Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Brown Bear with a 7 Rem Mag questions

And hundreds of Alaskans pack handguns of all sorts for protection from bears, yet none of they have the power, nor ability to be shot accurately, as a 7mm rifle.

As I have been saying all along on this thread, it really doesn't matter what caliber floats your boat, bullet placement is the key. It makes little difference whether a bear is gut shot with a 243, 7mm or a 460 Wby.

I agree, Ed. I personally have no problems with recoil and I've posed the same question to the shot-placement-uber-alles folks (which in my book rates a "DUH"! and so intuitively obvious it's irritating)' Given all other things equal, i.e., exact shot placement, range and type of bullet used (let's stick with a Partition, lest the Nosler Police chastises), would it not be more prudent and efficacious to shoot said bear with a 375 and a 300 grain pill or a 3006 with a 180? (completely rhetorical post)

This thread goes on and on, and in some ways resembles the thread on Hi-Vel's reticle-truing device.

The original poster didn't ask whether the 7mm Remington Magnum was enough for brown bears. Instead he asked whether he should load up some 175 Partitions or 160 TSX's for a friend of his who planned to use his 7mm Remington Magnum on a brown bear hunt.

The second post, per usual, was some guy who totally ignored the question and said the guy should take a .338 or .375 instead. The next step was for a bunch of people to post THEIR preferences, of course not limiting it to the 7mm, .375 or any other round.

By now we have heard from a bunch of people, including many who've never even seen a grizzly or brown bear in the flesh, much less hunted one--and several who have hunted them, including one of the most experienced outfitters for really BIG brown bears in the business, because his guiding area holds not only more browns during the salmon runs than any other place in Alaska, but some of the biggest.

Now we're getting to the point where some people are insisting that because they're fine with the recoil of a .375, that's obviously the best choice. Which is exactly what happened to the Reticle-Tru thread, when some people said they'd never needed one, or preferred some other method, so obviously anybody who prefers to use a Reticle-Tru is blind, incompetent or gullible.

As I pointed out in that thread, humans aren't all the same in their ability level a scope reticle. Similarly, they're not all the same in recoil tolerance. Some who are recoil tolerant (as apparently I am, since I've used not just the .375 H&H but various rounds from the .338 Winchester Magnum to .416 Rigby on a lot of big game) apparently think this means anybody can shoot harder-recoiling rifles well.

Phil has repeatedly pointed out that he much prefers clients who can shoot accurately with the rifle they bring, because the vast majority of wounded bears he's had to follow up have been due to recoil the hunter couldn't handle. He's also listed several hunters who successfully used cartridges considered completely inadequate by many who posted here, with bullets apparently also considered inadequate. He's also repeatedly said that a .338 or .375 is a very fine choice--IF the client can shoot one well.

My experience in observing numerous other hunters is the same as Phil's: While a few can handle pretty stout recoil, most can't. And like Phil I've seen plenty of other hunters in action, partly due to some guiding, but partly due to spending lots of time with a lot of other hunters, including a month-long cull hunt in Africa where two dozen other hunters showed a wide variety of recoil tolerance. All had previously hunted considerably, but by far the vast majority of wounded animals were due to hunters who pulled shots with harder-kicking rifles, NOT because of inadequate cartridges or bullets. One hunter even admitted he couldn't handle the recoil of his 9.3x62 after a few days, so switched to his 7x57, and quit wounding animals, taking gemsbok and zebras with one shot each. Others were more stubborn, like the guy who brought a lightweight .300 magnum and ended his safari by shooting a big kudu through the jaw. (It was found a couple weeks after the guy left.)

That trend also been noted many other hunters who spent considerable time observing other hunters in the field, including Finn Aaagaard, who said in his experience only about 1/3 of his clients could handle the .300 Winchester Magnum. A long-time guide I know here in Montana is even less generous, saying around 20% can shoot .300's straight.

Obviously some who've posted here think anything less than a .375 isn't adequate, and a few have even said anybody who can't handle the recoil shouldn't hunt brown bears. Do they actually think that if they continue to insist that THEY would bring a .375 that somehow Phil will cave and say, yeah, you're right, anything less is inadequate? He's already said the .375 is one of the best choices--if the hunter can shoot it accurately.

The original poster hasn't even logged onto the Campfire since the day he posted. He posted twice, once for the original question, and then once specifically asking again about the 175 Partition and 160 TSX, because his friend's guide, like Phil, said he was fine with the 7mm.

I have to admit I've never quite understood the "shot placement first" argument in the context of most of these discussions. Why isn't shot placement implied? If you aren't hitting where you're aiming we haven't even gotten TO the caliber question, have we? (serious question)

For big and dangerous game I'm inclined to want the most gun that puts bullets where intended. If that's a 7mm or .505 Gibbs so be it.

If good shot placement is implied and can be counted on what difference does it make if you put a .308 hole or a .375 hole through a bear's heart. The shot placement issue is why guides like Phil recommend bringing your deer or elk rifle and good bullets instead of going and buying some cannon that you may or may not shoot well. If everyone could shoot a 505 Gibbs with guilt edged accuracy from field positions I'm sure bear guides would love to have everyone show up with one. But most guys, even some who claim otherwise, heck most who claim otherwise if my very short guiding career is any indication, cannot shoot much of anything with any great degree of accuracy. And accuracy gets worse as recoil increases generally speaking.

...as the bear hollers, "Hey Mabel, hold my beer and watch him score my skull!"

Im anxious to get the after action report on that hunt!

When I hunted musk ox in Canada quite a while back, my guide was an older Inuit (as they call themselves in Canada) whose favorite polar bear rifle was a .22 Rimfire Magnum. And no, he didn't use sled dogs to surround bears and then head-shoot 'em. Instead he stalked close enough to put a bullet broadside in the heart. After a while the bears just "went to sleep." He'd taken a number that way, and preferred the .22 Mag-a-num (as he called it) because it didn't tear nearly as big a hole in the valuable hide as his .30-30.