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

10-4 Ray, 750 grains twisted up tight by a 1-22 ROT from a 30" barrel certainly had to help keep the slug spun up tight and kept on axis, I have 750 and 570 gr TSX's for 577 and 500 Nitro double guns, I don't know if they'll dig that deep, hoping MD or some of the other heavy [African] game hunters will chime in.

I have to say I was thouroughly floored when that skinner kept cutting and dug to the hide in the front of that shoulder and handed me the bullet.

I'm really thinking that the 243 with an 80TTSX should be a great do-it-all in Western North America.

Back East, it seems the 223 with a 64BSB or TSX should be perfect.

Am I on the right track, given the increase in bear, wolf, cougar encounters on both sides of the Big River?

Both are great for "killing" ( given the skills to put it where it goes, sure) both are a "terribly poor choice" to "stop" something trying to hurt you...even a big feral sow! LOL That's the diff...:)

Oh yes they will.
Sectional Density is negated in expanding bullets because construction can change the performance and penetration even though the bullet weight is the same per caliber.

I have obtained over 5 feet of penetration with thd old 400gn Barnes X bullet and as little as 1 foot with the 550gn Woodleigh both using the .460 Weatherby to drive them. JB has been trying to explain this for years, because the expanded frontal area is an inhibitor to penetration even though bullet weight may be enhanced through those same design characteristics.

The heavy weight Barnes bullets you have will be terrific on anything you can afford to point them at. The only regret anyone could have is not being there to watch them hit.

John

Jordan,

Dunno where you found that 625 population estimate for grizzlies in Montana, but it's no doubt for only one of the two major areas. Western Montana contains parts of two of the federally designated grizzly ecosystems, the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide. The latest population estimate for Montana grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide system alone is 765, but there are also plenty of bears around Yellowstone.

The Yellowstone region's estimated overall population is 700, but I haven't found any numbers for the three states containing the park--Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. More bears live in and around Wyoming, because most of the park is in Wyoming, and it's border with the park is longest. The least live in Idaho, because only one small corner of the state abuts the park. The second-most live in Montana, where a reasonable estimate would be 250 bears, which when combined with the Northern Continental Divide population makes a total of around 1000.

But that doesn't include the bears outside those "official" ecosystems. There are also around 50 bears in the Cabinet Mountains in extreme northwestern Montana, and a number of bears in between the ecosystems, including the two mountain ranges bordering the valley I live in. They've been on the west side for at least 20 years, due in part to relocations of "trouble" bears, but in the past few years have also shown up in the range to the east.

I don't know how many "uncounted" grizzlies live between the two ecosystems, and neither does the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. For many years people have been reporting seeing grizzlies in parts of the state where there supposedly weren't any, and when they told FWP, essentially got patted on the head and were told they'd seen a brown-phase black bear. But in the past decade FWP has finally been taking the reports seriously, partly because so many people take pictures with cell phones--though FWP still doesn't "officially" acknowledge the grizzlies until they get a photo on one of their game-cameras, which they only set up after reports start coming in.

As I noted in one of my previous posts, I have been hunting in grizzly bear country since I started hunting over 50 years ago. Have lost count of the grizzlies I've encountered while doing so, including two that followed me for quite ways, both younger bears who were apparently curious, one in Montana and one in British Columbia. I've also been charged twice, both by sows with cubs, which both luckily turned out to be bluffing.

Also once stood about 15-20 feet from another big sow, without cubs, which had just been harassed by a dumb-ass woman on a creek I was fishing on the Alaskan Peninsula with my wife and Phil Shoemaker. Eileen was further downstream so didn't get involved, but Phil and I had been fishing a pool when the bear came running down the bank from upstream, looking over its shoulder. The woman followed close behind, with a little point-and-shoot camera, shouting at the bear to stop. The bear ran into the willow brush behind me and Phil, whereupon the woman cursed and turned back upstream.

Within a few seconds the bear came out of the willows close to me and Phil. I even took a few photos, then quit as the bear saw us and slowly moved closer. Phil drew both his bear-spray and handgun as it came, its head angled to the side but eyes looking directly at us. Phil spoke quietly to the bear, and eventually it finally turned and walked back into the brush and disappeared. He said that when they have their head averted, they're only thinking about charging, when they turn their face toward you, they're coming.

Have also had grizzlies visit my camp several times at night, with no problems, though one did tear a wall tent apart after my outfitter buddy and I rode out to pick up a paying client. And I hunted in grizzly country several times this year in Montana, including in a part of the state closer to Yellowstone that has far more bears--carrying a .308 Winchester. Have also jumped grizzlies a couple of times when bird hunting in brush, which happens now and then in Montana, and other places. Luckily both times the bear ran the other way, but they don't always, as some hunters have discovered.

But just because I've never been mauled doesn't mean I'm not going to be aware and at least slightly concerned about grizzlies, any more than I've been unaware and unconcerned when hunting amid elephants, buffalo and lions in Africa. Have been seriously charged by a cow elephant over there, and been lying in bed at night when other elephants were ripping the branches off a tree next to my tent, and a pride of lions started fighting over scraps around the skinning tent, less than 100 yards away. I admit to keeping my .416 pretty close in both instances, but none of that has prevented me from going back to wild Africa to hunt Cape buffalo, and also didn't prevent me from helping a friend follow-up a leopard he'd wounded. He'd shot the leopard at last light, so the follow-up occurred in the dark--and yes, I did carry enough gun. We found the leopard twice, thanks to flashlights revealing its eyes, but both times it decided to run instead of charge, and eventually the blood trail disappeared.

Phil Shoemaker is also not unconcerned about brown bears, though he's hunted them, and fished and lived among them for decades. Despite our close encounter with the harassed bear while fishing, he'd never had a real charge from a bear during fishing season, the reason he usually usually carried only a handgun and bear spray. Then in 2016 a good-sized boar decided to really charge, from only a few feet away. Luckily he managed to kill the boar with several shots from his handgun, but admitted afterward he'd rather have had a rifle. I did notice that when he went with me and Eileen to photograph bears one day during our fishing visit, along a salmon stream popular with larger bears, he brought along his .458, along with spray and a handgun.

Yes, the chance of being attacked by a grizzly while hunting is miniscule, as is being killed when hunting dangerous game in Africa. But that doesn't mean I'll ignore the possibility, or hunt mule deer in the local mountains with a .243.

Very good stories and advise, Mule Deer.

A few years ago a Biologist in Alaska, Tom Smith, had a webpage that showed the Alaska human and bear confrontations for the past 100 years, but for some reason the page was deleted. Anyway, we have perhaps one human fatality every two years or so if one averages the number of fatalities. Most of the encounters don't result on injuries, however. But the number of injuries from bear attacks compared to fatalities is probably about 5 to 1. Two years ago a black bear killed a man from Fairbanks, Alaska. He was walking to his cabin with his wife and a friend, and the bear charged him from behind. His wife and friend manage to reach the cabin while he defended himself from the bear, but for some reason he could not fire his rifle (if I well remember the rifle jammed). He was carrying a .30-30, which by the way is quite popular around the traplines. Last a year or two ago we had a few mauling (s) and fatalities:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/27/bear-attacks-alaska-deaths-anchorage

People like Phil (mentioned on your accounts) are a rarity in that they have a vast experience relating to bear behavior and habitat. We have had a very few people who have possessed such admirable qualities.

John,

I got my info from the Gov't of MT F&W website here: http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/grizzlyBear/

They list roughly 500 in the NCD area, and 90-125 in the CY area. Like most things, it probably depends on who you ask, though. We see the same thing in AB. Our F&W dep't estimated over 900 grizzlies in the province about 5-10 years ago after doing extensive chopper counts and tracking, and the true number of grizzlies has only increased since then. For some reason (I think it's because of the political agenda being pushed by the left, which is currently in power), the Parks Canada website only lists 691. Out of curiosity, what numbers do you have for AB, and where did they come from? There's a lot of disagreement about the true number of grizzlies in AB, given their political significance over the past 15 years, or so.

It sounds like we're basically on the same page. Intentionally hunting and following up wounded DG is not the same as hunting deer, moose, and elk in grizz country, with the remote possibility of having a chance problem with a bear. I don't deny that bears are around, but IME they tend to avoid people more than pursue or seek encounters with us. It seems like we both tend to be aware of the potential presence of bears when hunting in their habitat, and we both choose a rifle that we're comfortable carrying, knowing that there's a tiny possibility that we'll have to shoot a bear with it.

My question for you is- through the beginning of this thread, it was your position that the more game you see killed, the less you believe that caliber makes a significant difference in how quickly animals drop after being shot (within reason, I'm guessing). Now you're implying that the .243 would be insufficiently effective on bear, as where a rifle a few calibers larger (.308") would be your choice. So where in between those two calibers do you draw the line? And why wouldn't this apply to elk or moose dropping quickly, as well as bear? Always appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks.

Jordan,

The Alberta number I got was the same as you quoted.

I dunno where Montana FWP is coming up with their numbers. Nobody else believes there are that many grizzlies in the Cabinet-Yaak, or that few in the Northern ecosystem. I so suspect FWP likes to lowball numbers, for whatever reason.

My point is that the more time we spend hunting in grizzly country, especially when the numbers of bears are increasing, there's more chance, statistically, that a sudden encounter will result in a serious charge--just as one finally did with Phil during fishing season.

Gotta agree with you there! More time plus more bears, equals higher chances and frequency of encounters.

Not sure if you saw this part, as I added it a few seconds after posting the main body of that post, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts:

"My question for you is- through the beginning of this thread, it was your position that the more game you see killed, the less you believe that caliber makes a significant difference in how quickly animals drop after being shot (within reason, I'm guessing). Now you're implying that the .243 would be insufficiently effective on bear, as where a rifle a few calibers larger (.308") would be your choice. So where in between those two calibers do you draw the line? And why wouldn't this apply to elk or moose dropping quickly, as well as bear? Always appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks."

Thanks AGW, that's great news, however, the 50-90 bullet went from a 330" meplat to a full 770" mushroom and only lost seven grains, it's gonna be tough for me to beat that, but yes, I'll have a damn fun time trying ;]

Jordan,

Every hunter has a different set of experiences relating to the type of animals or game hunted and type or caliber of the weapons used to hunt. The ones with the most hunting experience, for example, hunting in numerous locations around the world, possesses a greater number of experiences relating to hunting animals that aren't the norm at home. It does not mean that a deer hunter, for example, does not possess a greater sense of experiences about hunting deer, however. Then there is this thing about one choosing the right gun and load (or even the right bow and arrow) pertaining to the game to be hunted, and also one's familiarity with one's weapon's choice, the latter which is very common with "one gun hunters."

While Mule Deer may be fine with a .308 plus the right ammo hunting moose or elk in bear country, there is not way that I feel confident at all with the same gun ammo choice, because of my own set of experiences. Another example, lets say that I live in the lower-48 States and decide to hunt Kodiak bears in Alaska. In this case I better ask the guide about gun and ammo choices he or she recommends. The same if I decide to hunt in Africa, or even bison in Alaska. If you are confident about hunting in bear country with your 6.5 Creed, then you have your bases covered. All amounts with your level of confidence.

I would tend to agree although anecdotally, not analytically. I’ve taken 12 bulls with the 340Wby and a few more with various other cartridges, so don’t have the contrasting experiences with the usual standard cartridges, or have really taken enough number-wise.

However, in a fine, semi-custom rifle, and various bullets, albeit all premiums, those 12 bulls acted very impressed. The longest travel after a hit was about 20 yds, but it was broken down and stumbling from the first step. The rest were DRT, down-like-an-elevator, effects and some of these were not far under the 500 yard mark.

So, this makes me think a “big bullet going fast” must make a difference over a “smaller bullet going slower” most other things being equal — say like comparing the 338-340 to a 308. Some of these dramatic effects formed the mental picture AGW describes. What we are discussing here is where this difference starts to become noticeable and consistent and I’ll never have enough experience to be sure about where that is. Or, whether it makes any real difference in making clean kills.

Whether the difference is that great among commonly used standards and the usual magnums, or whether my impressions of the 340 being the hammer I think it is would lessen with more numbers I don’t know.

Ray,

Agree that we're all a product of our experiences, and honestly I feel confident carrying a 6.5 Creed, 7-08, .308, 7WSM, and anything larger. Like MD said early in this thread, and I agreed with, I've just not seen enough terminal difference between closely neighbouring calibers for me to really think that one has a great advantage over another.

All good, but when hunting moose in bear country, are you confident that you will stop a large moose from reaching water, or stop a bear charge? I just don't have that level of confidence with other gun calibers other than the .338WM. I am one of those crazy "one gun hunters"

While I have other guns, I have become used to the .338WM (I call it "my lucky rifle").

The 338 Win hits like a loaded freight train. I'm actually quite impressed even though my sample is fairly small.

Mine own experiences relate to moose hunting in Alaska where I live. While sometimes we I have seen grizzly bears not too far, the closest has been around 150 yards, at least with bears that I have seen ahead of time. The problem could be any bear close-by in the brush I am not aware of. Moose often use the same trails hunters walk on, and very often both sides of the trails are lined with brush. Every now and then stories about hikers and others being mauled by the trails are published in the local paper, and in numerous instances it has been said that the mauling was caused by a bear (s) that were protecting a food cache near the trail.

I hunt moose along a couple of friends. I joined then after retiring from the military in 1994, and for several years I went out early in the morning and killed a moose while they stayed in the campsite asleep in their tents. But in the last few years we let a couple of younger hunters and friends get early and do the shooting while we enjoy sleeping

Anyway, I have shot moose from 50 to 250 or so yards from a stationary point on a rocky knob. This spot is surrounded by two open fields of relatively low growth of birch, and willow. Because I am a firmly believer on bullet SD, I have settled down on the 225-grain TTS-X, but have shot moose with the following factory bullets/loads: Winchester 230-grain FS (Lubalox-coated), Federal 250-grain NOS Partition (2650 fps) and 250-grain NOS HE (2700 fps), 250-grain A-Frame, 225-grain 3-Shock (not tipped).

Once I shot a moose with a 230-FS that was broadside about 200 yards way, just the it reached up to a spruce branch. The bullet clipped the top of the heart, traveled through the lungs, broke the far shoulder bone, and stopped at the hide (one of my friends found it when skinning the moose). This moose dropped on the side like hit by lightning. Another time, from the same rocky knob, I shot a moose that was about 50 yards away. It was eating away. I had seen the moose in the same spot the afternoon before the season opened, so I never imagined that I would see it again the morning of the opening day. Anyway, I shot it through the lungs with a 225-grain 3-Shock, and thought about reloading the chamber with another round while looking at a bunch of blood being pumped by the heart on the brush behind the moose, but by then the moose collapsed and died.

There had been a wildfire that burned the fields I am referring to, so there are a lot of dead but standing spruce. It means that sometimes the bullet can hit a tree before the moose. This time one of my friends and I were watching a moose that was walking through the trees toward the trail. He was using his favorite 7mm magnum, while I was using my .338WM. He said, go ahead and take the first shot whenever you see an opening, so I shot a 250-grain Partition at the moose with my rifle, and heard a big "thump," but the moose kept on going (the bullet had hit a tree). He took the next shot, but we have no idea what the bullet hit. Then the moose stepped on the trail, right in the open, and I shot it through the lungs one time. When the bullet hit the moose hunched its back and turned around on the spot, then dropped after taking a step or two. This was the easiest moose to skin and quarter since we got the ATV's right next to it without getting off the trail. The distance was a tad over 200 yards.

From the same rocky know I shot another moose with a 250-grain NOS HE. My rifle was supported by a wooden tripod made of dry spruce branches, and the shot was over 200 yards as the moose hesitated or decided not to cross the trail. I shot it through the lungs, and it dropped almost on the spot (took maybe a step or two and then dropped). When we opened the moose we realized that the bullet had fragmented like a hand grenade and cut the lungs to pieces (there was lead and jacket everywhere), and some of it passed though, leaving a hole behind. We took the moose meat home to precess it, and then returned to the campsite. My friends were to continue moose hunting, while I would just enjoy the camping and maybe kill a black bear. This morning one of my friends and his son rode their ATVs to their hunting spots a few hundred yards away, while I stood on my favorite spot. About 15 minutes after they rode past the spot where I had shot the moose I saw something moving down the a shallow ravine what I thought was the top area of a caribou (light brown color moving down across my view and about 150 yards away). I have no idea why I thought is was a caribou, and right then I realized that it was a big grizzly bear. By the time I thought about looking through the scope to shoot this bear, it was gone. But I was quite apprehensive about having to shoot a bear with the same bullet and load. I really believe that a 250-grain loaded so hot is not the best for a shot to stop an animal. For a lung shot it should be OK, but I don't think a bone-braking shot is the best.

I have had several one-shot moose kills with my .338s and the bullets mentioned above, but I had three that have walked around 20-30 yards after the first shot. One was the first moose I killed on a September 13th after a snow storm. This was an incredible experience that i will never forget. I was standing on a cat trail on the side of this hill and saw a moose moving toward me, then turning broadside and walking on another trail to my left. You can only imagine how my heart was pounding in my chest at that moment as I tried to hold the scopes crosshairs on target from 150 yards or so away. I took one shot then the second, and the moose kept on going. I just could not find a place to support my rifle, and the moose was moving away. I am trying to steady my heart beats and to control my breathing, but all of that was impossible at the moment that I took the third shot, and right then the moose disappeared! I didn't even think about keeping my left eye open while looking though the scope with my right eye, but I knew that I had injured the moose. I started tracking the moose from the spot it stood when shot the last time, and was in a pretty much state of panic thinking that I would have to track that moose by myself that evening. Anyway, when walking on the trail I heard a grunt about 20 yards from I had seen the moose the last time, and found it very much alive in a large depression on the ground. The last bullet had hit the moose below both front knees, so it could not stand up. I moved back a few yards, supported the rifle on a spruce branch, and shot it on the head. Form that moment on I decided to never approach a moose I had shot until it was dead.

The second moose that walked past 20 yard was shot with two 225-grain Barnes X from around 175-200 yards away. This was the biggest moose I have ever killed, and didn't realized that it was walking away dead as it moved away from me parallel and perhaps 20 yards from the spruce at the trail's edge. It was around 9:30 PM, but with enough sunlight left on the ridge's trail. I could not take a second shot until I thought that it has turned slightly broadside again, at which moment I did without realizing that what I had seen through the trees was the side of the moose's hind legs just behind the guts. The moose dropped there, but by then it was getting too dark to see. My friend came over and I told him to ride hist ATV on the trail and park about 300 yards, then walk through the spruce from the trail about 20 yards, and to walk down in my direction looking for the moose as I pointed a flashlight bean in his direction. He found it shortly after. It was 10:30 PM by then, but we never leave moose meat unattended in bear country. We got all the needed gear from the campsite 500 yards away, including a generator and lights, and worked on this moose until 5:00AM.

The story is already too long to tell you about the third that walked past 20 yards after the shot.

Jordan,

There's a big difference between shooting game that's unaware of you (or at least not very alarmed), more-or-less broadside, and shooting when they're facing you, especially when they're full of adrenalin and coming hard. At that point I want a bullet that I KNOW will penetrate deeply and straight, even through heavy bone. One of those bullets is the 200-grain, .30 caliber Nosler Partition, because I've seen it do so many times since first starting to use them 40 years ago. While smaller bullets may do the job, especially monolithics (and I've used several enough to know they sure might), I prefer using something I KNOW will work for frontal shots on heavier game.

Good point I can agree with.

I feel the same way about the .33-caliber's tough bullets starting at 225 grains (the lower SD), to the 250-300 grain bullet (higher SD). Also the .375 with 300-grainers.

I’m with John on this. I see it kinda like waterproof matches and a 2nd set of tire chains. Maybe will never need them but one less thing to worry about.

I’ll save my .243 for other spots.

I'm gonna embrace 'the rebel' and buy a 338 now! *



*notice how I justify a new rifle purchase.