Well I watched a TV show the other day I believe it was "Christensen Arms" show. They were hunting Dalls Sheep in the Brooks Range I believe and one of the guys also had a Grizzly license, made a 200 yard shot on it then it went a short ways and went down he put another in it and it just flinched dead right there. Another portion of the show was a "700 yard" shot on a Dalls Sheep because of the angle he held on it like it was 500 yards.
Anybody else see this "show".
I was somewhat impressed with the immediate effect on the bear that the .270 WSM and 130 grain ballistic silvertip bullet had. My brother just got a 270 WSM and I was thinking about one too but mostly for deer and antelope, would probably use a little more gun (30/06 or .338) for the bear.

Well, I didn't see it but from your description, I'm not impressed in the slightest. 500 yds. on a Dall ram? Too far! A noble animal like that deserves better.
Now the flaming can begin.
Bear in Fairbanks

I agree the distance thing on the sheep is a given, I was real curious though what the big bore and magnum crowd would say about the 270 WSM on a bear?

As a resident Alaskan the fallacies that I hear daily amongst would be hunters is absolutely hilarious. There is no reason in the world that a well placed 270Win wouldn't kill ANY bear. If your lungs are scrambled your done, I dont care what animal we are speaking of. Their hide is not difficult to penetrate and their vitals are not shielded with armor. I have a friend that has killed 2 Griz with a 7mm both bears didn't go very far and straight down. I have seen griz killed with a bow at 20 yards that didn't go 50 yards and DRT. Then there are guys that will pack an 11 lb 338WM on a sheep hunt and I know the only reason they dont take a more appropriate caliber and lighter rifle for sheep is because the what if i run into a bear thing. I laugh all the time when guys say that this gun or that gun must be used for this animal or that animal. Its all based on the mind set that a griz is going to attack you and the cold hard facts is that you are more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a grizzly bear. I have bumped into them in the brooks while sheep hunting with only a 270win on me and never so much as even had to unstrap my rifle from my pack. If your gonna die its most likely not going to be at the hands of a grizzly bear in this world or the next. As to the 500 yard shot on a Dall ram, some might think thats unethical and I can tell you that if it were me that shot wouldn't happen I'd try at least to get within 300 yards or so, but I know guys that can shoot 500 yards with great confidence and practise at those ranges so if they can do it, more power to them. Personally I killed my Dall Ram at 22 yards with a bow, for what its worth I am way more confident with that shot than at 500 yards with a scoped rifle

Jack O'connor killed bears, moose, sheep and caribou with his beloved 270, 40 years ago with the "poor" quality of bullets available then, today with our premium super duper bullets there should be no end to what the 270win will do.

I don't know about bears....but the .270 WSM does a nice job on cow elk. My wife shot one two years ago using the Winchester factory loaded 140 grain Fail Safe bullets. She shot the cow in the middle of the chest and the bullet vaporized the lungs, went clear thru the heart and split the liver in two. I don't know where it went after that but it didn't break any guts. An elk is not a bear BUT I was impressed.

As for myself, I won't allow anyone hunting with me to use ballistic silvertips. I've seen too many "slightly off" shots which took a leg clear off and left the animal moving on.

Only my opinion tho.

quote:

Originally posted by AlaskaCub:
Personally I killed my Dall Ram at 22 yards with a bow

OH MY GOD, YOU UNETHICAL POS!! (kidding!)

You should have closed the distance to 12 yards...that would have been much more ethical. What the heck were you thinkin??

As far as the 500 yard shot, I'm just curious, will someone please tell me the EXACT distance (since there seems to be one that I'm not aware of) where Ethical shots with a rifle end and Unethical ones begin?

No ranges please, with responses like "somewhere between 300 and 400 yards," none of that crap. Narrow it down to the yard please. Treat it like a school district, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

No such thing as ethical or unethical if your bullet arrives with enough enery to kill and you can accurately make the shot. I have never shot at a 500 yard target so cant tell you what my rifle will do. Holdover on my guns is in the 30" range and on an animal with a 12"-14" vital zone like a Dall, I could easily injure the ram and have no chance at a follow up shot so thats not a shot I would take, ethics or no ethics. Now if I knew what my gun would do and was shooting turrets with a range finder its whole nother ballgame. And yeah what was I thinking I shoud have just tackled my ram and stabbed him with my arrow Doc! grin

Well, I've passed on shots at game that were less than 200 yards because the conditions WERE NOT right at THAT MOMENT.

On the other hand, I've had antelope standing broadside at over 400 with NO wind, a rock solid rest (bipod), no heavy breathing (because I'd been sitting there for an hour), and the animals didn't even know I was there. And I KNOW what my rifle-bullet does at 300, 400, 500, and 600 yards (7mag). In other words, everything was PERFECT....and that's all I'll say about it.

When I had my 270 WSM on my previous sheep hunt, I would have taken a shot at a grizzly if I saw one while out in the field. 130 grain TSX bullet.

Doc asked:
"...will someone please tell me the EXACT distance...where Ethical shots with a rifle end and Unethical ones begin?"

Well, it's obviously not the same for everyone but I would suggest that it's that distance at which you personally would punch your tag before you take the shot.


DJR

DJR
I like that response.....!
I too never even think of shooting "at" an animal unless I know the shot will be true to its mark. I've passed on short shots that didn't come together right and my confidence in there outcome was low, and I've taken and made 400 and 425 yard shots where everything was right but what I do know is that nearly every time I pull that trigger on a game animal I am so confident of the outcome that I could "punch my tag" before taking the shot.
Thanks DJR well put...................

I don't live in AK, but lived and hunted in B.C. for several years. Somthing to consider is that interior bears are very seldom large bears.

The bears you see on the coast of B.C. north of Prince Rupert and up along the Stikine River to the AK border are salmon fed and can be just plain HUGE. My brother-in-law (living on the Stikine) had a friend take one that squared 10ft. w/ no stretching of the hide.

Yet, the bears I saw in the interior were nothing like that. One year up on the Tetsa I saw a bear that might have squared 8ft. It was far and away the largest I've ever seen in the interior. Most are 6-6/1/2 ft.

That doesn't mean I WANT to run into a 7ft grizzly at spittin' distance w/ my sheep gun, but there is a big difference in bone, muscle and hide in a animal that might weigh 1200 lbs (coastal bears) and those that are lucky to break 500.

On the later it would only be bad shots or unusually bad bullets that would create a dangerous sitution.

quote:

Originally posted by DJR:
Doc asked:
"...will someone please tell me the EXACT distance...where Ethical shots with a rifle end and Unethical ones begin?"

Well, it's obviously not the same for everyone but I would suggest that it's that distance at which you personally would punch your tag before you take the shot.


DJR

That's exactly right, it is NOT THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. SO, that is why I brought it up. I couldn't have said it better myself. That is why I am indifferent when it comes to these "that is unthinkable, or unethical to shoot that far" threads.

I know my limits and everyone else should know theres. As my office manager put it when I asked her about these situations:

Me: "What would you say if I told you I shot my antelope at 500 yards?"

Her: "I'd say, well, ok, should I be impressed?" (keep in mind, she doesn't hunt but knows all about mine, so she is a good example of ignorance).

She didn't even flinch. So I asked our therapist the same question. Response: "Is 500 yards supposed to be remarkable?" I decided there was a bit too much ignorance here so I asked my partner who has shot a few rifles for years, never hunted, but used to reload, and range shoot all the time.

His response: "Well, 500 yards is certainly within the capabilities of the rifle, and I know how much time you spend practicing, so good job, did you really shoot it at that distance?"

And as for punching a tag before the shot, well, in the states I hunt, I think that is illegal. But I agree 100%. And I'm happy to say, I'm confident within my own shooting limits. And I never ever take a shot unless everything is right. I'm the first to join all of you guys and defend these game animals in terms of their deserved respect, but I'm also not going to flame someone if they have the skill, practice, confidence, and intelligence to make an informed, educated, and experienced shot at a game animal if that is what they choose to do.

This whole topic will never die, but I guess I stand somewhat on the outside of this debate looking in and say to myself (and I'm generalizing here):

Who are you to decide at what distance hunting ends and shooting begins? Who are you to define ethical vs. unethical shot distances and impose those on someone else just because you know your own limits/comfort levels and think someone else should conform to your views or what you define to be morally correct?

I'm honestly not trying to be nasty, I certainly hope I'm not coming across that way, but this stuff is really really subjective and opinion only.

My office managers final statement when I explained the debate to her and our therapist also said it quite nicely, and this is an honest outside opinion: "What business is it of theirs to say someone can or cannot shoot a deer or whatever at 500 yards so long as the guy shooting knows what they are doing?" I told her that THAT was the key; so long as the person pulling the trigger knows what they are doing.

If you have a rifle that groups 4-5" at 500 yards and you've practiced with a bipod for 3 -4 years, what's wrong with that?

quote:

Originally posted by DJR:
Doc asked:
"...will someone please tell me the EXACT distance...where Ethical shots with a rifle end and Unethical ones begin?"

Well, it's obviously not the same for everyone but I would suggest that it's that distance at which you personally would punch your tag before you take the shot.


DJR

I vote for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Beartrack:
I don't live in AK, but lived and hunted in B.C. for several years. Somthing to consider is that interior bears are very seldom large bears.

The bears you see on the coast of B.C. north of Prince Rupert and up along the Stikine River to the AK border are salmon fed and can be just plain HUGE. My brother-in-law (living on the Stikine) had a friend take one that squared 10ft. w/ no stretching of the hide.

Yet, the bears I saw in the interior were nothing like that. One year up on the Tetsa I saw a bear that might have squared 8ft. It was far and away the largest I've ever seen in the interior. Most are 6-6/1/2 ft.

That doesn't mean I WANT to run into a 7ft grizzly at spittin' distance w/ my sheep gun, but there is a big difference in bone, muscle and hide in a animal that might weigh 1200 lbs (coastal bears) and those that are lucky to break 500.

On the later it would only be bad shots or unusually bad bullets that would create a dangerous sitution.

Thats exactly correct. The interior bears are not near as big as the coastal bears and the Brooks bears are generally smaller than the interior bears, but known to be more aggressive.