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

I have seen 00 buck stop under the skin against the skull of a whitetail buck. Not my idea of a Brown Bear stopper.

I love this thread..... Cannot imagine why anyone would want to bring the "minimum" caliber on a Kodiak bear hunt. Have fun looking for a wounded 1000 lb bear in the alders shot with a 7mm magnum.

If it comes to that I assure you it wasn't the 7 Mags fault they ended up there.....

That little statement pretty well sums up this entire thread.
It is a poor workman, or hunter, who blames their tools.

You guys certainly know more than me about killing big bears. I have seen several folks pull shots when they get excited. Would assume that a big gun would help a slightly less than perfect shot. This said, have never seen anyone shoot a Brown Bear.

Slightly less, possibly; flinchingly-less-than perfect: not so much

I suspect the 33s might be some of the worst, actually, since they approach 375 power levels in 7 mag-weight rifles. (I don't know anyone who actually appreciates the 375s in standard/magnum weight rifles either though either.)

My .338 Ruger is nowhere near a "7 mag weight rifle". It outweighs my sons Ruger 7 mag by a pound or two. And they're both walnut 77 Mark II's.

I have several big bores to 450 Ackley Magnum. I would be most comfortable with my 9.3X62 Mauser. It is very accurate and it doesn't give me the flinch that my 416 Rigby, 2-458 Lotts, and 450 Ackley magnum does. It handles heavy enough bullets and it is very comfortable to shoot.
A buddy of over 40years lives in Anchorage and mines around Hope said he would never go after a bear anymore with bear spray. He is comfortable with his 338.

Hope to hunt the big bears ,if so my 9.3x62 will go with me. Accurate and easy to shoot well. Otherwise my Sako FN 300 H&H mag with heavy Nosler partitions. Not so difficult I think.

I too hope to hunt Brown Bear someday. It may have to wait until a wealthy relative passes but when I get the chance I'll have my .338 loaded with a healthy 250 grainer. Is that "minimum"? I guess so. According to veteran guide Bob May it is anyway.

Do you get all of your inside information from Alaska Reality shows?

No. I've followed your posts here on the 'Fire too so I may be hopelessly mislead.

I haven't followed this thread closely.. Don't know if I will ever hunt brown bear, but I have calibers that will do the job..
But when I read bits of this thread, I think of a local who just went to Alaska for moose and grizzly.. The outfitter insisted he carry a rifle that would shoot at least a 300 grain bullet.. Fair enough.. But the outfitter also let another hunter go for the same game with a bow and arrow.. That makes no sense at all to me..

That is a distinct possibilty.

Some real pearls of wisdom in these 2 posts.

Not sure what you are saying but your spelling leads one to several possible conclusions with the addition of a helper or two... Everyone gets an award so I would suppose you do not think you are hopeless (my personal feelings on the issue aside) and so we can drop that.

But please feel free to post anything I have posted in error. Good luck with that.

Have been present at the taking of about 20 polar bears, while sledding with Canadian Inuit in the 1970s on a project of searching for polar bear denning areas. The Inuit present were allowed taking their legal allotted polar bear quota. The bears varied in size between 250-800 lbs. respectable but no giants.
The largest caliber brought by the Inuit on any of the trips was a .303 British, the smallest .222Rem. With in between .270, .243, 6mm rem., 25/06, .308 win, and 30-06.
They far preferred the smaller rounds, since they abhor exit holes, always used c&c bullets in factory loads brought in by the Hudson's Bay manager. Exit holes=fur damage.
They also liked to be able to carry the ammo in their pants pockets, smaller cartridges= more ammo for longer trips.
The most popular were then the .222rem, and the .243 since most game hunted was first and formost the ringed and bearded seals to be taken with head shots only to prevent them convulsing back into the seal hole. The second most hunted animal was the caribou.
Polar bears were regularly encountered on those sealing trips and therefore dispatched with the seal rifle at hand.
Now if they went out specifically for polar bear as the main target, they would bring a .303, .308, 270, 25-06 or .243. The 222 would be left at home or carried as a backup seal gun.
At one time I brought along a Remington .350 mag, the cartridge was much admired until a bear was shot with it, spraying blood and lung tissue on the piece of ice besides it.
The bear was no more then 350-400 lbs.
No Inuit after that wanted anything to do with the .350 mag.
Bears shot with the .222 were usually shot in the heart, or brain and died with heart shots within 2 minutes. Caribou were shot in the lungs or heart and died always very rapidly with the .222 rem. They admit that doing bears with a .222 needs caution and a cool disposition, since there is no margin for error. However it is done frequently.
The .243, .270 25/06, .308 win, 06, all killed the bears very quick with heart, lung or brain shots. Bears were shot well within the 50-100 yard range.
Then I only saw around 20 bears shot, so, a limited sample.
Another reason they are confident with their small bores is that the bears are chased until tired, not much steam left for charging, then shot at ranges less then 100 yards.
Caribou up there are approached easily within range, I do not believe I have seen shots exceeding 200 yards, mostly 40-100 yards.
The Inuit knew the anatomy of their animals and knew to place their shots.

WTF do Inuit know about choosing a cartridge/caliber for bears?????? They only hunt them on a regular bases!
I'd much rather ask some internet blowhard from the East Coast that never hunted bears what to use. LOL!!!!!!!!

I meant misled. I hope I'm not hopeless. My mom just died at age 55 and I just suffered a mild heart attack. So I realize this life can end anytime and I need to have some dreams and hope and pray I get to fulfill them.

Okay, but a sledgehammer works better for driving in a railroad spike than a claw hammer, right? If one is comfortable with the sledgehammer, it works better. If not, you can get it done with the claw hammer, but you probably will have to hit it more times. Of course, the spike won�t be trying to run away from you while you hit it, and you didn�t spend thousands of dollars, months of preparation, and weeks of travel to knock in the spike. How about a ballpeen hammer? I�ve broken concrete with a sledgehammer, which is a PITA compared to doing it with a jackhammer. If you have a jackhammer, have practiced with it, and know how to use it well, why use a sledgehammer on concrete? A bigger tool can make a difference of you�re comfortable with it.

Phil, is there's a reason why you don't hunt BB with a .270 or 7mm?