An article in this months Am. Hunter on 85 Alaskan brown bear kills(one guide service) and potentcy of calibers used. Best I can tell, 2 bears were taken with the .270, 7 bears with the '06, .264 mag, and 7mm mag, 20 with the .300 mags from win., norma, H&H, and weatherby, 23 with .338 winnie and .340 weatherby and then 20 with the .375 H&H. No, that doesn't add up to 85; something is missing in the article. Both the .270s were one-shot kills; one shot by a guide and it charged him while he was hunting caribou. The other from a lady with a well placed shot in the chest as the bear stood up in front her and the guide. One-shot kills for the .30 mags was 25% and apparently about the same for the '06 and smaller bores. Amazingly only 17% for the .33 mags and 25% for the .375 H&H. were one-shot kills. The .30 mag hunters averaged 3.75 shots per bear taken and the .33 mag and .375 mag hunters averaged 3.44 shots per bear taken. Some of these were said to surely be insurance shots on dead or down bears. Number of shots required went from 1 to as much as 10. The .30 mag hunters required guide-backup shots 35% of the time while the .33 mags required help 66% of the time and then the .375 required help 38% of the time. The gist of the article was that the .30 mag people certainly made "better hits" than the .33 mag people and the .375 people too. The .30 mag people had more experience with their rifles on average than did the .33 mag hunters and to some extent the .375 hunters too. The difference between the .33 mag and .375 mag hunters was that most of the .33 mag types(probably used to a .270) got their rifle just for the bear hunt. Owners of the .375 on average probably don't make that big a jump up from smaller calibers without more experience under their belts. Anyway, shot placement was most important in quick kills with bullet construction second.

Sounds like a 2 series article he did for Rifle/Handloader some time ago. I've been looking for that article. Is there any way I could get this new one from you? Hit me on the email if you don't mind.

Leo, I can only say that I'm not surprised by these revelations whatsoever. Killing power depends on many things besides sheer delivered energy and the size of the hole in the end of the barrel.

AD

You also cant deny the tenacity of a brownies will to live. they are stubborn critters when it comes to death. You can drop a brownie like it was hit by the hammer of thor and the bear could still get back up and run off. Thats why if the bear goes down on the first shot, shoot it a couple of more times. The taxidermist can patch holes. I guess I'm not into the bragging rights of a 1 shot kill on a big bear, I just want that sucker dead when I walk up on it.

Well that's the problem with statistics. I don't think anybody in their right mind would choose a .270 for a brown bear hunt. I think a more valid survey would ask the guides what rifle they carry. However, the article sure points out the benefits of practice, practice, practice. I'm sure that a lot of those folks were good riflemen, but were unprepared for the adrenalin overload experienced in the presence of a brownie. That only comes with experience. The point made about insurance shots is also a good explanation for those statistics.

I have a article in my files that my memory (?) tells me is not in agreement. I recall the .300 mags as far worse and the .375 H&H the best.

Yeah, the .300 mag fan club really liked this article. I had a buddy call me up from California just to tell me how his .300 is equal with the ole .375H&H. Yeah......right.

I read the article, and it has some interesting viewpoints, but that's all there is about the story. One can play with numbers to enhance any viewpoint, and that's what I thought of the article.

Is is possible that hunters from the Lower-48 are more proficient with their .300's and .375's than the .338's? In Alaska, the .30-06, .300 WM, and .338WM may well be the most popular cartridges by a wide margin.

In his own words: "...I am firmly convinced that while the .30-caliber may not deliver as much downrange energy and do not punch a big hole through things as the larger calibers, their milder recoil enables the average hunter to shoot them more accurately than the bigger bores."

He also wrote: "Another of my theories might explain why bear hunters who headed for Alaska with rifles in .375 H&H had, on average, better track records than those who chose the .33-caliber magnums from Winchester and Weatherby. Plenty of exceptions to what I am about to say do exist but, generally, I find that .375 owners usually possess a bit of hunting experience with that cartridge and are capable of shooting it quite accurately."

That last part reminded me about a story of an accurate hunter with a .338WM. In 1980, a guy named John Coogle had surprised four grizzly bears that were feeding on a moose carcass, and the bears had desided to defend their food. He only saw two bears charging, killed one with one shot from his .338WM, and the other one ran. He still had three rounds in the magazine. But now two more bears faced him. As one stood up he shot it through the chest, and the other bear charged. He rapidly loaded the chamber with another round, and shot it on the shoulder "turning it," but the companion was stil coming. He chambered the last round, and the bear was four steps away when the bullet hit it on the brain killing it. He realoded his rifle, and dispatched the shoulder-shot bear. According to the story, it took about 12 seconds by the time he shot the third bear on the head.

I have always agreed with the view about "gun proficiency being more important that gun size alone." Of course, one would have to consider using the biggest gun possible without forgetting that to some "big' translates to how much recoil they can take.

Now why in the wide world of sports would you want to plug a brown bear once in the first place. Anything that can bite back deserves a second or third or as many shots as it takes to put him down. That's what your suppose to do. It's good to see that most brown kills have at least 2 shot kills. That's a good thing. At brown bear killing school "101" that is the basic lesson, repeating accurate kill shots until no more life is left. From the sound of things, the "One Shot" shooter was not sure of the shot and had to look away from his sight picture, missing a quick follow up shot while the bear hits the deck for the bushes. So Mr.Guide has to play hide and seek with a half alive/half dead brown bear in the bushes. Mean while, the hunter is running around yelling "did I hit it- did I hit it?" Next to pissing his pants. The One shot thing, leave that to things that can't kill you in return. Just a opinion.

About using the .270......that was probably about all the gun she could handle good and a shot dead center of chest on a standing/facing bear most likely ended up as a spine shot with the 150 grain nosler-partitions she was using. The caribou hunting guide most likely got in a spine shot with his .270 as he did not put in an insurance shot on a bear that meant him harm. He must have been sure of the shot placement. Wether or not our ordinary deer calibers(say .260 to .280) are adequat or not on big bears, we all know that a good bullet from any of them in the boiler-room will kill the bear in reasonable order. As for what the guides carry, they have to provide backup and that means big. In the article, Simpson stated that he has taken two brownies. The first with a .358 STA and 250 grain partition and his big brownie(9 1/2 plus feet) with the .300 ultra mag and 180 grain partitions.

I have read it and it makes reading and thats about it.

Actually I think these guys have about run out of stuff to write so they expound on such silly subjects as he said he said.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I was once told by an old soldier, that in the heat of battle one never really feels that gun recoil as it was in basic training on the rifle range.

I bet the juice was pumping so fast through his veins, that he didn't have time to feel much in the way of recoil from his rifle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:

Actually I think these guys have about run out of stuff to write so they expound on such silly subjects as he said he said.

---

I believe that Ray has "said it all!"
best,
bhtr

Does anyone know how may of these shooters were firstime or at least new to the chosen rifle. It would seem that the young woman was the only person matching her skill with the appropriate weapon.
As many have said anything can be done with numbers and it would seem that Layne has used these numbers to increase the numbers on his paycheck.
I certainly enjoy reading exciting stories about hunting but I don't believe I will take it too seriously.
Frank

Bearhunt'r,

I, too, would agree with Ray on this one.

Anything walking up your way yet?

I tend to agree with Ray. It seems to me that the gun scribes take turns re-writing the same articals on occasion.

I also think a lot of first-time Alaska bear hunters buy a rifle a little too much for them to handle. Reading a little too much "bear mauling books".
On their second trip, I bet they bring something a little more fimular. ~~~Suluuq

Rusty, I kinda think that's what Layne was surmising. A .300 mag will do the job just fine and is much more in reason with people who are used to their old .270s.

Ovis,
I've been busy by golly...almost too busy. To answer your question, I was coming back from Los Anchorage (as a few of them 458 Lott shooters refer to it) Sunday and stopped for a break at Sportsman's. I happened to look up and saw a Griz (smallish fellow) on the bank by the Russian. It's fur looked matted and dirty; figure it found some of last years vittles to roll in. Have been out scouting a little but have not cut any blackie tracks yet. That will happen soon. I'm headed to the west side for 8 or 10 days on the 3rd...will let you know how that goes. Will be taking BW's favorite pea shooter with me. The Taylor really reminds me of the ole dot350 mag of yore!
best.
bhtr

When I first picked up a 338 some years back, and went out to sight it in, I was rewarded with a sore shoulder. The first time I fired at game with it, I DID remember the recoil. (Got the bear anyway). If these guys had just bought their rifles, and had not adjusted their perspective to the new level of performance, I can certainly see them not hitting worth a hoot.
It takes some time to adjust, but I did get used to it.

Personally , I find the recoil of a .338 slower and easier to handle than that of a .300 . Still , anyone with the time and money to hunt brown bear should have no problem with handling either cartridge .

Can anybody explain why Brown Bears don't seem to generate the same respect as African
DG? Does the hunting style employed mean it is less dangerous for the hunter? Despite their sheer size, are they easier to kill than say a lion? It's really only in the last dozen years have I heard about some of the larger "African" calibre's being used...so how much risk is there from a charging bear, wounded or otherwise? are they as difficult to stop as their size would suggest?

Pete E., I would guess it is because when white hunters first started hunting Africa(or India) they had to deal with some very large thick skinned animals. Very large black powder rifles is what it took to kill that game with reasonable quickness. Those cannons were used on lion too probably because that's what the hunter would always carry. Some pretty large black powder rifles were developed in the U.S. for the bison slaugther too. I don't know, hunters in the U.S. didn't have to face elephants and rhinos. The Lewis and Clark Expedition had some hairy encounters with Grizzilies and found their standard muzzle-loaders had all they could handle when shooting the big bears. Smokeless powder revolutionized shooting and made all those really big black powder guns obselete. Anyway, lion hunters may have been more than amply gunned while north american hunters have had a habit of being a little under-gunned a great part of the time for big bears. Think of all those 30-40 krags out there in big bear country a long long time ago. Then, they thought the '06 was big.