Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Black bears...what rifle/caliber?

JJ, the HUGE difference here is, you are guiding a lot of city slickers for the most part, or guys on a timeline. Few know how to shoot, or what they are shooting, let alone be able to judge a bear 5 feet in front of them. Serious bear hunters aren't going to hire a guide, unless they have to in provinces where required by law. Even then, they are not going to lean on a guide to make the call, IF they are serious bear hunters. You see the WORST of the lot of "hunters". Most have money and want to brag about their kill. They care about little else....especially getting familiar with their fire arm. They don't shoot well and generally don't shoot magnums (when they do, they are scared to death of them). The next problem is, they buy the cheapest ammo at walmart they can. I don't know how many times I have seen rich hunters roll into camp with all the latest and greatest gadgets, but buy [bleep] for ammo, "because it is too expensive." That boggles my mind.

I think this is why your "sub .30" opinion is so strong. The guys you are hunting with and guiding shoot [bleep] bear bullets and hit the fringes more often than not. You need a good blood trail when [bleep] shooting takes place. An experienced shooter/hunter is rarely going to botch a shot that needs a tracking job, regardless of caliber. Bears are NOT difficult to anchor. Bust the shoulders and it is over. Shoot the lungs, or anywhere else and you have a tracking job. I absolutely despise hunters that insist on lung shots on all big game, especially bears, unless they are bow hunting. Yes, they kill nicely, but RARELY does the animal die within a hundred yards. On bears, 100 yards can seem like miles in willows. Anchor the suckers and break bone, puting them down in sight. Same goes with elk, deer or anything else.

A .35+ caliber rifle will leave a slightly bigger hole, and does allow for more of a "fringe" shot, vs. a .270 or something similar....especially when shots are angling and bone is encountered.

You simply cannot compare the people you are hunting with, to real bear hunters....or trophy bear hunters. They are a breed apart, know how to shoot and how to anchor bears. They know what works ALL the time and how to use it correctly. Big Stick and his pards come to mind. They hunt HUGE bears and often at long range. They seldom get the luxury of getting within 300 yards to "juge" size, yet they always kill trophies and lots of them. They aren't using .375's either <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> They are serious bear hunters, not city slickers with a big huge wizzum magnum and Eddie Bauer duds. Just making a comparison. No flames. Heck, the only bear I have killed has been with bow and arrow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Flinch

We make a lot of assumptions about each other. Most of my bears have been spot and stalk, my favorite way to hunt them. All we have is our own experiences and we arrive at different judgements sometimes even based on very similar events, and that's appropriate. In my experience black bears are surprisingly easy to kill. I killed my best one with an old recurve and an old style Bear razorhead. Even the one killed with a tire iron was an accident. My pard didn't mean to kill it, just pacify it when it got rambunctious (after being roped and tied by some cowhands who were loading it in a a pick-up, trying to decide just what to do with what they'ed caught). As to tidy broadside shots, I shot a beauty at about 40 feet one time through a three inch hole in brush, when all I could see was two ears and a little patch of hair that I deduced must be the bear's shoulder based on position of the ears. After a 1000 yard spot and stalk, my nephew shot a whopper at 40 feet in thick brush. I followed a wounded bear hit with a 7 magnum and fail safe bullet, by traces of scuff marks, bent twigs/grass and urine squirts, no blood trail at all. Have shot or been in on some 22-250, 6mm and .243 and .270 bears as well as larger calibers. No argument from here that any of those calibers will kill bears with one shot.

The only bear I was in on losing after a solid hit was shot with a 6mm and 95 grain Nosler partition bullet. Hit in the shoulder, though maybe a little on the back edge of the shoulder at about 90 yards, broadside. Blood and bone fragments where the bear bit at the wound when hit, otherwise no blood trail. Rain in near rain forest, springy moss left no tracks... Would I hunt bear with a .243? Yes, if that's what I had available, and wouldn't feel too handicapped. Would I advise others to do so? No. I do less than optimum or smart things for myself sometimes that I don't particularly recommend, plus I know what shots I will take and which I will pass. It's one thing to hunt when you live in bear country and are familiar with rifle and the game. It's a whole nother situation to take a once a year or maybe even once in a lifetime hunt when the only bear you see may not give you the optimum broadside shot on a sunny day in the middle of a lawn grass meadow, after posing beside a height and length measure. If you are going on the second kind of bear hunt, if getting a bear is the priority, take the larger of your rifles that you can shoot well, and try to get close enough for careful shot placement if you can. If getting a bear with a particualr weapon or light cartridge is the priority, go with a bow or a 22-250, but factor in more limited shot options, and just maybe admit that less than optimum weapons are slightly more limited.

Flinch Agreed 100%


That means that about 95% or more of the people I have ever met fall into the not serious bear hunter catagory. Which leaves about 5% with the serious skills to handle any eventuality in judging a bear. I simply do not know that many people who live breath and exist for bear hunting alone. Most are bear hunters of opportunity, not deliberately persuing them. Most might spend a weekend or two hunting bears specificly. To meet the requirements you have about "expert hunters" it takes a hella lot more investment in time.

Regardless of the guided or not guided theory. I have been hunting with countless people over the years who I did not guide but simply hunted with. I cannot even begin to recall all the guys that thought the bear we saw at 250 yards was a shooter, when in fact it was about a 5' 180 pound bear. Nor can I recall the exact numbers of minimal to non-existant blood trails when bears were shot over bait at under 30 yards with all kinds of guns from .243's to 458's and muzzleloaders and handguns. The Blood trail thoery is not a wild guess but rather based on a massive resolution of actual bear kills and long tracking jobs.

It's difficult to measure the SE Alaska habitat against other places. Realize that the folks living there and hunting there have also got a huge resolution of bears to look over. When you live in a place where you can see bears while driving to town every day it's a hella lot different then the fella who sees a bear once a year and must decide with nothing else to go on if it is a big trophy bear or a small young female.

Let me put this another way. A couple years ago a bear was spotted in Tacoma Washington. The police on the tele said that the bear was very large and potentially very dangerous. His words were that "the bear was well in excess of 300 pounds". He stated he had lived in the state his whole life and had been around bears and hunted bears and he had never seen a bear this big. The news showed Police cruisers driving slow down the city streets with PA system on full volume saying "please stay in your homes a bear has been seen in this neighborhood."

About 2 hours go by the the bear is fianally run up a tree in a back yard. The F&G vet shows up and darts the bear. When it falls from the tree into the net they placed for him to fall into it is carried and put into a traillered culvert trap. The bear was 140 pound male according to the vet who had to match the weight of the bear to the dose in the tranqualizer dart.

Now somebody tell me how this trained observer a Professional Law enforcement officer could have been off by that much? At very close range! This bear was about 2 years old or younger. The point is that a bear regardless of what has been said here is a very complex animal to judge in the field unless you have been living in good bear habitat much of your life and are able to see them frequently.

I'll go so far as to say they are the most difficult of all normally harvested big game to judge for both size, sex, and hide quality. But please do not compare what the folks in SE Alaska are capabale of compared to a guy in a much less game (bear) rich habitat. No more then they would judge Pronghorns in the central rockies easily and accurately.

Finally,.... this thread is not involving expert hunters, or long time residents of Craig Alaska. It's involving a fella going on a short term guided bear hunt.

I'm in JJ's camp:

What some seem to be missing is that holes tend to plug in bears, regardless of size. Once you get to the .30 cal range, you start getting blood trails reliably. Go slightly larger and you will be all but guaranteed of a blood trail. I'm sure I'm repeating others, so please excuse.

Two solutions. Always be sure of your shots and break shoulders and use a bullet that can make it through both shoulders of a big bear and it's a mute point.

If you're a heart/lung shooter, the bear is likely to run. We all know a lung shot critter can go some substantial distances -- others drop at the shot. Wouldn't YOU rather have a blood trail to utilize to find your trophy 200 yards away?

Honestly, I'm a fan of breaking shoulders, but I'm also a fan of 30 cal and larger for bears.

Sounds to me like a great excuse for a new rifle this guy is passing on!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

AMEN! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />