Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question about Brennekes vs .30-06 220 grain NPT.

I've searched the interwebs and also this site high and low, and still can't seem to come up with a definitive answer. I've read the 1980s US forest service paper and the Alaska Fish and Game website recommendations. The former doesn't compare Brennekes and the latter seems mostly concerned with hunting.

We used to carry Winchester Defender 1300 shotguns loaded with Foster slugs for northern work alone in grizzly country. Now I think those slugs were likely not the best choice, and Brennekes are hard to get in Canada. We can get Challenger slugs that look like Brennekes and I think we can get ahold of the Federal Truball penetrators.

458win: I've gleaned from your posts that a .30-06 with 220 grain Nosler Partitions is probably better than a 12 gauge with Brennekes. Is this a correct perception?

To compare Golden Delicious to Red Delicious apples, let's say I have both Remington 870 12 gauge and Remington 7600 .30-06 for a lightweight option (also Winchester 70). Would I be better off with the slug gun or the rifle given equal proficiency?

The firearm would be last resort past bear bangers and spray, and will likely not be used much if at all save for practice. I'm not looking for a fight and most likely will not have problems, so if the 7 pound minimum is a 12 gauge, then is a .30-06 with 220 NPTs a much better option at the same weight? The thing would likely ride in an Eberlestock pack to keep hands free for clipboard/GPS/radio/etc.

I also have .338 and .375 H&H options (Winchester Alaskan). Those are a fair bit longer and heavier, but I would ship one up if warranted.

Comments/advice from anyone received with thanks.

I always felt a Remington 7600 .30-06 carbine with 220's would be perfect bear country protection. That's what I would feel confident with.

I agree. You have a bullet that has a Sectional Density that will allow deep penetration driven at a velocity that will not make it misbehave.

The .30-06 is not overbearing in the recoil department, and the 760-series rifle are rapid to fire and reload.

As much as I like my Guide gun, in regards to recoil and reloading, I feel that the 760 is the more friendly rifle.

Either one will take forever to reload if you can't manage the stress inherent if one finds himself involved in a bear-defense situation. You just have to get the mag in once with the 760.

Rifle, no question.

Thanks. I put a receiver sight on the 7600 that should work well. Also, practicing with the .30-06 Model 70 should transfer some skill to the more expensive-to-shoot .338 and .375 rifles.

It seems like the 7600 and Model 70 would be a little more friendly around helicopters. Either detach the magazine/rack the slide back and put mag in pocket or pop floor plate/pull the bolt and put in pockets. No tube magazines to futz with.

Do you have a .30-'06 you want to reserve for this duty, or are you thinking of buying one?

If you don't have it, you might ask Phil what he uses.

I have a 7600 and model 70 in .30-06, and heavier/longer .338 and .375 Win 70 Alaskans.

Hoping Phil will see this thread and comment. It's kind of a trade-off between weight and power. Is the .30-06 much better than a 12 gauge at the lighter end?

The lightest option would be the Featherweight in a Mcmillan Edge with irons or a 2.5x20mm Leupold or an Aimpoint of some sort. I'm not sure about Aimpoint's reliability in freezing temperatures. Also worry about foggy lens surfaces. An NECG masterpiece front sight with sourdough blade and either a one blade rear or receiver sight might be the best answer to sights. Phil seems to get along fine with the 2.5x20mm though, and I also like it a lot.



I imagine that our interior arctic grizzlies are a bit smaller than the Alaskan ones. There was a big one that the pilot ran off - he figured it weighed more than 1000 pounds. I dunno.

philthygeezer;
Top of the morning to you sir, I trust this finds you well.

While we don't typically have big bears here in the Okanagan, our family has tented in the Kootenays and on the Island too where they can come in grizzly and larger black bear varieties.

Our "tent gun" has usually been a Mossberg pump that was once loaded with Federal Fosters but after some research I've switched to Challengers. Please note I've not shot anything other than targets and the target backer boards with the Challengers - but the Gualandi slug that Challenger uses has a pretty good reputation.

I don't know if you go on gunnutz or not, but a chap there - Boomer - lives in or near Churchill and he still puts his faith into a pump shotgun, though if memory serves he's running Brennekes.

On the other hand - I recall a conversation with a BC biologist some years back who stated that he had gone to a Model 70 in .30-06 running 200gr Partitions for his work gun after "bad experiences" with a pump shotgun. While he wouldn't get into specifics of how that change had happened, he was quite firm indeed about carrying a rifle.

Lastly if you choose a Remington pump rifle, in my experience the weak link is the detachable magazine which is susceptible to having the feed lips damaged if its dropped on a hard surface when loaded.

Anyway if you thoroughly test the magazines you use at work it should be fine - but do take the time to test them of course.

I can't recall who wrote the article anymore - may have been John Barnsess actually - but someone I trust wrote that there wasn't much difference in penetration between the 180gr, 200gr and 220gr Partitions fired from an '06.

As I've only shot a couple deer with the 200gr Partition - fired from a mild .308 Norma load - I can report they'll penetrate Okanagan whitetails pretty much length ways.

Anyway sir, hopefully that was useful information for you. May you never need your work gun whichever way you choose and all the best to you this summer.

Dwayne

I would have no problem with either one if the weapon was correct for the purpose (and proven). I keep both an 870 with rifled barrel and sights, along with the correct stock which brings the sights in line without any fooling around, and also a M94 Winchester Trapper in 45 Colt loaded with 7 or 8 320 moderately hard cast bullets and a stout charge of W296. The latter will drill through a bear with most 300s. I keep a few Fosters ready for spattering/scaring bears if necessary, but Brennekes for lethal work if it comes to that.

I do prefer a rifle however for the penetration and speed it offers.

A few years ago we had a customer who refused to leave us alone; I had small boys in our cabin at the time and a bear rattling around on the porch, a return customer from a couple hours earlier (around midnight). I think we had given him 7 opportunities to become afraid of the guns before we gave in and gave him reality. The Brenneke took a broadside path through the shoulders without hitting any of the major bones and he loped off. I went back inside to grab the waiting M94 which was fully loaded and went back out to see if he was ready to lay down. (I had given him two warnings the second time before the final shot, so the magazine was getting light.)

Relaxing didn’t appear to be on his mind at that point so I ran a couple of 300s through him along his length.



It wasn’t a very large specimen, but he was enough to hang on to a stout 12 gauge slug which I found next to his hide.



The 45 Colt - 16” carbine- had plenty of oomph to run 2 1/2-3’ of the length of the animal and exit.

200 or 220 Partitions would be high on my list out of a proven 30-06 as well.

Klikitarik;
Good evening to you sir, I trust this finds you and your fine family well and thanks for adding some real world experience which is never not useful.

I now recall you posting that photo of the recovered Brenneke previously and as then, it gives me pause now to reflect on our personal choice for a tent gun.

One of the sticky wickets involved in my choice was that a shotgun is a bit more "acceptable" when used in something like a campsite. I'm not sure why exactly that is and again to be sure that's possibly only my perception of things here. Maybe because some of the timber professionals, etc carried them for so long?

Again thanks for sharing that report with us sir, even if I do find it a bit nonplussing.

All the best to you and your family this summer sir.

Dwayne

Thank you KLIKITARIK for sharing your Real life experience. So many of us do not have any experience. I read some of these thread suggestions and just scratch my head. There is a bear thread in another category on this forum and it is worth the read. I escorted deer and elk hunters for a decade but have no experience with anything larger with the exception of a dozen buffalo. I have never understood the "solid" thinking. I have shot a few deer with non expanding bullets with the same results you encountered with the slug. I will take a good expanding bullet anytime except for really big stuff. I just need to get some more experience. I intend to try fmj bullets on little antelope this year though I did shoot one with such a bullet with dismal results.

I’d use the shotgun with those same Brenneke slugs again though it isn’t my first choice. For the record, that 870 is specifically set up to shoot slugs though with a 20” rifled barrel, stout factory sights, and a stock intended for rifled slug barrel use which puts your eye in line with those sights.

But perhaps the important lesson here is not to be fooled by massive size which the shotgun slug has - and the Brenneke type slug is a good one- but that placement is the most critical factor. A deep, deep penetrating bullet, not necessarily a solid, will have more chances to destroy something that will quickly end things.

The advantage a shotgun has is that there are many options where deterrence projectile are concerned which aren’t available for rifles. (I’ve deterred many potential bear problems by shooting various projectiles toward them.) Shell-crackers/popper shells are very effective (assuming you don’t launch them beyond the animal. ) Rubber slugs and buckshot would probably work also though I’ve never tried them on bears. Noise alone hasn’t been nearly as effective, especially on bears that aren’t already wary, as something that disrupts their immediate space. Bears with attitudes or showing territorial aggression seem to react best to rifles when rocks in their vicinity begin ‘talking’ to them. (Bullet holes in the tundra in their vicinity seem to have almost no effect.)

One of the biggest reasons I prefer rifles is that they offer more options around other people (family). While I would hate to be put into such a situation, I would much rather have a rifle than either a shotgun or a handgun if a bear got ahold of a family member who might be some distance off. I shoot a rifle much more precisely if it comes to hitting something while missing something else.

"Just shoot in here amongst us, one of us has got to have some relief!" (remember Jerry Clower)

The only advantage I can see to a shotgun would be the psychological side of it. For some reason, having a shotgun around, especially one set up for slugs, sounds more purpose driven than having a "hunting rifle" in camp.

Otherwise, there is no doubt that a 200 or 220 grain Partition would penetrate deeper than a shotgun slug of any kind. I also don't think there is any advantage to a 220 over a 200 in this situation. I have never seen anything catch a 200 myself!

Any 30 caliber copper bullet will do a better job than any lead shotgun slug.

A 12 gauge with a rifled barrel and copper slugs will work damn near as well.

Thanks everyone. It sounds like the 12 gauge is stiil viable for defence purposes, and penetrates less than the .30-06.

I would only use a shotgun even with slugs with smallish bears. But then who knows what you are going to run into unless you have a situation like Klik where the bear keeps coming back. The fact that it did, tells you the bear is a problem bear that needs to be killed. I typically only see two kinds of folks who use shotguns for bears, government/police and novices (who have a "theory") who use slugs between buckshot and they are going to "blind the bear". That's like shooting to wound someone who is trying to kill you. Even Klik who has a ton of experience in the bush, went back and got a rifle with a heavy, penetrating bullet. I have no idea why someone who has access to a rifle would take a shotgun to perform the only duty. I will give an additional alternative, and Alaska has the highest percentage of these rifles that are produced than anywhere in the country. Marlin 1895/Guide gun 45/70 with heavy hard casts. You will see a lot of those in the bush and around Alaska and that is the rifle that people frequently have in the bush during the summer. Add an XO sight and it's a very quick rifle to come on target. Good luck with what ever you choose.

Thanks and food for thought. Klik's experience shows the sorts of things I was worried about are probably true.

I hear you about not bothering with the shotgun if you have something better. Spray and bear bangers are alternate means so I have no plans to stuff anything but slugs in a 12 gauge anyway. I would rather have better sights if I need to protect someone else as well as me. I'm a bit worried about slugs through iron sights. I haven't tested them at the range enough to know if they will shoot to point of aim every time.

I bought and sold a Guide Gun for a few reasons:

1. I think it might not be very rugged compared to the average 870 or bolt action Winchester.

2. The ammo is roll your own or nothing for availability. Either you get Leverevolutions or trapdoor loads. At least the .30-06 will get you into a 180 grain NPT or a bonded bullet in many places.

3. Perhaps most importantly, I am familiar with an 870 pump already. I put a shotgun butt stock on the 7600 so it would point like an 870. Most of my other rifle practice will boil down to Model 70s. The Winchester FWT and sporter stocks fit me better than the straight-gripped lever rifles: I am faster on target for the first shot. More practice with fewer action types should do well for me.

So the lightest option I have is the .30-06 Model 70 I posted above with a 1.5-5x20mm or a 2.5x20mm scope at about 6.75 to 7 pounds. An Aimpoint T-1 might be an option if the things work at lower temperatures. The 7600 weighs about the same.

Medium weight is either the clown camo Ruger .338 WM or a Winchester Alaskan (.338 WM or .375 H&H) at 8 pounds and change.

Heavier and much less fun to carry all day would be a .458 WM Win Safari at 9 pounds plus. Could such a rifle withstand an aluminum floorplate? This rifle will also take a fair bit of expensive practice to master.

A .458 is just a better .45/70. I would never discourage .458 ownership based in cost as you can load both for pennies difference.

The .458 can be loaded to your recoil tolerance and it will still be superuor to a .45/70.

AussieGunWriter: I used similar reasoning when I sold the Guide Gun and thankfully your comment affirms the decision. I bought a Winchester 70 Safari in .458 WM. It would be a superb camp rifle, where the bears are most likely to show up looking for food.

For field work, I'm concerned about the weight if I have to lug it around all day on off chance that I might run into an irate bear I'm not looking for. Guiding for grizzlies would mandate a heavier gun since clients are always looking to pick a fight with one. For me it's a balance between picking something adequate and picking something much better that will wear me down a bit faster. Seven pounds was OK. Nine might be a bit of a slog. An eight pound .375 might be a nice balance.

I will put the .458 in a McMillan Supergrade with aluminum floorplate and see where the weight goes. What would an eight pound .458 be like to shoot?