Experts, assuming similar S.D./B.C. bullets at similar speeds, and good/equal shot placement - what do you think of how these two would compare in killing on Bear, Moose, and Elk?

Since the 7x57 has such a following even here in the USA, by many 'in the know' experienced hunters, and the Swede so close, would you have any reservations using the 6.5x55 for the same job you might use an '06 ?

I have no doubt they both will kill, but will a Swede put the animal down in similar fashion, as quick as the Springfield?

Let's say comparing 140 to 180 Partitions, and perhaps RN 156-160s to 220s.

Despite wound channel size, I think the key would be straight line penetration thru vitals.

Should be fine on NW Louisiana bear, moose, and elk.



Seriously, it will be OK except in the extreme situations where more power is required to get the job done.

See the data in this post:
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth..._SCANDINAVIAN_RIFLES_OPTICS_#Post1522364

Bruce

I personally would feel more comfortable with the 30-06.

In my world the swede stops at 400 pound critters....

Gimme the old .30-06 for the bigger stuff. I just might not get the classic broadside shot at the ribs I'd like to have.

65BR;
The interesting thing about moose is that they come in such a variety of sizes - much like deer I suppose.

So while a good moose in my part of the world would go 475lbs into the cooler, one in Klikitarik's or Yukoner's neighborhood could easily double that.

The lone moose I've killed went roughly 360lbs into the cooler and was taken to that place initially by 2 Hornady 220gr RN bullets out of a .308 Norma.

Neither exited on broadside hits in the heart/lung area and both bullets lost roughly half their weight while killing the moose.

Were the bullets a failure?

No, we ate moose meat so they weren't, but I wouldn't want to fight a bear with the bullets based upon the penetration I saw in that moose or the young whitetail buck I shot with that bullet as well.

In comparison, we've yet to find a 130gr. TSX in 4 deer shot with our daughter's 6.5x55 and from what I've seen with that bullet, I'd give it good odds at out-penetrating a .308" 220gr RN.

I'd chase local elk with our daughter's Swede without too much trepidation, but would likely want to limit myself to broadside shots. Then again, that's likely what I'd limit myself to with the .270 I carry with 130gr. GMX or the .308 Norma with 168gr TSX.

Anyway, there are a few random thoughts from one who lives where medium sized big game lives.

Regards,
Dwayne

30/06.
We have all read the studies from Europe about the 6.5 effectiveness.I'd still want the 06 as a personal matter.

If both cartridges were loaded with TSX's of the proper weight for caliber I would definitely side with the 30-06 for the largest game.

6.5X55 is a great cartridge. However, would you really feel completely secure with 160 grain bullet or 140 grain as is most commonly sold for the swede on Afognak Island in brush where you have 20 yards of visibility hunting Brown Bears.

Its not that its something that you couldn't do. It is more what would you do to feel comfortable. 200 grain Swift A-frames or 200 grain partitions aren't huge but they do give a greater measure of confidence when it comes to Brown Bears. Woodleigh has a 250 grain cup and core bullet that really might rock the house and even if it would only be chugging along at about 2250fps then I would be happier.

However, my 458 with 500 Grain Barnes tsx bullets would really make me feel better in the underbrush, alders and devil's club.

Sincerely,
Thomas

I've said it a hundred times, there is nothing that I would hunt with a 30-06 that I wouldn't hunt with a 6.5x55. If I'm intentionally going after the big stuff I'm bringing a bigger rifle all together. Now if I happened upon a grizzly with a tag in my pocket and I had a 6.5x55 in my hand I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Of course I would also try the same thing with a longbow, so I might be crazy!

25 years ago I worked for a Swedish company and visited the Sweden about one a month for meetings. At lunch (depending on whom I was eating with), the conversation would occasionally drift towards hunting. Some of the guys used the 6.5X55mm on large elk (moose to us) and felt no problems.

For any large and especially for dangerous game, I'd prefer the 30-06 with heavier bullets. The 6.5X55 will penetrate, but the smaller, lighter weight bullets (including the 160 gr.) seem a little light for me, if the animal charges or is annoyed (which a wounded moose or bear might become).

I love the 6.5x55 and use it as my deer rifle. Any thing deer sized down it gets the nod as my first choice. That would also include black bears. I also took it on my first cow elk hunt a few years back and wouldn't hesitate to use it for that purpose or on Moose if the opportunity presented itself. I must admit, that the .30-06 would be my first choice for elk & moose but I wouldn't feel severely undergunned with the 6.5x55, especially if it was running a premium bullet.

But if we are talking grizzly, no I wouldn't choose to use the 6.5x55 given the option of a .30-06. I've never hunted grizzlies, but I'd feel a bit of trepidation going into the brush with only a 6.5x55...

Penetration - probably the same
Wound channel volume - advantage goes to the '06
Shot placement - slight advantage to the Swede because of minimal recoil
Effectiveness on charging game - probably the same (this is just theory, since I haven't stopped a Brown bear with either). If it's a matter of stopping a charging 1200 lbs brown bear with either a 160gr or 200gr bullet, I don't think it'd matter much. They're both alike to throwing a pea at an enraged animal of that size. Shot placement and breaking bones or disrupting CNS is what's going to save you.

They'll both probably do an equal job on moose or elk, but I'd rather carry the '06 for animals of that size. I know it's merely an emotional/psychological thing, but it makes me feel a little more comfortable if I have to take a raking shot at a 1000lbs animal that is standing at the edge of the timber.

Give me the 30 06 hands down. Top bullet weight in 6.5 is 160, 220 is common in 06 and 250's were available at one time. I think there are still some out there. Bigger frontal area and 40%-60% more bullet weight plus more boiler room capacity make all the difference in the world in my book. These cartridges are not ballistic twins.

I have a swede, and carried it for elk, but didn't get a shot. So, I have no real world experience with it. I was going to carry it this year, but grabbed the 338 instead. The 338 gives the Bang----Flop, doubt the swede would do the same.

Problem with elk is, they are not deer -nor- are they moose. Elk do not just stop and die, elk keep going until they die. They have an amzing will to live. I have heard a moose will just stand there and let you keep shooting him...

There's some truth to that. I know of someone who put 7 shots from a .30-30 into a moose's head and neck. Just stood there and grunted every time it got hit.

Jordan, I'm going to question your statement about wound channel volume, not to be smart aZZ nor to say I know you're wrong but this is my experience: In the interest of "science" some years ago I fired 140gr 6.5 Hornady's and other caliber Hornady bullets including 180gr. Hornady's into wet newspaper to compare penetration and expansion and believe it or not it was hard if not impossible to see any difference between 140gr.(the smallest bullet tried)and the 180gr.30cal.(the largest) If I had not kept track of which bullet was fired into which stack of wet paper, I would have never known which was which until I found the bullet. BTW there was effort to keep impact velocity about the same for all bullets tested which was about 2500fps. Not that it would make any real difference, but the 140gr bullet was fired from a 6.5x06 not a 6.5 Swede. Again this does not mean you are wrong only that I question the statement. I also thought you might be interested.

Hmmm, interesting. I wonder what the results would look like if one measured the wound channel volume of ballistic gel using the same test. I also wonder what the results would look like if you shot 100 moose with each bullet.

I'm not saying that the .30-06 will always give a larger wound channel volume. It's certainly not an absolute, but my guess would be that the .308 would edge out the 6.5 bullet on average.

Could say it better.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, here. I just think it's funny how times change.

In the early to middle part of the 20th century, the 7x57 was considered one of the best ELEPHANT cartridges, and in 1935 Teddy Roosevelt stopped a charging RHINO a few feet from him with the most powerful handgun in the world... the .357 magnum!

So we lose a half a millimeter in diameter and 2 millimeters of powder capacity off the venerable 7x57, and its "critters under 400" only; and the .357 is marginal for deer!

No, I wouldn't go after bb's with my Swede! Just playing devil's advocate!

jordan, my guess is that the measurements would be a lot more precise. I'd like to see it done because I have more questions than answers. In the mean time if I get a chance at a moose I'll take my 30.06 not my 6.5x55, because I just can't at this point make myself believe what I've seen with wet paper tests.

Capitalist, Teddy Roosevelt was long dead by 1935... Heck of a trick, stopping that rhino!

That makes it even all the more impressive that he did it with a .357 magnum!

When your name is Mr President, maybe you can get the good stuff a bit earlier......

65BR, are you trying to decide which to take on a hunt for all three animals? I know you have a lot of mid-caliber rifles and shoot a lot.

Of the two, I'd say '06 with a tough bullet. If it's a special hunt, I'd say that's a good excuse to get a larger caliber: 8mm, .33, .35, 9.3, .375, etc...

Jordan Smith;
Good day to you Jordan, I hope this finds you and yours well and keeping warm enough on the eastern slope of the Rockies.

What I've noticed in doing postmortem exams on deer/black bear/sheep - while I'm gutting them or while we cut them up in our garage - is that there is very little difference in tissue damage between a 6.5x55 using a 130gr/140gr bullet and a .30 caliber 165gr/180gr bullet.

I'll add there have been enough .277" kills thrown in that I'd put it or anything reasonably in between in the same group - as an educated hypothesis.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd built a 6.5 Swede for my late father and he passed it back to us before he died. Our eldest has claimed it now and between the two of them I'd say it's accounted for between 18 and 24 deer - I'd have to look in my hunting diary to be sure.

I used to hunt with an '06 and using one load with 180gr Hornady bullets I had of string of something like 16-18 one shot kills on deer and one sheep. My wife used a .308 and a .308 Norma and I also used my own .308 Norma and had a .300 WM for 10 years, so I'm no stranger to what a .308" bullet will do to deer/black bear/sheep sized animals.

Somewhere below the 6.5mm/130gr range there is a bit of a difference. For instance, on a couple deer shot with our youngest daughter's .250AI, the 100gr Hornady bullets left a bit less of a path through the carcass. Not much mind you and not enough to quit using it, but perhaps a wee bit less. Now a 117gr Hornady out of a .25-06 looked like a .277"/.308" standard amount of tissue damage.

Again, those observations are from deer/black bear/sheep either shot in my presence or cut up by me, so moose and elk, which are what the OP asked about may well be entirely different and there could be a slight difference show up.

Well that's just one guy's thoughts on the matter based on what we've seen shot and or what we've cut up, which is admittedly not a huge sample, but I'd say roughly 150 deer/black bear/sheep sized animals over the last couple decades anyway.

I hope you and yours have a good weekend Jordan. Stay warm and watch for those horseshoe shaped Chinook clouds to bring you a bit of relief.

Regards,
Dwayne

With this comparison the American beats the Swede. Not by much but clearly "better".

Thanks, Dwayne! I'm sitting at the window looking at the "Chinook arch" right now!

I appreciate your comments, as it does shed some light on the topic. I wonder if moose and elk-sized critters would show the disparity between the two bullets a bit better than deer-sized stuff, or not.

Have a great weekend!

Jordan Smith;
You are always most welcome sir. It's always a pleasure to "talk" with you and I enjoy your posts very much.

Regarding your question, I'd think it sure might be possible that the disparity could show up in larger bodied animals, we'll say 400lb carcass and up. Again though that is a guess and that only on my part.

I shot a few deer/black bear with a .338 way back in the day and decided it didn't show enough difference from the '06/180gr combination I'd been using to warrant continuing the beatings it gave me.

My gut feeling then and still now, is that if I lived in the Kootenays, Ft. St. John or Whitehorse where bigger carcasses are on the menu annually, I might have kept that barrel on the Ruger instead of converting it to a .308Norma.

Then again, the locals up there seem to kill a lot with .270's and the like, don't they?

I'm glad you've sighted the arch cloud Jordan. There's only so much cold a person can stand before they think they're in Saskatchewan!

Regards,
Dwayne

You cannot deny reality. The 30-06 is a bigger, more powerful round than the 6.5x55. It makes bigger holes and produces more damage in game animals, therefore, it kills animals more quickly than the 6.5x55. Both can be loaded to give deep penetration, so both will kill animals large and small. The 30-06 is just bigger and does more damage. It also produces about twice the recoil of the smaller 6.5x55. Both work. Pick your poison.

I dont know squat about a 357 in Africa in the 30s, but could it have been TR jr?

1984, actually whittled down my safe ALOT over the years and mostly using 6.5s of late, some 6BRs recently. Sold my 338/06 asap after Rem had to Re-Attach the handle on the bolt that just fell off on the first shot after a CO elk/Mulie hunt.

Contemplated another 350 (buddy borrowed, laid a 10pt WT low, HAD to have it- so I obliged, so that 77 MK2 and a prior mint 600 both went down the road). Also on the 'A List' for a gun for a potential trip to Alaska, is MAYBE another 338/06, but perhaps to try something new to me, a 9.3x62.

If I wanted to K.I.S.S. for a mid bore, a 338 WM or 375 H&H for factory rifle/ammo options, and either would be an M70 likely, but ABSOLUTELY not a 700.

Can you imagine standing there w/a Bolt handle in your hand scratching your head, if a Bear is bearing down on you?

I wonder how many Bear have been killed well, w/say a 270 and 150 or 160 Partition? As one would assume it's been used more often on them just because of popularity, and one might think a similarly loaded Swede might offer similar results. Just thinking.

No doubt, Elk and Big Bears would soak up more lead/copper than Moose, or at least potential travel further. Living in the South does not afford me the experience you guys have on those large game - appreciate all the feedback.

I'd not likely tromp around solo w/a 6.5, but if I had my partner next to me a larger rifle, I might just take aim if it were in hand and a good opportunity was present - not REAL close - by choice mind you.

Odds are I may well carry two rifles, a 6.5 and something from .338 - .366, if I can get to AK.

Appreciate all comments.

I can't even remember where I read/heard that story; it was obviously some source that I respected, as I never did my own research. Now, I can't find any reference to a .357 killing a rhino by anyone.

Many apologies for the absence of due-diligence. My main point was more directed at our propensity for ever growing "minimums". Like maddog likes to say about his .45-70 "bouncing off" game animals! Though I haven't blooded my Swede, yet, the testing I've done with it has impressed me greatly. If its all I had (and I had time to shoot it) when a big bear attacked, I don't think I'd throw it, and run! That said, I'd gladly take it in pursuit of black bear.

So did you hear about when Ingwe dropped a woolly mammoth with a pellet gun?

Peter Capstick wrote in his book about a lady client who had a pretty little Mauser. She had to shoot a charging lion to get into some club. The professional hunters thought she was nuts, but Capstick took her.

He started her on plains game, and no matter the range, she killed every animal with her first shot. He'd say the guides were calling her "piga kuffa" or something like that meaning "shoot dead." Now for the charging lion.

One charging lion coming up. Capstick finds a lion and sends his 2 trackers Silent and Invisible to throw rocks at it. I bet the NAACP would be very unhappy with this I'm sure. They get the lion miffed and run back to Capstick. The lion follows and the lady shoots the lion between the eyes.

I have a 7mm Mauser and I always think of that, especially when I'm reloading it. I do get a gut feeling though, that I'd feel safer with a .30-06. Heck, I can put a 200 grain bullet in the "06" with more powder. I make my Brother's loads. He shot a 300 pound Maine black bear with a 180 grain Speer Grand slam out of his .308 and flipped it completely over. He said it rolled down a hill growling, but never got up. That's what I want.

i'm sure the swede would work, but there is no doubt the 06' works better. they are not equal. one is better than the other, and it is the 06'. case capacity would be the key.

6.5x55 Se has been used for decades against brown bear (european version) and the polar bear for decades but in those days nobodys knew about better calibers and the bears didnt wear kevlar ...!!!!

I love the quarter bore and the 6.5 on paper sounds pretty good. But if its big mean and bites back there is no replacement for displacement IMO.

I thought this rubbish started in January?

I'll simply add these "anecdote" which I've pulled out of various moose I've killed with generally broadside, shoulder-area shots:



30-06; 180 Woodleigh, 25 yards through both scapula; walked a few yards and went down



Onside scapula of moose above







left: 340 Wtby; 250 Grand Slam, 200 yards through shoulder including one scapula. This moose stood with its leg hitched while we put three more bullets in it. 200 BALTP on the right was one which was place a bit further back through muscle and rib.

225 XFB, second from left; 340 Wtby, 200 yards, through both humerus upper ends.

middle: 170 Core-Lokt; 30-30 Win, first shot; into muscles below scapula, around 90 yards. Second shot spined him.




300 Speer Uni-Cor, 45-70; punched both scapula; 40 yards. Moose walked a few yards and tipped over.



Second and fourth shots, 150 yards; 6.5X55 Swedish, 140 Partition. First and thirds were 140 A-Frame. Passed through muscle below scapula. A-Frames didn't make the far hide where these were. Moose went down with 180 Core-lokt (30-06) through both lungs.



235 TSX, 375 Wildcat; 150 yards. Moose went down at the shot; got up right away for one more.

[img]http://www.hunt101.com/data/561/medium/IMG_07381.JPG[/img]

220 Core-Lokt, 30-06; 100 yards. Moose was running when shot; loped a few more steps and fell.

Obviously no one else was (from here) there to actually see how they worked, but perhaps there are a few bits of useful info to be gleaned.

Good stuff there.

There's more, but these are all basic, classic chest shots where a bullet was recovered. There have been others where complete pass throughs have resulted including several with the '06, and plain old cup and cores even. Smaller calibers work; they just don't work as well as universally as bigger stuff seems to. On a chest shot on moose - and probably in general, a bigger hole in at least one side along with a hole either in the diaphragm or other side of the chest cavity seem to collapse the lungs better than smaller holes which will drain the animals blood until it suffocates or drowns. It really doesn't matter (for killing) whether the animal bleeds out if the lungs can't inflate.

Thanks K.

As I've stated many times, I'm not much of a hunter. I'm more interested in the technical aspects of the hobby. So real life experience trumps any of the following opinions:

There is reason to believe that a larger, heavier bullet will do a better job of surviving impact on a major bone and continuing with enough momentum or energy to complete its mission.

If the bullet does not have to penetrate a major bone, then the 6.5 and 308 bullets are probably quite similar in performance. If they do have to penetrate a large bone, then a heavier 308 bullet probably has an advantage.

Bullet tests I have seen w/130 TSX in 6.5 look very impressive, more so than even 156/160s and the best of 140 premiums.

No doubt larger has advantages on dangerous large game by virtue of wound channel size - potentially due to frontal area being typically larger. How much difference in killing power - actually time to death, since the 6.5 will surely kill, it's a matter of if you need it to drop something quickly, how will that scenario play out.

I knew w/o a doubt a 338 and larger bore will surely show a noticeable difference on game vs. a small bore, but the 6.5 vs. 30 had me wondering, and I know properly loaded '06s have dropped many bear since many hunters have carried said combo in bear country.

Heavier by itself - I am not sure guarantees more penetration, more momentum perhaps, but frontal area and S.D. affects it also.

Thanks Denton.

The swede is sweet but, a 220 gn. partition @ 2650 from the old 06 would be tough for the swede to top for the big critters

Since TR died in 1919, that would have been very difficult for him. Maybe it was someone else?


edited to add, disregard my last. I saw where you corrected that statement.

NO need to get personal

if facing a charging Grizzly I'd want every advantage. This question was asked here along time ago and the weapon of choice was an M-1 Garand. So 30-06. More may not mean better -but more automatically means not less.

I agree, can't argue MO is betta when it comes to stopping a Nasty charging....

Hope to not have an encounter, but know it's a possibility and would hope to have a back up gunner as 2 would be better than one I would have to imagine.

I do seem to recall MANY reports I have read over my lifetime where the 220 '06 has a great reputation at close range for ending a charge of a nasty...

Just to change things up... if you were hunting other than BB's, with whatever rifle you hunt those other species with, would having a .454 (.44 mag, .460, et al) backup, completely negate this thread?

I've read a lot of stories by mauled (and rifle armed) hunters who said they had absolutely no time to swing and fire at the charging bear. I'd have to say a big pistol would make me feel much more confident in my abilities to get the gun actually pointed and fired (even if the bear was already attacking).

Then again, this is just a hope-I-never-get-certification-theory!

Too funny!

65: Perspective from a rookie bear hunter and FWIW.....I agree with what Klik said about the larger stuff working a bit better on these really large and/or nasty animals.

Normally I am not much of a "medium bore" guy for much hunting,finding 30 cal and below to be easily up to the task,but big bears are skosh different in temperament and physiology from the ungulates,and the first time I hunted them I watched their behaviour a lot and concluded these big grizzlies are highly intelligent,and capable of some rationale thought.

None of this has much to do with what it takes to kill them,but it does give me a very high level of respect for them, to the point where I am truly not certain I ever want to kill another,having taken two of them.

I was about 8 days into a 10 day hunt.Things unfolded quickly after the guide and I had a windshift blow an approach on a male and female....they disappeared into the brush,off the beach,and we turned to walk away,the guide getting about 30-40 yards ahead of me as I continued to lolligag for some reason,when I turned and looked back,as the male came back out,very suddenly...

..I hissed to the guide and flopped prone into 6 inches of salt water,rested over a rock,and touched off the 375....I thought I was on vitals but grizzlies have that "hump"and never having shot one before,my shot was high(rookie mistake here);he went down and was back up in a flash and my second shot as he ran for the alders caught him squarely through the lungs,but I could not know this at the time....in a flash he was gone....and I mean in a "flash".

You simply cannot believe the speed and coordination of these animals when they are under stress until you see it with your own eyes......as he hit the alders he was a "blur".....

Hans and I got to where he was hit;there was a LOT of blood on the beach.....where he hit the alders,the ground dropped down where the alders grew,and there was no blood on the ground,which struck me as strange.....then I looked "up",at eye level,and noticed blood and hair,in the alder tops,6 feet off the ground.....in thinking through what I had seen after the second shot,but did not register,is that the bear had "swum" through the tops of these alders like a squirrel over the tops of a front yard hedge,in a blur and with such speed that I simply cannot describe it....(suffice to say he made a whitetail buck running across a hardwood ridge,look like a plodding oaf.)

This situation will give a guy pause.....you will think very hard about what you have here,and do not follow up with impunity. We waited 45 minutes and followed up....he had gone maybe 50 yards back into the forest,swung left of his backtrail into a blowdown,and died there,his chin rested on a log.My first shot was high;the second made a gaping hole through both lungs with a large exit.

There were lots of mistakes here by me;I was wound up,in a hurry,concerned he would disappear again, hurried the first shot and did not think it through.Bears are built different and the same placement would have dumped an elk in his tracks.

I vowed I would never let a dangerous animal make any tracks again if I could help it.My next brown bear never made it 10 yards from where he was hit.

I have seen lots of elk sized critters killed with smaller bore rifles up through 338;the volume of blood and the wound channels created through that bear by the 375 was in a different category alltogether.The amount of blood was reassuring and a comfort to see on that beach.....

Which is why,to me, conversations about minimum calibers and theoretically perfect shots with small bores,on these great animals,become completely irrelevant in the context of actual field conditions.....and if forced to choose between a 6.5 and a 30 caliber for these great bears,I would, every time,take the larger bore diameter in a rifle I can shoot......given time to reconsider,for brown bear anyway(not interior grizzly which I have not hunted)I would look to a 9.3x62 if it is more comfortable to shoot but a 375 would be my first choice.

It is nice to sit here and ponder this stuff on a keyboard,how we will react,what shot we will take or won't,how we will exercise restraint and coolness under pressure with the little rifle.But you can be cool as a cucumber and still blow it.I know I did...

Yes it is always about bullet placement,but it is also about telling bullet effect....and it is also about pieces of bear clockwork on the ground in front of you,when things happen in nano-seconds,and the wheels fall off.So I don't ever wonder about the minimums required.I want bullet construction and bore diameter when dealing with these animals.

I wonder how reassured I'd have felt if this whole thing unfolded with a 6.5?

Sorry for the long post but I think you get my drift.Again,a rookie perspective on the matter,and FWIW.

Great stuff there guys. Capitalist, I have done a fair share of shooting and hunting w/handguns and would plan to have one available.

Bob - no doubt, they are to be respected and I do. Likely will have a mid bore of perhaps a 9.3 or perhaps a 338 or 375.

They are no doubt amazingly quick and move much faster than the best a human can - even a world class track runner on level ground. There is no where to run, or use in trying to outrun one, that is for sure.

Glad you survived! Thanks sir for your sharing the story.

65br,

i just got back from a cow elk hunt and killed a large cow 600+ on the hoof im told with a 120 ttsx out of my rem 700 6.5 swede.

it took her at a little over 250 yards 1/4 to me. hit her on the shoulder and exited off side through the ribs. she ran 50 yards and gave up the ghost.

when we skinned her the side that was hit was blood shot and tore up ( no eating right up to the hole on this one ).

to be honest i wasn't sure i had enough gun with me ( first elk hunt ), but the bullet made it a bigger killer than i thought it could be.

Same old same old....

(I can think of any number of other people who have said those exact same things. However, you get credit for writing it down well. But those who propose to hunt big bears ought to pay heed. Nicely conveyed, BobinNH.)

Great post Bob, I enjoyed that.

well thought, well stated

Guys thank you.Just trying to convey perspectives from a newbie bearhunter.Screwing up is part of the learning process sometimes.

I mean it when I say the first shot went precisely where I intended;it was simply not the right "spot".It would have been on an elk, or a moose,but bears are built slightly "differently".I learned that day,that it is vital to place shots on potentially dangerous animals very precisely.And "enough gun" is very reassuring.

Yes, very good post by Bob, and appreciate all posters comments -thanks again.

If I do get on a once in a lifetime bear hunt, I do want to report back - in good fashion ...Health!

Tag

7 year old thread... but it was nice to read the posts from Bob in NH...
who passed with the past year or so...

RIP Bob... you and your writings are missed by your campfire Brethren...

BobinNH's post was good to read.

Aside from those reasons there is "on the largest NA game" There is no reason to use some foreign stuff on 'merican animals....grin....

Bob was one of the saner looneys and always a gentleman, RIP.

One thing about the often quoted Scandinavian study is hunting methods and conditions are very different there. For one thing you have to be able to shoot to get a license including a simulated running moose target. A number of hunts are for control work where the shooting of yearlings is encouraged over a mature moose. In Norway Moose are frequently hunted with dogs and the Elkhunds bay the moose for a stationary shot usually at close range. JB and others who have hunted there can corroborate this.

Will the 6.5 take larger game, yes and has done so repeatedly. Does a larger caliber provide a better safety margin, yes in my book no question. Moose are not hard to kill but are massive and the bones can be four times the size of a white tails. Sheldon took all 29 species of NA game with the 6.5x54 and others have too. But I would prefer the 06 for all species and the 375 would make me even happier on any dangerious game and bigger deer and antelope.

I just so apprreciated this particular jem of insight and realism (I just meant to tag it, but guess it posted also) . He was a gift. I really liked him.

I agree. Spoke on the phone with Bob many times. His knowledge and advice was very much appreciated. Bob was a true gentlemen and class all the way. RIP My friend

Mike

Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable hunting brown bear under these circumstances with a bazooka.

Not so. Karamojo Bell used the 7mm for shooting elephants. However, the elephants were a lot easier to approach then and if a wounded one got away, he didn't care much. Nobody else used the 7mm for elephants except in a pinch and even Bell preferred his .318. He wrote that in later years the elephants had changed and he would not recommend small bores then.

the .357 Magnum was introduced long after Teddy Roosevelt was dead.