Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 9/28/2008 3:23:39 PM EDT
are any of these rounds big enough for Big Bears...or are they "not enough round" to hunt a big bear with?


.458socom


.50 Beowulf


.450 bushmaster AKA .450 Thumper


BFB
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:25:36 PM EDT
Nothing less than 7mm rem mag for bear
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:27:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Nothing less than 7mm rem mag for bear


Well I say 50bmg.....but was curious about this
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:29:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Nothing less than 7mm rem mag a Gatling gun and Claymores for bear
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:32:37 PM EDT
Check with Sara, she will know.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:32:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2008 3:34:29 PM EDT by guns762]
Seriously, most people consider .338 win mag the smallest load for dangerous game.


Will others do the job? Most of the time; with enough time for the animal to bleed out....eventually.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:36:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guns762:
Seriously, most people consider .338 win mag the smallest load for dangerous game.


Will others do the job? Most of the time; with enough time for the animal to bleed out....eventually.


but there have been claims(on the internet and gun rags) that the .458 can kill any North American animal and that made me think about bears....
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:39:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:

Originally Posted By guns762:
Seriously, most people consider .338 win mag the smallest load for dangerous game.


Will others do the job? Most of the time; with enough time for the animal to bleed out....eventually.


but there have been claims(on the internet and gun rags) that the .458 can kill any North American animal and that made me think about bears....


Re-read my post. Think about it for a minute, and then ask yourself, do you trust it to kill the bear before he eats you?
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:39:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guns762:
Seriously, most people consider .338 win mag the smallest load for dangerous game.


Will others do the job? Most of the time; with enough time for the animal to bleed out....eventually.


The problem is the "bleed out" part can take 15 to 20 seconds, which can be the longest 15 or 20 seconds of your life if you are having quality time with a bear that has nothing to loose.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:39:29 PM EDT
.458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf basically replicate the performance of .45-70. And plenty of people hunt bear with .45-70.

Get an AR upper in either caliber (I'd go for .50 Beowulf, but that's just me) and some proper ammunition and just keep pulling the trigger on that fucking bear before he can get you.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:39:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2008 3:40:27 PM EDT by Silence]
Would you trust a 45-70?

eta - damn 30 seconds
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:44:34 PM EDT
Watching History Channel?

Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:49:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guns762:
Seriously, most people consider .338 win mag the smallest load for dangerous game.


Will others do the job? Most of the time; with enough time for the animal to bleed out....eventually.


+1

The 7's are a bit light for the big boys.


Konger
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:52:23 PM EDT
If people killed bears with muzzleloaders in the days of our forefathers then I'm pretty sure any of those would do just fine. Think about it. The settlers didn't run the bears and wolves out of the east by yelling and throwing rocks. They used flintlocks. The indians before them used spears and arrows.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:56:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2008 4:02:39 PM EDT by 50-140]
.450 if you don't reload

.458 if you do reload.

And forget about the polar bears. As a non native Alaskan, the possiblity of you're (legally) shooting one is zilch.

Edit for clarification.

That should have been written: If you're not a Alaskan native, you're possibility is zilch
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 3:56:42 PM EDT
LOL. One of my past co-workers brought in a magazine, I can't think of the title, from the 50's I believe, that stated .308 being the minimum for Alaskan bears. We got a kick out of it.

I would trust any one of those calibers to get the job done. Put the bullet where it needs to go and don't stop pumping it full of lead until it's down. Same way I do with all animals I shoot.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:00:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2008 4:01:15 PM EDT by SHIVAN]
I am a big 458 SOCOM fan, and believe that it would most likely work. However, it would not be my first choice.

It is a hair shy of 45-70 performance, but thefollow-ups are lightening fast so you could likely put two shots on the big bear before he had time to react to the first.

Again, not my first choice, but if it's what I had and a big griz started a charge at me...

Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:16:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2008 5:29:33 PM EDT by Cold]
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:21:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:
Watching History Channel?



yes.....
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:29:41 PM EDT
223 and 243 work very well on browny's. It's all about shot placement and how close you are to the bear.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:35:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By akcaribouhunter:
223 and 243 work very well on browny's. It's all about shot placement and how close you are to the bear.


I think that might need to be repeated....
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:38:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
.458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf basically replicate the performance of .45-70. And plenty of people hunt bear with .45-70.

Get an AR upper in either caliber (I'd go for .50 Beowulf, but that's just me) and some proper ammunition and just keep pulling the trigger on that fucking bear before he can get you.


Which 45/70 factory Loads? The 'common' off the shelf Win/Rem etc. or the 'Hot' version?

Hand loaded, in a Ruger #1, or #3, the 45/70 will reach about 80% of the power of a
458 Win. Mag.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:41:15 PM EDT
I had a 50 BeoWulf, I have a 458 Socom and I carry a Guide Gun chambered for the 45-70. If I have to carry a rifle which is a major pain in the ass.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 4:50:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By akcaribouhunter:
223 and 243 work very well on browny's. It's all about shot placement and how close you are to the bear.


I think that might need to be repeated....


Cousin gets within 50ft of the bears. Have been on hunts but the bears all got to the brush so we did not chase any further. He has been taught to get as close as posible to the bears. They hunt in spring and have gone into bear dens to get them up and come out of the dens.
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 11:25:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2008 11:27:57 PM EDT by joe-bananas]
I've taken black (Ursus Americanus) and brown (Ursus Arctos Horribilus) with .223 and .308 and 30-06.

I have either used the heart/lung shot, just as I would with a bow, or a head shot.

I would not hesitate to use a .50 Beowulf or .458 SOCOM.

I have a friend in Barrow who has seen a polar bear (Ursus Maritimus) taken with a 6.5 Grendel.

Looking at the head of this bear, it is big. I do, however, feel it is cheating when you pose at the butt-end of the bear and use a long depth of field for your photo, such as in this one.


Link Posted: 9/28/2008 11:36:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/28/2008 11:38:55 PM EDT
I'll use this, please.




Link Posted: 9/29/2008 5:38:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By joe-bananas:
I've taken black (Ursus Americanus) and brown (Ursus Arctos Horribilus) with .223 and .308 and 30-06.

I have either used the heart/lung shot, just as I would with a bow, or a head shot.

I would not hesitate to use a .50 Beowulf or .458 SOCOM.

I have a friend in Barrow who has seen a polar bear (Ursus Maritimus) taken with a 6.5 Grendel.

Looking at the head of this bear, it is big. I do, however, feel it is cheating when you pose at the butt-end of the bear and use a long depth of field for your photo, such as in this one.
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a105/mauser348/monsterbear.jpg

That's not cheating, it's called good photography!
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 5:59:01 AM EDT
I think there is a fairly defined levels for 45/70 loads. Traditional loads - those used in rolling blocks and trapdoors are considered level I. The majority of modern rifles, such as the Marlins and probably most (traditional) falling blocks can shoot level II. There are a few rifles with VERY strong actions (Ruger Model 1 - perhaps others) that are rated at level III.

Without looking in a reloading manual, with a 400 grain bullet I think Level I is about 1400 fps, and level II is closer to 1900 (I do not recall level III at all). I think the 458 socom is closer to a Level I ballistics.

Please correct/flame me for any differences in opinions, as this is all typed from distant memory.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:26:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2008 6:26:26 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By mousehunter:
Without looking in a reloading manual, with a 400 grain bullet I think Level I is about 1400 fps, and level II is closer to 1900 (I do not recall level III at all). I think the 458 socom is closer to a Level I ballistics.


Corbon's "factory safe" 450gr load is 1600fps, from my memory I've seen people getting their pet 400gr loads up in to your "Level II" territory, in an AR action.

Also, there are 458 SOCOM bolt actions around.

It's been a long time since I looked at 458 SOCOM ballistics. Hope Marty will see this thread and respond.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:26:39 AM EDT
Tag
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:33:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ten-ring:
If people killed bears with muzzleloaders in the days of our forefathers then I'm pretty sure any of those would do just fine. Think about it. The settlers didn't run the bears and wolves out of the east by yelling and throwing rocks. They used flintlocks. The indians before them used spears and arrows.


And how many indians ended up dead hunting them? I prefer to not be mauled by a polar bear thank you.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:39:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ten-ring:
If people killed bears with muzzleloaders in the days of our forefathers then I'm pretty sure any of those would do just fine. Think about it. The settlers didn't run the bears and wolves out of the east by yelling and throwing rocks. They used flintlocks. The indians before them used spears and arrows.


People in the east, which is the area of the country that was being settled for most of the muzzleloader era, were generally only dealing with black bears, not grizz. Black bears are tough, but they are tiny beside browns or polar bears.

The "458" that I've most often seen recommended for these bears is .458 WINCHESTER MAGNUM, not SOCOM...

I think 45-70, especially in modern loadings, or the .338 WM would acceptable for big bears, but given the possibility of the bear turning the tables on you and making you the prey... I would say .375 H&H or a suitable .416 magnum as the minimum I would feel comfortable using.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:46:24 AM EDT
It can be done. My grandfather used to tell me a story about his brother taking down a grizzly with a .22 in the ear. Personally, I'd want something much, much bigger.

Its odd that there are so many this time advocating the larger round. It was general consensus around here about a week ago that 10mm was plenty of gun for grizzly, kodiak and polar bear.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:50:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2008 6:59:58 AM EDT by bfarrin1]

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Also, there are 458 SOCOM bolt actions around.




Trying to get them to feed slick enough to trust for dangerous game use seems to be the problem.

Factory WSM box magazines with follower, or HS Precision - AICS detachables seem to work fairly decent most of the time.

If you use 50 Alaskan brass with the rim turned off and cut a WSM/Magnum head diameter and extractor groove they feed even better.

With the OAL stretched out another 1/4-3/8" or so - the cartridge becomes much more inspiring.

A 16-18" SOCOM bolt rifle with a medium contour barrel and a fairly lightweight stock is a pretty handy woods gun. Lighten the barrel up a bit more and 22" is still easy on the shoulder after several hours of carrying.


Edited:

Say what you will about the current projectiles available, their construction and intended usage in .452 and .500.

I'm of the opinion that they are STILL greatly lacking compared to what is out there for the .458, especially in the use/application we are discussing here.

Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:53:08 AM EDT
hunting and defense are two seperate issues.

Bears are not bullet proof but how much space are you giving yourself for it to bleed out.

I think that 450 would do just fine.

that photo by not showing a rifle or something for scale just means its a regular big bear.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 6:59:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kpel308:
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a105/mauser348/monsterbear.jpg
"I CAN HAS MAN THAT HAS CAT THAT HAS CHEEZBURGER???"


FYI that pic used to circulate in a hoax email about a huge 14' tall maneating bear. The bear in that pic is not a big as he look the guy is sitting far back from the bear and since the camera can't depict depth it looks like he's sitting next to a f-ing huge bear.

If I remember correctly the actually bear was something like 10' tall. Not exactly small but not 14' Goliath either.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 7:09:52 AM EDT
A member here has a pic of a polar bear taken with a .22-250.

Here is the AR story.


Polar bear killed near village in Interior Alaska
By Mary Beth Smetzer

Published Friday, March 28, 2008

A polar bear wandering around the outskirts of the Interior village of Fort Yukon, 250 miles inland from its normal coastal habitat, was spotted eating lynx carcasses Thursday morning and was killed later in the day because of safety concerns.

The bear was first spotted outside a cabin on the edge of town by Peter John, said Tony Carroll, who had recently been skinning lynx at the cabin.

Most people didn’t believe him, Carroll said, but as word spread around town, more than a half dozen hunters began tracking the bear.

Zeb Cadzow, maintenance director at the Council of Athabascan Tribal Government, took off work after lunch to join in the hunt.

“There’s usually grizzly around this time of year,” he said. “You want to get rid of it because it’s hungry.”

The men tracked the bear three miles out of town to the Porcupine River, where it moved onto a river island.

At that point, most of the hunters returned to Fort Yukon for a sled dog race, leaving Cadzow, 30, and Paul Herbert, 60, to continue the hunt.

“We assumed we were chasing a grizzly bear,” Herbert said.

Cadzow concurred, thinking the white description meant it was an albino bear or a grizzly covered in frost.

While Herbert waited at one end of the island, Cadzow, on foot, went into the brush tracking the bear.

Suddenly, the bear came out from under a brush pile about 10 yards away. It charged straight at Cadzow, who was carrying an AR-15, a rifle similar to the U.S. Army’s M-16.

The encounter was so close, Cadzow said, he didn’t have time to lift and sight the rifle.

“I shot from the hip, seven or eight times,” he said. “If I had gotten it to my shoulder, it (bear) would have been on top of me. It happened so quick, by the time it was down, it was about 10 feet from my feet.”

According to the hunters, the young female bear appeared to be in good health and wasn’t starving.

The hunters contacted the Department of Fish and Game in Fairbanks on Thursday and are delivering the hide and head today so biologists can have a closer look at the bear. It will be sent to the Marine Mammal division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for further study.

After perusing some photographs Thursday evening, Dick Shideler, a Fish and Game wildlife biologist who studies North Slope grizzly bears, is in cautious agreement.

“I’m not 100 percent sure, but it sure looks like a polar bear. The ear set looks right, so does the head profile, and the feet look pretty big which is pretty typical (of polar bears),” Shideler said.

“It’s definitely not a grizzly. The only other possibility is a hybrid. I’m leaning pretty far towards polar bear,” he said. “It’s a super interesting bear no matter what it turns out to be.”

The Fort Yukon hunters and the village of more than 900 people are still in a state of disbelief that a polar bear wandered so far south.

“I think all 900 people have been by my house today,” said Cadzow, who spent the rest of Thursday skinning the bear hide.

Townspeople in the Yukon River village have been fielding calls from friends and relatives around the state since word about the polar bear has spread.

“It’s quite a shock to our town,” wrote Bonnie Thomas in an e-mail. “Our oldest elder, Rosalie Joseph, 102, passed away. She must have some powerful medicine to bring a polar bear to us.”
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 9:56:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By delemorte:
And how many indians ended up dead hunting them? I prefer to not be mauled by a polar bear thank you.


I don't think that's going to be a problem in North Carolina.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 10:04:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By joe-bananas:

Originally Posted By delemorte:
And how many indians ended up dead hunting them? I prefer to not be mauled by a polar bear thank you.


I don't think that's going to be a problem in North Carolina.


Dude, one could totally escape from the zoo and go on a rampage.

Link Posted: 9/29/2008 10:08:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2008 10:11:05 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By bfarrin1:
Trying to get them to feed slick enough to trust for dangerous game use seems to be the problem.


I understand. But I'm sure we agree that a 458 SOCOM could be loaded hotter, to achieve more velocity, by using a more robust action -- like a bolt gun.

I do not honestly believe that a game animal will tell much difference between a 400gr @ 1750fps and a 400gr @ 1900fps though, so a hot handload in the AR action, doing 1700fps or so would be just fine if defending myself.
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 10:16:14 AM EDT
There was an article in Ft Yukon's AK, local paper about a guy killing a Polar Bear with his AR.

Shot Placement is where it counts
Link Posted: 9/29/2008 11:39:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By bfarrin1:
Trying to get them to feed slick enough to trust for dangerous game use seems to be the problem.


I understand. But I'm sure we agree that a 458 SOCOM could be loaded hotter, to achieve more velocity, by using a more robust action -- like a bolt gun.

I do not honestly believe that a game animal will tell much difference between a 400gr @ 1750fps and a 400gr @ 1900fps though, so a hot handload in the AR action, doing 1700fps or so would be just fine if defending myself.


Absolutely!

That additional OAL allows for a wee bit more powder capacity.
Top Top