what he meant, but it applies to my upcoming hunt, because I�m hunting brown bear, moose, wolf, and wolverine (and possibly black bear when we get below tree-line). Where I�m hunting, my guide�s clients have taken wolves out to 350yds and a little beyond.



I�d like to keep that option open.

I don�t know for sure what might be capable with handloads and other specific bullets with the 30-06 220gr loading, but the factory loadings I can find have the 30-60 220gr loads dropping 25� below the sight line at 350 yds. My .340 puts the .225gr TTSX at a little less than 3� high at 150yds, and a little more than 6� low at 350yds (actual range results). Now someone who is really trained well with the 30-06 220gr can do it fine I�m sure, but it�s easier for me to learn to shoot a .340 at that range than it is to shoot a 30-06 220gr at the same range. So, a flatter-shooting rifle, of whatever caliber, might be more versatile for multiple game. Either option is fine, but neither is �clueless,� and worthy of disparaging insults.

Also, to the extent that the versatility of a multi-game rife is not allowed on this thread, although I doubt I would shoot at a brown bear much past about 200 yds, but maybe I would under great conditions on the last day of a hunt, and you mentioned �at any distance from the muzzle to 300 yards�: At least with the factory loadings I can find (e.g, http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=19), a 220gr 30-06 bullet is moving at around 1,620fps at 300 yds. Is that good? I�m asking because I don�t know. But a .225gr .338 bullet out of a .340 moving at 2,600 fps at 300 yds might be a bit preferable. At 200 yds even, the 30-06 220gr is moving at only around 1,860 fps, and the 225gr .340 is moving at around 2,780 fps. Perhaps they both might work similarly, I don�t know, but hitting a big bear at rifle-velocity with a .338-cal bullet instead of hitting it with a fast-handgun velocity with a .30-cal bullet, even if not always necessary, can�t be clueless. It's close to the difference between hitting the bear near the muzzle with a 30-30 versus a 30-06. Maybe both would work, but it's not "clueless" to prefer a 30-06 over a 30-30 for close range work. Same difference.

Comments in response to a reasonable opinion like �some folks might desire more range� such as �Is there anything else you want to do to prove just how clueless you are? � Please, the above questions are purely rhetorical and your guesses are truly not being sought!� is just unnecessary and nasty for no reason. No one on here who advocates for a bigger gun is calling anyone who opts for a smaller one �clueless.� They�re just reasonable opinions to discuss. That�s what a forum like this is for I think.