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

Caliber don't matter so long as you put a good bullet under the chin of a charging bear.

For those who are not familiar with Alaska statutes the legal minimum it any centerfire cartridge, which means the 22 Hornet, 17 Rem and 25 acp are completely legal for hunting Kodiak bruins.

If Bob May insists that his clients bring a .338 then that is his personal minimum.

I know of other guides who recommend that even their black bear clients bring a 375 H&H. Although I think that recommendation is meant to impress potential clients that they somehow hunt larger bears than all the other guides.

Just like these forums - there is a lot of BS out there and a lot of folks who believe it.

Laughing!!!!!!!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZbIcfFD30Ms" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Still cannot figure out embedding videos...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbIcfFD30Ms&feature=kp

thanks

I was even chewing gum whilst doing it.

My Dad was a stickler as to the description of a chambering. If I said "30/06 caliber" he would correct me by saying "wouldn't cartridge be a more accurate description?"

Royce it may have been Russia. For some reason I had it a McNeil. Perhaps because the guy was English speaking. Was fun to watch unlike the Treadwell documentary.

Is that the guy that had orphaned cubs penned and took them for walks, finally letting them go?

If I remember correctly all those bears ended up being killed by locals.

It was Kamchatka? The guy in question had an ultralight?

One I saw was a long time ago. Was an older fella that had a shack on the preserve. Stick was a big part of his program. I really thought it was McNeil but will try to find it. Most McNeil photos I have seen have the bears catching Chum Salmon. I assume they have a sockeye run? I have spent a bunch of time on Funnel Creek and Moraine Creek during the sockeye run. The braided areas of Funnel are quite the bear fest in August. Have heard that some of the bears come over from McNeil. Could be untrue but that is what people said.

Sure, but the disparagement of Mike�s comment as "clueless" simply for saying �some folks might desire more range� is unfair for a couple of reasons. I don�t know exactly what he meant, but it applies to my upcoming hunt, because I�m hunting brown bear, moose, wolf, and wolverine (and possibly black bear when we get below tree-line). Where I�m hunting, my guide�s clients have taken wolves out to 350yds and a little beyond.



I�d like to keep that option open.

I don�t know for sure what might be capable with handloads and other specific bullets with the 30-06 220gr loading, but the factory loadings I can find have the 30-60 220gr loads dropping 25� below the sight line at 350 yds. My .340 puts the .225gr TTSX at a little less than 3� high at 150yds, and a little more than 6� low at 350yds (actual range results). Now someone who is really trained well with the 30-06 220gr can do it fine I�m sure, but it�s easier for me to learn to shoot a .340 at that range than it is to shoot a 30-06 220gr at the same range. So, a flatter-shooting rifle, of whatever caliber, might be more versatile for multiple game. Either option is fine, but neither is �clueless,� and worthy of disparaging insults.

Also, to the extent that the versatility of a multi-game rife is not allowed on this thread, although I doubt I would shoot at a brown bear much past about 200 yds, but maybe I would under great conditions on the last day of a hunt, and you mentioned �at any distance from the muzzle to 300 yards�: At least with the factory loadings I can find (e.g, http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=19), a 220gr 30-06 bullet is moving at around 1,620fps at 300 yds. Is that good? I�m asking because I don�t know. But a .225gr .338 bullet out of a .340 moving at 2,600 fps at 300 yds might be a bit preferable. At 200 yds even, the 30-06 220gr is moving at only around 1,860 fps, and the 225gr .340 is moving at around 2,780 fps. Perhaps they both might work similarly, I don�t know, but hitting a big bear at rifle-velocity with a .338-cal bullet instead of hitting it with a fast-handgun velocity with a .30-cal bullet, even if not always necessary, can�t be clueless. It's close to the difference between hitting the bear near the muzzle with a 30-30 versus a 30-06. Maybe both would work, but it's not "clueless" to prefer a 30-06 over a 30-30 for close range work. Same difference.

Comments in response to a reasonable opinion like �some folks might desire more range� such as �Is there anything else you want to do to prove just how clueless you are? � Please, the above questions are purely rhetorical and your guesses are truly not being sought!� is just unnecessary and nasty for no reason. No one on here who advocates for a bigger gun is calling anyone who opts for a smaller one �clueless.� They�re just reasonable opinions to discuss. That�s what a forum like this is for I think.

Try this for the 3rd time cause you seem to keep missing my questions MH and was curious about some of your reasoning and just wanted to better understand your line of thinking.



MH,

You keep bringing up this point about since residents can hunt brown bear every year as an OTC tag and only have to spend $2500 on a remote fly out hunt to 17B then sense we spent less money somehow that makes us feel better using a smaller round.

Furthermore you'd be inclined to do the same from what I gather in these posts I quoted from you. Care to explain what you mean, cause you make it sound as though since we are residents we are willing to use these "marginal" caliber rifles because were aren't as invested monetarily as a non-resident and some how more willing to risk wounding a animal? When in the reality we aren't the ones hunting with a guide and has a clean up crew right there with you anyways if you do muff it up. But you are saying above if the guide wasn't there to help take the animal down from a bad shot you'd you more apt to use a smaller rifle? I would think as residents without a guide we'd be more inclined to ensure the bear is hit well than one that has a guide behind them to back them up.

I fail to see this point you are trying to make by you repeating to voice this stance, so if you get time and care to explain that would be great.

Personally, I could care less what one choose to hunt brown bear with so long as they are comfortable with it and shoot it well. But you feel this need for you defend your choice of a 340 wby and no one is saying you shouldn't. If you like it and shoot it well use it again it obviously works as will many other options. Best of luck to you this fall sir.

I think I addressed your question from my perspective above, but If I didn't it's perhaps because I think you're putting words in my mouth I haven't said.

My opinion has nothing to do with the guide backing me up. My goal, like last time, is to make a single-shot kill myself, and not to take the shot at all if I think that's unlikely. It's also not a matter, to me, of using a "marginal" caliber rifle (I don't think I used that term) and who is "more willing to risk wounding a animal." It is that, for me, there are certain shots I would not take at all with one gun versus another. It's not that I would always shoot no matter whatever firearm I had and then "risk wounding a animal" no matter what. For example, with a powerful handgun, I probably would not shoot past 50 yds. My friend, who frequents this website is an accomplished handgun hunter, and he can do better. But for me, I would not shoot at a bear with a handgun past 50 yds. If I was handgun hunting, and saw a big bear at 250 yds, I would not start lobbing 360gr .45 caliber bullets at the bear like hopeful mortar rounds (with or without a guide present). I'd pass up the shot (if I could not get closer, or in trying the bear bolted), and probably regret not having my .340.

If I could attempt to hunt brown bear several times a year near where I live, I might take my 7mm if I that's what I had and simply PASS UP some possible shots. But there are some shots with a more-difficult presentation at a certain distance that I might take on a brown bear with my .340 or .375 that I might not take with my 7mm. I would prefer that if I could not easily go back next week or next season without great expense, or perhaps ever.

Similarly, if it were legal here, and I was hunting whitetail deer an hour away, I might bring one of my .223s. I might pass up certain shots on the deer at certain ranges that I would feel more comfortable with my 7mm. No big deal. Pass up the shot, and go back next day, next week, or next season even. But if I had never shot a deer, and was traveling thousands of miles to do so at great expense, and didn't know when I might get to do so again, I would not bring the .223 and possibly have to pass up a shot that might unreasonably "risk wounding a animal." I'd be more likely to bring a 30-06, 7mm, or the like that would give me more, better options, than I would if it was my 50th deer hunt within driving distance from home. If I'm investing a lot of time and money in a hunt, I am more likely to work hard to master, and bring, a rifle that can cover more options. Just my opinion.

And for me (and it's just my perspective), I would feel more jittery aiming a .270 at a big bear than I would aiming at one with my .340 or .375 (which I am comfortable at shooting with much practice). I'm completely comfortable with those, especially in the field, so, for me, it all comes down to trajectory and bullet performance. I wonder if it would be the same with a .416, .454, .460, etc ... I have never tried. Maybe they would make me prone to flinching, even in the field, but it is not so with the 340 or .375.

Thanks for you explanation. Not sure what words I put in your mouth, I was simply asking to clarify what you said in previous posts that I quoted. That was all I was simply asking for.

SO in your experience of hunting bears did get stuck with a marginal angle shot and able to still harvest the bear due to the 340 Wby? I am sure you wait for your guide to tell you when its ok to shoot vs. not shoot right? I believe most guides wait for the first shot to be a good angle regardless of the clients choice of firepower. I could be wrong on this, but this would best ensure the 1 shot kill you are going after anyways.

Phil (458 Win) do you base if you'd let your clients take hard angled shots on a bear based on the firepower they are packing? Just curious.

Again like I said I am glad you like your 340 wby and use it well. And wish you all the best this fall and look forward to seeing your pics of the monster brownie you end up taking.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks. If I see a shootable moose before a bear this time, I probably will go for that, which would mean salvaging the meat and probably foregoing a bear. But there are more bear than moose where I'm going (probably because the bad bears are eating the moose(s)).

I'm not going to take a shot while guided that my guide asks me not to take. But it goes without saying that some rounds can produce better results in some circumstances than some others. I tried to illustrate that above. I can't believe you don't believe that. As an extreme, you wouldn't take the same shot at any animal with a bow as you would at the extreme range of a 30-06, 7mm or whatever. In my opinion, a 45-70 is about as good as it gets at close range on just about any bear, but I personally wouldn't shoot any animal with a 45-70 at some middling ranges that I would feel fine with taking with other rifles. My guide and I both seem to have the same common sense on things. But it's more my limitation than his. He might ask me if I felt comfortable taking a shot (he actually seems to trust my judgment, and part of the equation is the guided shooter's comfort, not just that of the guide who is not looking through the sight and taking the shot).

Last hunt, he saw me pass up a shot where he gave me the go ahead, and I waited briefly before I took the, even better, one I took because I wasn't confident of the shot with the bear passing into some alder brush. I waited for the bear (hopefully) to come out more in the clear. So, he might think something looks okay, and I might decide to pass it up. It's not that he's dictating that I must shoot no matter what I'm seeing through my scope. Then, there's the actual performance of the bullet. It can't be surprising that some bigger bullet moving fast might do better on an angled shot on a large animal than a smaller bullet moving slower. If not, there's no reason to hunt brown bear with anything other than a .223.

You're focusing too much on the guide thing. If I moved to Alaska (I'd like to, but can't now) I would be hunting without one. But I think my guide and I see eye-to-eye on all this. A good guide paired with a good hunter involves some delegation and discretion. It's NOT a guide seeing a shootable animal and always saying from several feet away "now shoot! ... what are you crazy?! I said shoot damn you!!!" My guide is not going to MAKE me take a shot I don't feel comfortable with even if he says it's okay. Last time, my waiting a minute risked the possibility that the bear would run off in a direction making him practically unshootable before I got a chance to shoot. But by taking that risk, I ended up with a better shot after he broke out into more open area that perhaps avoided the need for my guide to track a wounded bear. Could I or someone else have made the earlier shot? Probably. I'm just fairly conservative in my shooting when hunting. And what I'm willing to shoot personally depends to me on a lot of factors including the animal's posture, movement, and distance, etc ... and ... what weapon I'm shooting. It's just me. Silly, I know. I know it's really hard to believe, and I don't expect that, but if I moved to Alaska, and was not legally required to have a guide, I might not take ridiculously stupid shots at a brown bear and might not refuse to take ridiculously easy ones. Could someone have terrible judgment just because he doesn't reside in Alaska? Perhaps, but not necessarily.

Yeah, I didn't say anything controversial. A .30-06 220 grain round nose is far from a top choice for 300 yard shooting.

Hmmmm....

Topic is about shooting Kodiak bears and you want to extend the range. The 30-06 is somehow not enough.

Somebody says they want to shoot longer for other things. Kodiak has no wolves nor wolverines. And if they did they probably have no idea what a wolf hide looks like after meeting a 338WM.

The venerable 375H&H has been compared to shooting a 30-06 with 180gr bullets, trajectory-wise.

The 30-06 works much better in my direct experience with either 180 or 165/8 grain bullets...

So you suggest going much bigger for much smaller, nonexistent game at extended ranges...

You now have more than several clues but I am betting none will stick.