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

X2... I always enjoy reading what Mr.Shoemaker has to add. His experience is tough to argue with.

This article makes too much sense.

Somebody has to start talking about, and comparing, muzzle energy.

I'll bite. Pick the biggest, highest S.D. premium bullet that you can launch at 2400fps@ the muzzle, chambered in a rifle that actually fits you, that you can run like lightning without thinking about it, and you can actually hit stuff with from field positions.

That'll be enough energy.

Phil, 35th year guiding for Brownies? I thought you just turned 41? :-)

Its funny how some things never change in these kinds of debates. The takeaway here for me is that we have been "oversold" on the necessity for magnum calibers. Once again the versatility of the 30-06 is on display.

It appears that you missed my point.

You Googled me!? LOL. Pathetic. You didn�t� catch my 1987 deer hunt in NE Kansas? My 2002 pig hunt in New Mexico? My 1988 Kansas deer hunt? My 2004 Colorado hunt? My 2003 Colorado hunt? My 2009 Maryland hunt? My 2013 Virginia deer hunt? My 2012 combo hunt? The others? Shocking. It also doesn�t reflect my military experience with small, medium, and large ordinance taking out various objects with varying levels of success.

I spent a lot of time researching for my last AK hunt on the AK Outdoor forum (and found my guide on there) because I was researching an exceptional (for me) hunt. So I posted my results on that hunt. I�m not a bear-experienced guide, but my guide (involved on over 40 BB kills) thinks (wrong or right) that a decent caliber beginning with a �3� is the minimum for what he wants his clients to bring. He�s neither right, nor wrong, but that is his opinion and very many people agree (right or wrong).

The point isn�t about moderation or not. It�s about civility. It�s not an insane opinion that something starting with .30 cal. is a lower reasonable limit for a brown bear hunt. It�s about civility. Even if considered by some as too high, it�s not crazy. It�s even probably a majority opinion of guides and others. But, for some to disagree with that is fair game and they can make their case that it is a better view. But, the response is �how dare you� have an opinion. It�s a forum, not a singular opinion-killing publication where one view (even if a favorite) is the only view. Right? And anyone who has even a slightly different view is chastised by followers. A forum?

On other forums, I don�t get the level of incivility there is on here, where you are chastised, not because you are not civil, but because you with civility raise a view or question.

I can�t believe, unless you PG are a serial killer hermit, that you confront people in that same way in normal life. �You think the Spurs might beat the Heat? What! You jerk, Jackson already said that Heat are better. How dare you!?� Silly. People in normal talk don�t do that. It�s just geeky internet talk. You�re not that way in real life, right? You just do that on the internet?

As I said before, picking a minimum BB caliber is difficult and subjective because there is no caliber that will never kill a BB and there is no caliber that will always do so. So, it�s pretty subjective. But for one to take a reasonable mainstream view and then, of all things, PG Googles the source and trying to find a personal basis to attack a mainstream view is pretty silly.

I have two young boys, who occupy a lot of my time, as I take them shooting, go to baseball games, etc � I also spend 50-60 hours a week at work (the only reason I can hunt in AK) and provide for my family. Unlike many, whom I envy, I do dozens of hunts per hear in AK. One category of time I don�t have is to Google the experiences (obviously incomplete) of an internet poster with whom I disagree, to gain a geeky internet attack advantage. Trust me, I will never try to Google your life experiences PG to see if I can "get you" you publicly and to discount your mainstream views on caliber choice for a particular game. That would be silly and take away from real life. You took time out of your life to Google me? Pathetic. I have a view. You have a view (is it based on any experience?). It is what it is, but I�m not insane enough to Google you to try to �defeat� you on an internet forum. Writing this took way too much time, but I certainly would not Google you to try to gain a forum-attack to show whether something above or below a .30 cal. was a subjective reasonable BB minimum hunting caliber.

Phil has an opinion that is as good as any around, and I don�t think I even disagreed with him. But there are many exceptional guides who have minor disagreements about things, like subjective minimums. But no one �dare� discuss that here. On a "forum."

I've never Googled your sorry ass. About every Brown Bear hunt or cartridge discussion that has comes up over the past several years, you've gotta post on. On several forums.

I only get this way with know it all blow hards who've only been on a dozen hunts in their life, then come on the internet and spout off like they know something.

Civility is your concern? Or is it just getting your feelers hurt because when folks read this:

"Will a .270 Win or 30-06 work on BB? Absolutely. But I'm not one of those guys who can't shoot anything with more recoil. It just takes practice and focus."

They read EGO...

In case they missed it in the first part of the first post there was also this:

"Bigger is better. If you can hit with it. And many, with practice, can hit well with rifles up-to or beyond the .375 H&H."

Of course the fact guides are constantly pointing out the frequent failures with clients shooting more gun than they can tolerate, but that means nothing compared to the EGO involved.

Then you pontificate a bit more with:

"How many BB have you shot? While you criticize others' opinions?"

With how many bears behind you? That's right, it screams EGO.

Over and over you patiently explain how well you shoot medium bores... Still ignoring the repeated complaints of experienced guides with hunters packing more recoil than they can tolerate...

And then you state:

"In my experience, the useful forums are where people discuss topics openly without fear that they might be accused of "daring to question" something, especially if they aren't really questioning it, but just discussing the factors and limits."

You are not questioning anything. You are stating that everyone else is wrong and the medium bores are much better than the '06 class, from 277 on up. Based on an experience of one on the larger end, rather than actually experiencing what can truly be done on the smaller side.

You fail to grasp the very important distinction there, obviously.

Maybe you missed the fact Phil put your misunderstanding about his experiences with the 30-06 to bed as he has repeatedly over time.

Many guides use 30 caliber stuff for back-up for bears.

My take away from all of this? Shot placement trumps caliber� but we all already knew that, right? Make a good first shot� If it makes sense on a whitetail it makes sense on a brown bear. Put a bullet through the vitals and death is sure to follow. I'm a believer in the "hunt with as much gun as you can shoot accurately and confidently" theory. To some that's a .223, to others that's a .458WinMag� to me that's an FN built Win M70 CRF in .338WM�

Foxx

Apparently not, 'cause you can't hit what you can't see. That reality eludes some it appears.

Your post nicely describes my thoughts on the matter.

Damn, who'da thunk that?

This is just what I seem to have obeserved over the years I have been shooting; It's not uncommon for someone to be able to shoot a fairly heavy caliber at the range, where there is no stress or pressure or adrenalin, but put that same person in a game field where he is concentrating more on an animal than on shooting technique, that person is more apt to flinch.
That might account for why many guides are skeptical of clients with big rifles. During a brief stint working a gun counter, I lost track of the times a customer would assure us that "recoil didn't bother him", and when we had him dry fire, he'd jump a mile as the rifle clicked.
The old saw "I don't feel recoil when I'm shooting at an animal" is downright silly, because flinches are over and done with before the rifle recoils. Flinches don't occur in reaction to the pain of recoil, they occur in anticipation of recoil.

There has to be a Field & Stream article about minimum calibers for brown bear. That should settle everything.

Maybe I could submit one, listing minimum caliber for interior Grizzlies as well as minimum calibers for 8 foot brown bears, 9 foot bears and 10 foot bears. Might even through in some for the mythical 11, 12 and 13 foot bears.

Of course we would have to list appropriate minimum caliber for women as well in case some guy wants to get a rifle for the little woman so she can hunt with him.

Would not work- To be an expert on bear rifles you have to be from the lower 48, east of the Missippi River and below the Mason Dixon line

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.

I can see the rejection slip now, "Sorry, but our Editorial Staff finds you over-qualified to give advice."