Originally Posted by Okanagan
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Originally Posted by Okanagan
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Originally Posted by Okanagan
Originally Posted by ingwe
Originally Posted by Brad
Apart from the question mark, I don’t even understand how this is a question...



Same here.


As many have said, either choice would work.

I wouldnt think twice about shooting a black bear with a .223 and a good mono...


Ditto, with one caveat... depending on where you hunt, you may factor in the difference between killing a bear and finding it once dead. Have seen them killed with .22 rimfire and a couple of .22 centerfires in the hands of confident capable hunters, all east of the coast range.

My grandson killed a called black bear last evening, 25 hours ago. He has been seeking an elk load for his Tikka 30-06, and he hunted bear with it because a 180 grain Swift A-frame is the most accurate bullet he's tried in his rifle. 58 yard shot, almost broadside, bullet hit center of ribs angling back a smidge to exit at last rib. The bear went 30 yards and was dead within seconds... and was exceptionally difficult to find. Innards plugged the exit, zero blood trail found by some good trackers with him. The bear was finally found by careful search for occasional broken ferns or squirts of scat, plus some grid work, and the searchers walked past it twice inside of 6 feet without seeing it.

OK, first bear, standing in the only open spot where he could see it, he likely should have broken its shoulder given the thick brush. Any hit that did not drop it on the spot, with any rifle bullet combo, would mean trailing the animal at least a few steps. I had one go 15 feet in super thick brush, surprisingly hard to find and a nervous search for it.

This musing is likely more about bullet placement than caliber, but a larger exit hole to leak is usually a good thing.

None of this applies where you can almost always see your boots, see ground across a ravine or canyon, go around or under vegetation without having to part it, etc. You should have seen how scratched up those men were last night by the time they found the bear and got it to a road.

Having nattered all this, I'd take the one I shoot best and most confidently, and if equal, it would be the .06.

A ton of overkill beats an ounce of underkill. wink




It may not work out so well for him if he shoots an elk in the same place.


Same geographic location or same spot on the animal? confused

Same shot placement.


?? Took out big sections of both lungs and a chunk of liver. No elk is going to last long with that damage, I say from experience, not theory, and an elk is far more likely to leak a blood trail than a bear that tends to plug exit holes. Plus an elk has hard big hooves, way easier to track even without a blood trail than a soft padded bear foot on duff and moss. Again, spoken from experience rather than theory. Our mileage does vary, but if I had to, I'd take that hit with that bullet on every elk I could shoot at for the rest of my life. Not perfect but it would be rare to lose an elk hit there if one can track at all.

Re the original topic, a friend kills elk and big bears with a .220 Swift in open forest country, while my son who hunts true rainforest moved up from his never failed 30-06 to a .338 Win mag. We do like to find what we kill smile

I've seen a bull hit through the rear ribs just like that run and run and run, and miles and many hours later, utterly evade the shot-maker. Who actually risked his life trying to track down the bull, because he ended up coming out the following morning, with temps in the low 20's below zero. I don't know what happened to that bull, but I do know there was a huge spray of dark blood out the exit, and he didn't even act hit. The shot was literally from 30 feet, and it was utterly botched, in my opinion.

But you do you, boo.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.