Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer - .338win question

I’ve carried .243’s, 6.5 Creeds, 7-08’s, etc in Alberta grizz country, and certainly didn’t feel helpless...

Thanks BSA, 2800 from a 210 on an '06 case is plenty efficient to boot.

There are exceptions, but given the choice most big game hunters will choose larger handguns and rifles when moose hunting in bear country. Being helpless has nothing to do with that. For example, a hiker may feel just fine with a can of bear spray.

Exactly. And the VAST majority of those hunters have never, and will never, have to shoot a grizz while moose hunting. The choice to use a big rifle and a big handgun is mostly an emotional one, instead of being based on pragmatic evidence or experience, just like the hikers that "feel" just fine with a can of bear spray.

Phil Shoemaker has more experience killing grizz than anyone else I know of, and he's mentioned carrying around a .30-06 more than once. That tells me that he must not think the '06 compromises his probability of survival, even though he has larger rifles.

Jordan,

I've been hunting in Montana's grizzly country for 50 years, and until relatively recently never was really concerned, though I'd run into a couple while hunting, and had them come through my hunting camp during more than one night. They were pretty unusual back when I started hunting (though a high school friend killed one on his family ranch not far outside of town) and were legal game until the early 1990's so were leery of humans.

But our grizzly population has grown considerably since, all in a relatively small area in the western part of the state. Alberta grizzly numbers have grown too, but it has fewer grizzlies spread out over more country. Plus, a large proportion of Montana grizzlies live in and around Glacier and Yellowstone Parks, where they've learned not to fear humans.

Not only have a couple more people been killed by grizzlies in Montana than in Alberta since 1980, but attacks are becoming more common. Four people were attacked by grizzlies in the state in 2017, three of them hunters. Two manage to kill the bears, while the third (a bowhunter) was mauled severely. Attacks and close encounters have become far more common during the past few years, and while many people like to point out that humans are more like to be killed by lightning than a grizzly, since 2010 that hasn't been true in Montana.

Have also spent plenty of time hunting in other grizzly country outside Montana, even some in Alberta, plus a plenty in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia (where I was followed by one younger bear, and had a bigger bear try to take away a moose I'd just killed). Obviously I'm not all that nervous about it, since I keep hunting (and fishing) among 'em, but the chance of meeting an aggressive grizzly has increased a LOT in Montana recent years, the reason I'll be packing both bear spray and at least a .30-06 with 200 Partitions when I hunt the local mountains next fall.

Is a 338 really going to kill a charging grizzly bear any better with a CNS shot compared to say....a 270 with a 150 Partition? With such a hit, the bear will die with either. With a hit around the fringes, either ought to penetrate far enough to hit vitals, or potentially take out a shoulder.

The bigger gun for bear country thing kinda reminds me of Easterners thinking they need a bigger gun for hunting elk, or old fat white guys who live in the suburbs carrying two double stack handguns and a bunch of extra magazines just in case they get in a gunfight during their monthly trip to Costco. Most of the need only exists in one's head.

I sometimes carry a larger gun in grizzly bear country, but it's just an excuse to carry a big gun, because I like guns and without a good excuse like "bear defense" there wouldn't be much point in keeping a big gun around. Honestly I'd be better off with the regular hunting rifle which I practice with more and thus shoot better. Plus getting munched by a bear sounds like a better way to go than dying in bed of a combination of rectal cancer and Alzheimer's, so maybe I'm a bit fatalistic about the subject of bear guns.

Billy,

Good question.

I have seen a 150-grain Partiton from a .270 Winchester deflect somewhat on a cow elk's leg bone. Haven't seen a .30 caliber 200 Partition do the same thing, either from a .30-06 or .300 magnum, and I've used one to shoot a 6-point bull at 75 yards in the big shoulder joint.

When it comes to grizzlies I think about good bullet far more than the cartridge. Give me a Partition or Accubond or TTSX in a 270 or 30-06 instead of a Berger in a 338 of some sort for example

If we’re wanting to split grizzly hairs, I’d rather have five down in a 308 than 3 down in a 338... I don’t just day hunt in grizzly country, I spend the night in it and don’t worry about it. Had 6 bag nights this fall... grizzly’s are an overrated worry in rifle season.

I can only tell about Alaska, but in here most are hunting moose, caribou, and sometimes bison (the lucky ones who win a permit). The most popular calibers in Alaska are the .30-06, 300WM, .338WM, farther down the 7mm Magnum, farther down is the .375H&H. The latter is more popular by the coastlines, and Kodiak. Most bears killed with rifles by the hunters I mention above are usually killed with those most popular calibers. Some large bears have also been killed with handguns and pistols, but usually in self-defense situations. What I meant to say in my previous post is those moose hunters tend to choose larger caliber rifles starting with the .30-06 loved with 180-grain bullets/loads. There have been several guides that in the past used the .30-06 with the heavier bullets to kill bears. There is a book about such a person that if I well remember is titled, "The Alaska Wolf Man." But nowadays hunters and guides have a lot more choices than the .30-06.

Now, I have never hunted bears, but read all I can about very experienced bear hunters and guides of the past, and present. However, these people aren't just the average hunter who occasionally kills a bear or two, but people who know bears and the habitat like the palm of their hands.

Hi John,

While I'm not sure about your statement that AB has fewer grizzly bears than MT (according to the gov't of MT website the estimate is 625 max, while Parks Canada website estimates AB has 691), I definitely agree with everything else you said. Despite that, I still stand by my statement that VERY few hunters will ever have to shoot a grizz out of self-defense. Like you, I've come across my fair share of grizzlies while out hunting, yet I've never yet had to defensively shoot one. This includes AB, BC, and NWT. One season I ran into 16 different grizzly bears, as close as 10 feet. I've also spent a lot of time hiking in Kananaskis and Banff, two of the highest-density grizz areas that I know of, and with a little bit of education and awareness, haven't been mauled so far (knock on wood). None-the-less, I am very cognizant of suspicious "bear areas" when hunting, and am aware of potential encounters. Despite grizz numbers and problems/attacks rising, largely due to the fact that there has been no grizzly season in AB for around 15 years now, I still think that with reasonable precautions the vast majority of hunters will never shoot one. How many hunting licenses were sold in MT last year? Attacks on 3 hunters, given the number of hunters out there, is a very remote likelihood of being attacked. And 1 attack on a non-hunter, considering how many tourists, hikers, etc, are roaming the Yellowstone and other grizzly-inhabited areas in MT, is pretty darn low. IMO, carrying a large rifle because you're worried about bears is like swimming with a Bang Stick every time you enter the ocean, because you're worried about Great Whites.

You've sort of supported my point in a round-about way- if you were REALLY worried about having to defensively shoot a grizzly bear, and you really thought that a bigger rifle would mean life or death over a smaller rifle, you'd be carrying a .375 rather than your .30-06 this next fall. I'm not saying it's a guarantee that it'll never happen, but clearly you feel that, given the likelihood of needing it, the .30-06 would be sufficient to preserve your hide

I personally feel confident that if I have a problem bear to deal with, any one of my hunting rifles is better than a knife or handgun, and I'm sure a 6.5 Creed with a 140 PT or 120 TTSX (maybe even a 147 ELD) would penetrate enough from any probable angle to destroy CNS or vitals. I don't let fear control my decision about what rifle to carry on any given day, considering the very low probability of something like that happening.

There is nothing wrong with the .30-06 and a 180-grain controlled expansion bullet, and even better for closer ranges with a 200-grain Partition or such a bullet. The heavier slug has the potential to penetrate deeper. The same for a .300WM with the same bullet weights, or a .338WM starting with at 225-grain to 250.

Ray,

We see the same trend around here, with similar statistics and chamberings for guys hunting moose, elk, bison, etc. But those popular chamberings aren't chosen based on experience by guys shooting grizz with them, but based on rumour and emotion, as I mentioned before. I'm guessing the same applies up your way. The popular choice isn't often determinged by guys with experience, but by the average Joe reading an article or two and making a choice.

Having said that, none of those chamberings are bad for the application, and the only time that I thought I might have to shoot a grizz out of self defense was when I was holding a 7Mag, which felt like a Daisy BB gun in my hands in that situation. Though I doubt a .375 would have felt any bigger in that exact moment.

I'd be curious to know if those trends hold true over dozens of samples with each...

Agreed. Most years during hunting season alone, I spend at least a few weeks sleeping in grizz country. You're right to point out that during rifle season activity is much lower than earlier in the summer/fall.

Nothing wrong with those choices at all. But to choose them mainly because of a concern about bears is a bit overzealous, IMO, except for guys who routinely come into contact with them due to work, etc, of course.

I was just using the 150 Partition as an example - how about a 6.5 Creedmoor with a 127 LRX? Or a good 175 out of a 7x57? Or any of about a dozen other medium cartridges with bullets meant to penetrate deeply? Or for that matter, just use the 200 grain Partition and call it good?

For me, the bear thing is just not something worth specifically arming myself against, especially after spending time in big bear country working for the Forest Service and having no gun for protection.

Jordan,

Choosing a hunting rifle is usually done according two the type of game being hunted. In here most hunters use the calibers I mentioned before, not necessarily because being concerned about bears. I imagine that Canadians probably do the same. The fact is that any of these calibers is appropriate for moose hunting, all the way to bison (with the proper bullet, of course). Also, people tend to choose guns that are already the most widely used in the area, and ammo availability. The word of mouth goes a long way, "when something works, why changing it."

I have no use for any of the 6.5s, but some would be pretty nice to hunting wolves, and caribou in the interior of Alaska.

I'm trying to find ANY soft point bullet in ANY cartridge/caliber that will penetrate with my 50-90 Sharps, I just shot a bedded 1800 ln bull Eland in the right ham at 60 yards, the skinners found the 750 gr cast lead bullet in the front of his left shoulder, that's near nine feet of straight line penetration.

The bullet has a 770" expanded nose and still weighs 743 grains.

Probably has to do with that bullet's SD, and the medium (or flesh, guts, whatever) the bullet traveled through. Heavy per caliber bullets tend to penetrate deeper, and so solids.