Starting to think about retirement and part of that thought process has got me thinking about a rifle purge. Like most rifleman, I've accumulated a lot of nice custom rifles over the years but as I get older I think about simplifying my battery to about 6 or 7 really good custom rifles. One of those rifles would primarily be built with Alaska in mind but crossover for African plains game as well.......

I value the opinions of those who post here and would like to hear your ideas of the perfect Alaskan Big Game Rifle. Goats and sheep can be excluded from the conversation with the focus being on bears, moose, caribou, deer, etc.

Go ahead and spec a your build please!


X-VERMINATOR

I don't think this has ever been discussed on here before.


The boring answer is 30-06, preferably stainless and synthetic, but blued /wood work perfectly fine too.

Stainless, synthetic, short and light. 30-06

This is from a guy who has spent the past 40 years building "the perfect" Alaskan rifle and who has an entire rack full of them .
In calibers from 30-06 to 338, 35 Whelen, 9.3x62, and 375,s of multiple flavors.

For a guy that can keep his cool and hit what he's shooting at, a 9mm might suffice.

I kinda think like the fellow above. A 30-06 is awfully hard to beat. I also have rifles to 458 Lott. A 300 Win Mag would be high on my list.

off the shelf 30- 06 , next question.

Not a lot of folks would get close enough to smokey the bear to shoot him in the eye.

I don't have nearly the experience that Phil does but being a northern Canadian hunter, my conditions are similar to Alaska. To say I have downsized over the past few years is an understatement; I am down to one. A Burgess-Echols G33 in .30/06. It will do everything I need.

However, when the weather turns really bad, I would hate to use the rifle - although I know it can easily handle it. So I started building its bad weather brother. Its everything Phil stated -- stainless, synthetic, short, light and of course, .30-06.

I started with a BNIB Mauser Zastava M70 stainless steel action (slim and light stainless CRF action without being a bantam featherweight), sent it to a very good gunsmith to be reworked/smoothed, install a lightweight 21" PacNor Super Match stainless barrel, Alaskan Arms open trigger, Leupold M8 2x scope in a McMillan Interarms Mark X stock. The whole package should weight in around 7.5lbs loaded. I think this would make an ideal Alaskan Big Game rifle.

The other option would be a Blaser R8. I don't own one, at least not yet but will be changing that shortly (which reminds me I have to email a friend about one). Short, waterproof, variety of calibers with interchangeable barrels, take-down for easy travel, accurate, and most importantly, quick handling with a super fast action.

IMHO, my Model 700 stainless Mountain Rifle in .30-06 with it's 22" barrel and a Leupold 3-9 Firedot duplex scope is the perfect Alaskan big game rifle.

Ed

I don't live in Alaska.
But I've hunted there twelve times.

I started with a Remington 700, wood/blue, 30-06 with a Leupold VX-3 3.5x10x40 scope, gloss black. Worked fine on a moose and several caribou. But after each trip, there was enough corrosion that I had to re-blue. So I bought a Thompson Center (T/C) Icon Weathershield, 30-06 and mounted an identical scope. They are cerrcoated (baked ceramic) and nothing that was coated rusted. I have used that rifle on several more trips and the problem of corrosion is solved.

I finally figured out that the blued steel rifles did fine and did not corrode in the field. It was when I carried that cold rifle in the rifle case, into a warm building that created the problem. Moisture from humidity would condense on the cold steel and cause rust inside the rifle case. I don't think that TSA would appreciate if I took out my rifle in the airport terminal to dry and warm the steel. I think the foam rubber lining inside the case creates a nearly waterproof enclosure that makes the problem worse. The only thing that did have a minor problem was the stainless steel bolt. Now I take that out of the rifle and wrap it in a paper towel and place that in a ZipLok bag before going to the airline terminal. No corrosion.

Smith & Wesson bought T/C and started producing center fire rifles. They built a new modern computerised factory and started offering the Icon model line and Venture model line under the T/C name. All of the T/C centerfire rifles are guaranteed to shoot MOA out of the box. I don't think they are producing the Icon model line any longer. I bought a T/C Venture for my grandson and it also shoots MOA out of the box.

People have been using wood/blue rifles in AK for over two centuries. I don't think that permanent residents have the same problem with corrosion unless they take a cold rifle in a rifle case into a warm building.

KC

I had a CRF .338 Winchester Model 70. I got rid of it, as I really had no use for it.

It was nice looking, carried nice, very tight groups, and not bad on the shoulder.

However.... Going into retirement... maybe you don't want the weight and recoil of a .338. Also, being an Alaskan HUNTING rifle..... the pretty stock and metal might not be best.

I suppose I'd look for something synthetic(barf), stainless, and in .30-06.

Pretty boring suggestion. But it'll do the job with boring reliability, no doubt about that.

Since I'm spending your money... A D'arcy Echols Legend would fit the bill nicely. Only like $15K..... But a Remington 700 would do the job too.


-Jake

I think my Winchester 70 extreme weather 30-06 is about the most perfect Alaskan rifle out there. My Kimber Montana 308 is a close second. Both of them worked on moose, caribou, dall sheep, black tails.

A Ruger SS with a "boat paddle stock" in 30.06. And, one might consider using a Barnes bullet, maybe a 150gr pushed hard. I'd even consider a fixed 4X scope.

All I’m going to use this yr is my model 70 Classic in a 30-06.

Well it looks as though you've received some "Very" Good Intel, as to your Post & Question accordingly,,,,, but if you want to be able to go to Africa, as stated, then you will need a "Rifle" of .375 Cal. or greater, I've attached some Photos for your viewing pleasure, this is my .375 Weatherby DGR, in Stainless Steel, with added Magazine Cap. @ 4-down & 1-up, Barrel@ 22", Quick-Release Warn-Rings, with Warn-Bases, Quick Change Ghost-Ring Rear sight, fitting same Warn-Bases, all saddled-up out the door@ 8.5lbs.
And Oh-Yea, and my other Rifle here in Alaska, 30-06.
LJ

I've long been a fan of the .375 H&H ... my first big rifle was a Winchester 70, serial number 6xx (yes, in the six hundreds) in .375. It came to me via Alaska. Stuck with non-bonded cup-n-core bullets of those times, I'd still recommend it. Today, an '06 or possibly .300 WSM in a rifle that fed smoothly, with good bullets, would seemingly do pretty well. We seem to pick rifles and cartridges based on 2% of what we might someday do instead of 98% of what we really do right now.

Thinking of posts above, I've considered a Kimber Mountain Ascent in either .308 or '06 with a fixed 4x aboard for anything I don't want to hunt with a .257 Roberts. Oregon isn't Alaska though, so I won't pretend expertise, just share semi random thoughts.

Tom

There’s obviously no right answer but it’s always fun seeing what other people use. Guys like Phil and their opinions carry a lot of water as far as I’m concerned but I’ve got what I’ve got and if I can’t do the job with them then I probably couldn’t do it with anything.

My go to rifle is a stainless synthetic Sako in .308 with a Zeiss 3-9x40 in Talley lightweights. My bigger rifle is a Savage FSAK in .338. It’s stainless and I put it in a B&C weathertouch (?) stock and steelbedded the action. It’s a sub MOA rifle all day with everything except partitions (weird but oh well). I shoot 225 grain TTSX or 225 grain TBBC. I sold my Remington 700KS in .375 because I just didn’t see myself using it in place of the .338 which I have the ultimate confidence in and for close range stuff my guide gun in 45-70 with Skinner Alaskan peep sites was my choice. In a fit of indecisiveness I sold the guide gun because I want the stainless version with the wider loop. My big paws don’t have the wiggle room they’d like in the standard lever version so I’ll be looking for the stainless guide gun this summer, I might even put a low power 1-4x Leupold on it since I’m left eye dominant and right handed.

As always the perfect Alaskan rifle is whatever you want it to be but for some reason these threads never get old and the information from the professionals here are always enlightening. Good luck in your quest. 👍

30-06 but if big bears are on the menu, I might go with a 338 wm.

If you plan on hunting a lot of big bears then something between the 30-06 and the 375 MIGHT (?) Be a better choice .
But remember the 30-06 was the number one choice of Alaskan hunters for almost a century and was enough to take the world record Kodiak bear.
If you are guiding and might need to act as backup on wounded bears then majority of those who have experience prefer something in 375 and up category.

Phil, I defer to your infinitely greater experience. But I post only to see if you can clarify something I don't understand.

You say that hunting, you need one thing, but "[i]f you are guiding and might need to act as backup on wounded bears then" you might need something more potent. But, if you are hunting without a guide, would you not need to be prepared to have something, even more so, "to act ... on wounded bears," because you do not have a backup? In other words, why does a guide need a big more potent cartridge to provide back up defense, but a solo hunter who needs to provide both the initial strike and also, as well, the "backup on wounded bears" only need something less potent?

I didn't get it that way, Marinehawk

As I understand it, anybody has the choice of using any rifle from the .30-06 to the .375 H&H (or even bigger for that matter) to hunt bears. And that's why cartridges from the .30-06 to the .375 H&H are widely used in Alaska. However, it only makes sense that a guide use enough gun to back his or her clients.

I have been told by a guide that some guides use .338's and up to back their clients.

With most of the modern premium bullets Even the biggest bears can be readily killed with well placed hits from a 270, 7mm, or any of the various 30 caliber rifles. And virtually everybody tend to shoot more consistently with rifles with moderate recoil, especially rifles they are familiar with.
Which is why I recommend them. And if you can make a well placed hit on an unwounded bear when you have time to get ready, you are unlikely to have to follow up a wounded bear. And if you can't then you are certainly unlikely to do any better under stress !
And even with the bigger bores, you still have to hit them correctly!

I need no more info than Shoemakers signature line. Make mine stainless, please, with a good trigger.

Very obviously not Phil, but I suspect he will point out that many clients shoot far better with their trusty '06...

There is really nothing wrong with a 30-06 for back-up, but wounded bears die hard, very hard sometimes and a guide shooting a 375 will see better results assuming he/she shots it well.

I think this question could be easily answered from one of Tia Shoemaker's Facebook Photos. Phil could explain it.

There is no such thing as "too much gun".

There may well be "too much gun to shoot well".

If talking about ONE gun for Africa and Alaska both, get the .375 H&H, assuming you can handle the cartridge well.

As per Phil's posts.

Personally, in OP's shoes, I'd get one of each...

The '06 is all one NEEDS in Alaska. Usually.

But the same is true of the .375

There are situations which may arise where a 12 lb cannon might not be amiss, if one could pack it, aim it, and shoot it accurately and quickly at need. But those situations arise rarely if at all for most of us, even with lesser cannons.

I been poking holes in Alaska's critters for 53 years and all of it has been done with a 30-06 or .338 Winny. I am a Mod. 70 guy and prefer the ones with the old style trigger as it is bullet proof and simple. I have heard many first hand stories over the years about trigger issues on big game rifles. I consider the trigger the most important feature on a rifle.

My custom Mod. 70 "Stainless Classic" .338 with it's Bansners synthetic stock is to me a perfect Alaskan rifle at 7.5 lbs. with out scope. My Pre-64 Featherweight 30-06 is another favorite of mine with the nice walnut stock and rust blue steel. I also have a 6.5 lb. Husqvarna 30-06 that is a keeper, with the Leupold VX3i 2.5-8x36mm it comes in under 7.5 lbs.

As I age it may end up being my "go to" rifle. Stuffed with168 grain Barnes TTSX bullets, it should have all the "right stuff" for Alaska and I believe that bullet will penetrate like a 200 grain Nosler Partition. Gotta love that!

A big thank you to everyone who responded!

I'm thinking a 7.5 pound 30-06 shooting 165 or 168 TTSX's would be pretty tough to beat... A Pre64 Win 70, McMillan Edge, 22-23" #2 contour, NECG back up irons and Talley QD rings and bases wouldn't suck.


X-VERMINATOR

Sounds great to my way of thinking........adjust as needed to get an effective fit and function.

As of this week, I've been here for a 1/2 century. I had two rifles that I primarily used. My first was a pre-64 M70 in three six bits. I used old style 270 gr. NP's I carried it when the fuzz monsters were walking around. Then ,when they were sleeping, I had an old Ruger in 7x57 AI. That was my winter caribou gun. It really liked 160 gr. NP's. I am primarily a target shooter but hunted quite often. So I am no pro. It's just what I did. Worked for me.

Tikka stainless super lite 30-06 with 2-10 variable scope.
I will say I am impressed with the 9.3x62 and would be right up there If I knew I was hunting big bear country.

Not many youngsters would know what you're talking about...

Even with this clue: two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar...

Three six bits in a pre-64. Pretty cool ordinance.

DF

Never been to Alaska (hope to make it there sooner or later) but I do have a Tikka 9.3 x 62. Nice rifle. LH to boot! Probably good for just about anything "big game" on the North American Continent. Availability of 9.3 x 62 ammo in Alaska ??

What I carried was a 7mm RM. But just for the love of the cartridge my lowland rifle would be a 375 H&H but that would make two rifles with the other a 280/7mm/06 and the 375.

Basically anything from 270 to 35 Whelen on the 06 case would be good. If you will be hunting Sheep or Goats a lot then a lighter rifle would be in order. Also varmint hunting is a different proposition in AK as wolves can get up to 100 pounds and if calling be ready for bear. Not sure what is still available but fox and formerly seals were part of the equation too. Moose can be a short range affair and will fall from anything 243 and above. I like to be ready for bad angles and follow up shots if needed to keep them from expiring in the closest bog or lake. The 06 to 375 would do this well. If you are a fisherman the 7mm RM/06 gives confidence the 375 even more for me. The trajectory difference between the 06 and 375 are very similar so other than the weight of the rifle no down side to the 375.

never dealt with big bears in Alaska but when I help with a wounded black bear I carry a 12 gauge shotgun with slugs and at close range that old 12 gauge is one nasty gun with a slug !

Posted this one before, .375 H&H. SS NH Classic, chopped to 21" and fluted. I have a lighter, 1.5-5x20 Leupold that puts the weight at 8# 12oz. It runs around nine with the big Victory 1.5-6x42.

It balances and carries well, feels lighter than what the scale shows. Some like lighter guns, but in this round, to me the wt. is about right. I like the NECG firberoptic front with windowed hood.

DF

Interesting that the longer the interval after Phil's posts, the more often .375 gets mentioned.

Bearanoia !

I lived and hunted in AK for ten years and ran the gamut of rifles and calibers. Started with a 350RM, on to 4570,458,375,444, all at one time or the other. Finally landed on the 35 Whelen, and still feel it's a good choice. But I did notice as time went on that I was gravitating more to individual rifles and not so much cartridges. The last three years I think I shot about 6-7 head of game and found myself using a pair of 300 Savages, a 99 and a Remington M7. I did shoot a couple bull caribou with a 257Wby too.

I think I started to give up on the big rifle deal after seeing kids year after year kill moose with a single shot from their 243s using CoreLokts or Federal blue box.

If you can get within decent range, remain calm, and remember to shoot them in the front half most anything will work. After all there is no magic line you cross going north where animals stop being made of blood and meat and hide, let the blood out and the air in and they die just like anything else.

And, this isn't even a "big bad bear rifle" thread!

True...

Most of us aren't as good as Phil, who's been known to kill a big bear with a 9mm pistol...

The '06 with the right load is a formidable weapon, no doubt, and in the right hands, deadly.

If and when I spend big bucks on a big bear hunt, I'll feel better with my .375, would probably leave my '06 in the safe. It's a big gun, but I can shoot it. It's heavier than the '06, but I can pack it. All things being equal, it may give me an edge. So, why not...

DF

There's nothing wrong with using a big gun if you shoot it well...

My thinking on a big gun is to shoot it a lot, load for each and every use, use it on hogs, on WT's, on everything. That's exactly what I would do if I was getting ready for an Alaskan hunt.

I'm thinking about doing that anyway, just for the heck of it. A .375 H&H gets a lot of attention at the hunting camp, even with moderate loads, (more than an '06) .

It's a fun gun handled like that. Those big slugs, even at moderate velocity, sure do put a whack on hogs.

Whoops, I'm starting to think like gunner500....

DF

I've always enjoyed using "this and that" just to try (or prove) different things. However, for so much of my time and miles when "going hunting", I've simply carried a 7mm-08 or 30-06 because they are enough, but more importantly, are handier than carrying bigger rifles (which I also like depending on my whims). 'Standard' sized/chambered rifles are just so darned versatile. But that never stops me from choosing the 250 Savage specifically for caribou, or the 358 Norma specifically for moose.

The biggest problem with saying "375 H&H" is ideal is that then you have to decide between the 'nice' one, the stainless/plastic one, and what about a bolt gun or single shot?

HAHA ain't that the truth!!!

I don't think MarineHawk's question was answered... or perhaps understood.

Having never been to Alaska, I claim no expertise. But I've hunted bl. bears for at least thirty-three seasons, the majority of that solo. And, at times I've had to do my own follow-up. So I tend to use more than needed for killing a bear, just in case I have to go into thick brush, where you can't see the bear until you nearly step on it. For that nasty business, I like a lever-action Marlin in .45-70.

I too have wondered why the 9.3 x 62 Mauser wasn't mentioned. I've killed a few bears with mine, and I have confidence in it, but it's not a stopper any more than a .35 Whelen or a .338 is unless it's a CNS hit. I've stopped several with .458" bullets, particularly from a .45-70, that were NOT CNS hits! I blew the lungs and heart to jelly using a 250gr AccuBond from my 9.3 x 62 leaving the muzzle at over 2700 fps. Range was 85 yards. There was a blood trail that a blind person could follow... the bear still went 20 -25 yards into thick alders!

Do you want a stopper? You've got it in a big bore where you may not have time or space for precision shooting -- you and I are not Phil Shoemaker.

Edit to add: some may recognize the name Kelly Ross -- he's one of the field writers for Sports Afield. He's Canadian and also an outfitter for big bears in Manitoba, and has done work in the past for an outfitter in B.C. for grizzly on the border of Alaska. I've had considerable correspondence with him in recent months. His "weapons" for big (400 to 600 lb black bears) starts with the .338 Win Mag and includes a 9.3 x 62, a .375 H&H and finishes with a .458 Win Mag. This fall he's returning to B.C. to work for the same outfitter -- taking with him those same rifles. But there will be no grizzle hunts in B.C. because the government has shut down grizzly hunts.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I should think shot placement to be more important than cartridge choice . . . within reason of course. I would value reliability in my equipment over cartridge choice as well. A jammed rifle could make for a well fed griz.

Absolutely true !
But there is nothing wrong with medium sized guns if you shoot them well either and truth be told, we all tend to shoot better with them!

[quote=super T]A Ruger SS with a "boat paddle stock" in 30.06. ]

This but in a 338. It has worked for me several times and if it's lost or stolen or damaged you can always get another one.

Rifle and cartridge selections are extremely subjective, everyone has their favorites. My one cartridge for the game listed would be the 338 Win. with a monolithic expanding 225 grain bullet of respectable b.c. Many others of course will work. The rifle would be a stainless, synthetic, with an open style trigger, and preferably control round feed type. Iron sights would be optional, though a good option. I would mount a quality 1.5-6x42 scope for a single choice. Or have both a straight tube 1.1-4 / 1-6ish and 2-10x42 type in detachable mounts for varied terrain.
At times, I wonder why I own/use any thing else, but I do. I mostly hunt moose with a 375 Ruger. I have used the 416 Ruger and might this year. Neither have dropped a moose any faster than the 338 Win. But, I like the larger bores and for the distances I shoot trajectory is not an issue.

A .458 Winchester handloaded with 350gn TSX bullets make a great .375 load while maintaining .458 caliber for those that use recoil as the excuse not to step up to the best caliber for dangerous game.

A 300gn .375 bullet is good but a 350gn .458 bullet at the same speed is damn good. Besides, my .458 is Hard Chromed and I also have a plastic stock for it. Having said that, I would take a .30/06 handloaded with 220gn Partitions or 200gn TTSX's if hunting with Phil, but would more likely take the .458 hunting with others. When back up is needed, it is really needed.
John

Remington 700 AWR 30-06. Most expensive glass you can get your hands on in Talleys.

30-06 is plenty for any bear that ever lived

Go hunting

Coming from a guy with the name "Three30Eight"....

I was starting to think you were gunner...

I'm not going to agree with, we "all" shoot better with them. Maybe a little quicker with our follow up shots. If that's what you mean by "better", I'll agree....

Hmmm...that "The Alaskan" is a shooter (I am looking at the targets you posted)

By the way, the .338WM is my favorite for hunting in Alaska.

Shooting at targets is nowhere near the same as shooting in the field. Think no bench or lead sled.. All things being equal as far as the rifles accuracy goes, the vast majority will shoot medium calibers much better. Everyone has their preferences and thats OK but the fact is that any medium bore is perfectly fine for anything in NA. You will be packing your rifle more than you will be shooting it. Believe me you will appreciate a nice lightweight, short rifle when your boots are on the ground in AK or northern Canada. Im mid fifties now and I refuse to pack a hunters rifle for them anymore, and I bet 75% of the hunters that come north have a hard time carrying their own rifle. Any guide will tell you they love to see a hunter get off the plane with an old worn deer rifle....those are the guys that kill stuff. If I had a dollar for every hunter I've seen that was over gunned I could retire.

I have a .338WM in that configuration, but replaced the stock with a Hogue Rubber-Overmolded. From a cold and clean barrel it never fails to put the first three 225-grain TTSX a tad to the left and +2" (100 yards). But several of the moose I have killed with it have dropped to one shot, thus all I am concerned with when hunting is to hold the rifle steady and on the right spot. The scope on this one is a Leupold Vary-X III 2.5-8x.

But this year I am planning to use a Ruger Hawkeye African .338 that was designed without a muzzle brake. It looks like the other African versions, except that the finish is matte black, and the bolt is sort of dull gray. The barrel is 22" long, and has express sights. Mounted a Leupold 30mm 3-9 x 40 that has a #4 reticle with a red dot in the middle.

Good points about rifle accuracy. But there is something else that I have realized relating to shooting efficiency: For some reason the accuracy of one's rifle boosts ones confidence in it. Those tight groups at the range require lots of practice, and that practice always carries afield during the hunting season. Nothing worst than not knowing if my rifle is not shooting straight before I leave hunting.

As I mentioned before, one of my .338's is not supper accurate, just accurate enough. Yes, there have been times at the range where the first two shots at 100 yards are about 1/2" apart, and the third shot about 1" away from the first two. But there are no doubts in my mind that this rifle will always hit the right spot from a cold and clean barrel. It has never failed me once during the moose season in Alaska.

Yes I agree, good accuracy boosts confidence and that goes a long ways.

And there's nothing like getting off paper/bench to ruin or solidify that confidence. ('Paper' groups become largely irrelevant either way.)

Boy Howdy is that true ! I see hunters vitually every season who think they are great shots because they can hit distant things while shooting from a bench but somehow seem to miss a target the size of a sheet of plywood at 50 yards when they have to shoot offhand.

Phil;
Good morning to you sir, I hope all is well with you and your fine family this morning.

Although I've posted this before, I hope it's okay if I add a hearty "amen" to your thoughts on clients shooting ability. Absolutely far and away the guides here in BC that I've talked to say the biggest issue they have with clients is their inability to shoot from field positions in a timely manner.

Some of the stories are rather funny, but then again Phil, they weren't happening to me and it wasn't my client who'd paid over $25,000 to shoot a ram but had never, ever shot when it wasn't off a bench or where they can set up with a bipod.

I seem to recall the shin tangle you shot the grizzly in with your 9mm was a tad thick - a bi-pod would not have worked there is my guess?

Anyway sir, thanks once again for adding your real world experience to the conversation, I always appreciate reading your thoughts on these matters.

All the best to you all as we head into spring.

Dwayne

However, there is another side to it, and this relates to those who are good shooters. While there are some who can't shoot, there are others who can. Besides that, I don't know of too many hunters preparing for moose season who don't check their rifles on paper targets just before the hunt. It is almost a ritual to check one's rifle before moose season.

Stop by the Rabbit creek or Issac Walton ranges just before moose season opens if you want to see some memorable shooting !

I know of no caliber that will make up for piss poor shooting !
But I can name a bunch of them that will aggravate it !

Rabbit Creek at that time is flat-out scary!

I’d take a well balanced medium light weight 30-06 loaded with TSX or TTSX bullets in 168 or 180 grain and never look back. Not anything in North America that combo can’t handle and handle well.

Phil (or anybody) thoughts on the 220gr Nosler Partition of HornadyRN Interlock w the 06'? I've never hunted bears, but I've shot some pretty big hogs through both shoulders with the hornady and I've yet to recover one, great expansion as evidenced by the exit hole and LOTS of blood.

I've seen that bullet punch through both shoulder of big bull moose at medium ranges. A fellow I guide with uses the 06 and that bullet combination exclusively as a back up rifle. He's been using it for 35 years now and sees no reason to change.

An interesting bit of information that says a lot about this conversation, is our bison hunt. In all their wisdom our Fish and Game officials decided to put a minimum caliber requirement on our bison hunt. The minimum allowed is a 180 grain, 30 caliber bullet @ 2800 ft/lbs. The 30/06 is the baseline. Of course hunters read this and think bigger is better. Bison hunting is really popular here now that we have a general season on them. Our local gun store sells more 375s and larger calibers than anything. Well guess what happened? Fish and Game now say that a full 50% of the bison killed have been wounded in the past. Its such a problem that now one of the questions on the mandatory kill report is if your bison had any old wounds. I've killed four bison since they opened the season, three of them with a 338 Federal. One was taken at 300 yards. I didnt need more power, none went more than 20-yards, and I can tell you a bison is a big tough animal. They have thick hide and big bones, far tougher in that respect than any native big game animal up here and that includes bears.

Kind of a funny story that ties into the minimum caliber requirements for bison, is Fish @ Game caught a First Nation hunter with 4 dead bison. Of course he didnt have a license or tags, so they threw the book at him. One of the many charges was using an inadequate caliber! He was using an old model 99 300 Savage. They got him on hunting without a license and killing to many animals, but the judge threw out the inadequate caliber charge. His reasoning was sound....how could the caliber be inadequate if you are charging him with killing four bison....

The last bison I shot on Kodiak was with M99 300 Savage .

The Hornady or the Partition? for bison, good God man, I used a Sharps in 45-110 !

I've seen both bullets used on moose, but the guide I was talking about prefers the Hornady, probably because of price more than performance.

But I"d still want a 2moa or under gun to ad to my 10 moa wobble. Rather than adding say 5 or 6 moa gun to a 10 moa wobble. LOL> And its generally easier to cut the group size than the wobble, and it remain the same.

getting the knee high winds down and keeping them down takes much more work and "CEUs".

I"ve gotten to the point I don't shoot if its moving more than I want it to. I"d rather the animal walk then take a chance... Just me though, and yes I've "lost" a lot of game due to that. One legal moose in 2014. Lost him for about 2 whole days. I was very happy I didnt' take an iffy shot. And even happier when he tipped at about 125 yards from a kneeling shooting position and I SUCK at kneeling... lol.

Oh to have the days back where my prone slung up wobble was around 1/4 MOA. LOL. Those computers sure could show what you were doing wrong and then let you play with it to make it better. Should have used it on my standing though....

Don't tell those charcoal burners you can kill a buff with a 300 Savage...

DF

Ive never been to Africa or Alaska. I do love a 375 H&H and the 45/70's. Have several of both. I figured if I was going to build a do all rifle a 375 would be a good base. I have a classic stainless 375 with zeiss 3-9x40 with talley QR rings. I just have to get the barrel chopped to 20". It will do everything I will ever need if I ever get to make those trips. I love shooting my no 1's and leverguns more, but if I had to pick only one for everything, the m70 would prob be my pick, followed by my marlin stainless guide gun.

A big part of the answer would be based on whether you could use handloaded ammo or were limited to what local store kept in stock. An 06 with TSX bullets would clearly work although all factory 06 loads I've chronoed were seriously under powered. However, for game that bites back or are particularly hard to kill, I'd personally prefer something shooting heavier and larger diameter bullets. A 35 Whelen would be a clear step up from an 06 with good handloads (with the exception of Nosler ammo, the factory offerings don't really impress me). Personally, I'd be happier stepping up to a 338, 340wby or 375 with at least 225s in 338 or 270s in 375. Just my 0.02.

It wasn't the ones he killed that day that mattered, but rather the ones he likely wounded.

Success rates are low for bison hunters here, because they have learned to head for the hills whenever they hear a snow machine. You actually have to hunt them, usually on snowshoes, so the fact that he killed four tells me he was pretty experienced, and obviously a good shot. He may well have wounded one, there was no one saying he did but guess we will never really know. Just the fact that he killed four proves his rifle was up to the task.....a bigger caliber wont make up for poor marksmanship...

Wouldn't surprise me if much of the wounding has to do with lack of familiarity with bison anatomy. As for the four kills, many Native people tend to hunt close and aim for non-typical places - ear or neck rather than the lungs/chest, (ruins less meat.)

That happens everywhere. I see it at the firing ranges in Fairbanks all summer and Fall. Regardless I don't see a reason for me not to check if my rifle is shooting straight before moose season. We all do it, I imagine. I have never hunted overseas, but I have been told that before hunting EU elk (stag), one has to go through a shooting course to make sure that you can hit the right spot on a elk that is moving. No idea if for some African hunts the guides make you test your gun or not, however. This is done in Sweden:

http://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/sweden_en.pdf
.

But in the US the least one should do is to learn how to shoot straight, and then checking the rifle before the hunt. I could be wrong, of course. But that's what I have done for many years

ADF&G is still stuck on bullet weight and 100 yd energy numbers.


http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=deltabison.weaponslegalhunting

In the interior of Alaska we have different kinds of terrain. For example, caribou are usually found in very wide open ground of low growth (or tundra, so called by a lot of folks up here). In these areas one often has to do a lot of walking, and long shots are very possible. If hunting caribou, I prefer to use a lighter than my .338 rifles (these weight around 8 pounds), such as a lightweight .270, 7mm-08, .308. During moose season I hunt in areas where the shots could be from 50 yards to 300 (the latter is may self imposed limit), and in here I use a .338WM rifle. A friend of mine uses a .45-70, but for some reason he has developed the knack of calling moose close-by

However if you can ride an ATV into the open areas of the interior on Alaska, then it does not matter how heavy the rifle may be, although BLM has all kinds of rules about motorized vehicles in some real good caribou migration routes (Denali Highway area, for example). But up by the Steese one can ride ATVs in several areas.

Very possible for sure. A few years ago our Fish Game did a test. They were finding a lot of dead caribou up on the Dempster Highway after the season closed. The Porcupine herd migrates right across the the road up there so it is a popular spot for guys to go. Plus they can take two animals. Anyway Fish and Game set up a life-size caribou target at their check station. The test was set up so you first had to estimate the range to the target, write it down, then shoot the target. Participation was voluntary, but they had a brand new set of high dollar binoculars they were giving as an incentive to the hunter that scored the best by the end of the season.

The results were dismal, both in range estimation and lethal shots on the target. I've always been of the opinion that most guys simply dont shoot enough. You're not going to become even a decent shot by only shooting a few rounds right before the season.

Thats one reason the old timers killed so much stuff with calibers that many today consider inadequate. They were shooters and they knew their rifles because they shot them often. An old Cree indian guy worked for my dad on the ranch for many years and all he carried was a beat up old 30/30. I've seen him make shots that most wouldnt believe, including a measured 300 yard shot on a grizzly that had killed one of our cows. He took the shot off hand just as the bear turned towards us. He hit that bear right at the base of the neck and she dropped like a stone. It wasn't luck either because I saw him make similar shots more than once.

Beware the man with one gun...

Because he spent the rest of his money on whiskey and women?

(Notice I didn't say wasted!)

I’ve hunted in Alaska twice, once for Dall Sheep and once for a caribou. Both fell to a 280 Remington pushing 160 Nosler Partitions hot. Both died in their tracks, the sheep then decided to roll down a rocky ridge 200 yards.
I’m schedueld for a moose hunt in September this fall during the rut, and I’m going to be carrying a custom 338-06 Ackely improved that pushes a 210 Nosler Partition out a 2,850. It’s been the center piece of the action on nine bull elk harvests; only one went beyond 20 yards after the shot. Two flipped over, four feet up. In conversations with my outfitter he says it should handle moose well, and I’m confident it will. Yes, it requires handloads, but I’m well stocked and well prepared. I’m not saying that this cartridge is the best for Alaska, but I’m confident it will do anything someone wants to use it on in the land of Enchandment.

This makes a lot of sense.

My daughter Tia has a 7 1/2 # M70 in 416 Rem that she uses for virtually everything. She had it loaded with 300 gr X bullets ans used it last year to take a Dall sheep.
With lighter bullets the bigger calibers can be pretty versatile.

Nothing wrong with a .338-06 and 210-grain Partition, or the new 210 Scirocco tipped. In fact, for that matter there is nothing wrong with a .338WM and a Barnes TTSX in the same bullet weights.

.338 caliber users might like to take a more serious look at the 185gn TTSX as it is easy to get stuck on the old traditional and limited weight options of 210m 225 and 250 grains.
When a 185grain weight makes you nervous, there are several 265, 280 and 300 grain heavies to thump at closer or finishing ranges.
John

She obviously can shoot it pretty well if she’s sheep hunting with it.

If someone handles a big gun well, seems they have a good thing going.

A handloader’s dream; loads can be crafted for many uses and applications.

DF

I have both and with sights. I also used my 375 H&H but had I gotten a 375 Ruger that would have been fine as well. Just as important as what will work is what people become emotionally attached to. Love my 30-06's and I'm down to only two, I'm also down to 2, 338WM's as well. One of the things I really like about my 375 H&H Sako, with the McMillian stock is it shot so well and the recoil was at worst moderate. I literally could shoot 2 boxes of ammo off the bench. Just didn't bother me. But it wasn't stainless and if I expected the bad weather the Ruger 338WM went with me. With the "boat paddle stock" and Limbsaver pad, it was extremely controllable. Does a person NEED a 338WM and a 375H&H. NO. But as the song says, "What's need got to do with it?" Those 3 calibers are perfect for up north. Having a 30-06 for caribou or sheep or .... is also handy. What do you want to develop the memories with? That to me is the biggest question.

One of the biggest changes we have had in the "all around rifles" consideration, is the advancement we have had in bullets in the years since the Nosler Partition appeared. It was then put in fast forward when the Barnes X bullet showed up. Since then every bullet maker seems to have their version of a "super expanding/penetrating semi-monolithic" bullet. Similar to what happened with the Glock trigger group, Springfield, S&W etc.

Any way, my vote goes to the advancement in bullet performance, it has allowed "lesser" calibers to be considered as all "around Alaskan rifles".

For me, after 53 years it starts with the grand old 30-06 and ends between it and the wonderful .338 Win. Mag. Tossing the wonderful Barnes TTSX bullets!

I’m also another lived and hunted in Alaska, 4 years.
Honestly it really depends on your hunt.
Sheep 7mm mag, distance is king
Caribou 30-06, 7mm
Blackbear 30-06
Moose 300 win mag up to 416 Rigby
Grizzly, 338 win mag to 500

Always carry a 44mag side arm. No longer than a 6” barrel. Overly combersome sidearms will not be useful in a charging bear situation.

I carried a 338 WinMag browning stainless stalker as my main rifle. It was a heavy round and you could’t take those really long shots. 200yrds was the longest I would consider shooting with it. Also my side arm was a SW 629 classic with a non-fluted barrel.

The 30-06 is a great rifle and round but some bigger game just doesn’t stop even with a well placed shot. Also a double lung moose shot with an 06 can still mean 300-500 yrds tracking into some of the worst bush ever. Keep in mind post shot tracking that can become a major issue.

Sorry KenB, but there’s a whole lot in this post that simply leaves me scratching my head. Just............wow. 🙄

You and me both!!

Maybe in another few years he will learn how to shoot !

Or learn where a moose's lungs are actually located.

I just can't bring myself to carry a handgun when I've got a rifle in my hands. Wimpy I guess, but just hate the extra weight and volume. Know lots of folks that handgun is on their AMEX list, but not for me.


guess I should admit I do sometimes carry a lil airweight snubnose .22 with CT laser grips, hate to turn down good eating grouse

I'm with ya Randy almost all the time. If I have a rifle, I don't often have a handgun on me. Wife almost never carries a rifle but has 16 rounds of 10mm handy on a chest holster at all times.

Works for us.

Now when fishing, I tend to carry a large handgun instead of a long gun.

Hard to believe that this thread has gone so long. To the OP, just buy an "Alaskan" (.338WM) and learn to shoot it. Otherwise a .416 and learn to shoot it like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7goTNi9yJQ

Uhhhh... my Airweight does not have CT grips because you are not allowed to shoot grouse or other game with them...

Wow, I've never shot a grouse with one, only shotguns, but I see folks shoot em with 22 rifles all the time while we are moose hunting. Guess I'll have to read the regs, I'd have been guilty at some point having not read this post.

Any aiming device that projects a dot is illegal for hunting. 22lr is just fine. Seems there may have been some confusion?

What a great catch.!!!

Wow is right!!

My bad, sry for the confusion. Mine has off/on switch on bottom Potting grouse with iron sights it works fine, but squirrels up a tree around our cabin turns it into a lot more useful tool for that application. Course after cutting all the big spruce down around our cabin they’re not as much of a problem as they were. Even though it’s more expensive I’ve pretty well gone blueboard for insulating needs around our cabins. Fiberglass + squirrels is bad juju ime

10-4. got it. Same stupid rule TX had in effect for a while until they realized what they had done....

Hey, in Ken’s defense, and with some embarrassment in my admission, I’ve had to “track” a couple of moose that were lung-shot and were a bit difficult to find. Not because they went anywhere after being shot however. (Maybe I need to do a better job of spotting their location before I knock ‘em over, huh? 😏)

The poor guy shot that .416 almost handheld like a shotgun with pistol grip

A lot of guys think they are aiming for a high lung shot and manage to hit the top spinal processes , that often drops the moose immediately but when they do get up they don't hang around and will cover a lot of territory quickly !

I sure wish folks that shoot ANY animal would do the research, to see where vitals are compared to bones, blood paths, organs, hide/hair etc....

Vitals are NOT situated fairly IMHO. If that makes sense. IE to high forward not good, so lets stay lower, but not to far back if thats the case. Almost to the point of being an oval flopped in at an angle...

I have never had a use for high shoulder shots personally. but thats just me. I tend to center vitals, or go big CNS hits. IE the brain. When I"m forced to think break bones along the way I have to rethink where I'm aiming too.

To their credit (and ease of demise), moose are pretty darned easy to poke properly (except when one intentionally takes dumb shots on them - as Phil noted). And mostly they just stand around if you 'did' them well enough. I've only lost my place a few times when they tipped over so quick that I figured wrong. There's nothing like "embarrassing elation" at wandering around in the thick stuff only to find a big dark behemoth lying right where he stood or ambled when the gun recoiled. Seems a bit odd to have to track an animal that size in the last tracks he made before the shot.

And tracks are very difficult to find sometimes in the thick moss. In the areas I hunt on the Elliott Highway, after the shot I have to stay put memorizing the spot where the moose stood, and from there direct my hunting friends to the spot. It's amazing how a downed moose can blend with the low growth from mid to the end of September. If you shoot it in an open area, then there is no trouble see in it. I have been lucky to kill my moose early in the day, except for one. These hunting areas are on a ridge overlooking Old Minto, so there is still plenty of daylight to perhaps 9:30PM just before mid September. This evening I shot a moose around 9:00, in it took one of my friends about 45 minutes to find it, but we were very lucky because by then it was getting dark. On my directions he rode his ATV upon the train about 300 yards, parked the machine, walked about 30 yards into the birch thicket (away from the trail), and then walked in my direction as he listened to my voice (we could not see each other). The funny thing is that we could have used flashlights to show out positions, but both of us forgot about them in the backpacks. Anyway, we never leave a moose out there though the night, so we worked on it until hauling the meat to the campsite about 4:00AM. But this area has been getting crowded lately, and even some hunters from Anchorage come up to it. I have been enjoying more time at the campsite for the past two years

Actually I think more folks should memorize the last location and the location of the shot before moving. It sure can make life easier.

I've said it before that we've used rangefinders even.... and they sure can help too

I can't imagine not doing that. That said, trying to memorize what it will look like from 90, 150, or 180 degrees which is often the approach angle is often confounding. ("He was standing in the only grassy patch in that willow thicket" ...until you get down there and discover grassy patches among the multitude of willow thickets. ) Looking back for a good visual on what the position the shot was taken from can be real handy too.

There's nothing like walking into the grass patch, seeing it is much bigger than it looked, and finding that the grass is 2-3 feet taller than it looked and covering knee deep tussocks to make one second guess whether a moose with both shoulder broken might actually get up and wander off.

Indeed. It's amazing how the view changes from different perspectives. Likewise as the sun and shadows move. That's especially true in the woods and thickets. Also noteworthy is how many seemingly very unique trees have multiple twins running around. Always good to check your back trail as you make your way in.

Could not have said it better. It's so easy to go in to lose the way back. I remember one time that I manage to ride my ATV into the area where the moose should have been, then walked around looking for it and found it. But I was lucky that a friend of mine was with me (he has a lot of experience tracking moose), who pointed to me the direction I should take to find the 4-wheeler. Nowadays I mark the trail in with surveyors tape

Just carry a compass and do a reverse bearing whenever you are going into unfamiliar country

Sorry, but have to laugh at that! Great! What you have is a line parallel to another line without source or end or distance from the original line. Unless you...

Flag your shooting position!

Trying to guess where it is after the fact is nearly impossible in tough cover!

34 years ago I shot a buck in a lull in a white-out at about 100 yards. Sent my hunting partner to the spot while i stared at it. When he got there i had him stand there until i arrived. I turned uphill and took a couple steps before literally tripping over him because my boot laces tangled in his antlers.

He was a top 25 All-time B&C deer, and is still way up there...

That's quite funny, but very possible at times. Even moose that are down in the brush are hard to see. The brush looks nice and low from where you shoot, but once you get to the spot, the low growth (birch, willow, and the rest) can be taller than expected. Something else about moose, and deer, I imagine: a moose can be very large and tall, but it can move through the brush like a shadow (nice and quiet), and it can hide like a ghost behind a clump of brush. Off the season I was riding my ATV to the campsite, and all of the sudden when I make a turn this bull moose gets startled (he was drinking water from a puddle in the middle of the trail), and moves behind a small spruce by the trail. The branches were not long enough to cover his body, so I was almost laughing as half of it was out in the open. He stood behind that tree for several minutes, and then ran. But when they can find a small clump of threes, they can easily blend with it.

That's the same thing that is a challenge here in the Rockies. I wonder how many animals through the years have been shot across a canyon, up on the next ridge, etc., and never found? I hunt mostly by myself so I "mark my place" with an easily seen survey ribbon, and look for a focal point, and I shoot an azimuth with my compass. I have never lost an animal but I have never killed one past 250yds in such conditions. I also use a heavy enough caliber to break them down or chill their doo-doo. With a partner it is helpful to have walkie talkies and have one stay at shot position. I am very skeptical of these ultra long range videos as they must have just several folks watching, etc. which I never have, ha. I have passed up many shot opportunites because the game was just too close to cover and too far to break down. Not worth it to me. I do prefer snow on the ground for blood sign, way too many tracks in most areas to just pick out one set, ha.

Shooting them 'often enough' and with 'enough' has never proven to be a wrong choice for us. (If you want to wander, I'm at least going to make you leak some! )

I call it "shooting all the wiggle out of 'em", ha

I think 99% of us already have a rifle perfect for Alaskan use...........
John

I am a believer in Klikitarik's choice.
I try to adhere to that practice regardless of animal size, distance, bore size, or bullet involved. If it is not down with the first shot, there shall be follow-ups as soon as possible.

I luv 1-shot kills. But, I am not waiting around to watch the effects of the bullet on an animal if I have the opportunity for additional shots. I can ponder the "he was dead on his feet" / " that second shot was not needed" as I am skinning, or reminiscing the next day.

Hell, at times there has been more than a second shot "that was not needed". Nor do I believe in scrimping on bore size or bullet.
Some may say that I subscribe to the "overkill" philosophy. I try to subscribe to my idea of enough, plus a bit more.

The 338 Win would still be my choice of 1 cartridge to do-all in Alaska, from open tundra to alder dens.
But, in close quarters environment I am still more likely to take my 375 or 416, usually of the Ruger varieties.

I started moose hunting with a .338WM rifle before retiring from the military in the early '90's. I never hunted large game like moose, not ever deer before, and was impressed with this cartridge as several of the moose I killed, except for two, dropped with one shot. I lot of it may have had to do with good luck, but nevertheless less I was pleased

Anyway, I was looking at the online Nosler reloading data for the .338WM, and noticed a recent load where a 265-grain Accubond (a tipped bullet) is used. The fastest load at a MAXIMUM of 75.0 grains of Norma MRP = 2745 fps, starting load of 71 grains of the same powder, and the most accurate, yields 2617 fps, and 73 grains yields 2695 fps. There are other loads listed with both RL22 and RL19 powders that exceed 2700 fps from the 24" barrel used.

I would think that such a bullet loaded a tad short of 2700 fps would be quite good for anything that moves in Alaska, at least for those who prefer to load the heavy bullets of this caliber.

Ray, I would think that would certainly work. Though I have full confidence in the Barnes 225 grain TSX.
I need to load some of the 225 TTSX or at least shoot some of the factory loads, to see how they do in my rifle. If the TTSX shoot well, they would be my bullet of choice. I have many boxes of the 225 TSX to use up though first.

I do have more than one 338 rifle. Of course I have a favorite which is a Ruger Mark II, that is in a Pacific Research stock and bead blasted to take the shine off, with a Timney trigger. It shoots the non-longer available Federal Premium 225 TSX loads very well.

I do like and use 375 and 416 cartridges. But, in my opinion the 338 Win does it all very well, from up close to farther than my capabilities. Prior to moose season each year, I always have an internal debate as to which rifle to use. The 338 Win is always a top contender.
If I hunted more open areas it would likely be my constant choice. We all have a few rifles that are favorites and the above mentioned 338 is definitely a favorite of mine.

I have become very fond of the Ruger 375 and 416 with 20" barrels. I like the portability of the short barrels, 4-wheeler racks on tight timbered/alder trails, Argo, and walking through alders and willows. I know 26" barrels work for this also. But, for me the shorter barrels work better. I also admit that the larger hole in the bore has been psychologically comforting at times, and sometimes not.

With all that blabber, the 338 Win with 225 TSX or TTSX still has my vote for Alaska do-all. I would also consider the 210 grain versions if they shot best in my rifle and not fret over the 15 grains less weight. I believe any of the monolithic types in this weight range would be fine also.

I too have been using the 225-grain TTSX as an all around bullet. One of my favorite .338's is a Ruger Hawkeye African. This one looks exactly as the other African models, except that it does not have a muzzle brake, and the finish is similar to the dull black or gray used in some of the AR rifles. Also, the bolt is of a dull-gray finish. I haven't measured the barrel, but it is somewhere around 20" in length. I put the walnut stock away, and installed a MacMillan Classic with a factory Decelerator recoil pad, both for an LOP of 12-1/2". I asked McMillan for a heavy stock for this rifle to make it easy on my shoulder. I too like short-barreled rifles, but one of my .338's is a Ruger stainless with a 24" barrel and muzzle brake. My favorite is the African model above, although having to keep it clean during moose season to prevent rust.

Living in Alaska for 40 years, never having shot a bear but been close to them an 30-06 is what I'd consider minimal but not under gunned with the good bullet selection now days, Swift a frame, Barnes x, etc. Myself I'd up the anty a bit and go .300 win mag. An all weather rifle of medium weight, controlled round vs push feed is a personal choice, I have never yet talked to anyone that has had a push feed fail on them. I AM sure at some point it has happened but so has short throwing a controlled feed action. Its hard to argue the versatility of the 06, but in Alaska the .300 win comes close and shoots at Moose, Caribou, Goat and Sheep can be at distance but usually not.

I don’t know if I’d call it a push feed failure, but in the excitement of shooting at an unhappy brown bear, I short-stroked my Remigton 700. Fishin brass & schittin britches....

Short stroking is operator error, not bolt design failure.....
I have never short stroked simply because I do not confuse muscle memory with different action lengths in my personal equipment.
Never bought into short actions though I have owned several before the fad and modern designation was common place.
John

Dunno how the theory that CRF actions can't be jammed by short-stroking ever appeared, but it's BS. Have seen short controlled-feed actions jammed tight as hell by short-stroking.

Probably one of the better arguments for a 375 Ruger rather than the H&H. ('Skinny' cartridges are more easily bent in half to jam things up IME.)


.............. or at least that is true of the 223-based cases when I've put some coal behind the 'stroke'. LOL

Maybe jamming a round over another by short-stocking a CRF rifle happens, I just haven't been able to accomplish such but with a push-feed .30-06 I have. Maybe placing a round in front of the bolt, and then stripping a round out of the magazine by moving the bolt forward? I imagine that one could always move the bolt slowly so that the round does not eject-which in turn the ejector would kick the round sideways- and then move the bolt forward from its rearmost position? But under stress anything could happen, I guess.

I do know about a guide who had to track a client-wounded bear (about 12 years or so ago). He has a push-feet Remington .416 when the bear rushed him, and he jammed the rifle. I don't remember if he or somebody else killed the bear, but he was mauled by it. The story appeared in the Fairbanks News Miner.

Just ignore my version of the story above, and read this one:
http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_795.htm

I would think the short barreled 12ga Magnum pump with heavy Brenneke or Dixie Slugs/buckshot would be the best to follow up a bear with? How come they don't use them instead of a bolt action rifle? Seems one could keep it in camp until needed, I'm guessing?

Calling Klikitarik and his bear vs slug story!

But, in a word.....penetration.

> I would take the 12 gauge slug gun too,my good friend who lived in Alaska 20 years worked on a bunch of islands for the pipeline in Alaska with plenty bears, killed plenty animals too, told me track`n any wounded animal in thick brush where shots will be close and fast always take the 12 gauge with slugs. in open country he used a 338 win.mag. for anything else .

This has definitely been an interesting and informational read. I really appreciate everyone who responded, as there is certainly a lot of experience represented here.

It took reading through this thread several times for me to realize that I just might already have the perfect Alaskan Big Game Rifle......



I think when the purge happens that I will have to keep this .350 Rem Mag. Adding a McMillan w/Edge would fix the only hang up I have with this rifle and that is, that it's a wee bit butt heavy/barrel light. I'd think a 7lb .350 Mag launching 200gr TTSX's @2900 would be pretty dang hard to beat for Alaska?



X-VERMINATOR

I’d run 225’s, but ya it would be a 🔨

Trying to picture a single "island" on the entire pipeline...

Coming up empty. Of course I have only been down the length of it as many times as I have been up it... that would be a bunch...

>>this old marine work for them on the islands and inland too ,I didn`t say there was I pipeline there ! maybe reread what I wrote on the post ? <<

yep sure is easy to be cocky and negative on a keyboard !

Words have meanings... punctuation helps...

There is no way to get away from your run-on sentence that does not include islands, pipeline, and bears all together.

You mean Brenneke's .............




are supposed to go all the way through both shoulders.......




..of such giants?


(Disclaimer: No bones were seriously harmed in the shooting of this projectile. The same can't be said for two subsequent 300 grain slugs from a 45 Colt carbine however.)

BTW, we still keep that 20" 870 at camp. I do have some rubber projectiles, however, since they are supposed to bounce off more reliably.

This guy was telling me, back when Thredwell (or whatever his name) was killed by bears, that some of the shotguns used by F&G to kill the bear (s) were loaded with slugs, and that several of the slugs used failed to penetrate deep enough to reach the vitals. I have no idea if the story was true, but I have heard of old hunters saying that bears with wet (out of the water), or ice-covered hides during the winter, can at times slowdown bullet penetration. I don't hunt bears, so I have no idea if those stories are true or not. But I personally prefer a .45-70 loaded with heavy card-cast slugs, than a shogun.

Something else I forgot to mention as follows: I assume that a guide is going to use whichever gun he is most confident with to back his or her clients. I also imagine that there are times where one would want more reach than what a shotgun would offer. But again, these are my assumptions only.

Shotguns are great around camp since they can be adapted to none lethal methods so readily. Cracker shells, fine birdshot, rubber slugs or buckshot, even soft Foster slugs, if there are rocks to splatter, can be effective. Splattering rocks near bears has been a very effective method of getting them away due, I suppose, both to the noise and the fine rock dust and particles that they experience. But a rifle can also be used for the same purpose, and I much prefer a gun I can aim well. Close personal protection means being able to point well enough, but I am generally more concerned with protecting family members as well, and that might mean having to aim precisely at distances well beyond 50 yards.

I seem to have 'niched' many of my weapons in an effort to justify my 'needs', consequently, my bear defense weapons (or fishing, berry-picking, meandering rifles) tend to be less all-around in their configuration. As I tend to carry them much more than shoot them, my bear rifles tend to be short and handy.

Like this one:



But I will readily admit that a 375-350 Rem Mag (or 358 Win or Norma, or 375 H&H) are hardly my choice as all-purpose rifles from muskrat to moose.

I carry a .45-70 loaded with hard-cast ammo when berry picking. Used to carry a .454 Casull (has a 7-1/2" barrel), and this is fine too, but the Marlin .45-70 is a easy to point as a kid's rifle. Never had to use it, knock on wood

Have used the .454 to put three moose out of their misery. One for a friend of mine, and two of my own. By the way, it saddens me having to shoot to finish a moose, and only do it if I have no choice. I love moose meat, but also love seeing them enjoying their moose lives, at least off the moose season.

I know a camp that had a run in with an agitated Tundra Griz a decade ago. It just shrugged off the AR 223 and kept coming. A 7 Mag with 175 gr. Partitions put it down.

I had the pleasure of honeymooning in AK several years ago island camping from a kayak. A Rem 870 Marine with alternating slug-buckshot rounds in the tent helped us sleep well.

That slug/buckshot thing has been around for a long time... about as goofy an idea as there is...

Used to employ a lil short barreled pistol grip moss 500 for digging wounded bears out of the alders

Switched to a gg .45/70 as soon as they became readily available Not much longer than the afore mentioned 12 ga. But better penetration with hard cast hot loaded slugs and way mo betta for a retreating bear

Some guys have to pee on the electric fence. I trust Mark/klitarik when he says it burns

It's a phase. A lot of guys do through it until they learn better.

Is "slug/buckshot repeat" any goofier than a honeymoon in an Alaskan kayak?

Just curious... how do you load your shotgun for bear?

LOL.... there's always that one guy who displays risky behaviors................ not referencing self either.......... maybe.


Speaking of those handy Mossbergs, a good friend who I guided for on a 'fertile' stream used to send the knowledgeable/independent clients out with one of them. One fellow, a semi-pro (income generating) trumpet player had a critter encounter and forgot about pointing the thing at a safe distance.....pulled it right up and gazed down the barrel when he touched of 3 inches of vavvoom! Ouch! (Kind of hard on one's chops.)

Love the honeymoon idea, ours was in AK too, just not kayak.

I'm not even a pimple on an experts azz when it comes to bears. But no shotgun of mine would have buckshot in it. If I were to use a shotgun. I MIGHT have a round or 3 of birdshot if I wanted to buzz a far off bear that was acting stupid, but they won't be in the chamber or in the mag even... just around.... and I seriously doubt the use of such ever but I've been known to buzz a bull down here at times when they are tearing up a fence. Usually works on them. Shot in the azz with 8s from about 50-60 steps or so they generally get the idea.

Having actually used a shotgun on both black and brown bears more than a few times I had better than average results for quite a while. It was when it started going south a couple times that I realized a shotgun is a very poor substitute for a rifle.

A long time ago I posted here about a Kodiak bear shot at very close range with spectacular results from Brenneke slugs. If I was to use a shotgun again for bears it would be Brennekes all the way.

Most folks talk about alternating slugs and shot to alternately blind and kill the bear with the each shot. Knowing how fast they come I want every shot to be lethal.

I also posted photos here of OlBlue's Kodiak bear scapula on a sunny day. It was fleshed and posed with an orange-handled knife behind the bone. It was visible through the bone, so I do not fall into the league of clowns believing bears are bulletproof. While guiding I used a 300WM for back-up mostly. I have switched to a short-barreled 375AI for the last 15 years or so and have shot bears with it and watched others do the same. It penetrates far better with 270gr TTSX bullets than anything else I have seen.

Lots of guys have opinions on shotguns / buckshot for bears, but few have used the combo. At extremely close range buckshot is as lethal as anything I've ever used. I've killed 3 bears with it over the years, and every one was an instant kill. They literally dropped in their tracks. There was an 11 year old kid in Hoonah a few years back that killed a big brown with #7 shot, again at spitting distance.

I've long believed that a shotgun was a very good tool for training bears in the biblical sense..... "Raise up a youngster in the way that he will go," (and all that). Since younger bears tend to be the ones that get into more trouble - for a variety of reasons- and most people can't be around 100% of the time to prevent this kind of thing. Yeah, they might be harder to hunt later, but it keeps them from repeating these messes, or worse, keeps them alive, and avoids having to do guide chores for free for ADF&G, along with the paperwork. But give me a rifle if I have to make holes which will be lethal quickly.

They do make a mess! I've seen a lot of cabins destroyed like that over the years. Here it seems like its usually the older bears that do it. Killed a real old boar two years ago right in the yard. Rifles are great and work, but dont knock the shotgun / buckshot combo until you have tried it, because it flat works. The first time I used it was on a sow grizzly that had been wounded by a 45/70. She was laying behind a big dead spruce that had fallen over waiting for me. She came boiling out of there like a freight train, and all I had time to do was point and shoot. The buckshot took the top of her head off. The damage was so bad the hunters taxidermist had a tough time fixing it.

The reason so few have used the combo is because it is a foolish idea. I have seen what buckshot does on a wide range of critters at a wide range of distances. In a defensive or mop-up situation it has absolutely nothing on slugs and slugs have a lot over buckshot.

Just because someone once killed a brown bear with birdshot at spitting distance does not make it a good answer for general use. A 22lr was used to kill a previous World record grizzly at more than spitting distance, but it would not be my first choice, nor a vaguely reasonable choice for a back-up rifle.

I bet the client was real impressed by that...

. Few have used buckshot because they spend their lives trolling the internet, putting 34 thousand plus posts up trying to impress others with their vast experience. I dont need or want your advice because I have first hand experience with a shotgun. I've tested buck on real live grizzlies and regardless of your mindless ramblings I know that it works. In an average year I spend 7-9 months in the bush and have for 40 plus years now, I know what works for me. Although it isn't my first choice for most situations, in some it cant be beat. Heimo Korth arguably one of the most experienced woodsmen your state has ever produced loves the 12 for defensive situations so Im in good company. Use whatever you want but your comment that it is a foolish idea just shows your inexperience. Nobody ever said buck was the best for "general use" whatever that is....but when the distance is measured in feet its hard to beat.

Someone needs to keep a cleaner camp....

Lots of double-speak... you admit it isn't the best then try to defend it. Make up your mind.

I doubt you have the opportunity to deal with even a fraction of the bears I have dealt with due to simple brown bear density. But do feel free to continue your hallucinations. Almost as many brown bears are killed every year on Kodiak as are killed in all the YT.

Oh yeah, and the YT is what, 50 times the size of Kodiak? And Kodiak is not the only place we get to hunt brown bears.

Heimo also uses a 22/250 on everything , including grizzlies and moose !

I kind of hate to re-rail this fine thread, but must admit that I've killed caribou, on the lower end of the big game spectrum with 6, 6.5, and 7mm medium cases, as well as moose, toward the larger side of things. I've also killed caribou with calibers like the 45 Colt and 375 H&H at 'yonder' distances. And, of course, they've all been used on big bears by someone, somewhere with success at one time or another. But none of them, and certainly no shotgun, is ideal, or even well-suited, to all of these things under the great variety of conditions one will encounter in Alaska.

I'll just leave it at "Big Game Rifle for Alaska: 30-06 +/-"

Yes he does and quite effectively too from what I hear. I've never been lucky enough to meet him, but a good friend knows him well. By all accounts he is old school and understands that well placed shots kill stuff.

Hope you have a good season Phil, were gearing up to head for the lodge tomorrow. Going to be hunting some country in the southeast corner of the territory for Ceaser Lake Outfitters that has never been hunted, at least not in the last 80 years or so. It should be fun.

Nothing says well-placed quite like buckshot...

I wonder why its called buckshot and not grizzshot?

Probably just a corruption of the original name "Luckshot."

You can virtually duplicate the "effectiveness " of buckshot by fanning a 32 caliber cap and ball revolver !

Or a 9 mil

Yep.
Paul (458Lott - where are ya son? ) has posted previously a pretty nice analysis of 12 (Maybe 15?) 33 cal - 54 grain boolits and the relative speed/energy of same.

Reader's Digest abridged version: Unimpressive!

Yep, but ya gotta know what you doing, know bear anatomy, be cool under fire, have the right penetrating loads, etc, etc.

Now, that just may whittle down the number who could pull that off.

Like they say on TV, don’t try this at home.

DF

>>> NO Heimo used a 12 gauge pump shotgun with slugs ,when he went back to his moose kill spot to retrieve his moose meat ,Heimo packed the shotgun in case a bear was near the moose kill site. Heimo even said: best thing to use with a bear on a kill site was a 12 gauge shotgun with slugs, Heimo said this on the last Alaskan show. my old marine friend killed plenty bear, this Marine who lived in Alaska also liked the shotgun with slugs too at close range and charge`n him, believe me he`s had worse things happen to this marine coming at him in the tunnels and swamps of Viet Nam, they don`t come any tougher with a gun and a knife as these old Vets !

If using a shotgun at close range, slugs all the way is recommended by Stefan Herrero and some of the AK F&G biologists.

Herrera is one of the last guys I would give much credence to...

ADF&G protocol includes a 375H&H...

The by-stander in Seward at the problem-black-bear shoot taking a slug ricochet in the sternum probably wished for a lighter, more directionally stable projectile.

The name used Buckshot came from hunting deer in the thick woods so in the early days deer hunters loaded big shot in their shotgun "muzzle loader type at first" then when shotgun shells were perfected bigger lead shot was loaded and used on deer at close range when deer ran and it got the name buckshot,some states it is still legal to use yet also. The guys I worked with said when they were sent to Viet Nam the wing guys on patrol used a shotgun with buckshot ,was said Charlie" viet cong" did not like when that lead came their way.

I don't mind Herrera, nor Tom Smith. Both have the most successful bear studies, including a web page that's is not longer active, about the count of bear/human confrontations in Alaska for the past 100 years. That page was active around 8 years ago, and had all the documented cases of bear attacks that resulted on injuries and death of people in Alaska. It included a couple of deaths from polar bears, to a lot of injuries and death from black and grizzly bears.

While I don't have much faith in the F&G and other biologists about what to do during a bear attack and the use of firearms, Herrero's study about human-habituated bears, specially the ones that hang around dump sites, is quite interesting.

This is a note of the bear/human conflicts in Alaska, but not the very detailed web page that was published before:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ska_1880-2015_Alaska_Human-Bear_Conflict

As I mentioned before my preference is not a shotgun, regardless of slugs used. For the campsite it's probably fine, but otherwise I just don't have much confidence on it. But what I was trying to say before is that if one were to use a shotgun at close range, it makes no sense to alternate shots from buck to slugs. Just load it with slugs and be done with it. To me a Marlin .45-70 loaded with hard-cast heavy slugs make a lot more sense.

You are aware that the tv show is largely fantasy, right? Having suffered several seasons on a reality show I would bet you a month’s pay that he had no less than 4 extra people with him making lord knows what kind of racket going in to retrieve his moose. I’d also be willing to bet that the footage you saw was shot at least a half dozen times to get the right footage. Point being there likely wasn’t a bear within ten miles and he could have carried a flyswatter with him and been fine. TV is TV and not as real as you seem to think it is.

And having been involved in a small boxcar load of bear killings, though I’d guess not nearly as many as Art and Phil, I feel certain that a rifle is always the better tool to have if given the choice.

And just for the shotgunners. I know a lifelong Alaskan who once killed a B&C book caribou while shooting ducks out by Illiamna. His load of choice, 1 1/4 oz of lead 6s in a cut shell out of his 1100.

Herrero was spanked mightily about the first edition of his book. Read both editions and get back to us about what he really knew and knows.

And the very basic flaw is it is very much agenda-driven.

As to his studies of "ALL" bear-human interactions... hardly... and his agenda shows in his selection of incidents. Feel free to believe, but his books have major flaws.

Some ADF&G bios over the years have been extraordinarily bear savy and do not deserve that broad brush from someone that buys into Herrero.

I once loaded a shotshell with split shot crimped on a steel wire and coiled neatly in the shot cup. I got quite close and let her rip before my quarry sensed my presence and charged. It made a Hell of a racket as the load whistled and spun through the air. Damn near cut the woodchuck in two!

Sadly, Rick still has no sarcasm emoticon...

Apparently not needed yet.

Curses! Foiled again!

Not trying to argue with you, but what I am interested on is not how F&G biologists and others such as Herrero have to say about bear and human interaction, but data related to actual accounts of bear attacks on humans that have resulted in injury or death (such as the link I posted above). By the way, the data in the link is not from Herrero's books. That data comes from recorded and published bear attacks on humans for a period of approximately 100 years.

Thank you Captain Obvious!


The point is not all records made the book and not all incidents made the records. How they were chosen by Herrero showed an agenda, not clean science.

not sure if this is true ? but I read in a couple of books that black bears are more likely to attack humans, you Alaskan`s might have a different answer in your state ? not sure ? Here in Minnesota a black bear attack happens once in a while mostly by people who do foolish things , I always just stay away and leave bears alone,believe me I have been very close by accident to a couple of bigger black bears without a weapon too and close to a couple of grizzlies too that I did not care for. as a lineman even had to take a smaller dead bear off a transformer on pole up about 30 feet high.

What I read was that Black Bears are much less likely to attack but in those rare cases you better fight for your life because he intends to eat you. The article said Brown/Grizzly bears are more bad tempered and more likely to attack but less likely to kill/eat you if you play dead. They get bored apparently. I don't know if this is true or not.

I personally can't see myself "playing dead" while being bitten, clawed and tossed around by a bear but that seems to be convention wisdom of the folks we pay to know about such things. I am not saying it isn't a good idea just saying I am not sure I could do that. Hope not to find out...

Black bears tend to be more predatory when they attack and will be more likely to eat you. Brown bears tend not to be, but old animals in bad condition and hungry young animals, will sometimes cross that line, too.

Black bears tend to cause a greater number of problems simply due to a far higher population living in closer proximity to far more people over a far greater range.

I must apologize to you Sitka deer. Perhaps I was not clear about Tom Smith's database I was referring to.
Several years ago, Tom Smith compiled all the known and recorded bear attacks in Alaska for a period of 100 years (up to 2015), and put it on a webpage that showed tables, charts, and an Alaska map that showed the areas where the incidents took place. I was not referring to Herrero's books.

When I think of Buckshot, I'm thinking of the "hardened, copper coated" 00 or 000 if available. I'm sure that "specialized" ammo like this, the Dixie slugs that are hardened and even the Brennekes are hard to find in AK. Price would be up there too, so the "average guy" would be stuck with what he could get. I too think a short 45-70 with heavy hard cast would be great, but most don't like the recoil ( same with those heavy Dixie slugs, OMG those things hurt!) I was just wondering what most guys use, not the out of state hunters. Dixie even makes an 870gr "Dangerous Game Slug"...surely that would work?

At the ranges buckshot is effective you don’t get enough spread to make it any easier to hit your target. So the question is why choose something that might work when you can choose something that will work? I know lots of guys who’ve killed lots of bears with lots of different guns. Never met one who had a rifle bullet fail to penetrate a bear skull but I have met a couple who ran into trouble with buckshot and slugs in the same scenario.

As to the point of the thread, an all around rifle, I’m reminded of a friend’s coworker who was talking about how necessary a .30 magnum was for shooting bears. He piped down about his 300RUM and multiple ass shots after my buddy showed him a picture of a very good bear my dear wife killed with a single 150gr Sierra from her .270. Use a good bullet and shoot them in the front half and they’ll die, regardless of species or caliber.

Only way a slug or buckshot would fail to penetrate would be if the distance was to far. Buckshot especially, isn't something you want to use further than a few yards at most but in that distance it is devastating. The three bears I've killed with it all had multiple pellets penetrate the skull.

I know old Bill Stevenson has been known to carry a 12 gauge with slugs and he's been involved in as many bear fiascos as any.

I believe AF&G recommends the 30/06 with 220 grain bullets as best for protection against bears. I know our F&G officers usually use a 12 gauge. The best rifle for Alaska or anywhere else for that matter is the one you shoot best.

It’s always interesting in these “long-and-winding-road” threads to see the views from “here and there.”

If I were to back up and spend my serious hunting years in AK, it would be an easy choice for me at this point in time and having used a lot of cartridges, though certainly not all.

Without ‘splaining too many details, I love the .375, and would build (I’m a southpaw) an H&H at around 8.5lbs, scoped, slung, and loaded. I’d tap the receiver for 8x40’s, and epoxy those bases in for a low-range variable and seek to use the 250-gr TTSX or the 270-gr TSX. This set-up would answer all questions for me. I consider this old cartridge as The Mild Medium, good from near to far-enough.

Nothing against the 30/06 (I believe the overall most popular cartridge in AK) at all or any other person’s choice.

I'm a fan of the 338 win mag, but your 375 HH logic is sound for sure....

Rick is smarter than to mess with Vets, I have a lot of respect for Vets also .

My comment is very much out of context there and had nothing to do with vets. I was sarcastically referring to the etymology of buckshot and pete decided to take it literally.

Anyone who suggests a 375 or even a 338 as an ideal “big game” rifle for Alaska is either a glutton for abuse or has never hunted very often or widely in the state. I’m sure either one , in some configuration, might work just fine in certain circumstances, but there are are good reasons why so much more ammo gets burned 40-60 grains at a time than in the larger doses.... and it has next to nothing to do with the economy of the ammo itself.


Then again, I have somehow convinced myself that a single rifle is ludicrous and I have no serious explanation for owning the 3/8 caliber in quadruplicate.

I can't imagine anything better than a 20 - 22" bbl'd Stainless 30-06 with whatever bullet deemed appropriate for the game pursued.

Oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up.

I was a one-gun hunter for several years, and still are, although I have two rifles of the same caliber. From day one I liked the .338WM, so I stayed with it. But I have only hunted moose on the Elliott Highway, and tend to bypass bears since I eat what I kill and don't like bear meat. To me at least, any rifle from the .30-06 to the .375H&H is a perfect Alaska rifle, but the .338 is the one I chose. I could do very well with a .338-06 too, but there is nothing wrong with any of these. It's one of those things; the .30-06, .300WM, and .338WM are quite popular with hunters in Alaska. Then the .7mm Magum, and .375H&H. In reality, anything you are the most proficient with and use to hunt in Alaska, from a bow to a gun, could be your ideal hunting weapon or gun.

Since this old vet gets older by the day, maybe I should switch to a marlin .30-30, or even a 6.5 Creedmoor? Just kidding

Oh, c'mon. Where's the fun in sensible simplicity?

Ironbender,

My .338WM Ruger Haweye African has a 22" barrel, and express sights. Has a sort of dull-gray finish, and no muzzle brake. The stock is a McMillan Classic with a Decelerator recoil pad cut down at the factory to a 12-1/2" LOP. The thing is heavy (over 8 pounds empty), but no problems with recoil. I really like the looks of this rifle, regardless of caliber.

Yeah... a real buzz killer

I see you expanded the spec with a synthetic stock... I must be slipping, but I guess I felt it was a given. But it’s true, a lot of these 24hr chaps need stuff overexplained!

Well, if we're playing the Captain Obvious game.......

Perhaps I should explain...

While most hunting - or hunters anyway- seem to be focused along or near the road accesses, for obvious and practical reasons, the majority of the better hunting is found beyond road access points. For this reason and from this perspective, one can better appreciate that you either beat yourself up with the larger heavier rifles which magnums typically are in carrying them, or they beat you up when you fire them repeatedly in a more svelte configuration. Obviously if you are only planning to kill a single animal, the recoil of a lightweight 338 may not be a big deal. But i certainly don’t relish the thought of hunting wolves or caribou where several rapid shots may be necessary, especially when something like a 30-06 is well beyond the minimums for positive effect.

(I have probably carried and killed more with 1. 7mm-08, 20” ; 2. 30-06, 22”; followed by 6mm and 45-70 but then I’m starting to get more species specific in what I target.). I would very happily choose a 280 or 30-06 to do it all if I was insane enough to be such a minimalist.

Certainly.

In my experience, I’ve found — highly subjective I know — the 375 with a proper stock to be kinder than most 338’s I’ve had and shot, and including many of the 300 magnums I’ve shot. And in no more than 8.5 lbs; I’d even go 8 even with a classicly shaped stock with very little drop at the comb and a wide, tall butt pad.

I see it as a big cartridge without being a bad or punishing one with some consistent use and in my present minimalist state-of-mind, it can be used on anything with the 270-gr TSX or the 250-gTTSX right out to four hundred yards.

Anyway, I’ve noticed the older you get, the more opinionated you get, and occasionally you’re even right.

A properly fitted stock on both a .338WM or .375H&H tames recoil well, specially if both are on the heavy side. Mine works quite well. Besides that, when developing loads for it I shoot it numerous times until I get to the right one, but do so on a lead-sled

Just for practice without the lead-sled, I shoot reduced loads with lighter weight bullets, or just a .22LR bolt-action rifle of a similar design as the .338WM rifle I hunt with.

I resemble that! 😁

Was a reference to myself. 😉

Oh, I beg to differ. 😝 that’s a shoe that fits me well......too, then. 😏

Maybe youse fellers wear the same extrytuffs?!

Thinking more along the line of pumps...

The ‘Fire, 7:30 PM, Some Time, Some Where, in the Fall. Maybe Alaska.

Four tired, old guys — old friends — in camp are sitting on scrounged, weather-fractured, grey stumps in the amber glow of a crackling fire. Except, one, has taken half a handful of Ibuprofen and gone off quietly to his cot. The second has risen from his perch stiffly and slowly shuffled out to the dark perimeter to take a leak, only the second time since supper.

Of the two left, one is washing down his stool softener with some Pepto Bismo, while extolling the virtues of his favorite cartridge because he stopped the standing, quizzical, young bull with only four rounds. The fourth and last, with a punctuated spit into the fire, hasn’t heard a word because the batteries in his hearing aids have quit.

🙂

OMG! That's hilarious!

Only because of the truth.

Ouch.

Very well done... had me laughing out loud at each twist.

Pumps ain't really made to be comfortable...

I guess you would know!

Ouch!!!

George..,..you've been in my Geezer Ridge Camp!

Good story George!

Very funny.

And true......😁

I once found a similar fishing camp on the South end of Paxson Lake.

Remington made flachettie (sp?) shells for 12 gauge shotguns in Vietnam. They looked like a shell filled with headless nails. with the pointy end facing Charlie.

Using an '06 makes a lot of sense. A hunter could be using it on coyotes, deer, elk, moose, antelope and so forth. Getting a lot of practice along the way. For me, partitions will always be my first choice for penetration and effectiveness. And as far as '06's go, if I added up all the game I've shot with different cartridges, the 06 would be at least 50%.

Sadly, we are a bit short on antelope here...

A bit?

I swear he's a sneaky bastid, never saw him slink into our camp!

Very funny, but you forgot to mention the 5th old guy who does not get out of his tent to pee outside, specially on cold nights. This old guy keeps a "pee pot" right under his cot.

No, because he is broke and desperate and obviously has all his priorities screwed up.

Ray, brevity prevented too many details.

5:30 AM

But, that’s actually the guy — Wendall R —whose fireside regimen is the stool softener, the slug of JD, then the Pepto Bismo chaser because both Kenny’s cooking and JDs give him heartburn. However, at just a biscuit below 280 he has obviously refrained from neither. To be very honest, Wendall is not a very handy or very precise guy; though he likes to expound on guns and cartridges, he is semi-kiddingly called “pie-plate” because once his Alaskan rifle gets three into a pie plate on their improvised 100 yd range, he “checks that box” — all is good. “Pie-plate” covers other of WR’s inclinations quite well too.

Wendall’s bulk makes the nightly 2 am extraction from a bag and cot, out into the 20* fresh air “way low” (Wendall picked up the use of “way” as a substitute for “very” from his kids) on the option list. Thus the empty fruit can that Wendall has is filled by morning except for the night he knocked it over soaking some of Kenny’s socks. Kenny was in the slightly lower corner of the tent on the same side, and on the receiving end of the floor tarp wrinkles that acted as a raceway.

The dawn came twice that morning. The first with the usual cold, pale sunrise, the second in Kenny’s mind as the propane stove began to warm up the tent and his wet socks.

Kenny was late at the griddle that morning as he was busy with some interior tent and sleeping rearrangements. The other guys were already at the crackling fire with egg-coffee brewing, but could hear the muffled, but punctuated exchanges over twenty yards away. Henry had new hearing aid batteries in place and Jake was already back from his first wizz at the wood pile.

* characters I have known even if very briefly *

Certainly a testimonial for floorless tents.

Great story!

+ one more. Real good story.

I have opted for a takedown model with three barrels, 25-06, 30-06 and 338-06. My some is a huge fan of the 45-70 Marlin, he understands his limited range, and is good about passing up shots he doesn't like. There's just not much that runs away with a 45-70 in vitals.

My next thing is to really learn more about reloading for winter hunts.

to be honest if you become a decent handloader the 30-06 is all you would need with all the variety and grain sizes of bullets, spend the extra money on a nightforce scope and forget the takedown barrel thing.but get a 30-06 with a good 26 inch barrel and bed the plastic stock too.

Other than the barrel length, I agree.

Ouch! Not sure how I missed this... but much truth there...

And I probably want them even shorter than you!

You one of these Rancid Crabtree-type guys SD? 😉

My boat is named the garbage scow...
My deck hand is afraid of bears and has no knees...
My tent is soaked in bacon grease...
We seem to attract the crusty sort...

So yeah...

😁

So Reb and I are "crusty"......that's almost a term of endearment in this neighborhood!

Delivered strictly with the greatest respect possible, given the attendees...

I have never hunted Alaska so I am not use to using shorter barrel rifles but can kinda understand why. myself with my own handloads I just like a longer barrel to get better ballistics for a longer shot ,when I do hunt Alaska we will be in the open tundra area more. as a gun dealer a do have a new Browning BLR 7 Rem. mag with a 24 inch barrel on order,but if that rifle does not shoot well or does not show up I will order and purchase a Remington s.s. 7 mag with a 26 inch barrel. my reasons are they sell better in Minnesota and if I keep the rifle for myself, out west long barrels for good ballistics work best. > But Alaskan hunters who live in that fine state know what they need to use for rifles and barrel lengths more then us non-resident hunters who just show up to hunt for a few weeks,but I am still using my longer barrel rifle ,rather its right or wrong.

If a 7-08 is enough to get it done well, why go to a 7mag and then hang a long barrel on it? Squeezing everything you can out of a case that is already too big makes sense because?

While, earlier, I mentioned a spec’d .375 as my choice, I can’t find a thing wrong with a 30/06 with about a 21” tube coming to ~ 7.5 lbs with optics, rings and bases. I wouldn’t go any heavier for this set-up and might go lighter, but that’s just me.

Realizing for some it would be a one-and-only rifle, I’d try to find the best load with the 168-165-gr TTSX’s

So you’re saying you prefer em barely legal? 😆. Hmmm?

Legal is legal. No such thang as 'barely' legal, pard!

ETA: "leagle" for some members here.

That’s what she said........... before.


(God, I’m glad I don’t worry about that anymore. ...., for myself anyway. )

You're alleged mind goes some unusual places!

Nothing wrong with a 180-grain partition at the .30-06 fps.

For me and a lot of hunters in Alaska, anything from the .30-06 to the .338WM is plenty, since most game shot with it is around 50 to perhaps 150 yards. With the .300WM fps there is nothing wrong with the 165-180 grains TTSX, and so the 225-grain TTSX with the .338WM. The latter is my do all setup in Alaska, although a 250-grain Partition has been the bullet of choice for many years.

But then I can't forget about a lot of people who for many years have been using .223s and .30-30s to hunt moose, some bears, and caribou. This makes me think that while the .30-06, .300WM, .338WM, and the 7mm Magnum are the most widely used in Alaska, the effectiveness of other rifle calibers aren't in any way diminished. Which one is best, is a matter of opinion.

You have to choose the rifle that makes sense to you. As you have mentioned, you will be hunting with friends who use the .7mm Magnum, so in my view your rifle choice is not a bad idea.

Don’t ‘mind’ me then. I forgot I wasn’t posting on “hunters campfire”. 😏

Well plenty of options for Alaska and a good 30-06 with the newer bullet options is a good gun, always ammo available. I prefer something a bit larger and a 300 Winchester mag or .338 win are probably the most common. My self I am kind of an odd ball, I have had quite a few and own a .300 win mag and a 8mm Remington Mag. I like the 8mm it will reach out there and although factory loads arent much to speed of unless you use double tap, Never used double tap but if true impressive.

Ballistics 200yd Zero
5300ft Elevation
Distance, yards Bullet speed, f/s Energy, ft-lbf Vert. correction, inch Vert. correction, MOA
0.0 3202.1 4553.4 1.97 0.00
100.0 3008.9 4020.4 -0.94 -0.89
200.0 2824.5 3542.7 0.00 0.01
300.0 2647.6 3113.0 5.31 1.70
400.0 2478.0 2726.9 15.59 3.72
500.0 2315.6 2381.2 31.54 6.02
600.0 2159.8 2071.5 53.98 8.59
700.0 2010.8 1795.6 83.86 11.44
800.0 1868.4 1550.3 122.40 14.61
900.0 1732.6 1333.1 170.87 18.13
1000.0 1603.0 1141.1 230.98 22.06
Caliber : 8mm Remington Magnum

Bullet : 200gr Barnes TSX Lead Free

Ballistics : 3200fps - 4547 ft./lbs. - 26.0" bbl. Remington 700

Box of 20rds.

Qty:
1
- OR - Add to Wish List
Add to Compare
Description

Here is the sledgehammer! A sectional density of .343 and plenty of power make this load a real heavyweight hammer on big game!
200yd. Zero
100yds - 1.7" high 2657fps / 3918ft/lbs
200yds - zero 2473fps / 3393ft/lbs
300yds - 7.4" low 2298fps / 2926ft/lbs
400yds - 21.5" low 2127fps / 2511ft/lbs
500yds - 43.2" low 1965fps / 2142ft/lbs

Caliber : 8mm Remington Magnum

Bullet : 250gr. Woodleigh Weldcore JSP

Ballistics : 2850fps - 4510 ft./lbs. - 26.0" bbl. Remington 700

Box of 20rds.

8mm Remington Magnum 160gr. Barnes TTSX Lead Free 20rds
8mm Remington Magnum 160gr. Barnes TTSX Lead Free 20rds


Brand: Doubletap
Product Code: 8mm Remington Magnum 160gr. Barnes TTSX Lead Free 20rds
Availability: In Stock
Price: $85.55
Ex Tax: $85.55
Qty:
1
- OR - Add to Wish List
Add to Compare
Description

This is what the 8mm Rem. Mag. was supposed to be! A perfect flat shooting deer load!

Ballistics 200yd Zero
Distance, yards Bullet speed, f/s Energy, ft-lbf Vert. correction, inch Vert. correction, MOA
0.0 3477.7 4296.7 1.97 0.00
100.0 3258.5 3772.2 -0.63 -0.62
200.0 3050.5 3306.0 0.00 0.01
300.0 2851.4 2888.4 4.41 1.41
400.0 2660.4 2514.5 13.11 3.13
500.0 2477.7 2181.0 26.69 5.10
600.0 2303.1 1884.5 45.98 7.32
700.0 2136.5 1621.6 71.81 9.80
800.0 1977.7 1389.5 105.28 12.57
900.0 1826.4 1185.1 147.68 15.67
1000.0 1682.7 1006.0 200.47 19.14
Caliber : 8mm Remington Magnum

Bullet : 160gr Barnes TTSX Lead Free

Ballistics : 3475fps - 4292 ft./lbs. - 26.0" bbl. Remington 700

Box of 20rds.

OK heres my answer, I like the 06, a 270 would do, but a .300 winchester mag or .338 win mag has ammo EVERY WHERE well all of those do. I personally choose a 8mm Rem Mag, but i have to reload or plan ahead as ammo isn't on many shelfs. So if you were to have one Id go .300 win or .338 win, a 06 if i didn't or couldn't handle recoil. With the bullets and powers offered today a 06 will do it but when facing a bear close the .300 and .338 if nothing else do make you feel less likely to be abused. Still shot placement is the difference.

I remember reading a magazine article posted by a renowned writer that was reading from a diary he found that was recording calibers used in a bear camp and the majority was .300 win mag. I have a good friend that was a bear guide on the Alaskan Peninsula that hunters were paying twenty thousand dollars to hunt. His opinion was the guys would buy rifles of big calibers that they'd never shot come to camp and be afraid of there gun, hed of rather they came with a 06 that they new how to shoot.

For your stated purpose of hunting Alaska with a possible crossover to Africa, it's really hard to beat a good .30-06. The .270 and the 7mm Mag will also work, but 180 grain bullets from a .30-06 are a much better choice for big animals like kudu, moose, and eland.
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/270-vs-30-06/

I follow your reasoning and think you're covering all bases. I'd favor the 250 TTSX, although the 270 TSX has an almost cult following in Africa.

If one is comfortable with such ordinance, can shoot it well, has practiced field condition shooting, what's not to like.

DF

I don't believe I've seen a 30-06 sporter with a 26" barrel (but I believe my 1917 Eddystone has a 26") nor do I believe I'd want to see one. Mine has a 24" on it and that's bad enough. The 30-06 I should've kept wore an 18.5".

Then there's the 338-06.

A 26" barrel is just right, especially for a quick shot in thick alders.

Please stop posting this stuff.
The .338/06 is hard enough to avoid and I already have a .30/06 that will shoot that well and a .338 Winchester that is not far behind it.
John

Just buy BPJ`s 338 and be done with it !
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...-m77-mkii-with-sights-reduced#Post130781

I've read this entire thread with considerable interest; great experience showing up, grand first hand recommendations, edge of the seat stories of witnessed deeds, educated votes for the proper "dealer of death". Amazing really. And I've been impressed to the point of showing my appreciation. If any one of you Alaskanians wish to enjoy my company and gain an ever faithful confirmation source for your deeds of wonder, then I'm willing to accept an expense paid hunt with you, time and place of your choice. Magnanimous, certainly. But I wouldn't feel right about accepting anything more. Truths such as you each and every one harbor deserve to be experienced by those living in less fortunate circumstances. And I'm just the one to initiate that indoctrination.

sounds like a therapy class guide for those men having problems closing the deal in the marital bedroom.

Just saying that an '06 is good for most any game in NA, which includes longer range shooting - you could substitute goats for antelope if you want. I think that I used to shoot better with larger cartridges. (But maybe my memory is not so good?) But I've been doing a bit of off-hand practice and when the cartridge gets more than a 180 grain bullet in a 300 Win Mag, I have to concentrate a bit more to not pull a shot. Lately, I shoot about 40 rounds a day off-hand practice when the weather permits in preparation for hunting this fall. That practice is from a 223 to a couple of 375's. Shooting my light Remington 600 350 Mag with 250 grain bullets off hand takes a lot of concentration for me. I use the bench to test loads and to ensure the rifle is sighted in. But mostly, I shoot off-hand.

I wonder, a lot of answers that include stainless steel. I hunted with center-fires for over 50 years now, over 60 years if include rim-fires, which includes hunting in nasty (rainy, sleet, snow, and very cold) weather. I take care of my rifles. If it comes to having something to eat after a day's hunt or taking care of my rifle, the rifle comes first. I have never had an issue with rust, except with a post 63 classic Winchester when I ignored the bolt shroud - which I don't do anymore.

One thing I'll add to the comments, is using a rifle that the stock fits right. I had a 7mm RM that hurt more than my 416 Rigby due to poor fitting stock. Having a stock come up and slap face is a major problem. When pulling a rifle up to shoot, the eye should line up perfectly with the sights or scope - no stock is good for both. I had a hard kicking rifle that had the wrong scope, wrong stock etc. - the scope came back and drew blood around the eye brow. The rifle was re-stocked and the scope was replaced.

For me, I'd pick an '06 and a Nosler Partition. I have a 721 Remington with an aftermarket stock and a 700 take off barrel that I think would be about right. For many years it wore a Weaver steel body 4x scope. I'm not sure why I ever replaced it. But it now wears a VX2 2-7x scope. If I had to use one bullet for everything that Alaska has to offer, it would be a 200 grain partition.

Saw an interesting comment here recently about using a .30/06 and a pair of rangefinder binoculars. Sounds pretty savvy, I like the concept.

John

I feel like this thread can be answered with a group buy. Stainless Zastava Mausers in 9.3x62. Stainless for weather resistance. Mauser for utter reliability. 9.3x62 because it kills big stuff dead without kicking too hard.

And I'm gonna keep throwing this idea out in threads until I get enough people acting interested I can get some importation figured out from Canada for some of these. I am seriously in love with the idea of a stainless Mauser.

My go-to rifles have and always will be the ole 9.3 and the 358 Winchester, but at my cabin, I keep a 30-06 as a loaner. It's an old sporterized k98 mauser that holds 5 down. I also use it because I don't like flying with guns. It really likes that federal 220 grain blue box with the speer hot-cor. In observing the primers, they're a bit flatter than the primers of the Remington 220 grain ammo. A bit more recoil and definitely a full power cartridge.

That'd be my choice for the ole ought six.......220 grain federal blue box. $29 a box.

I have lived in Alaska since 2011, and have carried anything from a 270WSM to a 300WM for moose, caribou, and bear. I mostly carry the .300 if bear is involved, but lately started carrying my .30-06 when just after blackies. My son carries only the .270 Win or my .308. Next year, I plan on chasing a caribou with a .260Rem. Know the gun and how to handle it, and you'll be fine.

Not a bad idea if you reload.

I figured a lot of folks would go for the Savage and the Mossbergs in .375 Ruger myself. Relatively inexpensive, throwaway type of rifle. But, can't argue with a good 30.06....

Look at the Remington custom shop's AWR and the North American series rifles. The North American comes with a blue printed action from their custom shop. A place to start anyway. Good luck with your search.

In reality most people stick to the guns they have become accustomed to and stay that way for many years. Perhaps that's the reason why guns from the .270 to the .375H&H are the most popular all around calibers in Alaska. Out of those calibers the .30-06, .300WM, .338WM, and the 7mm Remington usually outnumber the rest. And yes, .30-30 rifles are still being used in Alaska, bunches of these, plus a lot smaller cartridges that have been around for many years.

We, gun users and hunters, tend to pass down our guns to our kids and other family members.