For $1200-1300 buy a stainless Ruger Alaskan in 375 Ruger. Use 300 grain bullets. If the hunt cost $25K, this is a small additional cost.
Brown bear Rifle
- Thread starter zeeman
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
WV Hitman
Well-Known Member
I've only taken 2 brown bears, both with handguns. One charging at 25 yds. with a .375 JDJ Contender and 285 gr. Grand Slam. Hit under the chin. DRT!
The other with a .500 Mag. Taurus at 125 yds. with a 375 gr. X. DRT! thru both shoulders.
Hit them right & things usually work out OK, even with handguns!
The other with a .500 Mag. Taurus at 125 yds. with a 375 gr. X. DRT! thru both shoulders.
Hit them right & things usually work out OK, even with handguns!
PhilMW
Member
Same Gun, the Alaskan has the Black Hogue overmolded stock for 200 or 300 more ?? Matter of taste, I think the Green Mtn. Laminate looks pretty slick.
As far as breaks go I prefer the Linear Compensators - they route the sound and blast down range.
Easier on the ears ~ again, matter of taste. I've used them on all my builds.
As far as breaks go I prefer the Linear Compensators - they route the sound and blast down range.
Easier on the ears ~ again, matter of taste. I've used them on all my builds.
PhilMW
Member
Same Gun, the Alaskan has the Black Hogue overmolded stock for 200 or 300 more ?? Matter of taste, I think the Green Mtn. Laminate looks pretty slick.
As far as breaks go I prefer the Linear Compensators - they route the sound and blast down range.
Easier on the ears ~ again, matter of taste. I've used them on all my builds.
Check it out.
Maybe this thing needs a name change.
6.5 Creedmore=6.5 Grizzly
www.outdoorlife.com
Maybe this thing needs a name change.
6.5 Creedmore=6.5 Grizzly
Grizzly Hunting with a 6.5 Creedmoor
Many of the people who poke fun at the 6.5 Creedmoor don't have a clue. It's perfectly capable of killing even big Alaskan grizzlies.
www.outdoorlife.com
WV Hitman
Well-Known Member
He got lucky. The ELD-X is thin jacketed, poor penetration based on my 20+ kills with the 6.5 ELD-X. He got luckier by the bear not being able to get at him. The Needmore is very accurate, but not the best for anything big. A friend took 5 Needmore shots to put an elk down.
To each his own. I'll stick with my .500 Mag, .416 Taylor, .475 handguns for anything that can bite back.
To each his own. I'll stick with my .500 Mag, .416 Taylor, .475 handguns for anything that can bite back.
crm3006
Well-Known Member
.300 Winchester with 220 gr. Partitions should be more than adequate. Remember, shot placement is the key.
Well, I don't believe in luck.
The 140-grain partitions had good expansion, weight retention, and deep penetration—even from the Creedmoor. Tyler Freel
That's the quote from the article posted. Mr Freel used a Nosler partition on the bear, not an ELD X but it makes little difference. They will both penetrate well over 24 inches.
I churned up this whole thing weeks ago because I hear year after year what the gun will do and won't do with virtually no mention of the shooter and their sincere level of training. That's why guides want them to shoot big bore. They figure whoever they are guiding is a crummy shooter anyway and that big bore will provide the most reaction time and or blood trail for tracking. Not because that's what it takes to kill a bear. It's not a Black Rhino.
The gun gets all the credit when things go right and when they don't.
Bears are viscous killers but I can only find 6 deadly attacks in 130 years of records but I'm sure I missed atleast half of them somewhere. I'm not insinuating you can live safely among them or pet them but it doesn't take a howitzer to cleanly and reliably kill one. Luck or no luck. The shooter decides the outcome of the engagement.
The idea that anyone can pick up a large magnum rifle, shoot it 3 times to confirm zero and believe they are adequately armed to kill a large game animal is ridiculous. If you say it out loud, it's comical. However, that is what is suggested routinely.
Maybe we should use air and drop 500 pound mark 81 bombs on them to keep from being so heroic with all these small bore 30+ cal shoulder fired rifles.
Maybe a Gustaf would be more sensible, depending on range.
If you're afraid, poor marksman, unfamiliar with the selected weapon and you manage to kill something other than yourself I would call that an instance of luck, regardless of caliber. However, that is exactly what is continually perpetuated.
No mention of range time, training methods and scenarios. Nothing but Just get a big bore rifle, that will solve it all.
Maybe I will take a hard look a reevaluate. Maybe shooting 1000s and 1000s of rounds and being highly proficient has been an unnecessary waste. I just need a 458 win mag and I'm good to go. I'll look into it.
I been laid up at home and crabby so I can say thank you to all you great guys because either way I love to shoot and hunt and you guys entertain me constantly.
Keep it going. We are at 51 pages.
The 140-grain partitions had good expansion, weight retention, and deep penetration—even from the Creedmoor. Tyler Freel
That's the quote from the article posted. Mr Freel used a Nosler partition on the bear, not an ELD X but it makes little difference. They will both penetrate well over 24 inches.
I churned up this whole thing weeks ago because I hear year after year what the gun will do and won't do with virtually no mention of the shooter and their sincere level of training. That's why guides want them to shoot big bore. They figure whoever they are guiding is a crummy shooter anyway and that big bore will provide the most reaction time and or blood trail for tracking. Not because that's what it takes to kill a bear. It's not a Black Rhino.
The gun gets all the credit when things go right and when they don't.
Bears are viscous killers but I can only find 6 deadly attacks in 130 years of records but I'm sure I missed atleast half of them somewhere. I'm not insinuating you can live safely among them or pet them but it doesn't take a howitzer to cleanly and reliably kill one. Luck or no luck. The shooter decides the outcome of the engagement.
The idea that anyone can pick up a large magnum rifle, shoot it 3 times to confirm zero and believe they are adequately armed to kill a large game animal is ridiculous. If you say it out loud, it's comical. However, that is what is suggested routinely.
Maybe we should use air and drop 500 pound mark 81 bombs on them to keep from being so heroic with all these small bore 30+ cal shoulder fired rifles.
Maybe a Gustaf would be more sensible, depending on range.
If you're afraid, poor marksman, unfamiliar with the selected weapon and you manage to kill something other than yourself I would call that an instance of luck, regardless of caliber. However, that is exactly what is continually perpetuated.
No mention of range time, training methods and scenarios. Nothing but Just get a big bore rifle, that will solve it all.
Maybe I will take a hard look a reevaluate. Maybe shooting 1000s and 1000s of rounds and being highly proficient has been an unnecessary waste. I just need a 458 win mag and I'm good to go. I'll look into it.
I been laid up at home and crabby so I can say thank you to all you great guys because either way I love to shoot and hunt and you guys entertain me constantly.
Keep it going. We are at 51 pages.
fta0303
Well-Known Member
Never been near hunting. If i were to go, I'd take my 375 Ruger African. It's been ceracoted and restocked with a good synthetic and a Decelerator. Kicks like a mule, but c'est la vie. Swarovski Z8i 1-8 with illuminated selectable circle dot reticle. Stout cartridge in a smaller, lighter rifle than most 375s or 416s or 458s. Leave the scope on one power for field of view and reticle on bright. The rifle handles like a dream; none of my other larger bore rifles do. I'm not particularly small or weak, maybe because I grew up on .3006 Springfields. Speed and smoothness of handling are real assets in a hunting rifle, and the scope at one power is great for any distance out to 50 yards (or whatever works for you).
I know of at least 6 within 60 miles of my house in only the past 30 years, based on memory alone. No research. Many more attack and mauling victims, disfigured for life. Whenever I see an Alaskan with more than one hair part, I presume bear mauling. The smaller bear, unable to crush a human skull, tend to shred the scalp.
This helps me understand where you're coming from. Uninformed...
You ever heard the name Timothy Treadwell? Amie Huguenard? There's a quick 2. Killed and eaten by Alaskan brown bear. Made national news. Well within the past 130 years.
Add them to your count...
Last edited:
Surprising Bear Attack Statistics | Bear Attacks In Alaska
According to a study by Alaska News Source, Alaska is accountable for roughly 29% of all fatal bear attacks in the United States. There are multiple bear encounters in Alaska every year.
thealaskafrontier.com
Yep average 1 death per year from bear attacks.
Be stings kill 62. So I'm about 62 times more worried about bees. That's about right.
Maybe I can use that big bore rifle on the bee hive
.I know bears can be dangerous but let's not make it out to be something it's not. Especially not something solved totally by a big bore rifle.
Surprising Bear Attack Statistics | Bear Attacks In Alaska
According to a study by Alaska News Source, Alaska is accountable for roughly 29% of all fatal bear attacks in the United States. There are multiple bear encounters in Alaska every year.
Yep average 1 death per year from bear attacks.
Be stings kill 62. So I'm about 62 times more worried about bees. That's about right.
Maybe I can use that big bore rifle on the bee hive
I know bears can be dangerous but let's not make it out to be something it's not. Especially not something solved totally by a big bore rifle.
A man writes a book to make money. That makes him your expert witness/expert?
The one death per year on average statistic (no agreement it's true - how does the author get statistics from communist Russia or less developed countries?) didn't help Timothy or Amy. No historical statistic ever saved a future victim.
"... but let's not make it out to be something it's not... " Amusing, as you're a day late with that suggestion. Exactly what you already did two posts prior "... I can only find six deadly attacks in 130 years of records... ". Now, 2 posts later, your number killed increases from 6 to an averaged 130. 124 more killed. Hmmm... So who's blowing the smoke?
Uninformed..., yet presenting as the seasoned authority. A certain way to increase the death by bear statistic, whatever it actually is, is for hunters to believe and follow your bear rifle / cartridge advice.
