Alaska Black Bear Caliber Choice?

[frostop]

Lots of great reply's.

I think that I'm going to hold off to make a final decision. The CVA Apex idea is appealing since those are relatively inexpensive, or maybe an inexpensive bolt action could be the way I go. Will likely go stainless with the salt water in mind.

 

[Pdvdh]

Stainless will still rust with saltwater exposure. I have plenty of evidence on my coastal employed rifles and revolvers.

But it's still a big improvement compared to blued CM steel. So yeah, I recommend the SS.

 

[Underclocked]

Lots of great reply's.

I think that I'm going to hold off to make a final decision. The CVA Apex idea is appealing since those are relatively inexpensive, or maybe an inexpensive bolt action could be the way I go. Will likely go stainless with the salt water in mind.

Frostop, I am curious about where you are finding these Apex rifles or barrels for same?

 

[frostop]

So far, I've only seen them on gunbroker. Ultimately I would go to one of my local dealers to see what they have first.

 

[akmtnhnt]

Every time someone posts this question, because it's probably asked daily - what caliber for Alaska, I'm going to post this -

Firearms and Ammunition for Hunting in Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Information on hunting and trapping in Alaska.

www.adfg.alaska.gov

Key points include -

Moose or brown bear hit in the gut with a large caliber magnum rifle such as the popular .338 Winchester® Magnum is wounded and just as likely to escape as if it had been hit with a small caliber rifle such as the .243 Winchester®. The bore size, bullet weight, and velocity are of secondary importance to precise bullet placement in the vital heart-lung area.

If you presently own a rifle chambered for the .270 Winchester, 7mm-08, .308 Winchester or .30-06 and can place all of your shots in an 8-inch circle out to 200 yards from a sitting or kneeling position you can be a successful Alaska hunter.

Big Magnums Not Needed

The rifle you bring hunting should be one with which you are comfortable. Because of the presence of brown and grizzly bears, many hunters have been convinced that a .300, .338, .375, or .416 magnum is needed for personal protection and to take large Alaska game. This is simply not true. The recoil and noise of these large cartridges is unpleasant at best and plainly painful to many shooters. It is very difficult to concentrate on shot placement when your brain and body remembers the unpleasant recoil and noise which occurs when you pull the trigger on one of the big magnums.

The two most common complaints of professional Alaska guides are hunters who are not in good physical condition and hunters who cannot accurately shoot their rifles.

 

[Pdvdh]

The article from ADF&G isn't applicable to Long Range Hunting, unless long range is 200 yards or less. It should be titled "Firearms and Ammunition for Hunters Shooting Less Than 200 Yards".

It should include the disclaimer that none of the recommendations apply to close range charging bears, or predatory bears that stalk people. Because the article didn't address cartridges best capable of stopping a charging bear from short distances. It didn't address charging bears at all, or cartridges best suited for stopping a charging bear before the bear can reach and maim or kill the hunter/shooter. Doesn't address cartridges best suited for following up wounded bears that haven't dropped dead in open terrain. How many believe a 130gr 270 Win bullet will stop a charging grizzly or brown bear at ~20 or less yards, as quickly as a 338 Lapua shooting a 260gr bullet at equal velocity?

Whoever authored the article doesn't like muzzle brakes, and doesn't speak to their benefits. Other than to state that they can reduce recoil. The article doesn't inform the readership that muzzle brakes allow most shooters to shoot higher powered / high recoiling rifles with improved, more lethal precision at longer distances, than the identical rifle without an effective muzzle brake. Most likely because the authors don't shoot at game animals farther than 200 yards, and have no experience shooting muzzle brake-equipped rifles.

I think it's pertinent to note that nothing in the description of the job duties of an employee of that agency requires that the employee be proficient hunting and dispatching Alaskan game animals under Alaska Hunting Regulations. You don't have to hunt at all to work for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The employees that authored that document, and approved its release on Department letterhead, aren't necessarily any better qualified to provide those opinions and recommendations than any other ardent, studied, and accomplished Alaskan hunter.

 

[akmtnhnt]

The article from ADF&G isn't applicable to Long Range Hunting, unless long range is 200 yards or less.

The article didn't address cartridges best capable of stopping a charging bear from short distances.

Whoever authored the article doesn't like muzzle brakes, and doesn't speak to their benefits. Doesn't offer the readers that muzzle brakes allow most shooters to shoot higher powered / high recoiling rifles with better precision at longer distances, than the same rifle without the muzzle brake. Most likely because the authors don't shoot at game animals farther than 200 yards, and have no experience shooting muzzle brake equipped rifles.

I think it's important to note that nothing in the description of the job duties of an employee of that agency requires that the employee be proficient hunting and dispatching Alaskan game animals under Alaska Hunting Regulations. You don't have to hunt at all to work for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The employees that authored that document, and approved its release on Department letterhead, aren't necessarily any better qualified to provide those opinions and recommendations than any other ardent, studied, and accomplished Alaskan hunter.

This thread isn't applicable to long range hunting.

And they're not wrong on the brake. I would never hunt with someone that had a brake. I don't need that damage.

They go with 200 yards because the reality is, most people can't shoot for crap. Shoot less than a box a year, probably just to sight the rifle, if that. And they're also not wrong that an aweful lot of people that show up to be guided are a)overweight to the point that it's an issue effecting the hunt and b) can't hit anything with a 338wm.

 

[Pdvdh]

This thread isn't applicable to long range hunting.

And they're not wrong on the brake. I would never hunt with someone that had a brake. I don't need that damage.

They go with 200 yards because the reality is, most people can't shoot for crap. Shoot less than a box a year, probably just to sight the rifle, if that. And they're also not wrong that an aweful lot of people that show up to be guided are a)overweight to the point that it's an issue effecting the hunt and b) can't hit anything with a 338wm.

This Thread may, or may not, be about long range hunting. Long range hunting means different distances to different hunters. For the authors of that article, and by ownership and inference, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game? Long range could well be inside of 200yds, since they discourage shooting past 200yds.

Your opinion on muzzle brakes is your opinion. No better than mine or anyone elses. Your opinion happens to be wrong, for me, and my hunting practices and preferences. Much of the information in the F&G article is wrong for me, for my time spent hiking, camping, and hunting in Alaska, and for my hunting preferences.

The fact that the article was authorized for release on Alaska Department of Fish & Game letterhead doesn't make the content any more authoritative, more correct, than the findings and conclusions reached by many lifelong Alaskan hunters.

 

[Ol' Red]

This Thread may, or may not, be about long range hunting. Long range hunting means different distances to different hunters. For the authors of that article, and by ownership and inference, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game? Long range could well be inside of 200yds, since they discourage shooting past 200yds.

Your opinion on muzzle brakes is your opinion. No better than mine or anyone elses. Your opinion happens to be wrong, for me, and my hunting practices and preferences. Much of the information in the F&G article is wrong for me, for my time spent hiking, camping, and hunting in Alaska, and for my hunting preferences.

The fact that the article was authorized for release on Alaska Department of Fish & Game letterhead doesn't make the content any more authoritative, more correct, than the findings and conclusions reached by many lifelong Alaskan hunters.

My first fairly close experience with a large grizzly convinced me that my .308 was not enough gun. I was just over 40 yards away and the bear did not seem too interested in me. Since I nearly crapped in those pants, I found some big boy pants and bought a .300 Win Mag and learned to shoot it. I would add that I would not use my .338 to shoot a pronghorn. Different situations have different needs.

 

[akmtnhnt]

This Thread may, or may not, be about long range hunting. Long range hunting means different distances to different hunters. For the authors of that article, and by ownership and inference, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game? Long range could well be inside of 200yds, since they discourage shooting past 200yds.

Your opinion on muzzle brakes is your opinion. No better than mine or anyone elses. Your opinion happens to be wrong, for me, and my hunting practices and preferences. Much of the information in the F&G article is wrong for me, for my time spent hiking, camping, and hunting in Alaska, and for my hunting preferences.

The fact that the article was authorized for release on Alaska Department of Fish & Game letterhead doesn't make the content any more authoritative, more correct, than the findings and conclusions reached by many lifelong Alaskan hunters.

It's not about long range hunting because the person that created the thread described his hunting area, which preclude most anything at that 200y range.

My muzzle brake opinion is of course an opinion, but like I said, I wouldn't hunt with anyone that did. Suppressors are things, easy enough to get there's not a reason in the world to use a brake hunting. I really cannot describe how much I hate brakes. At the range, on the hunt. Again, my opinion, but also my ears so I get to chose not to have them damaged.

The fish and game article is from experience with the average hunter. They know them better than anyone. And it happens to comport with what I've seen and experienced on the whole as well. Especially with the magnums.
I shoot, and have no qualms shooting past 200, and would not consider a 200y shot long range with most of my rifles. But for the average person who shoots almost never except while hunting, it's a pretty good point to stop at.

 

[Pdvdh]

It's not about long range hunting because the person that created the thread described his hunting area, which preclude most anything at that 200y range.

My muzzle brake opinion is of course an opinion, but like I said, I wouldn't hunt with anyone that did. Suppressors are things, easy enough to get there's not a reason in the world to use a brake hunting. I really cannot describe how much I hate brakes. At the range, on the hunt. Again, my opinion, but also my ears so I get to chose not to have them damaged.

The fish and game article is from experience with the average hunter. They know them better than anyone. And it happens to comport with what I've seen and experienced on the whole as well. Especially with the magnums.
I shoot, and have no qualms shooting past 200, and would not consider a 200y shot long range with most of my rifles. But for the average person who shoots almost never except while hunting, it's a pretty good point to stop at.

I'll let the OP decide if his Thread pertains to long range hunting. I'm certain the bears could care less one way or the other. I'm also certain the Fish and Game article wasn't drafted in specific response to this Thread. Does that mean it lacks relevance too?

We'll disagree that Fish and Game knows the average hunter any better than I, or most other life long hunters know hunters. The authors know little about long range hunters and hunting, or they wouldn't frown upon that method of hunting. They don't know what hunting equipment, rifles, calibers, cartridges, or hunting methods are best for me.

Never heard of an Alaska bear guide carrying the 270 Win as backup for their bear hunting clients. Never heard or read of a bear guide bragging about the 270 Win being a terrific close range, in your face, bear stopping cartridge.

We agree this Thread is about bear hunting, correct? Your citing this article as the definitive authority on Alaska hunting cartridges and calibers lacks something important. The part that bears can and do maim and kill hunters. The recognition that some bears need stopped quicker than others. The fact that some cartridges can be expected to disable and kill bears quicker than others. The article lacks any discussion on the differences between hunting bears at a comfortable distance, versus stopping one quickly before it can maim or kill.

The most poignant, accurate description of bears I've heard in my life came from an ADFG employee. One that really did know more about bear behavior than most, having decades of field experience responding to nuisance bear complaints. I quote his words... "As far as I'm concerned, bears are nothing more than opportunistic predators".

He also told me which caliber/cartridge he carried while responding to bear complaints. The 270 Win is a pipsqueak, in comparison.

 

[Pdvdh]

Muzzle brakes are less expensive, lighter, shorter, less costly, much easier to acquire, and legal throughout North America. And the good ones provide somewhat better recoil reduction than suppressors. Which explains why muzzle brakes are far and away more commonly used in the USA than suppressors.
My rifles cause hearing loss, with or without, muzzle brakes. Hearing protection is available and at a pittance of the cost of a suppressor.

Not that suppressors aren't nice.

On the other hand, I just read that suppressors are illegal in Canada. If true, they're not an option for those that hunt in Canada.

 

[calling4life]

Speaking of Gov't knowing everything, as someone coming up on 10yrs in Gov't employ...

Check out what the US Forestry service in Alaska had to point out all the way back in 1983.

"In the past, most Forest Service professionals working where brown bears occur had personally acquired experience with firearms. In recent years, however, the Forest Service has employed many persons with little or no experience with firearms, and some with a strong aversion to them."

40 years later and this has become a far more pervasive problem.

I'll keep further opinions and analysis to myself, keep things civil.

 

[akmtnhnt]

Speaking of Gov't knowing everything, as someone coming up on 10yrs in Gov't employ...

Check out what the US Forestry service in Alaska had to point out all the way back in 1983.

"In the past, most Forest Service professionals working where brown bears occur had personally acquired experience with firearms. In recent years, however, the Forest Service has employed many persons with little or no experience with firearms, and some with a strong aversion to them."

40 years later and this has become a far more pervasive problem.

I'll keep further opinions and analysis to myself, keep things civil.

Some people just shouldn't do some jobs. A vegan probably shouldn't work at a meat packing house either.