I heard 'Bob May', a pro guide on Kodiak, state the 'minimum' caliber for Brown bear is .338.

Maybe I've heard/read that before but don't remember.

Is the 'legal' minimum caliber 338, no cartridge specified, for Brown bear OR is that HIS requirement for clients??

I have no axe or hatchet to throw, just an honest curiosity.

Seems like I've read about 30.06 et.al. being used and discussed here.

THNX in advance.
Jerry

His requirement, not the laws'.

You can do it with a 30-06. Most guys will opt for bigger. I seen a toad killed with a 7saum.

When I can do Kodiak again, it'll be with my 338rum. Just because I can.

I bet a 156 Norma or 120 Barnes would sail thru one fine from a 6.5BR, having seen what a 175 does to a tree from a 7BR.

I'd want a 338/06, 9.3, or 350 RM myself. 338 WM is fine as the 375 or 416, assuming one can shoot them....the last few - some may not.

FWIW Jwall - a 200 Noz from a Springfield will about match a 338/06 210 PT according to Aaggard's test results - in penetration. I would not feel woefully underpowdered if quality 180-220s used.

Yes smaller cartridges will 'kill' a big brown BUT I subscribe to more internal destruction = quicker death.

My personal 'comfort' minimum would be a 300 WM and 200gr stout bullets.

Thanks for the 'legal' ? answer.

All the data I've seen says 30-06 and 300 mags are pretty much equal with 200-220 gr bullets and are about the minimum. The 375 seems to be the next step up and nothing in between seems to really matter.

Here is a good read. I've read some of Finn Aagaard's test results, but don't have a link to his data. It is fairly close to what was found here though.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

Interesting read from Alaska Fish & Wildlife: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.firearms

It's not about what will kill the bear, it's about the bear being immobilized and dying in the immediate vicinity of where it was first shot (not in the middle of the adjacent alder patch). Big, well constructed bullets accomplish this more consistently than bullets that are not.
You can shoot one in the guts with a .223 and it will eventually die somewhere.
I wonder what percentage of people that offer advice on these posts have even seen a brown bear?

I guess a 35 Whelen is considered too "wildcat". I would of liked to seen a Whelen's result listed with the rest of them.

True, but only if Rule #1 is followed...first.

I would feel comfortable walking the woods with the 30-06 and 200 gr Nosler Partitions .

My long-held contention (just unwilling to do the research) is that more bears have been killed by the .30-06 then the the next 2 or 3 cartridges combined.

I have a cold Pepsi for anyone that can prove me wrong.

No one will be drinking your Pepsi

Absolutely. I personally think more people choose a rifle caliber that they like more than one that they think they need. I really like the 338 and the 375 and while I don't think I need it for the things I've got, I just like the calibers.

So you�re saying that all those bears that either wander around for days or end up in yonder willow line after taking lead of .338 or .375 persuasions must have somehow infracted rule #1? (Them bears sure give it up quick even with lesser stuff if you hole them right.)

How big a gut hole is needed to bang-flop a bear?

Butt shots trump gut shots!?!?

lol....

Is that a "diet" Pepsi?

Seventeen or so paces, where he was standing on his hind legs and took an 8mm Rem slug right in the sternum. I wouldn't head out to hunt them with less than a 338.

How about less than 10 feet and with no weapon, sow and 2 cubs and yet I somehow managed to survive it.

Where were you hunting?

It do pucker one up, don't it? More so than watching the truck ahead of me getting blown to hell, as I remember.

If that's what you prefer!

taking the bet?

Hinchinbrook Island. May 79. A guy out of Valdez landed us on the south side of the island at low tide.

I didn't have much time to think about it, I just wanted to GTFO of there intact.

You don't think an '06 w/ a 200 gr. Partition or a 180X would have done the same thing?

You don't even need that, if the shot is placed correctly or you have plenty of ammo, but then you already knew that.

Compared to a 338? Probably. That is why I said 338 for starters. Barsness has written that you have to jump up to a 375 to really see a difference. I don't personally have the experience to vouch for that but I highly suspect he knows what he's talking about.

I did run into quite a few locals, mostly employees at Wainwright and several BLM smokejumpers, who lived at least part time in the bush. Everyone I remember carried a 30-06, most with 220gr Rem core-locs, 'cause that was the best over-the counter bullet available at the time.

I was stationed on Wainwright from 1990-1993. There were two gun shops in town as I recall, both recommended the .338 as a minumum for bear carry, and were pushing Mossberg 500 for general carry and protection on a budget.

Most of the locals I talked to were of the same opinion on calibers. Some carried the -06, but most were shooting something heavier if they could afford it. From what I recall, the -06 were bargain priced against anything with "Magnum" in the caliber title.

Pondering this a bit more, that would be EXACTLY what I'd carry in the interior. Griz and Brownies are both formidable but the size/power difference is there for sure. A cut-down O3A3 with that huge rear peep, or even an FR-8 in 308 with its robust sights would work.

Recently had a client show up for a Peninsula bear hunt with 168 bergers out of a 300. I must say the first shot stuffed his nose right in the tundra but I think it was the 300 grain TSX that diagonaled his torso and exited that kept it there.

It wasn't my rifle dickhead. It got the job done but the bear ran, in the other direction thankfully, 3-4 times the distance of the shot. I don't know how you could hit a bear more solid than to center punch one in the breastbone, standing on his hind legs. I was 19 at the time, my friend was in his early 20's. I've learned a thing or two since then about rifles and ballistics. Since you're reading this, GFY while you're at it.

What bullet were you using ace? What did the bear measure out at when you found him?

He was shooting Rem Corelocts, don't recall the weight. The bear squared 7'11". Not huge, but a decent boar.

I can't prove it but the .30-30 can't be far behind.

IIRC Hosea Sarber was a government hunter in Alaska and killed stacks of brown bears with his preferred caliber, the .270W.

I would venture to say that the .30 WCF has killed more big game (including big bears) than ANY other rifle caliber in history� but that does not mean that it is the best choice in today's age with all of the other caliber options available that weren't around 50, 100, 150 years ago� I've never hunted brown bear, but I've shot a lot of pretty big [bleep] over the years (moose, boo, elk, kudu, eland, big hogs and a few black bear (one B&C) and I can't imagine the .338 WM with a tried and true 250g Nosler partition not being enough for a quick and clean kill with a well placed shot in vitals or CNS� the .338 WM is a killer, and you can find ammo for it anywhere in Alaska.

True enough. However, more important than case headstamp or even caliber is the hands in which said rifle is borne. The 338 is one way to maximize power in a rather handy package. However, many, whether they�re willing to admit it or not, do not handle it near as well as something like a 30-06 in a similar size/weight package, or perhaps even a 375 in a heavier package. I suspect that�s a reason why the 338 sometimes gets a bum rap. Bears are often the proving victims of the fact that good shot placement trumps size, power, and bullet brand; not to say that they are not also important.

Based on how some people have performed when killing bears, one might draw the conclusion that 223 with 55 FMJs, 338 with 250 Partitions, and 30-378 with Barnes Xs are equally poor bear killers. Of course, that is comparing apples to pears to bananas.

Yeah K, but you even go after them with falling block single-shot rifles, so what the heck? We're supposed to accept what you've got to say about big bears & rifles? Crazy!

The 358 Norma, previously known as a 338 Win M77 prior to its appointment with the reamer, got left 3/4 of a mile of deep, soft tundra prior to the 9.3 caliber #1-S bear. What can I say? That which carries and wields well......well, those guys who carried M94s all those (these?) years weren�t fools.

If the hunter can shoot anything from a 270 with 150 Partitions on up will easily do for any Brown or Grizzly
and if the hunter can't then they will have all manner of problems with whatever caliber they choose.

Although I have never and probably will never shoot one I think
Phil Shoemaker Just ended all the speculation right now!
I do believe he knows his buisness.
Speculation Party is over Guys!

Wow! I was happy with the notion of the .30-06 for grizz... But I dunno Phil, advocating a varmint rifle...

Awesome!

A guy with all this experience says the 270 will kill brown bear.

But on here, the cartridge sucks for anything bigger than a jackrabbit.

This place is hilarious.

In an old article about Brown bears the author visited with a number of guides.. It seems the real difference in power came when I guy moved to the .375..

Bob, When I first came to this valley, one of the old time Alaska brown bear and polar bear guides, had a ranch here.. I had the good luck to visit with him several times, and also do some hunting with him.. I know it sounds crazy, but his backup gun was a .270, at least on a couple polar bears...

Yes it is! I was wondering when and if Phil would chime in. I expected his usual sage advice of the .30-06 and good, heavy, Nosler Partitions as an acceptable minimum.... Then he changes the game on me and say's that a .270 is acceptable! We all know they bounce off anything bigger than a rockchuck!

Phil, thanks for weighing in.

Regards, Guy

just got back from my spring bear trip where I helped a young man take his first brown bear who was hunting with an AR-10 in .308 Winchester using 155 Scenars. It is a very capable combination and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend or use it again.........

[/quote]

I don�t know.....I think it might be a kid�s rifle.I know I�ve played this before but I�ll play it again to try to help reinforce the concept of �too little, too few�.



This kid, all of 10 years.....alright, 10 years plus 2 weeks if that matters, and with a single shot (for kids, you know ). It is a bit bigger than a jack rabbit, but then, our jackrabbits are quite large.

I hope I�ve helped........

Well, I just watched Riley whack a modest brown bear with a 25-06 and those nasty little 80gr TTSXs... Shot through both legs and the heart before leaving, it left a Stevie Wonder trail into the alders. That was just today.

Same combo used effectively on a huge-bodied bull moose last fall. Guessing a 270 might cut it.

Heart attack huh?

Never did it myself but a number of old mentors have pulled it off on interior grizzly and brown bear with a 270. Bullets (to be very specific)were 130 NPT,160 NPT,and 130 Bitterroot.

One among many reasons why I have to blink when someone says the cartridge is lacking somehow in the killing department.

I'm a bit more traditional and brought a 375 and 338 when I went up after them;but goes to show that even brown bears don't live long with jagged holes through heart and lungs.


Klik those are indeed big jackrabbits!

That�s �cause the 25 still has the scary �aught-six� on the end. Everyone knows the 270 would work better if it had been a 27-06 instead. (And what a lovely sound it makes when uttered too! )

Nah, it just lost its prime!

27-06 ???


man I gotta get me one of them hummers


I think there's room in the safe

Tell the lad that my 15yo daughter says that was "cool"...she is sitting here talking my ear off!

More than a couple of years ago Layne Simpson wrote an article titled" What 83 dead brown bears taught us" seems he had records from an Outfitter for brown bear hunts. As Ircc, LS said it took fewer small caliber rounds per bear than large caliber ones , simply because the small caliber guys could shoot well and better than guys armed with bigger carts. Phils advice would be good enuf for me he's BTDT. Magnum Man

7mm-08, you don't even have to aim!

Of all the writers, experienced hunters, and guides you could use to support ANY data on brown bears Lame Simpleton is the one that just pisses me off looking at the name.

His little piece about a wonderful huge brown bear he shot and left for the night in big brown bear country is about the most disgusting thing I have ever read... claiming the weather was blowing up and they "had" to get out (back to the nice comfy lodge) for safety reasons they returned to a bear that had been eaten by the other bears.

All because he had to get his hero shot in good light...

Contempt does not begin to sound strong enough to describe how I feel about him and that act...

Don't hold back.

The pussbag did not even have the decency to just STFU but had to spell out where his true dedication lies...

Hmm...? Funny you mention him. I subscribed to Shooting Times for many years; he is easily the biggest and final straw which terminated my relationship with that magazine. He certainly had a way of �spell[ing] out where his true dedication lies�.

Art's liable to have a stroke one of these days if he doesn't learn to express his frustrations

The right bullet out of an '06, placed where it needs to be, will kill about anything NA has to offer. No doubt about that. It's been repeatedly documented and will continue to be.

But, with the cost of such a hunt, I'd take my NH, M-70 SS Classic .375 H&H (21" tube) over my 7RM, '06, .300WM .338-284, 9.3x62, etc. Probably won't kill the bear any deader, would sure make me feel better.

Some of the others, like the 9.3, are pretty fancy. My .375 is SS/Tupperware with a Zeiss Victory 1.5-6x42 in Talley QD's and NECG fiber optic irons. (Scope's probably worth more than the rifle, but that's OK). It feels right, handles great and is rugged enough for the wettest, nastiest terrain, places where I wouldn't want to take a nicer gun.

Just sayin'

DF

I spent years cowboying/guiding in G bear country with a Winchester Mod. 95 carbine in 30-06 with 220 grain round nose bullets in my saddle scabbard. I know they are not Br. bears but I can tell you that this combo kills big bears dead. That being said if I was ever to go after big costal Grizzly/Brown bears on purpose I would want my 458 WM or at least my 325 WSM with me

IdahoPro had a little different feeling about front sights after we went through a smallish patch of alders one day... No pack and no wounded bear ahead the sight still grabbed every alder he tried to pass, as they are wont to do.

Getting rid of gadgets and trash is far better...

But, it looks good, scores style points...

DF

Might look good to some...

I moved up here in '07, working for an Alaska Native Corporation. Shortly after, I was talking hunting with one of the Execs, who was from "the village" (on Prince William Sound).

"Roy," I asked, "What do you use to hunt brown bear?"
"My .270."

I was kinda surprised, so I asked what he used for moose.
"My 270."

A little puzzled, again, because I'd heard so much about the need for small thermonuclear devices to take down Alaska's critters. So I asked about blackies, sheep, goats, caribou and anything else I could remember being legal game up here. Also about bear defense while fishing freshwater. Always got the same answer -- "My .270."

"Roy, why do you use the .270 for everything?"

"It's the only rifle I've got..."

LOL.

Be aware of the one with just one gun.

I might know know to use it.

Calling Big Stick.......

Okay, take this all with a grain of salt, just my opinion. I am going back to Alaska in Sept. for my second BB hunt. In my first in Sept. 2010 (same basic hunt), I hit a 9'2" BB at 97 yards. My guide had been involved in 40+ BB kills as a hunter or guide. The bear completely stopped moving within 1.5 second of the shot. It jumped a distance while biting the thing that was biting him. Once we approached the dead bear, you easily could tell from the terrain that it jumped 25 feet and fell dead. Before the shot, my guide had told me that, whatever good happened, it was almost certain that we would have to track the bear unless a second shot was made. The guide told me that it was the fastest he had ever seen a BB, who was not head-shot, die.





The round I shot was a 300gr NP, which was moving at about 2,550 fps from my .375 Wby with an offhand shot. I hit the bear through both lungs but above the heart. Nevertheless, based on my layman autopsy, the heart was seriously damaged, even though it was not within the bullet path.

I can't say anything for certain, but I personally can't believe that a .270 Win shot in the same location would keep the bear from going more than 24 feet.

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.

One big distinction that some don't recognize is the difference between AK residents, who can hunt BB at will, and out-of-state hunters who have to spend great resources on a possibly once or twice-in-a-lifetime hunt.

If I was hunting BB essentially in my backyard, I would be happy to hunt with a .270, .308, whatever. But not if I'm spending a ton of money and time just to get there.

I personally don't think a .270 would have destroyed the heart of my bear outside of the bullet path. I can't prove it, but I know a 300gr NP moving at 2,550 fps did.

I have a 300 Win Mag and 7mm Wby, both of which I love. The 7mm is a really light comfortable rifle that weighs like a feather. I would take it in Sept. if I thought there was any reasonable basis for doing so. I just can't see it.

If I was hunting BB on a day hike, I might. Instead, I'm going on a moose, BB, wolf, etc... hunt that I can't do on a whim. So, I'm either bringing my .375 Wby or my .340 Wby. (probably the latter with a 225gr TTSX with chronoed consistent appx. 3,160 fps MV). My 7mm Wby and my .300 Win Mag have way more power than a .270 or 30-06, and I would not even consider bringing the 7mm Wby or 300 WM. I could be wrong, but I do think size matters. BB are big, and big bullets are bigger than small ones.

The German Tiger's 88mm gun and the M26 Pershing's 90mm gun would destroy any enemy tank they hit. The 75mm Sherman gun and even the Mk IV Panzer 75mm gun would do far less. Same principle with bears.

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.

Phil Shoemaker, a very experienced Alaskan brown bear guide, posts on the Fire as 458Win. He has said a 30-06 with 200 grain premium bullets is a good minimum. He has used many rifles as a guide but I believe he used a 30-06 as his backup rifle during at least one recent season.

Edit: I just saw Phil's post a few pages back. Looks like he now thinks a .270 w/ 150 G Nosler Partitions will do. I would listen to what he says which includes the idea that hitting the animal in the right place trumps caliber.

This thread is so "Campfire"! The guy with the most experience gives a definitive answer. Specifically, 458 says a 270 with great bullets is acceptable. Then those with little to no experience, actually none compared to him, present endless thoughts about how he's wrong. Unbelievable.

I don't know how much experience you have, and what 458 means by "acceptable," but about six months ago, on this site he, shockingly, mentioned how superior the .458 WM worked on brown bear. He must believe it's significantly better than a 270 or his name would be "270." My post above suggests that a .270 is okay too. But "458" uses a "458" for a reason. It's more than the "acceptable" minimum. 270 works; 458 works better. How many BB have you shot? While you criticize others' opinions?

Keep in mind there are various types to bear rifles, all needing to be equally well-suited to their particular role. There are (not necessarily an exhaustive list):

-hunting rifles
-stopping rifles
-defensive rifles


...and they don�t have the same requirements other than the ability to kill a bear when used well. (The expectation that any of them will be fired is hierarchal in descending order.)

Well, the name of the thread is "Minimum Calibers for Kodiak Brown Bear"....what that means to me is not what's ideal for them, or what we would choose on a once in a lifetime hunt, but rather what's the smallest "minimum" caliber you can safely and humanely kill them with; not what's perfect. I wouldn't know what that is to be honest. So many of them have been killed with 30-30's and 30/06's,etc.

Natives of the far north have been rolling polar bears for decades with cartridges many consider unsuitable for a half starved fork horn whitetail.

Not surprised that Phil pegged it at a 270 with good bullets,since I know people who have used it on brown bear and grizzly...a long time before there was an Internet.The cartridge has also been used successfully on African lions more than once,so....ditto the 7 Rem Mag.

Perfect? Maybe not....but that wasn't the question.

Brown bears might be the only real reason for a 375 H&H in North America. They are tough, resilient animals,soft skinned,comparatively light boned and heavily muscled like all the great predators. Lots of people are afraid of them and rightfully so....but they aren't bullet proof.I hear that 160 Partitions from a 270 will go right through them.

Lots of them have been killed with 270's and 30/06's and I might add with bullets that can't compare to what we have available today.Like anything they don't live long with their vital organs torn to shreds.

MH
I wager your bear had a number of large blood vessels torn up by the bullet. Being close to the heart they were large volume vessels and dumped a lot of the blood pressure very quickly. Any good bullet in the same place would likely have produced very similar results, regardless the caliber.

I have seen it many times with brown bears, as recently as a week ago. That was a 25-06 with 80gr TTSX on a smallish brown bear, tremendous blood vents and a very short, very wide blood trail.

When guiding I usually carried a 300WM for back-up and used it a number of times. It worked just fine. At the time I even thought better of several different bullets...

MH, Our brown bear season just closed four days ago and it marked the 34th year that I have been guiding in Alaska. If I have learned anything it is that while they can be amazingly tough and tenacious when wounded, they are still flesh and blood and all it takes to kill them is a well placed, stoutly constructed bullet. The last hunter in my camp who used a .270 with 150 Partitions dropped his bear virtually within it's tracks ( although it did spin before dropping) It certainly didn't go 24 feet.
Does that mean the 270 a "better" round than your 375 ? Of course not, but it certainly means it is adequate for the hunter who is a competent shot.

Calibers like your 375, and my 458, may help compensate for more marginal hits or put the big bears down a little quicker and keep them down a second longer, but they are certainly no more lethal.

Death is a result of bleeding and broken body parts. Not by specific cartridges. If anyone has more experience than Phil Shoemaker has, please join in...

Wow! Purty impressive coming from a state Dept of a Fish and Game.

Just for clarity....... My ? Here is about the 'legal' minimum cal. on Kodiak pfor BB. The Pro stated the minimum was 338. I thot or questioned that 'maybe' the legal minimum had changed

You guys have answered my ? and I've enjoyed your responses and experiences.

Don't stop, I'm having fun.

A 22 Hornet would be legal by definition, as would the 17. The only �caliber� restriction is placed on the use of rimfire cartridges for big game.

As I recall, a couple of Coasties used a 223 with Sierra varmint bullets to take a good-sized bear on Kodiak a few years ago......FWIW. But Phil�s advice is where I�d start, and there may be some hunting conditions where more would be prudent.

You are asking to be a campfire pariah by using logic quoting people's posts here. Especially since your handle alludes to having served in a combat arms unit. Everyone in MT probably already hates you for it.

Okay, but I am confused. You use a .458 Win for backup on, and for killing, big bears, right? Not a .270; not a .308; not a 30-06; not a 300 WM; not a .338 WM; not a .375 H&H; etc ..., but a .458 WM, right? Is there some value to that?

Fair enough. The title does ask for a minimum. My problem with an absolute minimum is that there isn�t one. People argue convincingly that, if a 7mm RM or 30-06 can do something, then the right bullet from a .270 Win can do the same most of the time. True. However, then you legitimately can say that anything a .270 Win can do, a .25-06 can do most of the time. True. Then you can say that anything a .25-06 can do, a .243 Win can do. True. Then you can say that anything a.243 Win can do, a .223 can do. And anything a .223 can do, a .17 can do. And anything a .17 can do, a .22LR can do at reasonable range. The Inuit have taken thousands of brown bear with .22 cal. centerfire rifles at really close range. It�s not a good choice for modern hunting of brown bear, especially if you are hinting BB rarely at great cost and not in your backyard.

Think of people. Reagan was shot with a .22LR in 1980. In his late 70s, he didn�t even know he was shot for about 30 minutes. He would have died if he had not been taken to GWU Med. Ctr. If Hinckley had shot him with a .44 Mag in the same place (lungs), he likely would have died fairly quickly. A .22LR could be a minimum for anti-personnel shooting, but it�s considerably inferior to even a 9mm Para.

Bears can�t be different. A .270 can work with a good shot, but as 458 has suggested, a .458 WM works a lot better. It�s common sense. A .22LR is great on a squirrel. But less so on a deer. A .270 is great for a 150lb deer or even a 500 lb elk, but perhaps less than ideal for a 1,110lb brown bear.

Accuracy in the face of recoil is a different matter. If one can�t shoot a medium bore well (either because of a disability or because of lack of diligence and training), then that hunter is better off with the lighter caliber. But, I, likely like many others, have trained myself to shoot medium bores well. If you do so, and have one, it is better in terms of terminal performance.

If I could only shoot a .270 accurately (which may be true someday), I would be happy to hunt brown bear with one. It may fall within some gray area of a minimum caliber, but it�s obviously less than ideal for an animal potentially weighing more than 900lbs, especially if it is a difficult/expensive hunt.

I�ve shot a large bear with my .375 Wby. But I�ve also shot water vessels and wet, muddy berms with it. It�s MUCH more violent that when I do so with my .308 Win., my 7mm Wby, my .300 WM, etc� Much more violent. People at the ranges (with their own guns chambered in .270 or greater) gasp when they see it. It�s different. It matters. If you don�t want to, or can�t shoot something like that, it�s fine to hunt giant animals with something less. But, as I said, I�d rather shoot a Mk. VI Tiger with a 90mm long-barreled gun than with a short 75mm gun. Bigger is better when you are facing big game. Unless it degrades your accuracy, and, at least up to the .375 Wby in the field, it does not degrade mine and many others.

In other words, if you can shoot a pie plate at 200 yds with a .375 H&H etc ... its a better option for brown bear. If not, for whatever reason, a .270 Win is fine, but less ideal to me.

A bigger/deeper cavity on larger animals works better even if not a terrible gut shot, which no one would recommend with any caliber.

For example, a .270 will stop a cape buffalo (a little bigger than a large BB) if you do your part, but you're not allowed by law to even attempt it in most places. There is a reason for that.

You've shot one frigging bear, and come on here like you have some sort of a clue. How dare you question Phil.

You may want to stop now.

Did you think of any of these things?
.458Win is a well known and regarded Brown Bear guide?
Has killed more bears then you will ever see in your life time?
Has the skill set to shoot a .458 well?
The list could go on but this should give you a little to think about.

Sad. I don't even think I "questioned" Phil . That's the point of discussion. I come her and see more aggressive attempts to quiet discussion than a actual discussion. If it's just the Phil forum, then that's fine, I now get most of my info elsewhere. How "dare" I state my own opinion? Nice. But, if you look at any of this, and actually read it, I'm not sure I have disagreed with Phil, whom I respect beyond compare. I'm just giving my own thoughts. I honestly can't say whether Phil agrees with me or how much he disagrees with me based on his previous posts. Can you "Prairie Goat"? He obviously prefers a .458 WM for brown bear. How much so over a .270 is a question.

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.

Yes. See my previous post.



Yeah, others can shoot medium/large bores well. That's my point. I don't think he disagrees with that. I could be wrong. Much of the discussion about how small of a rifle is okay for hunting large game centers on the idea that few people can handle any significant recoil. I don't know how that has/could play out with the masses, but I KNOW that a good shot with a typical rifle can successfully learn to handle recoil from a medium large bore by spending enough time/effort doing so. I doubt Phil disagrees with that. But a lot of people, instead, focus on a minimum caliber.

I spent countless hours over 18 months shooting my ,375 Wby over and over again before my last hunt. I worked my a$$ off to get really good with that rifle. I thought it mattered. It worked. It's not a bad idea. I don't necessarily think Phil would disagree. Maybe he will say.

It's pretty obvious from your posts you haven't done much hunting. That's ok. But to come on and act like you know what you're talking about is silly.

Did you ever think that maybe the reasoning for carrying a 458 is to sort out bad situations caused by poor shooting from fellows who couldn't handle their fire breathing magnums?

MH, You might be surprised at the number of people who come bear hunting who do not shoot the bigger stuff especially well.



A person (guide) who is compelled to finish a botched harvest (wounded bear) is well served by the use of a rifle with more �oomph� than what a hunter might use. A wounded bear can be a whole different creature than even an aware and wary bear. A bear that isn�t hit well might as well have been darted instead with a heavy dose of adrenaline.

I am generally an �enough gun� advocate but excellent placement of a proper bullet always rules #1.

I have been hunting since 1977.

I'm not acting, and only people like you even make weird accusations like that.

So, Phil, by strongly preferring, and carrying himself, a .458 is doing that "to sort out bad situations caused by poor shooting from fellows who couldn't handle their fire breathing magnums"? I didn't know you thought so little of Phil. Nice.

I don't disagree, and I don't think I have said otherwise. But, for those who have taken the objective and learned to shoot something bigger well (it can be done with practice and focus, if you want to), it's better to go big. I honestly shoot my .340 Wby Accumark more accurately than all my other rifles, including my .375. so, I can't see why I would take a .270 I don't shoot any better on my hunt next Sept. Ten years ago, I might make a different decision, and it would not be wrong, like that of many others. But, it you can shoot a medium bore as well as a deer rifle, and you have one, go big. No harm. Possibly some benefit.

This is really funny, knowing where you are getting your info... Over-moderation is a long way from an open forum. They only let you say your ridiculous stuff and strut because they make sure everybody gets to do the same without any questioning...

It is only when forced to defend statements that everyone gets to see how ridiculous they might be. Many will fail to recognize just how stupid a comment is until the right questions are asked of the poster.

That is actually a free forum... not some glee club for only those that want to hold hands and play nice.

Otherwise you end up with protected clueless idiots claiming to be ballistic gurus with no concept of spin dynamics. Or physicists claiming some unknown force goes into their gunsafe to move dry salt around.

Yeah, that is a great way to gain knowledge, for sure...

Interesting method you're using to try and turn it around on me. You're logic is extremely strange regarding Phil and the 458.

Here's a quick rundown why you obviously haven't done much hunting and killing:

1: A quick Google search for Brown Bear hunting cartridges shows that you have posted up about your hunt on nearly every forum available. And that's about all you've posted about. We can forgive you for this, as maybe that's all you're interested in posting about.

2. You quote a lot of numbers, and shoot big guns. These sorts of things are normally done by guys who don't have much experience. That's ok. We are all at different points in the what is needed for killing journey, and you will learn.

If my feeble mind remembers correctly,and unless things have changed. the world record Alaskan Brown Bear was killed in 1952 with a 30/06.

I also have a vague recollection that the world record polar bear was shot with a 270.

If nothing else, we can take this and several decades of dead bears to establish safe minimums.The 30/06 has passed so many similar tests it doesn't merit conversation.

Coming to firm conclusions on brown bear cartridges is OK so long as we don't take our own advice too seriously; there being very few living humans who can claim "expert" status on killing brown bears simply because so few get much opportunity to kill very many,or see very many shot.

We have some such people posting here and have already heard from them.

I have killed only two; and seen three others shot.Both of mine were killed with a 375H&H. Professing any expertise or lecturing what else works and how, based on such thin experience is the same as saying I'm a great ladies man because I pinched a couple of asses in a crowded bar.

MH, I will agree that a .375 is arguably a "better" choice for brown bears than a .270 and yes I do prefer my .458 for tracking wounded bears in the pucker brush. But I would certainly not recommed a 458 to a client as the majority of clients who bring up larger bore magnum rifles, especially Weatherby's, do not shoot them well.
The vast majority of, actually when I think of it, every wounded bear that I have had to follow up was due to hunters using magnum rifles that they were afraid of and who didn't shoot as well as they claimed to . I have never had a Client who brought a 270, 7 mag or 30-06 ever loose a wounded bear.

I will also add that I have used my 30-06 to stop a number of wounded bears, both from escaping as well as charging.

Here is just one example of a bear that was poorly hit and wounded by a Weatherby shooting client that I had to track and finish with my 30-06

For crying out loud, if you can shoot the 375 Weatherby well and are confident using it, then why even bother with this "smallest caliber for a Kodiak brown bear" nonsense? You asked for some opinions and got them.

If I were headed out on a guided brown bear hunt, Phil would be the first one i'd ask about caliber choice. It's the guides ass that's on the line if something goes awry during the hunt and the last thing i'd want is to have my guide have to go in some nasty alder tag after a wounded brown bear.

Read what Phil has to say about the subject, I can't think of anyone more qualified on the matter.

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."

Marine Hawk is a southerner?

This has been an immensely interesting read, but whilst I know very little about bears I am of the understanding that the calibre and cartridge size required increases in concert with how close the animal is getting.

Further, I am informed that at fifty paces a ma deuce is supposed to be very comforting.

I'm a .270 guy but I would be a little hesitant to take one for brown bear. Maybe with the 160 Partition. I'd still feel better with a 30-06 and 220 Partitions.

L O L !!

I like the way you think.

Hey we are not all asswhipes down here! I've never shot a Griz, either interior or a bigger coastal bear but have been around and close up with a bunch of the big guys. Have skinned and cut up a couple one was a rather beefy critter. Were I back in Alaska or just going on a big bear hunt I'd put a 338-06 barrel on my 30-06 and call it ready to go. Course the 30-06 with a good heavy bullet would be good as well.

This is a very interesting topic especially since Phil has posted. My two grizzly hunts to Alaska were very different. The fall hunt was done from a tree stand positioned adjacent to active feeding sites along streams. The grassy areas were littered with salmon parts and reeked of a badly managed fish cannery. Wide trails through the willows showed were bears walked. They bedded up during the day, usually at some elevation to stay cool and came down at the evening to feed. My first night was in a ground blind and we had bears all around us. Watched an 8 footer walk by down the middle of the stream so close you could hear his breathing. Almost ended it there. Did take one just at 8 feet from a tree stand 3 nights later. Used a 375 H&H Kimber Talkeetna, 48 yards with a 270 TSX.

The prior spring hunt in April, was on snow machines traveling vast distances during the day. we were hampered with constant snow and "flat light" which made spotting harder. Hunted hard for 10 days traveling a couple hundred miles by camper and then by machines. One morning at elevation McKinley popped out into clear sky and sunshine. I have some wonderful photos. No bear but a great trip nonetheless and which showed my snow machine skills to be greatly lacking.
Same Talkeetna, unfired.

Talked to the guide yesterday. They went 50% which is terrible for him. They had tough snow conditions due to high temps which made for soft snow and a dangerous situation with numerous avalanches. This kept them from getting to some bears they could see through spotters.

The guide has become fan of the 300RUM due to the distances the spring bear hunters find themselves in. He had one bear swim a river to his dying rabbit call only to have the wind switch and the bear turn back in midstream.

From yesteryear:

Went and looked up in my Oct. 1958 Outdoor Life a story on Kodiak bear hunting.
A couple of boys you may heard of - Pinnell and Talifson down around Olga Bay
Kodiak Island had two hunters. Both shot great bears on either side of 10 feet. One went 28 inches and the other 30 1/16. I believe the record at that time was 31 inches. Both hunters used 30-06's, one a pump (Rem 760), the other a bolt (Husky) and 220 gr. Core Lokts. One bear at 85 yards on the level and the other shot from above down to a ledge at 100 yards.

Anyway, its all good stuff.

Older Kodiak guides like P&T recommended the 30-06 to their clients in their printed brochures and the 30-06 was THE single most popular cartridge for the majority of all Alaskan guides well into the 1960's. Even as late as the 1990's there were Kodiak guides still using it and one even preferred his .270.

That is not to say those rifles were the "best" but they obviously were effective and with our modern bonded and homogenous bullets they are even better.

Now if we want to start a separate topic and discuss current "best" calibers we could argue about all the larger calibers.

In my opinion it would fall somewhere in the range of the .338 Win, .358 Norma and the .375 H&H or Ruger.

Too many confusing 'minimum' with 'optimum' it seems.

Kind of peripheral to this discussion but certainly related is the kind hunter you get into camp I would think. I've noticed there are those for whom hunting is the focus and the rifle a necessary but mere tool for the job. They are experienced and good hunters But they are not only not gun loonys, they are the ant-loony hunter.

Ballistics, cartridges, and rifle platforms hold no or very little interest to them. They hunt with a rifle suggested a long time ago by friends, a clerk, or perhaps acknowledged by the general outdoor culture as the way to go. This hunter may be as deadly as a sniper with his deer rifle but if he has moved up recently to a big Wby medium as suggested by the experts above, he may find himself in your bear camp tentative and lacking confidence. This is not good.

Then there is the "Hunter" who is in camp with his new 340, 375, or 378 Wby and who is not even an experienced or good hunter but, by golly, he is on a brown bear hunt and all his friends and family have heard about this for months now. The rifle was chosen based on the it's rating on the machismo monitor and ratified by ten onlookers at the counter. Not good.

Then there is the guy who is a genuine, and far gone gunny. He lives in the Midwest, has no plans for Africa or elephants but has a 458 Lott. He hunts and loves it but shoots ten times more than he has hunting opportunities. He has gone through the mediums, the 40's and can handle them effectively. He hand-loads and can shoot very well from field positions and has probably fired his chosen rifle and load several hundred to a thousand times in preparation for his BB hunt.

Of course, these are a few and simple, artificial categories with many folks falling by various degrees into more than one camp.

In any people oriented business, one learns to size folks up pretty quickly, sometimes in minutes, but certainly in a camp over several days spending twelve hours a day together or more. I would think that the type of hunter the guy is as a pro like Phil is determining from the first phone call, and face-to-face, goes more to comforting him, or not than what's in the gun case; what's in the gun case then can become a much greater or a lesser reason for concern depending...

Phil, It'd be interesting to hear of your impressions and evaluation process as you meet a new client, whether it's a conscious, gradation process or just a feeling and how you do proceed differently based on your client.

I'm sorry if this is too much off topic but it certainly seems that the type hunter one has would greatly determine how you'd feel about his armament and where in the cartridge continuum you'd like him to be. You might suggest the guy bring his 30/06 or even 270 just as you might say to the affirmed gunny, "bring that 340".

My first response to a hunter who asks what rifle to bring is to ask what they have and which is their favorite ? If they are comfortable with their 270. 308 or 30-06 I recommend they buy some premium ammo and bring that one.

Unfortunately only about half of them follow that advice, but the ones who do usually use a lot less lead to obtain their trophy.

Interesting thread. I'm no expert on brown bear shooting.......at all.

However........I get sooooo tired of know-it-all outfitters assuming that every client is a derelict dude who can't shoot. This schitty, selfish, arrogant attitude ain't limited to grizzzz guides.....and is also VERY prevalent among elk guides as well since elk are hard-to-kill animules as well. While elk guides are optional..........grizzzz hunting for non-residents ain't. You outfitters have that market cornered with your BS legal lobbying. Consequently.......you WILL BOOK some competent, experienced hunters along with your dude ones. We competent ones have no choice but to use you if we want a griz. This doesn't mean that you have to treat us like idiots!

I own a .375 as well as a .338 RUM that I posted here a while back along with my ability to whack big bull elk with it same as I can with my .22-250 for 'yotes. I practice a lot and would not take a rifle on a hunt that I cannot shoot accurately.

You outfitters should somehow find the intelligence to size up your clients before recommending a cartridge instead of assuming the worst. Assuming some of us can't shoot a big rifle accurately is the same as us assuming you that you can't supply us a decent camp and chow and even show us a bear after many $$$ paid you for our experience.

As an experienced western trophy big game hunter (and I've posted the pics here many times) for pronghorn, muleys, bull elk, Shiras moose, eastern whitetails, and Coues' deer........I know a few things about doing it successfully.

For high dollar landowner tags hunts, or Utah conservation tag hunts............or once-in-a-lifetime hard to draw tags..............or high dollar outfitted hunts.....you need to shoot the biggest cartridge that you can shoot accurately. Cuz if you get the chance to get some lead into a great animal......you don't want him to get away. Period.

Here's my brown bear taken on Chichagof in May 2012 with my .338 RUM. Cuz it's an average sized bear....it didn't require my RUM. A big one might have. But I was sooooo thrilled and comfortable to have it in case I needed it. I was equally happy knowing that I can use it and that it was at my side in the tent camp right there on the beach every night.

Born in San Antonio; grew up mostly in Kansas; also lived in the Middle East, Louisiana, other parts of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and now Virginia. A transient tramp.

I think the guides are just going off their experience. If too many clients show up over-gunned with too little experience, they understandably get concerned by the next one. But, as I said, everyone is different. And it�s not too hard to break the mold. If you get something as moderate as a .338 Win Mag and practice a lot, you probably can get pretty good with it. On my last hunt, the first night, after we had flown in to a small lake on the beaver (so no hunting is allowed until the next day), we had set up camp, and, out of nowhere, my guide asked me to pick up my rifle and chamber a round. I asked if he was serious. He said so. I did. He then asked me to quickly shoot at a reed about 100 yds away on the far bank of the river. I did. After that, he felt I wasn�t kidding about getting good with that rifle. A good test IMO. He picked me out of many potential clients to go back this year because he believes I will be prepared. I honestly spent hundreds of hours before my last hunt preparing, shooting, getting in shape, thinking about gear, etc ...

It might be different if I lived in Alaska. I might just grab whatever rifle I thought might do. But, for me, not when I have so much at stake on a difficult trip to so far away.

To me there is a relationship between �best� and �minimum.� Especially if it�s a rare hunt, you, even more so, might want to get closer to the �best� and expand your minimum. So, if your rifle is a .270, you might just go with that and do fine, but you also might want to work and get good with something a little bigger if you can; and most can, with practice. If have the opportunity to hunt brown bear on a regular basis 50 miles from home, I could see bringing a .308 or whatever. But, if I�m going on a rare trip 2,500 miles away from Arkansas, I might work to beef up a bit--you've got time. Anyone who hasn�t mastered a bigger rifle and can�t shoot it as well, probably should bring the smaller rifle. It depends on the person. My father is getting older. His minimum is less than mine now. I don;t hunt deer with a .243, because I can shoot something bigger just as well. But my 10-yr-old hunts with a .243, which, for him, is like an adult shooting a .338. Depends on the person. But get as close to "best" as you can, especially if it's a big deal hunt.

[quote=StripBuckHunter]For high dollar landowner tags hunts, or Utah conservation tag hunts............or once-in-a-lifetime hard to draw tags..............or high dollar outfitted hunts.....you need to shoot the biggest cartridge that you can shoot accurately. Cuz if you get the chance to get some lead into a great animal......you don't want him to get away. Period.


This has me scratching my head.

Stripbuckhunter
Know it all outfitters?? Schi**y arogant selfish attitude? Treating others like idiots? That seems to describe you much better than it does any outfitter posting on this thread.
And "Get some lead in an animal"? Sounds like you are the worst kind of rich arrogant slob hunter, no matter how many "trophy" animals you post pictures of to bolster your ego, which apparently is as well fed as the rest of you. I rarely get in a beef with anybody on here, but you are just more than I can tolerate in silence.

I understand your dislike for the out of state hunter regs. To some extent I agree with you too. Having lived in SE AK I do understand the reasoning to a degree also. The problem is it is a flawed system. Because it assumes that because you are now a res you have the experience, knowledge, and common sense to hunt these animals.

You seem to me like why non-res have to have a guide.

Thank you.

My lead (or copper) bullets penetrate heat/lungs. That's what I meant. I'm not a slob...........I'm a responsible, experienced trophy hunter. That's my whole, entire point here. And I've posted quite a number of photos here to prove it.

Where are yours......and post 'em up here for all to see......Royce you chickensheet, gutless SOB?

How do the pictures prove it?

Only shot two deer in my life and that was before digital cameras- And yer right- total chicken [bleep]- still live with Mom Here in Camden, New Jersey

Royce
I think he is just mad at outfitters because of the bear he shot... Even working at hiding the size does not work well.

Here is the bear Riley shot last week... Not a big bear by any means but he is tucked up right behind the head to keep from making it look like he is hiding anything.



At 20 with his second brown bear he was not fussy about size and the hide is gorgeous. Oh, and this is by way of saying I mean nothing against shooting a small bear, just when someone is trying to make it more than it is.
art

SD,

You are a wannabe AK man.........you phony fawk. Getta kick outta you............you tremendously phony fawk who cannot do what a Rocky Mtn man has done. You can't kiss my ass on Main Street in downtown Grand Junction..............you candy-ass.

Not the first time you've been told this here....is it?

Might want to re-read your own tag line!

Confucius say: He who angers you......controls you.

MCH,

Not at all angry here...........you fawkin' limpdick.

Everybody here already knows better than that.

I'm just correct-o-mundo.........you drunk.

If you can find a person on this planet that has seen me drunk I will hand over to you everything I own.

Good luck!

Oh wait you can't buy that.

Just because someone says something does not make it true, especially on an internet site. I have posted more than enough photos and stories of things done with 24hr posters that you have zero chance of making any point.

But, you are completely correct, I cannot kiss your ass anywhere, ever. None of my time is wasted contemplating your sexual predilections.

But you may want to be careful making claims you have no clue about. Take a little peek at the Kodiak bear hunts I posted last month and the spring of 2012. Look at the photos and get back to me.

No one is sitting behind the bears' asses to fool anyone into thinking they are bigger than they are... they are simply very big bears.

While you are at it there are at least a dozen bear hunts I have posted about.

Look closely you may even see a post or several about Booner deer... or caribou. There may even be pictures.

Please keep your fantasies intact though, without them you would clearly be lost.

WOW, this thread is degenerating quickly from the minimum caliber rifle to the minimum caliber hunter.

I understand he has been booted from more than a few websites for this kind of stuff...

I hope that a comment from a deep south hunter won't offend anyone on this forum. I just wanted to say that I have a alot of rifles and have owned many calibers. I was shooting my 300 weatherby yesterday off the bench. Took along my 06 and fired a few through it. I can honestly say that both with heavy bullets kick like young mules (6.5/7lb max rifles). I really prefer my 220 Swift for large hogs with a 50 grain triple shock. It shot through 2 standing side by side last year . Great penetration , 1 was drt and 1 ran 75 yards. I seem to be able to shoot it better because recoil is not anything one has to worry about. A 50gr tsx at 4200 fps will ruin most animals day. P.O. Ackley said it killed better than a 06. But I dang sure wouldn,t hunt a grizz with it. I have a 300 wsm that I shot an honest 2 inch group at 600 yards of the bench (20Lb rifle)easy because no recoil. Most deer and hogs I have shot only took 1 round. I was told Eskimos had an affinity for the 22 high power back years ago.Don't know what they did about Polar bears. After visiting Alaska and seeing those big bears and thinking about it , I think I would lean toward my 300 Dakota( 10 LB rifle) with a heavy bullet and feel more comfortable. At 69 and fat also , I will leave the Big Bears for Others. I will just carry my Camera again.

Well, it took 8 pages to get this topic headed in the wrong direction thanks to StripBuck. But he does have a point to make albeit in condescending manner. I'm sure Mr. Phil would agree that he has seen quite a few hunters come into camp with 300's on up who were masters with that cartridge. But as he alludes, modern bullet design and recoil shy hunters have brought him to still recommend the 30-06. He certainly wouldn't do this if it put the hunter/guide at risk or the bear to endure an unethical harvest. No one can question his ability to know and understand the abilities of the brown bear.
If a guide recommends cartridge "X", that is an excellent benchmark. If you possess something "bigger" than "X" and are a legitimate master with it, then that is great too. But there is no reason to get off on the wrong foot. The guide bases his recommendation on his years of observations. The guide has no idea as to the first time clients abilities other than to write the check and sound confident. If you can truly handle a bigger caliber, great. If not, you are a fool.

This same scenario is played out when someone from the eastern US heads out west for their first elk hunt. They perceive the need for a 300+ because of all that they read or heard. They ignore reality when there is plenty of info showing that the .308/.270/30-06 is plenty adequate.

I think many here are surprised when a master guide recommends the 30-06 for the big Kodiak species. Who knew you had "enough gun" all along?

I'm not Alaskan and have never hunted the great bears that live there, but were I to do so my personal minimum would be my 9.3x62mm Mauser firing 320 gr Woodleigh round nosed bullets at 2400 fps.

Gunner

I wouldn't hesitate to use either of my Sharps rifles.

Keep in mind that it�s at least as easy to wound a middling sized bear with a 33/37 caliber rifle as it is to readily dispatch even a big bear with a �standard� type cartridge.

Lots of folks have found how lethal the Swift is. In his book "Alaska's Wolf Man" Frank Glaser was quoted as saying he thought stuff died faster with the swift than any other cartridge, and he had used a bunch. And that was with bullets up through the '50s.

He did say, like you, that it was not a good match for the big bears. My son's bear last week died from an 80gr TTSX from a 25-06. But he was fairly close and the bear was fairly small... The first shot was nearly perfect and the follow-up on a running bear was within 2" of the first.

Not many are fortunate enough to be able to hunt brown bear with their sons- Got to be right up there on a list of "best of".

3 years ago I purchased a 338 Win Mag as a Bear gun. Hunting Brown Bear is part of my Bucket list!. After shooting it some I sold it.

Other than shooting it at the range I had no need for it. I did not enjoy shooting it from the bench so off it went.

When I do go North to hunt Brown Bear I will just use a 30-06 with a heavy bullet.

The number of hunters who go on high dollar hunts doing not much more than whacking a few rounds from the bench at various distances(if that), is pretty astonishing...I have seen it too many times.

Apparently so have many guides and outfitters. On some hunts,most "rifle checking" sessions are really "client checking" sessions to see who can handle a rifle, and who can't. It isn't hard to spot the guys who aren't really ready for anything....they act as if the rifle is some strange implement with which they are completely unfamiliar. If I were a guide or outfitter I would find this pretty unnerving.

Add on top of this that the rifle is some bucking, bellowing howitzer(compounding the problem),and it's no wonder outfitters seek the lowest denominator in cartridges,hoping the client at least hits well even if the rifle is on the light side.

These people don't practice much,and maybe best served with smaller cartridges

I agree with Marine Hawk that folks can learn to shoot bigger rifles than they think, but this takes time, discipline,high round count,and exposure with short range sessions, spread out over a long period of time to maintain familiarity while minimizing exposure to too much recoil.....short, but frequent range sessions are key for me.But I stop when it isn't fun anymore.

After a layoff from 375 level recoil my reaction to the first shot at the range is always "WTF was that!"....Wow! But after 3-4 shots things settle in, My mind figures I'm not going to get killed,and shooting gets easier....the perception of recoil is worse than the real thing.

I recall the sensation of recoil on both my bears with the 375...there was no recoil sensation at all;it was so trifling I might as well have been shooting a woodchuck with a Swift. I was pretty focused on more important stuff at that point.

Most?

Klik: OK......"all"

I put together a .338 Win on a M-70 Classic Stainless, McMillan Edge for the same reason.

Scoped with a Zeiss 2.5-8 it weighs 8lbs on the nose, shoots the 225 TSX at 2900FPS.

I pack it more than occasionally during our 2 month deer season in the Adirondacks.

Bob, I had to throw that in there because, on top of that post being spot on in so many ways based on what I�ve seen, heard, or know, the rifle sighting �check� becomes a �what is the likelihood that I (the guide) will be warming the barrel of my rifle� type deal. You know that when a guide has to verify a rifle because the client�s shooting doesn�t prove that there isn�t a rifle/scope/ammo problem, things might get interesting.

The chapter many guides could probably write about client rifle sighting/shooting would undoubtedly be long and interesting. (�I had my rifle bore-sighted by the �smith at the shop so it should be �dead-on�. � Seriously.)

I will add further to what you mentioned by pointing out that the number of clients who want their guide to provide follow-up immediately is rather amazing to me, as is the fact that it isn�t even unheard of to hear of the client who requests that a guide �get the bear� for them, often due to physical condition issues more than anything.

That there appears to be no shortage of people that would go hunting with a rifle they aren't familiar with or even know is in good shooting order is troubling. That someone would engage in the pursuit of game that might get them killed with that same attitude is simply mind boggling.

Besides the typical hunters with new, overbore magnums purchased just for the hunt I have had hunters who didn't know how to load their rifle, a hunter who thought he had single shot rifles because he had no idea that you could put rounds down in the magazine and a hunter who sighted in and brought 300 Win ammo for his 300 Wby rifle ( we didn't catch that one until my son, who was guiding him, called on the radio the first evening to ask if we had any Wby ammo in camp )
You can guess just how well these guys shot at the range . And of course half of them claimed that they could shoot them just as well as smaller rifles and insisted that if the guide shot their bear that they would not accept it.

Bringing up a new, overbore, magnum rifle is the Alaskan equivalent of wearing a bowie knife to deer camp. It makes an early impression, but not the intended one.

To paraphrase one of my favorite Cormac McCarthy lines "And the guide looked at the dude hunter with a look the dude hunter mistook for total admiration..."

Carl Lane told me a hunter showed up for his brown bear hunt packing a .300 Wby, with a box of 110 gr. PSP ammo for it. It did say "Weatherby" on the box and there was a picture of a lion on the box, too.

Here you go, just the thing for your customers.

Further proof that it's more Indian than arrow.

Phil, Ive also been told by guides and PHs ( once taken into their confidence�) that many of these guys can't wait to drag out their new shiny weapons with Hubble scopes to show their guides what wise choices they've made�.

Even had one experience where we arrived in bear camp, chewed the fat for a couple hours with guide and outfitter, and finally said " I guess we should drag out our guns and check them on the range, so you can see we can shoot"�

The outfitter says " Oh, no worries, you guys can shoot"

Asked how he knew that he said simply " You haven't pulled your guns out to show them off, or even mentioned what caliber they are�"

Hey, I was talkin minimums here.

Gunner

I wonder how many Gunsite 270 grads show up all azzed up?

funny some of the misconceptions on the guiding biz

and while I don't have the experience that Phil does I've made some observations about the biz during my years of guiding folks

vast majority of hunters/clients are good folks but as most people counted in significant numbers the 80/20 rule applies, though truthfully I think it's more 20/60/20

20% of those booking are good folks and accomplished outdoorsmen and are most likely using a guide because it's either required for the species or they have the $$ to do so and realize logistics, scouting etc. are best utilized by those that spend a fair amount of time in the neck of the woods they're going to hunt.

60% are outdoor enthusiasts, and their skills run from good to not so good those skills run the gamut, from being able to walk well in rough country to being able to shoot and deal with inclement weather.

20% or less, the only qualification they had to hunt was that their check cleared and they are looking for a new experience

guide biz is a people biz, personal recommendations of folks that have hunted with you are the backbone to a successful operation, glossy brochures can't take the placed of solid word of mouth advertising

thus, I've not found it popular (for successful outfits) to treat clients like idiots

about the only time that happens is when the client truly is an idiot and no amount of coaching, or help will deter him from his idiot ways.

certainly possible to find a guide not well suited for the vocation he's chosen and due to his own limitation of either skills or self worth he practices trying to make others feel stupid. Those guys do end up in the profession on occasion, but typically don't last long in it, at least not with successful outfitters.


Odds are strong, if you feel like you've been treated like an idiot by your guide, you either drew the example above....or perhaps the problem lies closer to home.

if you ran into the former, my apologies and sincere sympathy for your bad luck


however if you got treated as an "idiot" by one or more of the many reputable hard working guides, well you have my deepest sympathy for your even worse luck (grin)

Interesting read. My money is with the guy who has a big azz bear for his avatar. Something tells me he might know a thing or two about a thing or two when it comes to killing big azz bears.

Good insight, well conveyed, Randy. (Slightly offensive even until/unless you understand the true definition of �idiot� as it may apply.)

Royce
Missed this earlier, somehow... and it is right there at the top of the best of list. Almost feel guilty having gotten to watch him do it right on brown bears twice in 13 months.
art

No comment about the OP's topic as it's been well covered - I'll accept PS take every time (though I'd use my 375 )

But, brown bear, were I to get to pick and go on a one and only one hunt, would be the one I'd do, spending only a few seconds before turning down the bighorn sheep hunt.

458Win;
Top of the morning to you sir, I hope this finds you and your fine family doing acceptably well.

Thanks for the chuckle and the fond memories your post brought back to me this morning. You see sir, somewhere in my collection of hunting "stuff" is just such a case as you mention in the first part of your quote - a .300 Win Mag fired from a shiny new Weatherby.

A now passed on shooting buddy used to help out the local sheep guide out by picking up hunters from the airport and then taking them down for a "sight in session" at the local range.

As I recall he said the accuracy wasn't all that bad considering the sport had never shot the Weatherby before that sunny Okanagan fall day....... what a way to start a sheep hunt out - perhaps much better than a coastal grizzly hunt though I guess?

That said Phil, locals aren't immune to odd behavior either.

I was at the same range one spring day and on the bench to the right of me was a chap torching off a shiny new Ruger 77 tang model .338 Win Mag.- the story is now officially dated - without hearing protection and displaying one of the more wicked flinches I've personally witnessed.

As is my practice I carry spare foam plugs and offered him some.

He firmly declined saying "there'll be no ear plugs when I'm huntin' griz at Bella Coola"

I don't even need to mention that his 100yd target looked like he'd been testing buckshot do I?

Honestly he was flinching so badly that he'd close his eyes and take rotate his head to the left, that is toward my bench, at every shot.

One can assume/conclude that most bears in the area were safe from this chap.

Anyway sir, it's gratifying to read that some hurdles faced transcend borders and all that. Hopefully you or someone got a grin from my story as I did from yours.

All the best to you this Father's Day Phil.

Dwayne

LOL, Dwayne
I doubt if he'll miss a grizzly at Bella Coola due to flinching, because about the last evidence of a grizzly on Bella Coola is in a cave on the north end of the island and is 2000 years old!
Hope you are having a great summer.

Fred

Fred
Not sure what you are confusing with Bella Coola, but it is a big valley going up into the mainland with a big river running through it...
art

Oops!
Had a brain fart- I knew better than that, been to Bella Coola to watch grizzlies a couple of times, and will probably be there again this fall- In my feeble mind, I was thinking Prince of Wales Island, another of my favorite spots.
Thanks for smartening me up, Art, I need it from time to time.

I don't care to read the entire thread, so at the risk of repeating what someone may have already mentioned:

Hunting a Brownie with a 270 loaded with stout bullets, and guiding a hunter for Brownies using a 458 are two different things.

I feel sure Phil wants to stop a Brown that is pissed off and coming, or headed for the alders with a 270, 30-06, 338, 375 or 416 through the guts from the less-than-stellar shooting from a client.

AHA AH AH
after "optimum" "Minimum"..... Dick or Brain minimum or optimum SIZE to write on this forum and/or go after brown bear should be the question...

Some MArine should go fishing... to bla bla about pool.....some guys here want to here my 375 is the best or minimum oups sorry not a 375HH or Ruger but THE GREAT THE BEST THE AMAZING THE OPTIMUM minimum Weatherby 375....

Mine is best cause I have a special stellar bullet and it is 10 grains heavier and I have a handload with 0.0001 more powder than yours.

I'm an expert after one (1) brown bear hunt.... good joke... My guide said that the fastest bear down.... bla bla bla.... I live in alaska... bla bla bla...

As Phil said ou can go afer a big grizz or brown with a 270W.... I can give you the phone of a guy. Two years ago he killed a huge boar with a 308W !!! one shot down.... is it the optimum or minimum ? It seems it's the optimum/minimum for THIS guy....I forgot a smal detail....this guy broke trap clay at 500 yds with his 308W...

Last not the least, hunting is not the same than Guiding... you can go hunting with a 308/270 but if you guide you can't !!!! that's all... Between a 308 and a 458.... you can choose what you want.....

Make a ballistic test... "penetration and cavitaiton" are what which make a caliber effective or not.... Look results between 338/375 7/308 416/458 ...

KISS.... Keep It Simple, Stupid....

Marine Hawk you shouldn't be confuse.... just read below... you should understand....

Scott Newman of Petersburg says he's naturally a calm person. He proved it Monday evening as a wounded brown bear on Admiralty Island crunched the bones of his left foot and moved up to chew on his leg while Newman methodically tried to free a jam in his rifle.

By the time the bear chomped on his inner thigh, Newman let go of the rifle and his hope for another shot and tried pushing the animal away with his hands. The bear then began cracking the bones of his right hand and forearm.

Newman, a 39-year-old hunting and fishing guide, told the story of his mauling Tuesday by telephone from his bed at Sitka Community Hospital. He was bandaged and in splints. Doctors had yet to close his puncture wounds, so as to let them drain. He was in a lot of pain, he said.

Nevertheless, he spoke matter-of-factly, going over details with precision, and blaming himself for two mistakes, neither of them very rare on guided hunts.

Newman has been guiding for 17 years, 12 of them as proprietor of his own business. He is called a "superb guide" on the Web site of Field & Stream magazine.

Monday was the last day of a 10-day bear hunt in the vicinity of Pybus Bay in the southeast corner of Admiralty, about 75 miles south of Juneau. His client was a textile businessman from Mexico City. Others on the trip included the client's wife; Newman's 15-year-old nephew, Levi Newman, who worked as his assistant guide; and a cook.

"We saw only 10 bears for the whole trip," Newman said. That included a decent-sized bear on the fifth day, which they let go. On Monday, from Newman's skiff on Little Pybus Bay, they spotted a boar along the beach of the small peninsula that separates the smaller bay from the bigger one.

"I parked the skiff downwind of the bear and we did our final stalk on foot," Newman said. The bear busied itself behind a bunch of driftwood logs. They'd see a leg, then its head. It seemed to back away.

Newman next made the first of his mistakes, he said: He left the side of his hunter and crawled toward the water for a better look. When the bear started climbing over the logs, the client became excited and fired two or three rounds.

"I wasn't able to whisper, 'Wait 'til he turns his side,'" Newman said. He now fired several rounds of his own, big 400-grain bullets from a .416 Remington Magnum.

"I think I got a frontal shot," he said. "I thought I really hit him hard. I was pretty confident he'd be dead" in the brush where the animal ran.

Now came what Newman considers his second mistake. It was 7 p.m. and would be dark in two hours. He didn't want to wait until morning to skin the bear, not with another hunt coming up in a few days. He decided then to follow it, to ensure it was dead and to skin the carcass while they had light.

Newman found a large pool of blood where the bear had been hit and a spoor leading away from the beach into the brush.

He zig-zagged across the trail, circling quietly. It was clear the bear was bleeding from both sides. Newman guessed it had been hit as many as half-a-dozen times.

"I was fairly concerned because he'd gone quite a ways. There was dark blood. I knew he was hurt, but I didn't think he was mortally wounded, so I probably had a live animal on my hands."

Newman was looking at the ground when he heard a twig break. He slipped the safety off and heard a low roar.

"He was ticked off," he said. "He appeared instantaneously. He looked like a freight train coming at me. I knew I had to make the shot really count. I took an extra split second, leaned into it and torched it off. I was fairly certain I hit him in the chest."

He worked the bolt to chamber a second round but "short-stroked it," jamming the rifle. "Damn," he said as the bear barrelled forward, knocking him down.

"Now I'm on my back kicking this bear in the head, trying to get him off me. He's biting my left foot, giving me a compound fracture, crunching the bones in my left leg. I'm trying to get my gun to work."

Newman feared that a bad tear in his thigh could sever the femoral artery, so when the bear bit him there, he switched tactics.

After the boar chomped his hands, however, it broke off suddenly, turned to the side, turned back as if still interested in Newman, but finally walked away.

"When he dropped down, he appeared very sick," Newman said. He thinks the bear, found dead later just yards from that spot, was then only moments from dying.

"It was that frontal shot at 10 feet," Newman said. "It was a mortal shot, and he had just another 30 seconds to live, and in the meantime he chewed on me very good."

As soon as the bear turned away, Newman grabbed his rifle and ran 25 yards away -- on adrenalin, he said.

"I sat down and started yelling for help, then realized I had my hand-held (radio) and called the Coast Guard. ... 'I need a helicopter now,' " he told them, worried still about the femoral artery.

The artery was intact, although Newman did lose a lot of blood. But he never lost consciousness.

"I had a definite sense of calmness. I was very calm about the whole thing. I don't know where it came from. That's just the way I am. I was never freaked out about it. I just knew what I had to do to get out of that situation."

Levi Newman and a man from a nearby lodge helped stabilize him until he was evacuated by Coast Guard helicopter 90 minutes after the mauling.

Levi also worked to skin the bear and get the hide and the others back to Petersburg on Tuesday evening.

Oooppppssss... Just because he was a bear's chew-toy does not make him anything special...

http://www.sitnews.us/0414News/041814/041814_game_guide.html

April 18, 2014
Friday PM


(SitNews) Ketchikan, Alaska - A Petersburg man was recently convicted of hindering the lawful hunting by others, and for harassment.

The conviction stems from a summons by the Alaska Wildlife Troopers Ketchikan Post on June 21,2013, of Scott Newman, 48 years-of-age, from Petersburg. The Wildlife Troopers's summons was in response to a report that on May 25, 2013 at Smeaton Bay, which is 30 miles south of Ketchikan, Newman had committed an Unlawful Act of a Big Game Guide by obstructing and hindering lawful hunting by two persons.

According to information provided in a news release this week, Newman had harassed two hunters by scaring off a black bear that they were about to harvest. Newman reportedly then told the two hunters he did not want to see them in the area.

Through a plea agreement on March 12, 2014, with the Ketchikan District Attorney's office Newman changed his plea from not guilty to guilty to the charge of harassment.

Newman was fined a maximum fine of $500, ordered to pay the complainants, the two lawful hunters restitution of $650 for the cost of their hunt, and Newman was placed on probation for one year.

The names of the victims were not released.



Edited by Mary Kauffman, SitNews

Source of News:

Alaska Department of Safety
www.dps.state.sk.us

Yes and what ? he is fined... Does it change what happened ?

I mean it's a waste of time to try to have a "clever" talk here... most have a nut in the skull...

I don't care about this guide' behavior... I posted a copy of "One" story among many... Cause... the guy was with a hunter... the hunter mess-up the guide himself mess-up and agree.... So this guide is less narrowed than some here....the interesting part was about the caliber used, the multi-shot, 30 sec dead walking biting bear etc etc...

sitka next post would be... "YES BUT with my 458 or my 470 it would have been different.... Nope , it would have been a different story.... except if the guy had hit the brain with a small "minimum/optimum" 357 Mg.....

you should use your brain a little bite more... If you want I can post a copy of many other stories.... guide/hunter were using 375, 338, 416, 458 and the story always end up the same.... multiple body hits... and the bear chew the guy...

I'm done... I just wish than nobody here will be one day in a bad situation with a big bad furious bear and a optimum or not minimum "caliber"... just hope if it's happen the guy will hit the brain or the spine.... have sweet dreams.

Nope, no change to your story at all... But he is a jerk and got what he had coming in another way and sense.

It is difficult to have a "clever" talk here when so many come in wildly swinging for a home run in winning an argument.

As to my brown bear fantasies, I was only there for two in the last month and a whole lot more over the last 40 years. Might have had to kill a couple coming in with bad intent.

My son shot the second brown bear with me last month and he used a 25-06 with 80gr TTSX bullets, so I suspect your guesses were off there, too. I usually use a 375AI with 270gr X bullets, but I have used a number of other cartridges and bullets.



While I have been on lots of hunts, here are links to four of the brown bear hunts I have posted about in the last two years:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/7828595/1

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/8900362/1

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/8873513/1

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/6623486/1

You aren't from around these parts are you?

kawi, is that you????

Certainly true in my case...glad to help with the research

NO, too many sentences with reasonable grammar. <G>

I'm still not certain what point he was getting at??????

ESL

I didn�t say any of the silly things you are attacking. It�s a strange, common theme on some of the forums. Grossly exaggerate what someone else is saying and then attack the exaggeration, rather than what was said, and rather than just adding your own experience or opinion and perhaps disagreeing.

I never said that �I�m an expert after one (1) brown bear hunt� or anything similar. But your subsequent post is based on a news article. The other example is the experience of a guy whose phone you have. Nothing wrong with basing you opinion on others� experiences, but it�s ironic that that is what you condescend to me for doing, when that is exactly what you are doing. I also don�t handload or brag about the handloading I don�t do.

I said that a .270 could work well while hunting BB, but if it�s a really important hunt that one can barely afford and may not be able to do again ever or anytime soon, one might want to work hard to get as possible to the optimum.



As to the distinction between hunting and guiding, I get it. It is an obvious distinction. But Phil has said in several places that he prefers something bigger than a .270 for hunting, when the person can shoot it well.



Nothing I said was any different. But it�s interesting how so many on here, though certainly not all, get all angry and hostile that someone might have an opinion (a fairly mainstream one that agrees with Phil in this case), and they don�t just disagree, which is what a forum is for, but attack the character of person giving the opinion with anything they can find, no matter how bizarre. Is that just an internet thing? Or do you do that in everyday conversation? Kind of a dysfunctional way to communicate.

Here, it's like take pee in a STRADIVARIUS... (nope it's not a beer/bear)

I'm not attacking you Marineblind... just +10 peoples here told you the same stuff... people with 40 years "in the field" not magazine, friends, bla bla, one hunt etc... America is a free country we can give our point of view...

But each time you didn't hear what you want... SO each time you come back with a new small or big is it better ?

Please try to "follow me"... when you can work with two coworkers AND both are stupid... you are going to choose to work with the "small" I mean the less stupid of them... Next, Ask to two women if it's better with a small or a big... same kind of question than "what is the optimum Minimum bla bla... Now I swear I shut up my mouth...

By the way Marinehawk... if I was tinking my beloved 338 WMG was not optimum I would buy a 416 or 458 but anyway If I had to buy a 375 it wouldn't be a Weatherby... it's not a optimum 375... from my point of view the best designed 375 is the RUGER... Marinehawk you should yes get the optimum 375 by buying a 375 RUGER and yes, I'll agree with you... Marinehawk you have the optimum 375... nevertheless I wish you a very good hunt this fall (nice weather and a huge bear). Where are you going in which unit in Kodiak (I think) ?

Sitka Deer, I remember reading most of those stories. Thanks for linking to them, and congrats to your son for taking that good looking brownie! You say he used an 80 gr TTSX from his .25-06? Wow... I hunt mule deer quite a bit with my .25-06 and have been impressed, but... Wow! Congrats to the young man. He obviously knows how to hunt & shoot.

Regards, Guy

More unintelligible blathering Is English your second language chief? Your posts are about as clear as a mud puddle. I get that you like to erect strawmen and attack them. I also get that you have an unhealthy fascination with erections. Maybe get together with Boxer and see if he'll help you get a better grasp of the English language before posting more drivel?

It is obvious English is a second language but he does a pretty good job of getting his point across in most ways. That is if you are willing to put a little effort into it.

I take from this post that he believes that if you cannot see the wierdo on the bus it is likely you...

it's a cartoon... this bear was shot with a minimum or a optimum caliber !!!

Sorry if "some" don't understand me... ALL I WAS SAYING WAS THIRD DEGREE....

I have nothing against Marinehawk or anybody here. if not I won't be here...when I asked him where he is going to hunt this fall I'm really interested to know... cause I wouldn't like to be in the same camp than him !!!! (it's humor again)

so to make short a long story.... from 270W to 458 every hunter can find his beloved cartridge.... his optimum or his minimum.... for me the optimum for hunting in Alaska and especially brown bear is a 338 for another hunter it will be a 375. Some native kill polar bear with a 22 hornet or 222 rm...
in lower state my optimum caliber is a 7mm RM for another hunter it will be a 300WHY... We can start a new optimum minimum lower state (mule deer, elk, antelope) post....


by the way if some here (few) don't understand my english or what I'm trying to explain with some 3rd degree.....it's cause some of you don't speak english... but a kind of english... or are too stuborn to understand adult humor.... sorry guys but until now I was polite.... I have no erection problem yet.... I'm quite young and top shape but thank you to be worry... Now I have a new idea of post is Viagra or Cialys optimum or minimum ? I swear I shut up my mouth...

Sitka it seems you're from Anchorage maybe we could have a drink one day and speak brown bear hunting I'm always looking for more knowledge.

Sure, I am easy to find, usually... cell phones made it that way.

More phallic fantasies from UAE. LOL! Is English maybe a third language?

Good reading. Maybe a good way to phrase the question is "what caliber would you carry if you are an Alaskan resident hunting alone?"
The .25-06 sounded great until I read the report of the .416 shot bear chewing on the guide.

I lived 7 years in Alaska and my rifle of choice was the 338 win mag and of course my big bore revolvers. Today with the better bullet such as the Barnes TSX or TTSX I would use my 30-06 exclusively as my rifle of choice.

Realize the 25-06 with 80gr TTSXs was not a stunt for several reasons... The bear was determined from the very beginning to be of modest proportion. The bullet had performed very well on a bull moose of far greater mass and the shot selection was going to be "choice" or there would be no shot.

As it was the initial shot and the follow-up were absolutely lethal. The bullets made two holes each within 2" of each other and did significant heart damage. Had they been higher the bear may have taken longer to die by a minute or so, but it would still have died.

At 150 yards and in the wide open the bear would have to survive a hail of bullets all the way in if it charged.

I have every reason to believe a 223 would have done the same with good bullets and the same placement.

And the caliber of the bullet is not magic if it gets delivered to the wrong address.

When finding oneself at the bottom of a hole it is usually a good idea to stop digging.

You have admitted to no experience, no likelihood of ever going brown bear hunting, and no real desire to go. Yet you want to go after someone that obviously makes a living doing it.

I would guess the guide he works for caters to Teutonic hunters and his bilingual skills are much appreciated there.

dubai

Someone with Joe Want's e-mail needs to send him this link he will have a field day with this that's for sure. Over on AOD when questions like this were asked ol Joe Want would show up and offer up his advice unfortunately Ol Joe Want and AOD have parted ways so no more Joe

AOD has a history of only objecting to those that actually have a clue... They have left so many unbelievable losers there it is beyond pathetic. I doubt Joe would find as much room to swing here...

You aint joking that place has gone to [bleep] that's for sure. I go over to see if anything new has pooped up nope same old [bleep] LOL.

Is the bear pointing at Safariman after he shot him with his "uber" mag?

LMAO

I never said what I hunted with was an "optimum." If you don't like the opinion that the .375 Wby is "optimum," please find someone who actually has said that to attack. I never said it. It's what I bought before my last hunt and used. The 375 Ruger possibly is just as good or better for the most part. I never said anything bad about the .375 Ruger. I don't own one. I'm going to the same place as before, not Kodiak, about 120 mi. north of Dillingham.

Hello

the story told "a grizzly bear pointing in the police line-up a hunter who shot him in the bum" but of course yes..... he did it with an ULTRA SUPER RUM UBER MEGA caliber afficionados

Hello Marine, I have nothing against you. I was just trying to demonstrate than all of us were acting like teenagers... Maybe my 3rd degree was too much...

anyway... to be honest before the 375 Ruger was designed, I was looking at the 375 Why like the best/optimum 375. Hopefully for you you're not a fan of the 378 Why cause I would have dig you in a hole.... Your 1st bear is a great bear.... it's what I think... so relax....UNIT 17/19 drainage. Wish you a safe and a very good hunt. post pictures.

Thanks UAE. I haven't shot a .378 Wby, though I have nothing against it, and it's just a bit faster than my .375, as the .375 Wby is a little faster than the H&H. It's all good. I got pretty lucky last time, as the weather got strangely warm for the last eight days of my 10-day hunt after my lucky kill. The animals were all mostly sleeping it off after that during the daytime. Hopefully, I will see a good bear or moose this time, but life is what it is, and I will enjoy just the chance to hunt in such a remote environment for such great game. That's what makes it so great: the possibility of failure. The last time, when I was flying out of the Dillingham airport, I was one of two hunters out of about 40, who had gotten a bear during that season. I had dreamed of hunting brown bear since I was a small child. I realized then, more than ever, how lucky I was. I am slightly more interested in moose this time, but I mostly want to have the chance to hunt in AK, which isn't easy for me. I got to see the Northern Lights while drinking bourbon and smoking a cigar at a driftwood campfire just a few yards from my bear pelt last time. I am looking forward to whatever happens this time.

I wish you and all on here happy hunting as well.

I'm watching this Brown Bear hunting show on the History channel right now. I'm not sure if I should be watching this since I have no Brown Bear hunting experience and have shown no inclination that I want to go. Sitka deer, Is it alright if I watch this?

...says the guy who doesn't even know how to steer a moose!

Looks like they're all wearing sleeves, so, I'd have to say, no.

Wow what a thread! I couldn't stop reading!

Why are some folks infatuated with the smallest tool available to do a job? Why even concern ourselves with "minimums"? I mean who cares?

We have among us,collectively, over 100 years experience with center fire cartridges and bullets to draw on today;more choices than ever before (many overlapping in performance so that it would take a swami to distinguish them)and so many far better bullets, that making a choice to kill a brown bear or anything else should be easy.

I remember when Skane was going on his first brown bear hunt...we talked and I am sure he talked to others as well. He had a 35 Whelen...I thought that was fine and told him as much,because people had been killing brown bear with 35 Whelens for decades(along with smaller and larger cartridges). A reasonable middle ground seemed like a good place to be.

He asked about bullets and we talked about 225 Northforks,so that's what he used.As I recall his bear went absolutely no where,because he used a reasonable cartridge,a very good bullet,and because he knows how to shoot.

Concerning ourselves with minimums is just a waste of grey matter with so many good choices available today....JMHO.

There are thousands of collective years of experience here on the Fire. And opinions range from the minimalist to the big bore advocates (did I mention Gunner500?). If one did a bell curve of all opinions, the mean/median would probably be pretty close to optimal.

If I was going brown bear hunting (I never have) I would take my .375 H&H, SS Classic M-70 trimmed to 21" with Tupperware handle and Zeiss Victory 1.5-6. It's fast handling and not bad to shoot. That one may be somewhat to the right of the theoretical mean/median but, to me, seems about right.

Those hunts are too expensive to be experimenting with the least round that will work.

IMHO.

DF

On the other hand is the experience many Alaskan guides, like Phil Shoemaker, who've almost never have problems with brown bear hunters who would be "undergunned" in the opinion of a lot of people who've never even seen a brown bear, much less hunted one. Most problems are with people who are overgunned, because they've come to believe due to Campfire threads that more gun than required is somehow better.

A few years ago I posted about how John Kingsley-Heath's favorite leopard round was the .243 Winchester, whether for himself or clients. JKH had a very long career as both a sport hunter and PH, and he and his clients killed LOTS of leopards. The reason for his preference were clearly stated in his book HUNTING THE DANGEROUS GAME OF AFRICA, one of the finest on the subject, and they were the usual: It had plenty of power for even a 200-pound leopard at the typical 50 yards or less, and could be shot precisely by just about anybody. Oh, and .243 bullets didn't do as much damage to the hide as bullets from bigger bores, instead doing their damage inside, where it counts. But a bunch of people, some of them PH's who haven't guided people to 1/4 of the leopards JKH did, and have NEVER seen one shot with a .243 because they discourage the use of such a small cartridge, made loud noises about how one of the most experiences and respected PH's of all time was FOS.

I also run into the same syndrome here in Montana, where the farther you live from elk country the bigger the rifle you need. And the justification is always the same: The travelling elk hunters think being over-gunned is far preferable to being under-gunned on such an expensive hunt. Well, the opposite is generally true, since as Phil pointed out something that matches my experience: The three biggest factors in "killing power" in order of importance are shot placement, penetration and bullet size--and placement is by far the most important. Which is exactly why one of my elk-outfitter friends carries a .375 H&H, "To finish the bulls my clients gut-shoot with their brand-new .338's."

And it's also why Phil would rather seen somebody show up with a 7mm Remington Magnum or .30-06 (or even a .270 Winchester) they can shoot than a .338 or .375 they can't. And it's why he's never had to follow up wounded bears shot by anybody using such "inadequate" cartridges.

Good one.

I'm no professinal shooter/hunter, but for the life of me I cant understand how a hunter could mess up a shot on a bear, I would practice and do all imaginable under God to deliver a lethal hit, those sombitches can/will kill ya if you shoot em and piss em off.

I OWE it to the Guide as well as the bear NOT TO CAUSE ANY DAMN PROBLEMS.

And, I know you wouldn't show up with a .243 or a .270...

I think a guy who can really shoot a .375 would be an ideal client. Otherwise, maybe an '06 with good bullet choice would be just fine.

I wouldn't take my .375 if I couldn't shoot it well (and I can)...

DF

Because "lots of practice" involved two sessions and three boxes of ammo.....maybe. (Boy, that thing has a nasty kick to it!)

Because getting up close - or even just seeing a real live moving bear- can set ones adrenal glands in motion.....

Because those fuzzy walls of hair don't have the same handy distinctions or definition that one might be accustomed to finding for aiming aids on ungulates.

Because it's more difficult to see the spot your guide told you to aim for since you can only see part of the animal at any give time in your scope.

Because there's nothing to hold the damn mule-kicker steady with on the pathetic, spongy excuse for terra firma which big bears seem to hang out upon.


I am always amazed when I hear that one of my friends informs me that "so-and-so" whom he guided recently gave him a (insert a big-cased magnum chambered rifle here) as a tip. (I don't know anyone who has been given a 7Mag, 30-06, Whelen, or anything like that; it's always been a 375 or a Weatherby or Ultra-something. As recently as last fall one fellow I know well was even set up with a nice outfit for gunning........Taliban perhaps. )

Some people don't understand that it takes more than money to collect a bear trophy.

Agree, but it does take a pile of money, too...

DF

How about a lifetime of hunting, reloading and shooting big guns?

DF

You might be surprised at the qualifications of some clients; the spectrum is vast and some people are very accustomed to seeing money make things happen at their directive.....

And, as has been mentioned more than once in previous posts, some rifles are "known" to be "on" because they were bore-sighted (by someone else) before the hunt......

(And of course there are many who have done their homework very well as well!)

Put a proper bullet where It goes and they hit the ground.
Even with a revolver.

Can only imagine.

I've seen similar at my deer camp. I try to help them with their rifles, sighting in, etc. It can get pretty pathetic, but I try to be patient and make the most of what I have to work with.

Those are the ones, usually a member's guest, who end up crippling a fine trophy, which makes the member look bad, having brought the guy in the first place...

Business is business and guides I've known put up with a lot more than I would... But, it's not my business, it's theirs...

DF

That alone holds a lot of truth....

John do you think that's why friends of mine have taken 270's to Africa instead of 338's and done really well with them?

Bob,

Not to steal John's thunder, but have you thought about the influence Ingwe may have had on the Safari scene?

DF

DF, agreed, to me signing on to a hunt is like signing a contract to perform, fu-kups are non negotiable.

Klik, damn, thats a lot of reasons, like I said above to DF, failure is not an option for me.

Thats what I'm talkin bout right there JWP, nice shooting and nice bears and moose, also, if I had a set of nuts like Bob I'd even bring my 270.

gunner, Phil is the pro with the stones..he uses a 30/06...


Believe me, there is no more hollow a feeling than when a hard hit brown bear gets into heavy cover and you know you let it happen....which I did. Things get very quiet very fast and there is this "Oh shidt now you've really done it" moment that follows.All the ballistic gack and excruciating nitpicking goes in the shidter at that point.

Not that I shot badly because I was fearful of 375 recoil; I actually hit precisely where I wanted to, which was the wrong place.Shame on me.

I know the feeling of a 375 shrinking to the power level of a 22 rim fire under those circumstances,and recoils about much. You barely remember the rifle going off

I know I've read of people killing them with everything from a 22-250 to the 458 but there's one rifle I'd take for Kodiak or grizzly hunting for that matter, the 375 H&H.

Well this was interesting, I have a 338 Winchester Mag. one of the few rifles I kept when I downsized my collection some years back, I like the rifle and I shoot it fairly well. For most of us a Kodiak Brown Bear Hunt is going to be a guilded affair and a one time or maybe two time deal in a life time. What I know is this, shoot with what you shoot well after carrying the thing for 10 days or so. The Guild is going to have the "Big Rifle" so sort things out if need be. Gee's if a fellow like Phil suggests something, listen and do what he or any other outfitter tells you- its just plain commonsense . They know more on what the score is when it comes to this sort of thing. As for my 338 Winchester, I found that loading 200 gr Speer SP's to around 2400 fps makes a great load for shooting the local white tails while I day dream bout dangerous game and telling myself why are you carrying a 9 lb rifle around when you have a good 6.5 x 55 that tops out at llbs!

That's just a way to poking fun at those who don't pay much attention to some of the sound advice they get here or from other reputable sources while reiterating some of the information people should know when/before they show up for a bear hunt. Seen and/or heard it all; it truly is amazing sometimes to see how cavalier a few folks can be about spending many thousands of dollars without thinking about being better prepared to meet the demands of their endeavor.

Do you attribute that to arrogance or ignorance?

Ignorant because arrogant perhaps......sometimes?

Sometimes you are a wealth of information!






This just isn't one of those times!

Bob, 10-4 on Phil, he probably has valve grinding compound coursing through his system as cholesterol scrubbers.

I can relate heavily to the shrinking rifle syndrome, it happened to me hunting elk in Wyo as I watch a griz work his way up another draw next to the one I was sitting atop of, dont remember if I had a 338 or 375 that day, regardless, it looked like a watergun lying across my lap as I watched death at work.

If heard and read a few stories like that Klik, I just dont want to believe folks cant get themselves ready, but plainly, some dont, thanks for the info nontheless.

Ask a number of African dangerous game PHs�..they will tell you that when their clients arrive in camp is very often the first time they have shot their big bore rifles�.

I know it happens but I just don't "get" it...


Just crazy.

The spectrum of people who 'pay to play' is actually pretty interesting if almost unbelievable at times. There are the walking Cabela's ads on the one end, to the plain speaking flannel shirt-wearing, self-made multimillionaires you'd never guess, to the guys who have every bell and whistle (and probably post really nice targets from the bench) but can't make the simplest shots without fiddling with pods, sticks, or other gimmicks, to the quiet hunter in the plainest of old tattered gear - none of it Bean, Bauer, or Cabelas (who happened to be very wealthy) but wouldn't shoot any of the good bears he was put on because they weren't what he wanted, but he didn't care because he was hunting bears (and he tipped well anyway).

He had to be the kind of client you would like more of.

Wealth is not an indicator of how comfortable a man is within himself, but sometimes the reverse is true.

I assume that�s right.



But I read countless comments and questions from everyday Alaskan resident hunters who go on long float hunts and the like who buy non-flannel fairly expensive raingear, tents (including $2K AO tents), backpacks (KUIU, etc ..), boots ($$$), scopes, binos, spotting scopes , etc � I�m talking about ordinary Alaskans who hunt a lot so they sometimes spend a little to get above-average gear of certain types.

But no hunter from the lower-48 who has ever bought any decent type of rain gear or tent (often also for hunting everywhere) and who has to �pay to play� (because of AK regs) to hunt AK BB probably has ever shown any competency at all as a hunter or even a human being at all, right?

Just because a person hires a guide (mandated by law) so he can hunt BB, doesn�t mean that he�s necessarily an idiot or someone who doesn�t prepare like the devil for such a hunt. It�s nice to ridicule, but there actually are a lot (if not a majority) of really competent hunters and people generally down here--even if they occasionally wear a non-flannel synthetic shirt.

Anyone who shows up with a rifle only bore-sighted to (as stated above) a deer camp, or to a bear camp or whatever, isn�t likely to do well whether their carrying a .17 or a .677. or whatever.

I had futilely dreamed of hunting BB since I was a little kid, when hunting such dangerous creatures as squirrels and ducks. Getting my first deer on my own as a teenager was one of my favorite memories. Later I joined the Marines and, only about five weeks later spent 2-1/2 weeks doing NOTHING but shooting. We spent around ten hours a day doing nothing but dry-firing and live shooting all day every day. That was the fun part, forgetting all the tortuous things they put us through just to try prove we could not handle it for 13 weeks (depriving us of food and sleep for days at a time while making us work all day and hump 15 miles at night), then four weeks of the same at MCT, and then more later. I shortly then ended up in a shooting war in Kuwait where people were actually shooting back at us. I only point this out because I wonder where this arrogance from people from certain backgrounds comes from again, essentially, condemning anyone who hires a guide in AK�if they own a decent pair of hip waders. Some people aren�t complete pansy fools just because they do so.

Anyone from outside of AK who can hunt BB necessarily has to pay for it--by law. Just because someone does so doesn�t mean that they are a complete pansy idiot, even if they buy a decent pair of boots or a decent rain jacket. You�re forgetting that in your �unbelievable� range of the spectrum. Before my last hunt, which was a BIG deal to me, I spent hundreds of hours and considerable funds on practicing with my rifle and martialing my gear. My 1-1 guide was amazed at how I would help with everything. When it was time to put up a tent, I was working to help. When we had to portage around some downed trees, I was working my ass off, when I could have been sitting on my ass. Point is that I am not the caricature of the hapless �pay to play� hunter you describe. More importantly, many, many others aren�t either. Sure, there are guys who show up with bore-sighted rifles of whatever caliber�big or small, and who stupidly �fiddle� with gadgets and can�t hit the side of a barn if they see some fur. But there are many who come prepared and have experiences, some of which, even if in other ways, rival you own bravery in confronting dangerous experiences.

The Mark V stock is renowned for reducing felt recoil. Believe it or not, it works for me. Add great recoil pad. Most importantly, when practicing, add a good SHOULDER PAD!!!!! I know countless people who have, shockingly tried that, and found it really, really helps. You can even add temporary, removable weight to the rifle (e.g. 1-lb bipod) when shooting for long range sessions. Even further reduces felt recoil. With all that, you can shoot a medium or big bore for hours without complaining. You don�t need to if you don�t want to, and it�s not necessary, but it's not crazy to do so. In the field, you won�t notice that you�re not shooting a .243 when aiming at a deer, elk, caribou, black bear, or brown bear--no matter what you're shooting if you're used to practicing with it.

Shoulder pad! It makes it easy.

Semper Fi there Marine Hawk. Semper Fi...

Alaska isn't the only place they make 'em tough.

BTW, when my son and I were picking up his Washington black bear hide & skull today, the taxidermist showed us an honest-to-gosh 10' brown bear skin... WOW! That's a lot of bear... I need to set aside some more change!

Regards, Guy

Semper fi Guy, and congrats on your son's hunt. You must be proud. Good dad. I took my nine-yr-old son backpacking last August where he made it over eight miles and up well-above treeline, and then we went out hunting last fall; but he didn't get a shot at anything. We are going to work hard to try to get something this year.

Kids are cool.

A .270 Winchester with 150 grain slugs. Of course, if you want up-close-and-personal, an 870 Remington cut back to 20 inches and loaded (unplugged) with alternate buckshot loads and slug loads. But, you can't hardly beat the venerable .30-06 loaded with either 200 grain or 220 grain lead core bullets. I'd opt for the 220 grain, myself.

Just shaking my head and laughing...

Oh, really? Uh huh. Just spent a consecutive 13 weeks among them, after at least four decades of doing the very same thing during the previous 40 springs, or so. But of course, if you think that a .270 Winchester can't handle a coastal Alaska brown bear, that's fine. I won't argue with your choice of heavier caliber. But, I thought we were talking about minimum under ethical fair-chase hunting conditions/situations?

As I stated earlier in the thread my son just killed a brown bear this spring with a 25-06 and 80gr TTSXs... And I killed a pretty fair bear a week earlier on Kodiak but with a 375AI.

I have seen a bunch of them die with little stuff, big stuff and stuff between...

What I am laughing about is the alternating buckshot and slugs in an 870. Having actually shot quite a pile of critters with buckshot I have a fair idea what it does. And I have finished a brown bear with an 870 shooting slugs, too.

This is a LONG way from the first time I have heard of the idea, but the first time I have heard of anyone that actually guided thinking it a good idea, for at least the last several decades.

Buckshot has no place in the alders with a bear... 00 is .33 caliber round balls... how much penetration do you suppose that gives ya?

Congrats. I've whacked Alaska-Yukon moose, Roosevelt elk and all sorts of other Alaskan big game as well as an assortment of other North American big game with a Model 77 in .25-06. Congrats to your son!!! He's quite the marksmen.

Oh, an unplugged 870 Remington loaded with alternate buckshot loads and slug loads when on-site and within the alders and while upon (up0n, mind you) a bear of any type? -- Ask your local Wildlife Protection Troopers what they prefer or ask your local area biologist or, the local wildlife technician who's monitoring the weir count on the nearby stream or, maybe, guys like Joe Klutsch, Scott Miluer, Karl Braendel or maybe even Rod Arno.

Really? How much effect do you think the location of the problem bear has on firearm selection? Though the guy that caught the PoPo-sent ricochet slug in the chest after it went through a black bear down in Seward a year or three ago might not agree.

All those guides are really advocating using a slug/buckshot alternating magazine load for bear hunting? You sure about that?

Many of the ADF&G bios are pretty solid... some, not so much... But the techs with how much firearms training? And from whom?

Have you ever shot a big animal with a dose of 00 buckshot?

Been there, done that. When right ON TOP of a bear and in unyielding alder. the 870 has definitely proven itself in this state's (Alaska's) history. I know when I was working streams on the Kenai and Kodiak and the Peninsula, it was THE GUN of choice. As a guide who's also worked with all who've been mentioned, it's been their choice when in close quarters and when brush was unyielding, such as alders where big browns often hide and where confrontations are measured in feet, rather than yards.

Don't get me wrong, I've followed up wounded brown bears with a Whitworth 30-06 and a Whitworth .375 Holland & Holland and even a 7mm Remington Magnum. But when in close range -- such as Kiliuda Bay, Spiridon, Afognqk Island, Raspberry, Martin River, Cape Yakutaga, Montague, among many other locations -- I definitely love the feel of a 20 inch 870 Remington with buckshot, then followed by alternating slugs. But, that's me, based on my experience, which is somewhat extensive.

Over the years I've had the scary instance of "center punching" more than two 4-inch alders at very close range with bullets and believe me, it DOES have an effect on bullet performance.

I yield to your experience, having been there, done that. I have not hunted big bears, would love to someday.

Things I've read would indicate buckshot and even shotgun slugs may not penetrate a big bruin consistently.

Would appreciate your comments on that.

DF

Obviously everyone who comes on a guided bear hunt falls somewhere on the spectrum of guided bear hunters. By my examples perhaps you can gather that the "stuff" people bring often isn't much of a way to judge what their abilities are - nor does it prove much about who they are. Many are very competent and know their stuff while others will point a case head at you if you ask what bullet they're using. That's what makes the spectrum vast. Nothing in my posts was directed at you or anyone else here. Sorry if you took it that way.




,

That's exactly what *I* gathered.

Hello

I swear to shut up my mouth.... but outch again..... if a baby read this forum and come in alaska with a shotgun loaded with slugs and even worst buckshot.... guys ! we have a dead baby...

me few weeks ago.... http://ursus-arctos-expedition.tumblr.com/
you can see 2 pictures on my webpage..... Remington 870 20" IC slug barrel with rifle sights.... ammo hm not slugs..... but Brenneke(s) "barrier penetration" and "black magic"... 600 grains 1600 fps special alloy.... or 600 1500 fps hard alloy.....you can't find a deeper penetrator round...
it harm your wallet when you buy them... but it's a special ammo not a day range ammo so....

2nd) have you ever used american clasic slug versus heavy game ????
I don't think so... it's really efficient vs deer or small pigs... but in anycase vs a strong tough game.... slugs are too soft.... and a bad choice.... I won't say you won't kill a big brown bear or grizzly but I wouldn't try.... with Brenneke no problem... I will go without any stress.... by the way I tested them during years vs big game.

Buckshot !!!!! just crazy.... except at 5 feet.... I remember my dad shooting a strong 450 lbs boar just skin, bone, mud and muscle. 2 shots at 15-20 yds he didn't broke any bones or reach any vitals ! we found pellets in the fat and muscles.... last shot at 10 yds in the skull....just one eye punctured ! the boar escaped like a drunky new born..... he was next wounded by one winchester slug at 40 yds (too soft /rip on a bone) and finish with one 9.3X62....

So yes of course a 12 gauge is a great tool (short, well balanced, pointing fast, very very accurate) but only with one brand of ammo !!!!

buckshots, yes "nose to muzzle" when they just come from the barrel... and bear teeth biting you....

last but not the least, If an "expert" here tell that brennekes don't work.... we can make a test.... take a body armor...

Not saying the old 'standard' Brenneke's won't kill bears - they can- but even they aren't magic where penetration is needed.



This one was plucked from the offside shoulder of a small bear take 5 years ago in a DLP incident. No bones other than ribs were broken and shoulder/chest tissues alone were involved.



My then-9-year-old with the eager victim's salvaged parts.

Projectiles matter; buckshot barely qualifies in my opinion. (Give me some rubber buckshot if I'm going to be shooting buckshot at bears; avoid the DLP stuff at all if possible. )

The only shotgun load that I would consider would be the Dixie Slug heat treated hard cast those have to be seen to be believed. Shot gun slugs and especially buckshot are not top choices for big bears.

But wait! Maverick says the "Protection Officers" (in residential neighborhoods) PREFER buckshot! And famous guides love it! And those highly trained summer-intern weir watchers swear by it!

Give me a 30-30 over a 22 LR any day.

I just wonder what the response would be if a guide shot a trophy bear at staple gun range in the face with a load of buckshot...

Taxi gonna be pissed!

Yea, I read that. I know when I lived in Alaska they advised against its use, because of a lack of penetration. That is also in line with my experience as well, since most slugs and buckshot loads are produced for deer hunters.

I know African PH's who gave up on buckshot for following up leopards because it didn't work all that well--unless, of course, the leopard was right off the muzzle, where a single bullet would work just as well anyway. Don't believe it would work any better on a bear several times as large.

That is in fact sad, and very dangerous, starting to understand maximum tippage to the Guides, THEY EARN IT!!!!!

Not much in the way of hunters/shooters, eh?

Anecdotally, the bear I shot with slugs was a wounded Kodiak bear at very close range and plain old Foster slugs worked far better than they should have... the bear died anyway and did not make it more than about 20'.

I have shot hogs with buckshot where maximum effect was desired and the wounding was really obvious... killing, not so much.

Actually, the gamut - which I, perhaps,didn't convey very well, some very excellent, but you wouldn't know it to look at them. Certainly, the cross-section of clients I have met and talked to are much less "looney" on average than what seems to be typical among many posters here. Seems like a lot of the folks with the best skills and preparation don't feel a great desire to talk about it. Some of the worst seem to think they've paid so much that they're smarter than their guide - perhaps true in certain cases. But there have been more than a few expensive bears killed that weren't the big trophies the ol' smarty hunter 'knew' they were - and generally really close to what the "dumb ol' guide" judged them to be.

Klik, not your delivery, it's my comprehension, been laid up a couple weeks nursing a blown out ankle, it's the dope man. lol

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?

Question for those who spend lots of time in bear country-
If someone deems a pump action Remington dependable enough to carry in bear country, why would they carry it in 12 gauge instead of carrying it in 30/06, fed with 200 grajn Nosler Partitions, which I think would give much more dependable penetration?

A sledgehammer, typically weighs about 10 pounds, which is, ironically 10 times as heavy as a 16 ounce framing hammer, and can be swung about as fast as the framing hammer.
The most powerful shoulder fired sporting rifle is not ten times more powerful than a standard, non magnum. That's one place your anaogy falls apart.
The second place your analogy falls apart is that in the field, under observation covering 30 years of experience, the lighter calibers ( the claw hammer in your analogy) has proven MORE SUCCESSFUL in doing the intended job than the heavy magnums, in the hands of guided hunters.
So, using the hammer analogy of yours, the correct question would be "If, over 30 years of performing rtasks where a claw hammer was more successful than a sledge hammer was in performing the same task, why would someone insist that it was better to use the sledge hammer."

Now that is funny!!!

Royce already did a fine job debunking your analogy but he left out the very real part where "energy" would have to mean something in killing potential and it does not... It is strictly about breaking organs and making them bleed.

Among other things, I have .308s, a .300 Win Mag, a 7mm Wby, a .340 Wby, and a .375 Wby. I shoot my 340 better than any of them.

I went to the range last Sunday, and I shot mostly 1-1/4"-1-3/4" groups at 200yds with my .340 Wby--about the same, but slightly better than I do with my 7mm and .300. I'm taking my .340 back to Unit 17B this Sept. A .50 BMG does more damage than a .22 LR. While the differences are smaller, the .338-.375 calibers do more damage than a 7mm. Just is what it is. Physics. Common sense. I love my 7mm, but it's just reality. I'd love to bring a .243 to go brown bear hunting so I wouldn't have to feel a heavier push on my shoulder (which I didn't notice in the least last time with my .375 when squeezing the trigger on a chance of a lifetime target). I would be all for it if I thought it was a good idea when I might not get to do it again for a long time or forever--who knows. The only reason that I can shoot my .375 and .340 well is that I worked hard at it and mitigated recoil at the range (padding, etc ...). Hard, but not that hard. It's not that hard. I'm not taking my 7mm. I shoot it well. I shoot my .340 better.

Where did I mention "energy"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (�A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.�).

You did not mention it by name just by every possible inference and nuance of your argument. If you fail to grasp the point I suggest counting to ten by potatoes.

Because tolerances in shotguns are far more forgiving than metallic cartridge guns... Shooting anything like high pressure loads in a 760/7600 shows pretty quickly the difference in extraction forces between bolt actions and pump guns.

I have a 7600 in 35WhelenAI with a bit of excess headspace. If I shoot it with neck-sized reloads only it is significantly harder to work than SB sized loads. Enough so it has been just hanging in the safe for a very long time... It has been used on a number of bears, deer, moose, and caribou... but the bolts go hunting these days.

Oh, I see, you're using the term "energy" in quotes in misquoting me, and then claiming that it's among the "inferences and nuances." Do you know what quotation marks mean?

Heavier and fatter bullets of the same construction do more damage than slimmer and lighter ones going the same speed on either flesh or bone on a really large animal. You can call it �energy� if you want�I didn�t. But no one with a brain thinks otherwise. Does a 62gr .223 Rem. bullet moving at 3,000 fps do as much damage on a brown bear as a 270gr .375 bullet moving at the same speed? No. No. And no. That's why Phil calls himself "458," not "223." The differences between a 160gr 7mm bullet moving at 3,000 fps and a 270gr .375 bullet of the same type moving at the same speed are closer, but still pretty far apart. And we�re talking about a tough aggressive carnivore that can weigh over a thousand pounds that, more often than not, is not felled by the first shot.

Thanks for sharing the details based on your single brown bear. I hung on every word, really...

one potato
two potato
...

You're welcome. I assume that, if I hunt a million brown bears, smaller thinner bullets will someday become better than bigger fatter ones of the same type on large game, and guides who have spent decades hunting brown bear will then disagree with that. My guide has hunted and guided with a .338 for decades. I'm sure that, when I kill a few more myself, he will start hunting with a .177.

three potato
four...

That's about as intelligent as your other 25,000 posts. Several thousand hours wasted acting like a child on the internet. I wonder what you might have accomplished if you had all of thousands of hours back.

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.

Royce I like the Rem 760 & 7600 have a 06 in 760 and a 35 Whelen in 7600. I like them both and reload for them if I keep the loads under max no extraction issues. Had a rechambered 35 Rem to 35 Whelen, in a Rem 760 headspace issues and hard extraction with most loads. Which Art (Sitka Deer) said also about his 760 in 35 Whelen IMP. With good ammo in both my 760
and 35 Whelen I have no concerns with either in bear country.

Also we tried one of Arts 35 Whelen IMP rounds in my 35 Whelen Improved and it had a much larger chamber than my rifle.

Bear taken by Larry Kelly

Alaska lanche,

I've heard the same argument about resident elk hunters here in Montana for decades: We can get by with smaller cartridges than non-residents because we have all season to hunt, so can "pick our shots."

This is mostly BS. While a few Montana residents hunt the entire season, most have jobs, so end up hunting weekends, when most other hunters are out. Unless they're lucky enough to own some elk-suitable land, or know somebody who does, they hunt public land like everybody else.

We have a 5-week rifle season, except in certain back-country areas that pretty much require horses to access. As a result, most residents can hunt five weekends, which means 10 days--IF they don't have something else they must do for part of the weekends. Some take a few days off from work to hunt, but the majority just make do with whatever Saturdays and Sundays they can.

Since they have limited time, and usually end up hunting where most other people do, their chances at elk are often fleeting, or take place in timber where the angle isn't ideal. As a result, few resident hunters pass up half-decent shots at a legal elk.

Non-residents usually hunt for at least a week, and often for 10 days. They often hire an outfitter, who has horses for taking them deeper into public land, or leases private ranches where pickups are often used. Hunting pressure is much lighter, especially on private land, where a lot of elk move after the first few days of hunting season, due to pressure on public land.

I have hunted elk in all those ways, though most has been foot-hunting on public land. In general, the easiest shots come on private land, though the early back-country public-land hunts can also be easier, because they start during the rut.

Twice when hunting private land I've seen 30-some branch-antlered bulls on one mountainside, a week or two after the season opened, and they lingered at least an hour after legal light. You NEVER see such large numbers out in daylight on public land.

In other words, non-resident elk hunting is often far easier than resident elk hunting, with far more options for "picking shots." Yet many non-residents firmly believe they simply must bring a .300 or .338 magnum, rather than the .270's, 7mm magnums and .30-06's used by many if not most residents.

The two bulls I've killed when I've been lucky enough to hunt private land during rifle season, by the way, were standing close to broadside, in the open, at 250 and 150 yards. Both were 6x6's, taken with a .30-06 and a 7mm magnum.

For some reason I understood you to be in the legal field??? If that is the case you certainly have trouble following a simple argument. You do stay on one side firmly, but understanding any aspect of the other side is well beyond you.

And as an example it is comical to attempt to mock someone for doing EXACTLY the same thing you do.

Marinehawk,



Nice choice on the .340 Weatherby cartridge. I have a couple friends who swear by the .300 Weatherby but I feel the .340 is the most versatile Weatherby round.

Because I don't own either a .270 or a 7mm. But I certainly have no problem allowing my clients to use them and as I have stated earlier in this discussion, the shooters using them used less bullets and killed theirs just a quickly as ANY client using a .338, .340 Wby or .375. Simply because they could shoot them.
I would say that they were unusual hunter thought because they were experienced enough to know and admit that they shot them better because they kicked less.
Even you, who claims to shoot your 340 better from the bench due to ample padding, says that the 7mm is more pleasant to shoot. It sounds like it could be simply that your 340 is a more accurate rifle from the bench.
I have heard a lot of claims but have yet to meet a person who could shoot a heavy rifle "better" from a field position CONSISTENTLY than a rifle with less recoil.

And while I may not own a 270 or 7mm, I have and do hunt brown bears with my 30-06.

I see everyone is still at it. We should agree that everyone should use the largest caliber they can shoot without being recoil shy. If its a .270Win. with a premium bullet, great. If its a 340 Wby. with a premium bullet, equally as great.

If 458Win says cartridge "X" is adequate, than anyone who questions that is not listening. Quite frankly this goes to bolster the standing of the 30-06 as the ultra all-around North American cartridge.

This tells me we have been sold a "bill of goods" by the ammo/rifle manufacturers that all this magnum power is needed. All this also supported by gun writers who promote more powerful cartridges too. In the end, be truthful with yourself and shoot what you can handle.

This argument parallels the "elk cartridge" debate too. Eastern hunters think they need something "bigger" than their 270's and 30-06's when they go west.

This statement does excluded campfire members....don't it??

Thirty three pages of posts! Geez Louise... How many people any givin year hunt coastal Grizzley bears?

About 200 per year are killed on Kodiak by hunters. Not sure about other areas...

I'm not one of them. But I'm amazed at the large number of "experts" posting here. From States where the only Grizzly Bears are in a Zoo!

Well as usually happens, the OP's question swerves into other areas. Plus you've got to have at least one pizzing contest going on too.

It depends on the specific situation. Most people hunting brown bear aren�t hunting for meat. I know a few Alaska residents who hunt brown bear fairly casually because they can go several times a year or even several times in a month. I can go once in about every four years.

Elk hunting is an amazing feat. The big ones weigh about 3 times that of a big adult male human. A 5.56mm 55gr round going 3,000+ fps or so is about right in the sweat spot for such a human animal. For a mature elk weighing 600 lbs, a bullet going similar speed at about three times the weight (say a 7mm appx. 165gr going about the same speed�as far as rifle bullets go) seems about ideal. If you�re going after a hard-to-kill animal weighing possibly twice as much as the 600lb elk, you might want to go a little heavier, say at least 250gr or so. This doesn�t mean that other options won�t work well at times. It�s just that, as the targeted-game keeps getting bigger, you might want to consider going with a bigger bullet, if it�s not a problem (e.g., through practice). I�ve had a range partner load my .340 and .375 without telling me (intentionally) whether there is a round loaded. When there is not, I click and don�t flinch. It took some practice to get that way, but it�s not nearly as hard to do that as hiking 30 miles on an elk or sheep hunt in the mountains. It�s not that hard if you try.

�Even you � says that the 7mm is more pleasant to shoot. It sounds like it could be simply that your 340 is a more accurate rifle from the bench.�

I actually didn�t say that. My 7mm Wby, .340 Wby, and .375 Wby all recoil about the same. My 7mm is lighter than my .340, which is lighter than my .375. They all feel about the same. It�s just that my .340 is, so far, a tack driver that I can shoot really well, even better than my smaller-caliber rifles. That being said, I get better groups out of it than I do my .243 Win, and .308s etc� When I said I would love to bring my 7mm on a BB hunt, I meant because it�s really light, not because it recoils less. But, in my case, the weight difference is not enough to make me bring a .243 or a 7mm on a brown bear hunt. I can carry the .340 Wby. The difference between that and a lighter rife is less than 1% of my weight+ the gear I carry. That < 1% is worth it to me even if it is not, or should not be, to others. Just my perspective.

Thanks Moose, it's only one of many good options. Hopefully, I'll do my part.

Sorry to hear about your mom and your heart. I hope you are better soon!

If you change your settings, it's not so bad. I'm only 7-pages in.

I am just curious.... Do wounded brown bears often charge when you come up on them or do they usually run if able? Honest question. I have been around a whole bunch of them but never seen one shot.

Try this again in case you missed it MH:



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 since 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.

Most try to run in the opposite direction IME... but not all.

Really??? No chance of you ever being called sensitive if those three recoil the same to you. A nominal 40% decrease in recoil energy is not easily perceived by your greatness...

Just wow!

And realize I even used the ratio going down rather than up where the increase would be literally 80%...

And they feel the same to you?

You really do not have a freaking clue...
art out

I can say with experience that a well placed shot with a small to medium rock will usually get them off of your gravel bar while you are fishing if yelling at them does not work first.

Thanks man. And best of luck to you on your Bear hunt this fall!

All I know is all I ever carried in brown bear country was a 30/06 stuffed with 200gr Partitions. Of course that was prior to the internet, so I was obviously less informed...

Never felt bad about lugging a 30/06 in Kodiak or SE. I've been in on a brown bear killing on the C in ABC and he died without any fuss. Friend was using a 30/06 too.

Hard to believe I survived all those years.

Well, obviously the bears were sorely misinformed years ago as well. Unfortunately for us now the bears are aware they can't be harmed by anything less than about a .505 Gibbs.

I was considering joining a friend on his Kodiak hunt two years ago. His guide said that his 300 ultra mag was okay but recommend some discontinued swift or Sierra bullet. Said that two shots were common and a 300 was not as likely to knock the bear down on the first shot as a bigger gun like a .375 h&h. Friend bought a Dakota .375 h&h and missed his bear @ 200y. Not trying to make a point with this story, I will likely never hunt a BB. If I did, I would want a decently big gun. I was a fly out guide in Bristol Bay. Always wondered what a fmj 44 mag round would do to a bear in the short term. Carried some overloaded loads that I bought at Gary King's.

No one said that.

I am more convinced by either a hardcast wide meplat-type bullet, or a tough, limited expansion jacketed bullet. Jacketed bullets which come to mind are the Sierra 300 grain SP or the 300 Speer Uni-Cor. Mostly, full jacketed type handgun bullets seem to be too 'slippery' and less-than-ideal for creating effective holes. I don't care about finding a well-preserved bullet but I don't want the target to be left intact. I also don't want to use most handgun bullets which you can count on for decent expansion. I believe a better bullet in a handgun is one which has a decent frontal shape without expansion to begin with. If any expansion takes place I want it to be well controlled so the bullet doesn't come apart violently.

That's funny, I don't remember saying exactly that either. The quote wasn't that long, and was a joke. No need to use ellipses. Having passingly skimmed this thread I've picked up a few things, among them being you're very defensive about all of this.

Exactly. We all know the .500 Jeffery is all you need and anything more will way overpenetrate.

The 44 rounds we bought in Anchorage were called Arctic Ammo. Think they were 300+ grain and loaded very hot. They were tough to shoot out of a S&W Mountain Gun. I think I shot 2 and declared myself loaded for bear.

I Don't carry super hot loads in a handgun for a couple of reasons- Main one is that I don't want to risk having a case back out and jam up the cylinder, and secondly, I don't think an extra boost in FPS that you get from going to a hot load from a normal load is going to make a significant difference in effect.

You�re right Klikitarik based on what little I know. There is compelling data showing that the wide flat-nosed HC bullets penetrate more reliably than any other type of bullet of the same weight and velocity on large game. One reason is that the flat-nosed hard (non-deforming) bullets are less likely to yaw after impact than expanding, pointed, or round-nosed bullets. The reason that high-velocity rifle bullets don�t avail themselves of that benefit is that they are designed to fly great distances without slowing down or dropping any more than necessary. So they do the next best thing: they fly through the air with a pointed highly aerodynamic shape (i.e., high B.C.) and then expand when hitting tissue and making some kind of mushroom shape. That shape works fairly well, but does not work as well as a wide flat-nosed (nearly cylindrical) shape of a non-deforming bullet of the same weight at the same speed. So, a good rifle bullet compromises. It flies much better through the air for long distances, but, to do so, has a somewhat less-perfect expanding shape for impact, tissue destruction, and penetration as would a flat-nosed non-deforming bullet. For a handgun shooting only out to 100 yards or so, a wide flat-nosed HC bullet has a sufficient trajectory and velocity retention to take advantage of that ideal shape. It�s not trying to be able to go hundreds of yards without slowing way down or dropping feet from the line of sight; so it�s better to keep the better-penetrating and more-destructive wide flat-nosed shape for closer-in work.

The wide flat-nosed bullet entering at reasonable speed on an animal keeps going. By doing that, the tissue in front of the bullet must move (is pushed, splattered (hydrodynamic pressure)) out of the way. That creates significant destruction outside of the linear path of the bullet�creating a wider range of carnage outside of the bullet path. As above, that type of bullet also tends to stay online, which makes it penetrate more than a bullet that tilts/yaws after impact.

IMO, there�s a lot of good information and testing data on that here (but it�s pretty lengthy): http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

If you don�t find that helpful, please ignore. I just thought I would offer.

MarineHAwk you JUST need a BROOM in your camp.... with a such mess.... look at it !!!!

That would make me a bit nervous.

I saw a documentary a long time ago on an older gentleman that was a resident caretaker at McNeil. He used a long stick for incidents with bears. This guy was not a nut job like Timothy Treadwell.

When I was a kid the 30-06 was fine for bears, now, suddenly it wont work, and that's with todays solid copper bullets, etc that we didnt have 50 years ago, we did have the partition thou.

bonefish
Was it possible that the documentary you saw was about a guy named Andy Russell, and that is was in Kamchatka Russia?
He is an old guy that keeps bears in line with a stick and bear spray and a documentary was done about him a few years ago. He is the son of a Canadian guide who was well know several decades ago.

OK that might work but what caliber stick was he using??

I don't know who is saying a .30-06 won't work? a 220 grain bullet at or near 2,500 fps is pretty formidable. Still, some folks might desire more range.

Is there anything else you want to do to prove just how clueless you are?

More range than a 30-06 when talking specifically about shooting Kodiak bears? Why?

And just how much range do you gain over say the "Standard" 375H&H?

Please, the above questions are purely rhetorical and your guesses are truly not being sought!

I was thinking along these same lines, Art, and wondering if perhaps at longer distances the 30-06 and other smaller stuff might not be equally as effective in knocking the "snot" out of "big" bears, 'cause the resulting ground shrinkage one could achieve at longer distances might be just exactly what one might hope to spend their hard-earned thousands for the privilege of exacting.........or not! (Perhaps we might have some of these issues removed to another topic forum where we might contemplate "Judging bears at 1/2 mile; Should I halve the distance?")

Oh great, now we can start a minimum caliber at 100 yards and a minimum caliber at 200/300/400 yard thread.

This entire "minimum caliber" idea is a matter of personal opinion. If you are hiring a guide and he, or she ( may daughter just got her full registered guide's license), says xyz is their minimum caliber then you can be assured that they have a reason.

I can tell you from my 35 years of guiding experience that any rifle in the realm of a .270/7mm/308/30-06 with today's bullets and a competent shooter will successfully kill any bear in Alaska, at any distance from the muzzle to 300 yards.

If one can place a larger or faster bullet in the same place it might drop them a fraction of a second quicker, but it won't kill them any deader.

I am not sure judging is the hard part at distance... But ground shrinkage is a common problem among the inexperienced...

Like a typical 24HCF thread, this has been all over the canvas. Just a little perspective by reposting the OP's question.



Not legal.

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.

Besides the issues of no wolves on Kodiak, I too thought we were talking about "minimum" ( which is a long way from "marginal") calibers for hunting brown bears on Kodiak Island and don't know why folks with little to no experience with killing bears have to wade in to tout their favorite caliber and tell of how they are immune to it's recoil.
I have heard those claims for 35 years and they usually are my first clue that I need to pack my 458.

I have known Kodiak guides who chose to carry a 270 as a backup rifle and a number of others who chose the 30-06. In fact the world record Kodiak bear was taken in 1952 with a 30-06.

Now if our big bore experts want to hunt "Kodiak" bears in some local where there might be wolves a 340 Wby would be one of the last calibers I would choose if I wanted the hide. I can also vouch from experience that the 30-06 ( with 200 gr partitions) works out well past 500 yards.

For the reasons already addressed Moosemike is clueless... but let's look at what you are doing... You want to saddle the 30-06 with 220gr bullets even though you think you want to stretch things out.

The perfectly adequate 180gr bullet weight is far closer to the right bullet in the 30-06 and is certainly not right at the upper edge of available bullets. Apples to oranges.

Of course if you were to learn to reload it would make all sorts of things easier. Some guides do not like reloads on hunts but they work just fine and if you really study it you should be able to learn how. I work out three times a day just to stay in shape so I can reload. It may not be easy but I think most people should be able to handle it with practice and working out. And pulling the lever on the reloading press is a really good motion for improving flexibility in your shoulder so you can reach around and pat yourself on the back again. And reloading really isn't that hard, anyone that really puts their mind to it should be able to handle the effort. And you can even load different bullet weights and get different energies out of different loads and everyone knows Energy is where it's at if you train for it and work really hard, most anyone can do it.

Okay, but they have elk and deer there, so it�s the same concept.



First, I don�t see the reason for the superiority complex and never called myself an "expert." What I said are my experiences. I�ve hunted since around 1979. I experienced shooting at enemy combatants in the USMC with all types of weapons in the 1990s. I learned to shoot medium bores well. I�m sad that your clients are such dishonest blowhards. But I am just stating some unremarkable things about my experiences on a forum that is designed to solicit such experiences. Can anyone shoot a medium bore well? It�s not that hard with practice. Sure. If someone accurately, and unremarkably, says that they can, are they �claiming� or �saying�? You call it �claiming� to suggest that they can�t. You apparently can shoot a .458 well. Are you �claiming� that or just stating your experience like I have? It�s not really that hard with practice. Why would you �need to pack my 458� if someone said (i.e., �claimed�) that they could shoot a medium bore well? Obviously, if someone says that, they are �claiming� and a poser, but why the .458? A 30-06 is the record breaker. Why don�t you carry a 30-06 if someone says (�claims�) that they can shoot something well? I can�t see the need since a .458 will only occasionally stop a bear a fraction of a second faster than a .270. Why do you need to go big with the .458 to back up the idiotic �claimers�? Maybe it's better at stopping a bear? Maybe sometimes by more than a fraction of a second?

It can�t be that someone works hard to get good with a medium bore, and says so (it�s not that hard), and actually can do so, rather than just �claiming� so. I�m not exactly saying I jumped to the moon or wrestled a 25-ft crocodile into submission. I�m just saying I practice a lot with my .375 and .340 and can shoot them reasonably well. What!? Such a �claim�! You better whip out your .458 Win. Why? Is it better than backing a �claimer� client than with a .270? Sorry you have had so many pathetic "claimer" clients. My guide hasn't.

And I�m trying hard, but I don�t understand one other thing: �a 340 Wby would be one of the last calibers I would choose if I wanted the hide.�

I put two fairly-big holes through each side of my bear last time with the .375 Wby, which probably makes as big of hole as a .340.



But you can�t see it now.



It�s called T-A-X-I-D-E-R-M-Y.

If you say you can shoot your 340 as well, or better, than smaller bores and it is your idea of a "minimum" caliber for Kodiak bears then that is fine. But you seem to want to argue with most of the others on here about their opinions and throwing in irrelevant arguments.

But there is no reason for you to discount any of our experiences either as some of us have killed plenty of bears with "lessor" calibers.

Although I do carry a 458 most of the time when I am guiding, I have used a 30-06 to stop a number of wounded bears.

here is just one example.







By the way,

Your bear mount is impressive, those are a couple of cute young men and thank you for your service.

In the FWIW dept; wolves killed by rifles in Alaska probably succumb to the 223 round more frequently than by anything else. It, up through the 25s, are probably the best numbers to use if you want a sleek pelt. Wolves are rarely a pick-your-shot type deal; you take what you can. A 150 Core-lokt from a 270 can make a real broadside mess of the hide. The gusto of a bullet driven by a 340 wouldn't likely improve the outcome. OTOH 150 BTs in the 7mm-08 and 30-06 flavors have been handily stopped by wolves when run in a more diagonal direction. By law you must use a CF rifle on wolverines in AK. However, I suspect you might get a wanton waste summons if you presented a two-piece wolverine for sealing.

Can we have a new thread on favorite condiments to accompany crow? I'm thinking options might start with a pungent mustard, perhaps Worcestershire sauce, maybe A-1.......?

I doubt even this will help him smell the condiments...

Funniest thing to me is the line about how his guide has not had "claimer" clients...

As I said in my above response, I applaud your service but what exactly does this mean ?

I too have combat experience as an Infantry man in Vietnam and did more than shoot AT enemy combatants.
Just like our bears, It matters little what you shoot AT them, you have to HIT them. And if you can do that you might find that your idea of "minimum" may change.

Reminds me of the old saying �If you look around the poker table and don�t see a sucker, you�re it�.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Just noticed this. I can't keep up with and rebut all the attacks, but yeah, there is a 37% difference in the momentum of the 160gr TSX leaving my 7mm ULW at 3,240fps and the 225gr TTSX leaving my .340 at 3,160 fps. The .340 rile weighs 24% more than the ULW lighter 7mm. Of course, you have to know the powder weight, and sometimes a rifle firing a faster/lighter bullet "feels" to recoil more. Perhaps they're 12% or so apart, but they "feel" about the same. It's in the same order of magnitude. The rifles weigh differently, and at the range, I put a 1-lb bipod on each and wear a recoil pad. and they feel about the same or so. Nothing terrible if you put a pad on your shoulder. Seriously, it's effective to have someone load/unload your rifle before you shoot so that you don't know if it will recoil when you shoot. Doing that, it's not too hard if you try to get to where you don't flinch. It isn't that hard. Just like diving the first time off the high-dive. The first time, it's seems like a nightmare waiting to happen. Then after you do it s few times, it's kind of fun. Jut gotta practice. Light hot 7mm recoils about like a stout heavier .338. Some difference. Not enough for me to notice. A thick shoulder pad at the range makes a huge difference. It really does. Yeah, my .375, 340, 300 WM, and 7mm rifles all weigh differently. So, the all recoil similarly because of that.

These "attacks" as you call them are simply rebuttals to previous comments made by you.

Thank you ever so much for the pedantic explanation of recoil. Having never fired a rifle I really appreciate the effort you went to to describe it so simply.

Too bad your math skills are so poor or you would understand the point I made about the 40% decrease really is properly a 66% increase in recoil. And that does not equate to a 37% difference in momentum, but rather a nominal 66% difference.

I see I need to add a 1 pound brush catcher (bi pod) to my rifles to reduce recoil.

Perhaps that would tame my little 6 pound all up 325 WSM.

I know people perceive recoil differently; but I have fired 7mm magnum rounds with various head stamps numbering in the thousands,and enough 340 Weatherby and various medium bore magnums to be very familiar with the sensations. They aren't even close.

I must be too sensitive.

I am 63 and have hunted since grade school. I have gone through my more power phase and over the years have came to the conclusion through experience that once you have enough more doesn't make it kill better or necessarily quick. Each animal reacts differently to being shot. Something that is not apparent to some.

jwp
You had to actually shoot something to realize that... many somethings...

So what about a 308win with good bullets?

What are 'good' bullets? There is a camp that is fine with heavy bullets (200 and up) of good construction (Partition, A-Frame, etc) shot from a medium-capacity case are a sensible minimum for Kodiaks.

I would have no problem either hunting for myself or guiding a hunter using a 308 firing 180 gr Nosler Partitions, Swifts or TSX bullets.

Well there you go, Phil. I was mistaken, as it was your camp that I was referring to. Are there any other bullets you'd trust in a 308 for the big Brownies?

North Fork, CEB's, Grand Slams, Kodiak, Fail Safe's, Trophy Bonded and Woodleighs come to mind.

For the record, regarding the discussion going on before I jumped in, I don't shoot as well with a cartridge with powder capacity over my 30-06 in sporter weight rifles. Certainly, I can concentrate and get off good shots, but it takes concentration and extra time. I don't and won't use muzzle brakes, so I have determined that 30-06 level of recoil is my max. Occasionally I shoot bigger stuff, but after many, many rounds in bigger guns, I still haven't become comfortable the recoil/muzzle blast. It is ok with me that an '06 with warm loads and heavy bullets is the biggest I am comfortable with. I must be too sensitive?

I plan to get a big 7 within a couple years as a long-range rig. May have to add gun weight or some other thing to shoot it as well as I want to. I want a long barrel, so maybe that will help.

Thank you, Phil for the feedback on the 308Win

HuntnShoot, I'm like you with the 30-06 in sporter weight rifle in it's about my max for recoil tolerance. That if I drop a little below the 30-06 recoil level to eiter a 270Win or 308Win is better for ME.

I'm not a big guy and short actions seem to fit me better.

Phil, thank you for your input/advice. You are sure an accessible guy, and it is great to get your perspectives and opinions with a few keystrokes. I know all the brands you mention except for the Kodiaks. It is a bit surprising that you are comfortable with 180's in 308's. I've never shot at a big bear, but the usual gack is that a smaller 30 cal is a bit wee.

I have used my .308 win on a couple interior bears growing up in a small interior town. As a teen I didn't know that 180 core lots weren't good bear medicine so I just made due. Now I can load 200 grain woodleighs to 2550 fps out of my 20" barrel .308 win and have to imagine that is better than the green/yellow box stuff I used on grizzlies in my teens.

The problem here is three-fold.
Education, internet access and humor are the problems.

Someone obviously taught the bears to read hence the education part and the increasing ease of internet access in remote areas has meant the bears can now see that anyone shooting something less than an artillery piece on wheels is not a threat to them and any bear killed with less has obviously only died laughing at the stupidity of the mere mortal human thing trying to hurt it.

A .22lr can kill anything on the planet eventually, an ICBM can also kill anything on the planet and do it quicker. Somewhere in between is the middle ground and only experience can tell any of us where the best place on that middle ground is. Experience can also tell you what works fast enough to be ethical and responsible given a reasonable amount of skill on the part of the user. Guys like Phil are the voice of experience and they are the ones worth listening to.

Peach of a thread - glad I read all 9 pages.

In 3 years I should be done with my MBA and 4 years, my son will be on his own doing his own thing (he wants to go Navy or Coast Guard).

At that time I'd really like to move to AK and take advantage of all that entails.

Kinda sorta figured on a 223 Montana, 7-08 Montana and maybe a Ruger SS in 35 Whelen.

Have a hunch now that reading this thread - I'll be okay in that regard - no matter what chances/game will come to me in AK.

I value Phil's insight greatly - along with the other AK residents here who've offered theirs. Thanks for the read.

BE CAREFULLLLLLL... Phil' brown bear are huge, fat and healthy.... more than average AK bear.....they don't like to be hit by less than a MINIMUM CALIBER..... I had a talk with one... few weeks ago.... (humour)
Especially if the hunter is "MAAAARINE" needs at least something like Weatherby 378 or 460 something....

I killed a bee with my finger !!!!! is it the minimum or the maximum !!!!

my next minimum caliber with a brown bear !

I'm going to try this two fingers caliber on a bear trail by night.... but I'll ask to Phil to back up me.... with a 458 WMG

WOW,,, Quite the thread here, it's taken me awhile to get thru the 42 pages,so I decided to join this "forum", so as to "Post" a few comments/observations that I took away from this read.
MH or Marinehawk, appears to be one of those guys, that just has to have the "last-word" no matter what, I've had some run-in's with those types of fellow's, in my 65yrs. on this Terra-firma, I don't think he got much attention when he was little, so he's maybe "Over Compensating" a bit now, anyway, Phil, I thought you handled yourself, and the subject matter, as well as one could. I checked out your Web-site,-[GrizzlySkins]- very nice, all though I'd heard your name mentioned before, when I first came to King Salmon, Naknek, early 2003, John & Jay King said some good things about your Operation, as well did Alan Gilland, the Parks Pilot that was first on-site for the Timmy Treadwell incident. Anyway, back to the subject at hand,,, I guess it would be splitting-hairs here, and -[correct me if I'm wrong]-but your Operation and Experience isn't on Kodiak,,,so maybe the subject should have read -[Alaska Brown Bear]- but I'm not sure who started the Thread,so for the lower 48 folks, it may lend a little understanding to the Species, again albeit a trivial bit, but none the less an accurate description for those that may not realize, the small difference.
Just FWIW, my Dad and Uncle hunted with Hal Waugh on Kodiak, Dead-Mans Bay in 1959 & again in 1963, and also at Hal's Post Lake Camp, for Sheep and Moose.
My Dad hunted with a Pre-64 Win.270 Featherweight, and he always shot Heavy for Caliber Win.Silver-Tips, My Uncle had the same Rifle, but in 30-06, with the same Win. Silver-Tips, again Heavy for caliber. I can tell you there was always a "Lively" de-bate around the Camp Fire, of who's Rifle was BEST>!!!
I know you Know,,,, that Hal Waugh shot a Pre-64 MD.70 in.300H&H, that Roy W. himself converted to a .375Wby for Hal,ie... Big-Nan, man, if that rifle could talk. Anyway, I see that you are in Wasilla during the winter months, I'm in Palmer, I'll give you a shout about some future business, see what your prices are and schedules ect..., have a couple of old hunting buddies, that have a "Bucket" list.
Take Care, and Keep your Nose in the Wind.

There are no elk on Kodiak. There are on neighboring islands Afognak and Raspberry.

A number of years ago I picked up a bull elk shed on Uganik Island...

Hey Phil , what did Pinnell and Talifson use on bears in their day? Ive read Track of the Kodiak but don't recall(been a while) , think you did a article on it or something?

They used Model 70 Winchester's in 375 HandH.
I just saw this thread. Glad I missed it.
BUT.

On a bet I would cleanly kill a brown bear with my 223 with 53 gr TSX. If I see a grizzly while hunting with my 6.5 Creedmoor and I can sneak up close to it I'll kill it with that.
If I'm going to get in a fight with one I'll use my 458.
Use what you shoot well and fast with. But if your rifle is smaller than a 375 HandH ect. Don't expect the bear to be all magazine article accommodating if you have to stop it at high speed and close range all by yourself miles and miles from anyone and possibly days from medical attention. With no fon service.
But if its a guided hunt its your guides responsibility to insure your safety so just use a reasonable cart with a very good bullet and shoot it well.

Have to disagree this statement and mindset, each person is responsible for themselves first and foremost in this setting, as well as life in general.

A guide might be able to help, or might not. Things can happen quickly and unexpectedly once in the weeds, and they too are human with all of the good and frailties that comes with that.

You've perhaps defined just the ideal most guides hope for ............when they feel like babysitting a (difficult) client!

Can and will can be miles apart.

Nope, I would. Cause if I couldn't, I wouldn't take the shot.
Ain't no might or maybe about it.
It wouldn't be my first rodeo. An there wouldn't much rodeoin about it .

Where as with a 416 or 458 . Its an aweful lot simpeler.

+1

My cousin and I will both be bringing 300's loaded with 200gr LRX bullets for Kodiak next April. We'll be down there for two weeks, so he should get the chance to put a hurting on one.

ps....save the 223's for coyotes or the like.

F-you. "Last word"? I haven't posted on this since July 13 despite several comments about me since then. And my dad was awesome and took me hunting, fishing, and shooting all the time. He spent constant attention on me, teaching me about all kinds of things about the world. Least of all, he taught me not to act like a jerk like you. You won't find any post from me like you just made attacking a person's upbringing based on them not agreeing with my caliber choice or anything else. He apparently did better than your daddy did. My mom survived but almost died three times when I was young from two incidents of cancer and one of hydrocephalus. But she too taught me not to attack people personally based on their views of things like caliber choices. Probably better than your mommy did apparently.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I was backpacking with my ten-yr-old son in Colorado and then shooting a 71" bull in AK. Up yours.