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?

The only way a 458 is a better choice, IMO, is if you have one purpose-built for the job. Others might not share my view but ‘standard’ 375s and 458s are just too much gun in terms of weight and size in my view.

I’m not sure why you felt a Guide Gun was less rugged than the 870, but, while I have never found the 870 to be lacking in its ability to handle abuse, it certainly isn’t a stronger or better-built design than the stainless Guide Gun.

Bear guns that get packed around, especially when not hunting, need to meet a couple different and important criteria IMO, than more purposeful hunting weapons. They need to be unobtrusive so as to always be available if needed...(i.e., not put down so they’re not in the way); they also need to be very easy to bring into play and handle well. That, to me, means not overly heavy or large. Everything I use in this role falls in the 16-20” barrel length range, and sub-8 lbs. The bolt guns I sometimes carry include a Model Seven stainless which has only been rebarreled with a 20” #3 Shilen with sights added; it’s a 358 Winchester.I also have this short-action 375 caliber M77 with a 20” Pac-Nor barrel. It uses a 350 Rem Mag case necked up.



Bigger cartridges might be advantageous for some bear purposes, but I don’t include crawling through the alders to dispatch wounded trophies in my criteria when it comes to bear defense tools. If my goal is to hunt and kill them, my criteria becomes offensive and my tools and loads reflect that.

8 pounds is fine if you think it is fine. Again, you can load to your capability and it is still more than anything eitherside of it.

If you load the lighter Barnes X bullets of 300 or 350 grains, is is an amazing rifle over usual hunting ranges.

There are some great ammo for 45-70. Buffalo Bore and Garrett

45-70 Magnum - Lever Gun Rifle Ammunition
45-70 Magnum - Lever Gun Ammo - 430 gr. L.B.T.-L.F.N.(1,925fps/M.E.3,537 ft.lbs.) - 20 Round Box

I'm thinking this will do ANYTHING a 458 can do.

This was made for the Marlin 1895 and works in it. I've had no problems.

Quote {sporter stocks fit me better than the straight-gripped lever rifles:}

That's why I use a regular 1895 Marlin. Mine has had plenty of work done to it, had the barrel cut down, XO sights, Pachmayer Decelerator, Chrome matt finish, etc. I don't like the straight grip either. My wrist just doesn't bend that way. I like a regular pistol grip AND using heavier loads like Buffalo Bore and Garrett the pistol grip gives you better control with the rifle. The Straight grip works ok for some people but try a pistol grip and I think you will be happier with it. As a pure bear gun the 1895 is EXTREMELY popular in Alaska. Go out in the woods and run into someone chances are high they will have one.

The only thing wrong with a Marlin Guide gun is that stupid hammer block safety. That thing can screw you.

There are 12 gauge slugs available that will outperform anything you can load in a .30-06 but Brenneke's aren't the ones. The Dixie Terminator 2 3/4" slug load fires a 730 gr. hardcast slug at 1250 fps out of a 20" rifled slug barrel. The Dixie IXL-DGS {dangerous game slug} 3" slug load uses an 870 gr. hard cast slug at 1200 fps from a 20" slug barrel. I've seen tests of these loads {DGS} where they were fired into various test media studded with heavy cattle bones and they penetrated deeper and left a larger diameter wound channel than a 400 gr. bullet out of a 416 Rem. Mag.. Those are the slugs I would load for defense in big bear country. Just Google "Dixie slugs" and take a look.

I don't think Buffalo Bores, Garretts and Dixie Terminators are common fodder in Canadian sporting goods stores at all. All I've ever seen for .45-70 is trapdoor loads or Lever-evolutions. If you lose your handloads, it seems like you are generally hooped.

In 12 gauge, Brennekes are scarce but Challengers are sometimes available. If even the Brennekes are hard to get, and even they don't outperform .30-06, then there isn't much to recommend the shotgun over the rifle performance-wise if the other loadings are unavailable.

On the other hand, I think that suitable Nosler Partition or bonded bullet (eg. Swift A-Frame) loadings of .30-06 SPRG /.338 WM /.375 H&H aren't hard to find. Appropriate .458 ammunition is usually not stocked, but some stores have it.

The butt-stock on the Guide Gun is mainly what I worry about. Also, jams (admittedly in a different Marlin lever) seemed pretty hard to clear sometimes. Break something and parts are week(s) away. Synthetic Marlin replacement stocks are unobtainium and the way the wood is bolted on doesn't fill me with confidence. Straight laminate stocks don't seem common. The straight grip thing is a bit of a mystery as an English-stocked double seems to fit just fine. Maybe it's the balance and the comb height. Don't get me wrong it wasn't terrible, but the 870 and M70 pointed much more naturally for me.

The 870/7600 stocks seem a little more rugged with the big bolt and no split at the tang, but they are a big notch below a McMillan on a Model 70 or a boat paddle on a Ruger. I suspect the same spill would break the stock on a Marlin, bend it at the tang on the 870/7600, and maybe scratch the McMillan on an M70. The bolt action seems much more rugged overall.

Klikitarik, this is the bolt action that succeeded the Marlin:



Ruger 77 Mk II in .338 WM with Ruger factory irons and NECG peep, McMillan classic stock. It also has the boat paddle stock. I thought it would be much easier to find appropriate 250 grain loads in stores than .45-70. These rifles have a reputation for rugged reliability in the Canadian North. I think the Model 70s are just as rugged. However, it's just over eight pounds with the 24" barrel, so that's why I started the thread about the .30-06.

Can't you have a Canadian gun shop special order ammo from the states ?

I don't know. It might be possible, but I don't know about what sort import/export paperwork, ITAR, trade rules etc would apply.

Many times it seems to depend on whether the store's stateside supplier already lists the item. Special orders out of normal supply chain tend to be very expensive or not available.

They do ship to Canada:

CANADA
For any inquiries or a detailed list of current suppliers in Canada please contact:

STERLING CROSS DEFENSE SYSTEMS CORP.
Abbotsford, BC
V2T 6K7, CANADA
(604)746-2608
contactsterling-cross.com

Thanks for the link. I haven't heard of them but will check it out. Their website seems to indicate military leanings rather than sporting goods. The ammunition page doesn't list specifics. Do you have any particulars on what they have available?

http://www.sterling-cross.com/ammunition/

A bit of file work to the offending end and a drop of Locktite as well as a twist to the set screw was all it took to eliminate the hammer block problem.





The tenoned inletting on the Marlin would certainly be stronger than the 870’s butt attachment. However, nothing says “can’t lose this” like the stock on that M77, and a M77 Mk II is a pretty tough rifle to better in a bolt gun. It’s not quite as handy as I’d like it to be to suit my preferences, but it’s a much better deal than the typical H&H or 458 type in generally as-issued form.

I'm of the mind if the butt stock on the Marlin lever guns were a weak point they wouldn't have lasted over 150 years. Last thing I'd worry about. I'd also be more concerned with reloads hanging up in a lever gun than I would ammo that is specifically built for those guns. Use what you want.

______________________________________________________

Excuse me for pointing out that giving a shotguns model doesn't tell much of anything. 12 gauge shells come in three 3 length and velocitys. The slugs come in various weights 1 oz, 1 1/4, 1 1/2.; --- 1 oz = 436 grains.

Using a 1 0z 12 gauge rifled slug at 1600 fps produces half the bullet energy of a 30-06 with a 220 grain bullet traveling at 2,800 fps.

The 12 gauge has poor ballistics, sectional density and 4-5 inches drop at 100 yards.

So what's the scenario. The bear is almost on top of you. You can drill him/her and the slug/bullet may go through. Reality is that these animals are still entirely capable of operation for many seconds - enough to swipe/bite/claw you inflicting significant injury. Or worse.

Obviously a .375 Magnum would be a better choice. But bullet placement is "theee" criteria. Only head shots will shut down a bear instantly. Head shots with a shotgun rifled slug may be a bit dicey to accomplish. A shot gun doesn't have sights, only a rib and bead. Rifles may be open sight or scoped.

If I was stuck with a shotgun up close I would prefer buckshot. I never put down a bear with a .22 caliber short but I have put down domestic pigs. It works. They drop like a rock - dead instantly.

Repeated shots in the face with buckshot surely will put out the eyes, probably penetrate the brain and spoil the bears day for sure.

There was an interesting Shockey episode on a few weeks' back where a 10 yr old boy dumped a huge, in Shockey's words, "He's as big as they get", black bear in its tracks from about 100yards.

The boy was using a .30/06 with 220gn Partition.

Actually, knowing the model of shotgun does matter in terms of certain specifics, at least to me. We still keep an 870 around sometimes. It isn’t our #1 choice but some of the deterrent ammo available is still a better option under certain circumstances. The 870 is a proven design. Like any other option, how it’s set up matters. Suggesting that it’s a shotgun so you only have a bead sight is silly. I would not use a “bird gun” for a bear gun unless I was in a bird blind. The 870 is a very useable platform with the factory-sighted, rifled slug barrel, and it shoots better than probably 99.?% of people can with those sights at 50 yards under the typical bear defense scenario (whatever that is; assume a rapidly moving rottweiler type deal). I can’t imagine calling it a defense situation if the bear’s farther than that except if you’re trying to peel an animal off from a third party.

And since you question the importance, or lack of it, of the shotgun model being named, I would add that a standard 2 3/4 - 3” type 870 both use the same receiver ejection port which is basically designed around the shorter shell. While 3” hulls do eject from it (due to the use of a different ejector), they are also more prone to hanging up. For that reason, I have gotten away from the use of 3” shells in mine in order to reduce the chances of an issue at a bad time.

As for penetration and energy concerns, give me a hole, a long 1/2” hole. Great placement is fine as an ideal to strive for if shooting bears in defense is your cup of tea. But assuming head shots are the only way to stop a bear in its tracks is silly. And assuming you can hit that fine a rapidly moving target with any sighting device is even sillier. Breaking lots of important stuff can also work (and a long hole seems to increase the odds.) But I can tell you that energy can be singularly unimpressive.

[quote=Klikitarik]

The advantage a shotgun has is that there are many options where deterrence projectile are concerned which aren’t available for rifles.


You mean, like this?






Or this?

Stopping the bear is my major concern. I'm not concerned about braining one, I just want to make it unable to touch me. Accurate shooting to a part that will severely slow it down would be enough. I'll take the easiest shot that will do that.

Are you sure that a bead wouldn't be an excellent sight within 20 yards?

I'll leave the effectiveness of the various projectiles to the boys who've actually shot bears. But, I've played with slugs a good bit over the years and can say that some guns shoot them straight and to the bead, but many don't and even at 20 yards you might miss the sticking place. It might be hard to remember to hold off a bit when your ass is about to get chomped.

Seems to me that if bear trouble is a real possibility, a $150 slug barrel (smoothbore should be fine) ain't much of an investment. Upgrading the sights to bright fiber optics wouldn't hurt.

BTW, there are all sorts of Brennekes. One of the 3" models designed for rifled bores, has over 3800lbs of energy. The Black Magics I played with some years ago would group 3 in less than 4" at 100 yards from a 870 SP IC barrel. Fosters are too soft for tough stuff, fragmenting on the relatively light bones of small deer.

With that kind of pressure, you may not get a second shot off, due to a stuck bolt.

You're getting up close to .300 WinMag velocities with that projectile.

I thought 2300 - 2400 fps with the 220 grain would be about optimum.

FWIW, back when I was doing gun repair work full time I had Marlin lever guns with broken ejector springs and/or extractors come in fairly regularly. Certainly more often than I ever saw on 870's. Never did have a Marlin come in with a broken buttstock so I'd have to say it's not the weakest point in the Marlins and my money would be on an 870 for dependability/durability over a Marlin lever.

WWG sells their own extractor which my rifle has. No problems at all. I recommend that.

I did overstate the velocity of 30-06 - 220 grain. 2,300 - 2,400 IS more like it. I only used a quickie example without trying to be explicit. I prefer the .338 Winchester Magnum over the 30-06.

When I suggested loads for the shotgun I was referring to the big pellets/shot not bird shot. Here's a chart with size, velocity and pellet count.

http://www.unluckyhunter.com/2011/07/choosing-best-buckshot-part-1.html

Pretty impressive velocities. Up over handgun velocities. 1,400 - 1,600 fps! 15 to 50 pellets. One shot is like hitting him all at once with a couple of dozen .22 handguns.

I shot lots of shotguns in my day. And patterned them. The shot spreads out rather quickly depending on the choke. A rib and bead are plenty good at 20 yards.

My grandson presently works at a trap and skeet range 5 days a week during summer vacation from college. He's really good.

Compared to trap and skeet or wild turkey, pheasant, grouse, quail, ducks, dusting a bear up close with buck shot is very, very do-able with great success under the right circumstances. Of course, if he blind sides you or attacks from then rear that could be a big problem. In that case have the handgun available as a side arm.

And you know this because...?

And what about under the wrong circumstances?

I have several friends who are conservation officers here in the Yukon.

Quite a few years ago, one of them decided to use 000 buck in a 12 GA on a black bear that was in a schoolyard. It was after lunch, and he was concerned about a rifle bullet fully penetrating the bear and richoceting off somewhere.

He shot the bear, full in the face from around 20 feet IIRC. The bear's face bloomed red with blood, but the bear did not go down. Rather he turned and ran, which led to no small amount of excitement, which is another story.

After the bear was retrieved and skinned, it was determined that seven shot had hit the bear in the head.

Certainly, one event is not conclusive, however it was enough that Doug never used a shotgun in bear work again. I will be glad to put you in contact with him if you would like to discuss buckshot on bears.

Ted

The problem with buckshot is that each individual pellet is a poorly performing projectile, both externally and terminally.

A one ounce load of buckshot will not penetrate nearly as well as a 435 grain .458 LBT at the same velocity, especially so if heavy bone is encountered. Nor will the buckshot retain it's velocity as well, and as range increases, so does the distance between each individual projectile.

If I used a shotgun, I would prefer a saboted type slug. And I seriously doubt even they would have the penetration of a .45-70 and a 435 grain LBT at 1750 to 1800 fps. Or a 540 at 1550.

OOO buck: 8 pieces 2 3/4” Remington load



You make quite a persuasive argument for the old M94 30-30 with Core-lokts



Penetration matters! (not the amount of recoil, not the payload or speed of the same)

Yukoner:

The circumstances that you describe are not at all what I had in mind. My scenario is the bear practically on top of you. I wouldn't want to shoot a bear, with buckshot, at 20 feet, casually, standing either.

Up close, a few feet away, the shot spreads quite a bit, maybe 2-3 feet so precise aim is not so critical.

You described precisely what I envisioned. The bear lost his desire to pursue and took off. Isn't that good enough?
If your friend had fired 5 feet away the bear would, most likely, have gone down. At 20 feet the pellet probably just didn't find the brain. Contrary to what some think, the buck shot certainly has the velocity and energy to bust the skull bone and deliver a lethal dose.

There have been some bear attacks in Yellowstone. Here's the record.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/injuries.htm

Not much danger.

I had a video of a game control officer attacked by a bear in his truck, being released from a cage. I can't find the video but I did find slides of it and posted them a couple of weeks ago. The bear had him. He got his side arm out and put one under the chin. There no time or opportunity for long guns.

Here's a sanguine video of a bear killing a man. It's very graphic.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2chol9_bear-kills-a-man-bear-attack-2014_animals

Here's a video of the Churchill polar bears.

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-show...he-most-dangerous-nights-of-bear-season/

We need to keep in mind that there are three species of bears: black, generally innocuous and non-aggressive but unpredictable; grizzly, unpredictable but none the less can be very dangerous and certainly capable of serious injury and upon particular bear persistence completely deadly; polar, the worst, very aggressive, hunt humans vigorously, deadly.

My son has more bears in his yard than I do. They are always there raiding his garbage. My grandson had an encounter on the street and sought refuge in a strangers house.

Hi William,

Evidently I am considering this from a totally different perspective than you are. Seven 000 buck hits to the head did not put the bear down!

How much velocity and energy would they have lost twenty feet from the muzzle of the shotgun?

Ted

I’d use a Foster slug before I’d load buck in the shotgun, and Mr. Tibbe isn’t even referencing anything “0” buck:



At least the slug looks good ‘on paper’.

1. Push the safety to the "Off" position. 2. Put a tight-fitting neopreme "O" ring in the groove for the red "Safety Off" indicator. 3. Forget about it

I have been doing this for years now on my Guide Gun and it's never failed me. It also doesn't permanently change the gun if you ever want to get rid of it.

What about those Black Magic slugs by Brenneke. Is this what's been talked about?

Why would anyone in field conditions want to limit themselves to a 5 yard gun? This is just silly.A wounded angry bear is never good enough. Once you have determined that it needs to be shot you want that thing dead.

fuzzy

Bless you Yukoner, you are a patient man.

RE: the buckshot rationale:

20 feet is 6 meters - that is CLOSE. If I can't guarantee a kill or full bear stop with a skull shot at 6 meters with buckshot, then I shouldn't attempt such a thing. Especially considering I could have a rifle at my disposal which could break shoulders at the same range, let alone penetrate a few feet into the bear.

About the last thing I want is some wounded angry wounded free-roaming wounded one-eyed wounded grizzly that I would have to explain to the authorities, let alone one that would kill me for hurting it.

Thanks for your thoughts but I just can't see risking my life or endangering others by trying experiments like that.

I'm not asking for 'should work under the right circumstances'. I want to know what has worked and will work almost every time if I do my part. Brennekes seem like recommended bare minimum given collective experience. The .30-06 with heavy partitions seems a little better than the shotgun.

So buckshot is out of the question for me. I'm even wondering if I should bother with a shotgun. The .30-06 FWT with a 2.5x20mm or an Aimpoint Micro might be lighter, more powerful, more rugged, easier to maintain and maybe easier to work safely with.

I don't think the OP specified.

As I noted before, there's all kinds of Brennekes. The Black Magic mag weighs 1 3/8oz and has 3000 ft lbs of energy it's usable in all barrel types. The Magnum Crush weighs 1 1/2 oz and has 3800 ft lbs. It's for rifled bores. There are non-toxic slugs, sabots, and more.

The best choice would be determined by your chamber and barrel type, but any of the classic Brenneke types should outperform Fosters and in most cases, buckshot. I would feel pretty secure toting a 3" A5 Buck Special stoked with Black Magics.

I think I'd use a 30-30 before I depend on triple 0 buck shot for a charging bear.

Guys/Guys:

We are not on the same song sheet philosophically.

Whereas my criteria is HEAD shots and broad patterns, some seem to be stuck on body penetration.

I'm talking about close in desperation with the bear practically on top of you. ONLY a brain or spine shot will shut him/her down instantly. I'm speaking from experience when I say an animal that is FATALLY shot can motor on for 2-3-4 seconds and 75 yards easily before keeling over.

I'm stunned to read above that a bear was shot with 000 buck, 7 pellets were found in the head and it ran away !!!! 000 buck only has 10 pellets.

I have put down pigs on the farm with a .22 short, 6" from the skull, between the eyes. A .22 short has 830 feet per second velocity, 44 foot pounds of energy and weighs 29-30 grains.

000 Buck shot is .35 caliber, 70 grains, 1,225 feet per second and it has 10 pellets. That's more than plenty to bust a skull. From my own observations deer that are shot with buckshot, 40 - 60 yards, collapse instantly and bones are broken.

To answer the above question, the loss of velocity and energy of 000 pellets at 20 feet is miniscule.

Here;s an interesting video about buck shot and penetration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbFLY9OIqPA

I don't advocate a body shot on a bear with buck shot but I will say that such will be exceptionally devastating.

I'll add that I have shot animals with 12 gauge slugs at close range, 15 - 20 feet and they motored right past me for some distance before collapsing dead as a door nail. The slug passed through and came out the other side.

When you shoot your bear, charging you, in the chest or ribs, including the heart and lungs with a 30-06, 30-30 or .338 Winchester magnum you are already toast.
____________________________________________________________

Here's more video about 00 and 000 buck shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiQu0VVI4bQ

If you leave the previous video on it will segue into this one. About 23 minutes.

William, with all due respect, have you ever shot a charging bear? I have, and it fell close enough that I touched its eye with the muzzle of my 270 to make sure it was dead.

Why would you be surprised that seven 000 shot were in the head? Have you ever shot a 000 buck load on a target at twenty feet? The pattern is considerably less than a foot at that range.

As well, when you try some 12GA 2 3/4" 000 buck on a target, you will see it has eight pieces of shot, not ten, so Doug put 87.5% of the load into that bear's head.

Best,
Ted

William, please clarify your experiences with stopping charging bears. I'm especially curious to hear what kind of bears they were, ranges, and weapons, especially buckshot. I'm also curious to know your experiences with bluff versus real charges.

You said: "Whereas my criteria is HEAD shots and broad patterns, some seem to be stuck on body penetration."

Your thinking runs afoul of my experience. In my experience when a bear is coming for real, you shoot the middle of the brown blur with something big enough to matter. You use something with about 2200-2500 fps velocity with a good bullet that will expand and dig deep. I like a .375 and a 300 grain Nosler, but the 9.3 with a 286 would likely do the same job. Lots of other stuff out there will work. The only way I'd use a shotgun is with magnum brennekes, and that's a ways down the list.

I've only had to deal with brown bears, so I can't tell you about anything else. I've shot various bears including four that were tying to get me. Distances were 12, 7, 12, and 2 yards. The 7 and 2 yard experiences were one shot CNS hits. The others were rapid fire events. The first time i used a 12 ga and foster slugs. Never again! Very poor penetration. The others were with a .375. Typical performance there is stem to stern penetration.

The angles afforded on rapidly closing targets in these circumstances require penetration no buckshot load can provide. To believe in buckshot yourself is silly. To recommend it to others is irresponsible.

Guys:

Thanks for the input. I don't impugn anyone's posts.

Just for clarification - I'm not selling anything nor trying to sway anyone's opinions.

From the last two posts, we are still philosophically light years apart in projectile and placement. I'm going for the brain and eyes.

I have the Ruger .338 Magnum and had the Winchester Model 70 .375 H&H Magnum. If I was shooting bears stand off casually I would certainly prefer those over shotgun - no contest at all.

I think that I would like to hear more about the forensic details of the two posters. Where were the hits and how were the aftermath reactions.

I can't/won't entertain you with melodramatic tales of close encounters. Shooting bear has a consequence.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...q=fine+for+shooting+ngrizzlys+in+wyoming

Note I'm not confessing to anything,

A friend feeds them. He has 13
regular's that come every day and never cause trouble.

My son lives 1/2 hour from me. He has had bears in his yard constantly for 26 years. Never an incident.

I would really like to hear more details about the two incident's posted last.

Doesn't matter if you shoot them under the chin as their charging...

Untold number of years along, in the 'bush' offered that wisdom...

You're missing the point. They move too fast, often in thick brush and partially obscured to count on hitting them in the head. What's more, a brown bear's skull is angled and muscled in such a way that in a head on presentation deflection can easily occur, especially with a projectile as ballistically inefficient as buckshot. I would take pepper spray over a shotgun with buckshot, and that's saying something.

Also, feeding bears and habituating them is a very bad idea and likely illegal. One or both parties will end up in trouble.

Yup +1

I’m okay with breaking the pelvis if the bullet can make it that far. CNS-ing a bear that is intent upon making dough out of a fellow is fine in the mind’s eye perhaps, but then a fellow would have more hope of connecting with dragonflies in flight than actually making those shots in real time.

Too many folks get stuck on the bear charge deal however. Bears most generally don’t charge unless you encourage it. That includes sneaking up on them (as when one has ill intent), poking a hole in one in the wrong, inadequate place, being ignorant or unaware of one’s surroundings, and very rarely just plain being unlucky. I know plenty of folks who have somehow been involved in the former options (as well as many prominent folks whose names are well known). I don’t personally know of anyone who is among the latter option, or even know of it second-hand. I can’t think of anything big enough to overcome ‘ignorant' however.

Ruger has a Guide Gun with a 20" barrel and good irons, laminated stock. Comes in .375R, .416R, and .338 Winmag. The stock has spacers that allow you to adjust the length. Review this month in Rifle.

Or you could shorten one of your big guns a bit.

There are two videos here one after the other. Watch them both, both are different situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401ATHqOCOg&app=desktop

One of the dumb things I see people do on TV or movies is they come across a bear that isn't aware of their presence and instead of sneaking off so the bear is unaware, they yell at the bear, "Hey Bear!!!" Bad idea. Second video shows that isn't always possible but having to shoot the bear isn't always necessary either. Be prepared in either situation. In the second the guide knew early on what the possibility was and had his gun out. In the first one it's obvious they had time to prepare. May have waited too long, hard to tell from the video what the distance was. Your brain is your most important weapon.

Interesting because we were told to always alert the bear to our presence with a 'hey bear', and then walk away.