I am planning a DIY float trip in AK for 2006 for caribou. I have two rifles that I am very comfortable shooting but I am unsure which to take.

Any thoughts or comments are welcome!


Rifle #1: 270 win, synthetic stock, 150 grain partitions.


Rifle #2: 300 win, wood stock, 200 grain partitions.

The .270 will kill caribou just fine but I would give the edge to the bigger gun for 2 reasons. 1. The 300 is better in a bear encounter (which would most likely be extremely rare) but why not have an edge. And....2. because caribou are heavy to pack and why not put it down a little faster and closer to camp. (and I realize this is a little lame but I've heard people talk about a wounded carribou running quite aways from where shot---and I do know a poorly shot carribou with a .300 may not be alot different that a poorly shot one with a .270.)

Float trip ? Give me the synthetic stocked one.

The synthetic stocked one. You will have moisture issues. For the bears, you might have tod eal with them, and frankly at the distance you'd be dealing with them, the differences between .270 and .300 are small enough that the bear won't notice.

Ryan, I went on a Caribou hunt last year in Alaska. I used a 300 Win Mag with 165 gr. Barnes X bullets. One shot kill at 300 yards. My buddy took a 300 Win Mag also and used the 180 gr. Partition Gold's. Also a one shot kill at 208 yards. Both Caribou died on the spot, no tracking needed. We went with the lighter bullet for the long shots that may come up and it paid off for us. As far as bear defense, go with the 300 Win Mag. On our second day in camp we had a big Grizzly come into camp, so don't listen when someone says bear encounters are rare. They happen a lot, it is just how you handle the situation that can make it go bad. But always be prepared.

Ryan: My preference would be to go with the synthetic stocked rifle. The .270 will do just fine with heavy premium bullets on caribou. I agree with Rupert as well...the difference between a .270 and a .300 is not great enough to make a difference to a bear. What you will need to do is hunt with a partner or two and do some reading on how to avoid unwanted bear encounters. What you should worry about is having proper gear, not letting your tent blow away, and avoiding hypothermia. Where are you thinking of hunting? You will love it.

Take the 270 and some warm clothes and keep dry. You are going to be out in the open, I have yet to ever have a problem with Bear, then again I don't go looking for trouble either.

.270, mainly because of the synthetic stock......

.270!!! Hands down!

I've taken 12 caribou with a Interarms Mark X, .270 with federal 150 grain "factory" loads. I've never had to track a wounded bou with it.

Shot placement!!!!

270 for bou is more than enough. I would have taken the .300 in case of bear, but the wood stock sucks in AK, especially on a float trip.

Ideally, change out the stock on the .300 with a synthetic, then you're rockin!!

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan:
I am planning a DIY float trip in AK for 2006 for caribou. I have two rifles that I am very comfortable shooting but I am unsure which to take.

Any thoughts or comments are welcome!


Rifle #1: 270 win, synthetic stock, 150 grain partitions.


Rifle #2: 300 win, wood stock, 200 grain partitions.

Ryan, I have never hunted in AK. However, I've spent many hours hunting in the rain with wood stocked rifles. The moisture can certainly be an issue, maybe.

After shooting my factory wood stocked Ruger 270 for 12+ years with minimal maintenance (from ignorance), it still showed to be just as accurate after being absolutely drenched. Luck I guess.

IMO, it really is a coin toss. If you are equally comfortable shooting both, there are excellent pros/cons for each. Some of the caribou hunts I've read about and seen on the OutDoor Channel show tremendous wind. If that happens to be the case, I'd much rather have a 200 grain bullet than a 150. You may have a real slunger at 350.

Sure the 270 will dump it but the issue isn't always "what is needed." A 22-250 will kill a bou. More is better IMO. I'd take the 300 if you are only taking one rifle.

Now if it was me, I always take 2 rifles on every hunt, just in case something happens in the field. Plus, if something does happen with the wood stock on your 300, it's just a good excuse to buy a nice composite one!

I shot quite a few caribou while I lived in Alaska and your 270 will work great. The synthetic stock is the only way to go up there. Early on in Alaska I bought a beautiful 375 Sauer. I took it on a rainy caribou hunt and had to aim at air to hit the caribou after 7 shots. It had shifted POI 10" left in 2 days. By the next hunting season I had a synthetic stocked rifle and had dumped all my wood stock rifles.

Regards,

Mark

when i lived in alaska, my primary rifle was a ruger m-77 in 270 , with a fully glass bedded stock. that rifle took 9 caribou, a few moose, a dall sheep, a couple black bears and one goat, all with 150 gr bullets. if it were me, i would take the 270. have a great hunt.

I'd take the .300 winnie and if you care about the stock heaps buy a McMillan for it as a beater which can be re-painted when chipped

I'd take the 300 Winchester, no question about it. That 200 gr. load isn't necessary for caribou, but it'll surely handle any grizzly better than a 150 gr. load out of a 270.......

AD

A lot of good advice here so far, some by people who have not faced a mad Big Brown. Forget everything said and imagine this picture.----- You standing in front of a very pissed off wounded Brown Bear, your buddy is down or not helpful, you have one shot remaining in your rifle, the Bear is 10 yards away and coming with blood in his eye. Only you can make the choice of the rifle and load and now is your chance. Good luck and good shooting.

mmmhmmm, good points AD and phurley. Like I said, take the 300.

I have shot 11 caribou with a 7mm, 1 with a .30-06, and one with a .300 Win Mag. I have been on a lot of DIY hunts, but all fly in. If I had to guess you are floating the Noatak River, but that is a big guess.

In all of those trips, I never saw a grizzly, but I did see a lot of rain. One week the weather rained all day, except when it snowed. We had standing water in the tent. Everything was wet. I would not bring a wood stocked rifle on that kind of hunt.

of course, if you had a .300 with a synthetic stock, I would bring it.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan:
I am planning a DIY float trip in AK for 2006 for caribou. I have two rifles that I am very comfortable shooting but I am unsure which to take.

Any thoughts or comments are welcome!


Rifle #1: 270 win, synthetic stock, 150 grain partitions.


Rifle #2: 300 win, wood stock, 200 grain partitions.

1. I would ask the same question at the Alaska Forum.

2. I would bring a .300WM, or better: a .338WM. However, it would be a stainless/synthetic rifle. With the .300 I would use premium Federal ammo with 180-grain bullets, and a few handloads with 220-grain Nosler bullets. For the .338WM I would use Federal premium ammo, such as the High Energy series with 225 grain TB bullets, or the same series with 250-grain bullets. I would also bring a few handloads with 250-grain A-Frame loaded to achieve at least 2,650+ fps, or 275-grain A-Frame loaded for 2,550 fps (or so). The 275 grainers would be used at closer range for maximum penetration on big bears ONLY.

I see all sorts of bears when moose hunting each year. What most often happens is that we make so much noise that bears keep a distance from us. Otherwise you would see more bears while hunting caribou and moose. Grizzly bears avoid human contact as much as possible, but black bears are very curious. I had black bears running right through my campsite, and even wolves.

It seems to me that the best advice given on this thread was given by one professional (bear) hunter (458Win) and by Mark Young, who is also in the business. I don't watch television and I certainly do not watch the Outdoor channel, so I do not know what I am missing from that source of information. But I am willing to bet that most Alaska residents that hunt know that what they say is right on the mark...we can all quibble over the difference between a .270 and a .300, but they are both medium bore rifles that shoot fairly small bullets. Faced with an angry bear, you will need a .458 shooting very large bullets. All .308 bullets are lousy defensive bullets..but they would be better than nothing. Since Ryan is not bear hunting and would use these rifles only as defensive weapons, I really do not see that much difference between the two. An angry bear needs a 500 gr bullet shot with great skill.

Ryan did not ask what rifle he should bring, he asked us to make a recommendation from the two rifles already has. I think he should bring a synthetic stocked .338..which would be a sensible alround rifle. If Ryan brought up his wooden stocked rifle for a float hunt, chances are that the tiny advantage that the 200gr bullet has over a 150gr bullet would be lost because the rifle would not shoot where he aimed it after one day in the field. Of course, if he hunts out of a dry base camp and it doesn't rain, a wooden stock would not be a problem.

Here are some posts from an Alaskan hunting forum. I seems as though most of the ones I read are geared more toward how much your blueing will be ruined and rusted as opposed to wood affecting your shot:

Hi,
I own a .416 Rigby with SB 1x4x20 and a 6.5x63 Messner Magnum (= 7RM ballistics with the recoil of a .270)with Meopta 3x12x50. Both have wood stocks, iron sights and blued barrels. I mainly hunt in Europe and have hunted in Africa. I plan to hunt bear, moose and caribou in Alaska, but know little about it and would have a few questions:
1) Is it possible to bring 2 rifles for an alaska hunt? 2) Will the wood stock and blued barrel be totally ruined after the hunt? If the answer is 90% yes, I plan to buy a synthetic stainless Tikka or Sako rifle .338 or .375. 3)What would be your choice of caliber then ? I don't know what are the average shooting distances here and I just know that the .338 shoots flatter than the .375, although the latter with 200gr bullets is not ridiculous. 4) what magnification would you recommend for the scope (knowing that I have a spare 1x6x42 from a previous rifle) ? That's a long text but I hope you can help me have a better picture of what is needed. Thanks in advance !!!

Answer:
Answers
Posted by test1328 on Jan 26 2004

AKM,

Here's an opinion from a traveling hunter who's been to Alaska on hunting excursions a handful of times, hunting Brown Bear, Black Bear, and Caribou, and much of the time in good moose areas as well.

First, bringing two rifles along is very possible and is actually recommended. There should be no problems flying with two rifles on most any airline. Just be sure to bring a couple of soft rifle cases with you as well since you won't be able to bring your hard case on any charter or small airplane flights. Waterproof soft cases would be great.

Second, a blued action/barrel and wood stock should not be totally ruined after a hunt like you're describing as long as you take some preventative action ahead of time on both the metal and wood. A good rust preventative coating (some leave a very thin polymer film on the surface) applied to the metal and some good furniture wax applied to all areas of the wood will help tremendously. Remember to put the wax on all surfaces of the wood including the barrel channel, magazine well, sling stud holes, and under the recoil pad or butt plate. Continued maintenance of your rifle once in the field such as wiping your gun down nightly with a oiled rag or rust preventative and running a patch down the bore will help as well. However, often times it is really difficult to do this in the field so you should expect to see a little rust. You should also expect to incurr some scratches, etc. on the wood stock as well. The bottom line is that if it would break your heart to have your rifle damaged (scratched, small rust spots, bluing rubbed off) then you'd be better off with a stainless/synthetic rifle. A stainless/synthetic rifle can still be damaged, as synthetic stocks will still get scratched, gouged, etc and stainless will still rust, although to a much lesser extent than a chrome/moly blued steel. I suppose most people view stanless/synthetic rifles more as tools than works of art, so they don't feel quite so bad when these rifles incurr some damage.

Third, as a two rifle battery, your 6.5 and .416 would be great in my opinion. The 6.5 should be sufficient for caribou and possibly black bear depending on bullets used, and the .416 would be good for everything else. Don't let anyone fool you, though. The .416, as you probably know, has about the same trajectory as the .375, which is very similar to the .338, so I don't think you should necessarily rule out the .416 for anything. Hunting brown bear/grizzly you should expect to have shots at least within 200 yards, and most likely much closer (50-100 yards for brown bear). Moose should be encountered within a similar range. Only on caribou would one expect to have to take a longer shot than 200 yards and shots around 300+ yards may present themselves. Once again, it depends on the type of country you're hunting in and Alaska has a great variety of different terrain. I suppose it would also depend on if you could encounter all of these species in the same country at any time or if you would be hunting each in a different area at a separate time. If in different areas, it would be easy to switch from the 6.5 to the .416. However, if you might encounter any of them at any time, then you would have to carry the .416 all the time and would be overgunned for caribou and black bear and the 6.5 wouldn't be a great back-up in case something happened to the .416. As others have pointed out, if you lose your ammunition for these rifles and have to buy some while in Alaska, you're most definitely out of luck for the 6.5. I have seen some .416 Rigby ammo on shelves in Alaska, but I would imagine that it is pretty scarce in some parts of the state.

Lastly, if you decide to buy a new rifle and need to decide between the .375 and the .338, either would be a good choice, although I would go with the .338. The .338 is a good medium caliber, bigger and more powerful than your 6.5 and one step below your big bore .416. The .375, considered the lightest of the big bores, is very similar to the .416, so unless you just love large calibers, I don't see much sense in the .375 unless you want a big bore stainless rifle. I've hunted all my alaskan game with the .338 and have been very happy with its performance. With 250 grain A-frames for the bears and 225 Nosler Accubonds for caribou. I would feel very comfortable using either of those loads on moose as well. Any of your scopes should be fine for alaskan hunting as long as they are waterproof and can take some banging around.

Hope that answers some of your questions more directly.

Good hunting!

rwj:

The OutDoor Channel has a few decent shows that take place throughout the world. Like any other "TV" it is subjective. You either enjoy it or you don't. Living in Ohio, it is a show I veiw about 2 hours per week and it is entertaining for my kids whom I'd like to take hunting some day. Some of the programs get them excited when they see hunters take animals that aren't found here in Ohio, like Caribou or antelope or mulie.

What you are missing isn't much but it is something to do when a decent program comes on and they only last for a half hour or so. I have a good friend I went to school with and he sends me videos of his hunts with his brothers. They are guides in Utah and Wyoming and have a show on the Sportsmans channel.

I find their hunts entertaining.

Most of the hunters in the Alaskan website forum recommend a stainless rifle with a synthetic stock because of rust issues, not accuracy issues. They also remarked about damage to the "pretty" wood stock.

Ultimately, your recommendation of a syn 338 is exactly what my one rifle pick would be also if it were a choice. I think it is THE most reasonable rifle cal/style to take on such a hunt.

DOC: The information on caring for and preparing your rifle for the field is all very good and right on the mark. I have an on going battle with rust on the rifle I use the most (my .378) and the blueing is about 50% gone. So it looks pretty beat up (and it is), but it still shoots they way it needs to. My rifles always come back rusted from the field, but I just take them apart and scrub them down. As for taking a wood stock on a float hunt, I personally would not do that. But that is me.

(Off topic): Where in Ohio do you live? I have lots of family in and near Dayton.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan:
I am planning a DIY float trip in AK for 2006 for caribou. I have two rifles that I am very comfortable shooting but I am unsure which to take.

Any thoughts or comments are welcome!


Rifle #1: 270 win, synthetic stock, 150 grain partitions.


Rifle #2: 300 win, wood stock, 200 grain partitions.

I have hunted Alaska many, many times in the last thirty plus years and taken a number of Caribou, Moose and such. As long as you know how to take care of a wood stocked rifle then the nod goes to the .300 Winchester. Believe me if a Grizzly comes along to run you off HIS dinner then a .300 Win. gives one a decided advantage. Plus it gives one confidence that the .270 won't. Lawdog

quote:

Originally posted by rwj:

(Off topic): Where in Ohio do you live? I have lots of family in and near Dayton.

Dayton is 20 minutes away to the north on I-75. Exit 50 is on the south end of Dayton. I live off exit 29 in Monroe. I am half way between Cincinnati and Dayton.

I also called John Sebert in Colorado. He does those dermastid beatles and will be getting my bear skulls. It is a small small world...he is the brother in law of my neighbor whom I hunt with. John is also a guide and outfitter in the northwest territories for caribou. He is also on the prostaff for Mathews archery and NAP and has hunting videos and TV shows.

I asked him about what he'd carry or recommend to a hunter in AK. answer: "I'd carry the 270 because you'll be packing it and it's lighter."

We discussed the wood/synth. issue and he related to me that it was a mute point as far as he's concerned. "You can take care of the rifle back at camp. You know there's just sooo much talk about stuff like this, it really doesn't matter. The biggest issue is rust."

He went on to say: "are we to believe that no one has ever gone on a float trip with a wood stocked rifle and been successful?"

So, I asked if I could quote him and he said, "yep."

I absolutely love my 270's, favorite cal in fact, but I still favor the 300. Heck, Ryan still has time to slap an H-S Precision on it!

Of course wood stocks and blued steel work in Alaska. they have for a hundred years -- but -- the question was which rifle of the two and I have always been of the opinion that a good workman used the best tool at his disposal. The problem with bears is way, way overblown. Look at the thoudands of hikers in and around National Parks and other areas of Alaska who hike and float rivers completely unarmed. My homestead is in one of, if not the, densest populations of brown bears in the world. I am not advocating going unarmed but a 270 is far from being unarmed. I've been shooting bears and caribou every year for over a quarter of a century and have read all these theories and pontifications and still I would choose the synthetic stocked 270. Each to their own though. That is part of the fun of making these type of trips.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Of course wood stocks and blued steel work in Alaska. they have for a hundred years -- but -- the question was which rifle of the two and I have always been of the opinion that a good workman used the best tool at his disposal. The problem with bears is way, way overblown. Look at the thoudands of hikers in and around National Parks and other areas of Alaska who hike and float rivers completely unarmed. My homestead is in one of, if not the, densest populations of brown bears in the world. I am not advocating going unarmed but a 270 is far from being unarmed. I've been shooting bears and caribou every year for over a quarter of a century and have read all these theories and pontifications and still I would choose the synthetic stocked 270. Each to their own though. That is part of the fun of making these type of trips.

Phil: It's true that bear attacks are rare, but in Alaska for the past 100 years, over 56 people have been killed by bears, and a great number mauled. Approximately one human has been killed in AK by bears every other year.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Ray:

Phil: It's true that bear attacks are rare, but in Alaska for the past 100 years, over 56 people have been killed by bears, and a great number mauled. Approximately one human has been killed in AK by bears every other year.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

Its also true that a good number of Ak. bears have been dispatched with 270 and lesser chamberings.

Take the one your most confident in.. There are products that go a long way toward waterprofing wooden stocked rifles.

Well since we're all talking about bear protection while bou hunting I guess it's appropriate to say that you better be able to handle whatever rifle you take if you are suddenly surprised by a bear, crap your pants, and shoot 4 feet over its head at 10 yards.

Really won't matter what you have if you lose your cool.

I think the bear protection thing is overdone on these forums.

We have a high density of grizzly here in our area... probably much higher than anywhere in AK except Kodiak and the like. Within reason, I'm not going to have a grizzly bear dictate my firearm selection. A good friend grew up on a homestead in the AK bush and litteraly "lived by the rifle" (30-06). He uses a SS 280 for everything in AK. But, he's a native that's "been there, done that" for decades and, like most here that use 270's for everything, knows it's all about the shooter's ability...

Ray is correct in his figures about there being appx one bear caused death in Alaska every other year. To put that in perspective dogs kill an average of two people in Alaska every year. Four times as many. I don't feel the need to carry a rifle every time I am around dogs nor do I around bears. Common sense needs to prevail here. Thousands of hikers, fishermen and campers tramp all over Alaska each year completely unarmed with no problems.
I was, and am not recommending the hunter go unarmed. I only gave my opinion on which rifle I would chose. Hosea Sarber killed many troublesome Grizzlies with a 270, as have uncountable Alaskan hunters. For a caribou hunter is is near ideal IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Well since we're all talking about bear protection while bou hunting I guess it's appropriate to say that you better be able to handle whatever rifle you take if you are suddenly surprised by a bear, crap your pants, and shoot 4 feet over its head at 10 yards.

Really won't matter what you have if you lose your cool.

You have made some good points. Any cartridge can be used for hunting, but when "bears" are introduced, that's when one starts thinking about the biggest cartridge one can handle.

Here is what F&G has to say on the subject of "hunting" in Alaska:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/hunt_trap/hunting/huntak/huntak7.cfm

"Kilimanjaro" Bell who used a Mauser action Rigby 275 Express to kill Elephants but does that mean that the .275 Express is the best cartridge to use for Elephants? There is also on record a outdoorsman who regularity carried a .280 Rem. for all his hunting in Alaska but he ended up dead at the jaws of a Brown Bear(he did hit it at least once) just a few years ago. A person needs to carry the largest caliber rifle they can handle very well. It is irresponsible to advise otherwise. Lawdog

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Common sense needs to prevail here. Thousands of hikers, fishermen and campers tramp all over Alaska each year completely unarmed with no problems.

Yes, but that is a risk they are willing to take. Perhaps from ignorance or otherwise. People take risks all the time and take it for granted. Are all of these outdoors people treading on griz ground? Or are bears everywhere? I do not know.

When I hunted in Alberta last month I always carried my 30.06 in the tree with me even though I was bowhunting primarily.

I think he should take both rifles anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
I think the bear protection thing is overdone on these forums.

We have a high density of grizzly here in our area... probably much higher than anywhere in AK except Kodiak and the like. Within reason, I'm not going to have a grizzly bear dictate my firearm selection. A good friend grew up on a homestead in the AK bush and litteraly "lived by the rifle" (30-06). He uses a SS 280 for everything in AK. But, he's a native that's "been there, done that" for decades and, like most here that use 270's for everything, knows it's all about the shooter's ability...

All depends on how much experience one has around bears. Those who live in the bush have ample time to gain such experiences, but the average city dueler rarely sees bears unless he goes to the zoo, and the occasional hunt each year. Even so, some bear experts get injured or die to bears every now and then, because of the unpredictability of these animals.

Those who live around bears learn bear behavior sooner than the average person, and learn real life ideas on how to avoid confrontations. Since they probably understand how the animal will react, they know how to kill the animal more efficiently. It's a matter of experience, but that's not the case with all hunter who come to Alaska.

Bears have been killed with the .22LR, bears have been fought with bare hands, and a moose was killed with a BB gun a year or two ago, but lets face it: Bears, moose, caribou, etc. roam in the same areas, so the possibility of "sneaking" on a bear is always present. Perhaps this is more difficult to accomplish in the open since one can scan the distance for trouble, but in this case the hunter is floating quietly, which amounts to "sneaking" on game. Most bear attacks are because humans get too close to bears that are not aware of their presence, or because humans have invaded the bear's safety zone. Bear predation on humans are rare, but bears that are "habituated" (dumpster bears, for example) are dangerous because of their proximity to humans.

Restock the 300.

Easy, buy a new 300 win mag and get a synthetic stock.

Ray,

quote:

a moose was killed with a BB gun a year or two ago,

Can you tell me where I can get the information on this? I hunt with air guns all the time and this really interest me. Lawdog