[Jaywalker]

No, I'm not trolling for an argument, I just want to understand what the 300 Mag in any variety (H&H, Winchester, WSM, etc) is built for. Yeah, I know, elk and moose, but let's break that down a little first. It seems that there should be more to it than just "extra velocity means flatter shooting which means easier to hit at longer ranges." There should be a need for power also.

This kind of came to me recently when a THR member from Alaska gently took a couple of people to task for the opinions of the Lower 48 on what constitutes an adequate Alaska hunting round. He said most folks from Alaska use 30-06, 8mm, or even 30-30, and are generally happy with it. There are times, he concluded, that a .338 would be nice to have around big bears.

Chuckhawks.com attributes to Jack O'Connor the observation that a 180-grain 30-06 would go through both shoulders of a big bear and "kick up dust on the other side." So, I presume, a 300 Mag would kick up even more dust on the other side. Is there a point ot the size of the dust cloud? Maybe the higher velocity actually causes the bullet to expand more in the moose or big bear and thereby not exit? Does the 300 Mag mean extra killing power on game?

If the 300 Mags don't add anything or much to the killing power, what's the point in taking the extra hammering of the recoil?

That's my question: if a 30-06, say, can carry the load up to bears, and that's where you want a .338, what's the use of a 300 Maggie?

Jaywalker

[Art Eatman]

The deal with the Big Brown Bear isn't just the shooting of the bear. It's the problems that ensue if that first shot doesn't anchor him, and he decides to play "Paybacks".

It's one thing to shoot an unaware bear at 50 to 100 yards, and he doesn't know where you are. He finally falls over dead and all's well. The trouble comes about if he's aware of your existence and is merely wounded. The old "Dead, but didn't know it." deal. That can be the time when "Too much is not enough."

One survey of some 14 Alaskan guides showed that something like 8 or 9 one-shot kills occurred with the .300 Win Mag; and a few reported needing second or third shots with .338s. Mostly, I guess, shows that marksmanship is quite important...

Overall, the .300 Win Mag is a .30-'06 with 50 to 100 yards more effective range. Sometimes, terrain makes that little bit extra a necessity.

$0.02, Art

[stevelyn]

This is a subject where I become an ammo snob. My belief is that premium bullets that offer superior penetration make caliber upgrades unnecessary. Another is the enhanced performance of the 'light magnum' and 'high energy' concepts of Hornady and Federal respectively. These loads in the .30-06 pushes it's performance into .300 mangle 'em territory and they happen to be loaded with a choice of premium bullets.
I'm going on a brown bear hunt here in my backyard later this month. My rifle is a .30-06 loaded with Federal Premium High Energy with 180 grain Nosler Partitions. Hunting smart is the other part of the equation. Pass on all marginal shots especially those that don't offer good exposure to the vitals, use hunting and stalking skills to get within reasonable range, and marksmanship, marksmanship, markmanship.
My guess is any bear shot with a properly placed .30-06 isn't going to be able to tell you how much difference a .300 would make.

Art,

There was a hunting guide here in AK that once stated the .338 was "all smoke and no fire" when it came to grizzlies. I'm not sure why or how, but I've heard it from other folks too.

[Keith]

I see the .300's as a long range rifle for fairly big game - sheep, caribou out on the barrens, etc.
I wouldn't choose a .300 for big bears or moose, though it would probably be fine if that is all I had. But if I had a choice, I'd look to something throwing more mass, not something throwing a .30 slug at higher velocity.

Keith

[Rob62]

Having lived and hunted in Alaska for 2 years I feel comfortable commenting on this issue.

While I don't have a ballistic chart in front of me. I do believe that the .300 Win mag gives about a 8-18% increase in ballistics over the .30-06. While many would argue that this isn't much of an increase, it is enough IMHO to slightly make up for a difficult shot that may have to be passed up with a .30-06.

Now please don't take the previous comment wrong. I'm not saying that the 300 Win mag makes up for sloppy shooting or stalking skills. I'm just saying that if you have to take a marginal shot with a 30-06 having a 300 Win mag would likely make that same shot acceptable.

If you are interested in reading a great book about Alaskan hunting get "Alaskan Bear Tales". Lots of horror stories about using enough gun when hunting the big bruins. One of the stories is about a gentleman named Craig Sharp (If I recall the name correctly). Anyway I got a chance to meet Craig and see the stuffed bear he talkes about. I sure would have felt under gunned with anything but a .375 H&H mag with that animal.

FWIW - If I ever get a chance to get back up to Alaska and hunt, which is looking highly unlikely. I plan on bringing a Rem. 870, 12ga shotgun and a Rem. 700 chambered in what else, that American classic..30-'06.


Rob

[Badger Arms]

While I wouldn't choose it as a round to go strictly after moose and Bear, many do and they do just fine, thank you. I always suggest my customers purchase a .338 if they intend to focus on those species. The 300 is more than enough for a moose and more than enough for a bear. The problem is, as was stated, hunting is not always what people in moose/bear country have to do. When you happen between a bear and its cub, you might need to ANCHOR that bear and fast. When you spook a Moose when her calf is nearby, that moose might have skipped the lesson on exterior ballistics.

[Art Eatman]

There are a good many cartridges I've never shot. I've read a lot of the comments about some of them both at TFL and here, during these nearly-five years. (Wow! Has been a while, hasn't it?)

One is the .338; the other is the .375 H&H. I have shot the .300 Win Mag.

From what I've read, the recoil of the .375 H&H is more of a strong, sudden push, instead of a very sharp and heavy Whap! sort of thing. That's a "near as I can tell" sort of thing, of course.

Just from the standpoint of the type of recoil--and I'm not particularly recoil sensitive at all--I'd likely get a .375 for hunting the Big Brown Brute. Sitting here in my chair, I think I'd be quite confident in the rifle, and I think I'd not mind the recoil...

Natcherly, part of it is because I just sorta WANT one of the danged things.

:), Art

[Jaywalker]

I guess I'm as interested in how a bullet works as whether it works. There's no question that an '06 works, because it has worked for years, as Badger Arms has said in other posts (though certainly not recommending it). If it works there's no real question that the 300 Mag works also, always assuming bullets that are up to the task. If an '06 bullet fully penetrates, though, what more do you get from a bullet at a higher velocity? More than 100% penetration? Less?

Art's survey of 8 or 9 one-shot anchors is interesting. Are there any figures on the '06? Also, did the report mention bullet placement as a factor with the .338 one-stop failures?

Jaywalker

[Art Eatman]

Higher energy, delivered into a watery mass such as the brain or heart, will cause more disruption, more "Splatter".

For proper expansion without "blowing up" or fragmenting, all bullets have some operating range of velocities. I know from TFL that the Sierra folks will chime in if they're alerted to a thread on the subject which mentions their bullets. And, all the bullet-makers can answer multitudes of questions about this...

My "survey" was taken from one of the "Big Three" outdoorzines, probably Sports Afield. No mention was made of the '06. Placement, per se? I don't recall. I imagine the average guide would prefer that clients use more gun, as they're just not all that confident in the marksmanship of all too many of today's hunters. Guides wanna survive, too. :)

Art

[Wildalaska]

We build tons and tons of lightweight hunting guns, sell 10 times as many and fix hundreds and hundreds..

Based on all of that would say that the 300 WM is the most popular among Alaskan Hunters, followed by the 338...

What that means is anyones guess


WildusewhateveryalikeAlaska

[Badger Arms]

A quick check of the books gives me roughly three 300WM's sold for every 338. Add a speckling of 7mm's and 375's.

Let me highlight what I always say when I sell a 300. a 30-06 is s just as powerful as a 300 from 200 yards. The .308 is just as powerful as the 300 from 250 yards. What the 300 allows you to do is take a shot from a greater distance and still be assured a clean kill. Anchoring the animal is important at close range, so you should choose a load which holds together at under 50 yards. Nosler Partitions are geat. The few recovered Failsafe Talon's I've seen have performed adequately. I prefer Speer Grand Slam. I always recommend a bullet weight of 200 grains, although 180 works fine on all large North American Species also.

I'd have to say that the main selling points of the 300 are lower recoil, flatter shooting, and more versatile if you hunt smaller species or hunt lesser-48 game.

Guiding is a different story. If you are a guide, your gun is intended to back-up what the hunter is using. The guides I've spoken with and sold to swear by the 375 H&H but many also used the 338. Again, a few other calibers like 416, 458, and some of the less popular Weatherby and proprietary calibers.

[Jaywalker]

Okay, it's clear that folks have voted with their wallets and they believe that the 300 Mag is at least adequate for protection from critters that also eat moose.

As to bullet performance - what happens usually? Full penetration of the critter?

Jaywalker

[Keith]

it's clear that folks have voted with their wallets and they believe that the 300 Mag is at least adequate for protection from critters that also eat moose.

I don't think anyone has said that. The .300 is an adequate HUNTING round! That's quite a different thing than a round for STOPPING big critters.

Guides here on Kodiak almost all use the .375. Guides don't "hunt", they carry those heavy rifles in case the client blows the shot and they are left to sneak into the alders and sort out the mess.

A hunter can afford to snipe a big critter and then sit back and eat a bag of Frito's while waiting for the animal to bleed out.

If you want to stop a big critter right NOW, you need a very heavy slug that will penetrate stem to stern and break every bone in between - with a brown bear you are talking about six to seven feet of muscle, bones and organs!. No .30 will do that because the slug simply doesn't have enough mass. It isn't until you get up to the range of 250 grain slugs that you get the kinetic energy required. And even there, you would be well advised to choose a very well constructed bullet.

Keith

[Badger Arms]

Kodiak as in the Kodiak bear, the largest Bear species.

http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/wildlife/region2/hunting/kbb4.gif

Now remember. Shot placement is everything. When hunting and you see a bear like the one above, stop and take a moment to think about the situation. Where do I place the shot? That's a good question, you could aim for the forehead, but Bear skulls are pretty thick... Whoops, you just got eaten.

[Keith]

People just don't know! When they hear the word "bear" they think of the black bear or grizzly they saw in the Tetons...

These are bears:

[TallPine]

You guys just don't understand ...

With millions of 30-06 rifles in circulation, how the heck you gonna sell a new gun if the 300 mag isn't way better than the 30-06 ??? :D


Badger,
I would put the shot in the bear's left shoulder, just missing his (her?) left cheek.

So how do I taste ....? :)

[JGReed]

Slightly off topic, but what are you folks in Alaska hearing about the .300WSM and Ultra?

[Keith]

Bears aren't real picky about how you taste!

A shoulder shot on actual attacking bear means you'd now have a three legged bear eating you... Unless it was real heavy slug that carried all the way through and broke a hind leg as well. A two-legged bear is a grounded bear - a three-legged bear is merely slowed to 20 mph (or whatever) instead of 35 mph.

The bear in the photo is unaware of the photographer, or it would have its head up looking at him with the nose centering the face. The best shot on an advancing bear is the nose. The brain is behind the LOWER half of the skull - behind the nose/mouth. The upper half of a grizzly skull is a bony crest to which the musles of the neck and jaws attach. No CNS up there... and that's where the "bullet-proof" bears skull myth comes from - and it is a myth!

A nose shot is the best shot. A miss right or left may take out a shoulder which will at least slow him down. A low shot may hit heart/lungs which ...might... kill him before he's completely done turning you into a grease-spot. A high shot may hit the spine depending on the terrain, position, etc.

If you hit the nose, even with a light rifle, the bear is dead.

Keith

[Cosmoline]

buying a BRNO ZKK in .375 with the PFD funds.

I'm sure with a well-placed heart/lung shot at inside 100 yards, my 1891 Argentine Mauser would drop a brown bear nicely. The bullets have a very high SD and the rifle sports excellent accuracy. But who can guarantee that shot? What if said brown bear decides to come for a visit?

Re. .300 WSM--seen a lot of it unsold around town. Every other store seems to have big bags of brass for it, which is surprising for a "hot new cartridge." Not sure if that means much--perhaps everyone is overstocked.

[Keith]

Cosmo,

Take a look at that new Remington in .350 Rem Mag before you buy! The model name escapes me at the moment, but it's simply a model seven when all is said and done.

I own the same rifle, except I had to buy mine from the Custom Shop a few years ago - and pay a lot more for it!

This rifle has won my heart! The ballistics are within spitting distance of the .375 and the darned thing is so light, compact and ergonomic that it's a delight to shoot offhand. I'll never buy another hunting rifle, which is something I never thought I'd say!
But this rifle is IT! It's the perfect Alaskan rifle.
It's shorter and lighter than my Marlin Guide Gun, and (with 250 grain slugs) has similar stopping power. So, it makes a great "poking around" gun when you want a carbine with enough muscle for bears.
And it has all the range I need for deer and caribou hunting - it shoots out to 250 yards before you need to worry about holdover.

The only bad news is that the factory ammo is all 200 grains. They're pushing the rifle pretty hard so maybe they'll offer a 250 grain load again... Either way, I'll just stick with 250 grain Partitions since I reload.

Oh here - I just pulled up a link: http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/673.htm

Keith

[Jaywalker]

Keith:A shoulder shot on actual attacking bear means you'd now have a three legged bear eating you... :D Count me in for doing my part for the disabled. Neat picture, by the way. Puts me in mind of the old Crocodile Dundee line (misquoted): "That's not a knife - now THIS is a knife!" Those are BEARS. I would never have thought of the "nose shot." (It sounds like something a competent comedian could do something with.) Interesting info on the bony crest of the skull, too. Thanks, though I don't think it'll ever come up around here.

More Keith:
it's clear that folks have voted with their wallets and they believe that the 300 Mag is at least adequate for protection from critters that also eat moose. I don't think anyone has said that. The .300 is an adequate HUNTING round! That's quite a different thing than a round for STOPPING big critters. I'm either misunderstanding here or I'm misunderstood. I assumed that when people in Alaska buy a .300 Mag for non-bear hunting, they're at least considering the possibility that it will have to be used on bears in defense. Again, it's an assumption, but it's based upon the observation that a 30-06 is adequate for non-bear hunting; if a 30-06 will work for a 1600-pound moose, but you're using a 300 Mag, then there's a defense component to your "wallet vote." (If they're bought just to make a "200 yard 30-06," i.e., stretch the effective range, then there isn't any defense component.) Am I missing the point?

Does the 180 g 300 Mag fully penetrate bear shoulders, or does the higher velocity tend to keep the bullet inside?

Jaywalker

[Keith]

I think you may be missing the point...

Unlike anywhere else, there is actually a market for bear "stopping" rifles here because people are mauled and killed every year.
Check out the co-pilot at wildwestguns.com some time for the best example of a "stopper". Jim West has made a career out of building this rifle for the Alaskan market and even people like Jeff Cooper praise him for it.

If you were to come up here to Kodiak in July you'd see fisherman packing various carbine length .45/70's and short-barreled shotguns. They aren't hunting!

People choose .300's for hunting because it's appropriate for the big game around here. It's a good round for black bears, caribou and moose, etc. And it's at least a "reasonable" choice for stopping a bear... But the primary reason for that rifle is because much of the state is fairly open country where you appreciate the extra range of a .300 - and the animals are big enough that you want to throw 180 or 200 grain slugs with some authority.

I hope I haven't just confused the issue more... I just mean to point out that rifles here have a primary purpose as either a hunter or a stopper. You can use either type for either purpose, but you are sacrificing something - a .300 with a 26 inch barrel (and another 3 inches of recoil compensator) along with a 3x9 scope is not a very good choice in an alder thicket when a bear is charging you. You're blind even if you can get the rifle swung around through the branches in time.
A .45/70 Co-Pilot with a sixteen inch barrel is a lousy choice when a caribou is clacking across the tundra at 250 yards range...

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

What good is a .300 in Alaska?

Hum...

How about the bear that eats you can use it as a toothpick?

[Wildalaska]

A .45/70 Co-Pilot with a sixteen inch barrel is a lousy choice when a caribou is clacking across the tundra at 250 yards range...

My hunting partner just popped one at about 165 with a 300 grain 457 (2300fps)...

Looked like a bomb went off on the thing...

WildouchAlaska

[Keith]

Yup, the .45/70 is an excellent 150 yard rifle. After that it starts dropping like a stone.

Keith

[FireInTheHole]

I am curious, just how effective would a 12 gauge mag slug be against one of these monsters?

[Cosmoline]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rem_673.htm

Chuck Hawks has a writeup on the 673 guide rifle in .350 Rem. Mag. It looks interesting and he seems to have liked it, but for some reason I've never liked the Remington bolt actions, and both the rib on the barrel of the new 673 and the rifle's high price tag annoy me greatly. The ribs just look like an open invitation for devil's club and brush to get all clogged up in there.

I don't think much of the iron sights, either. CZ's ZKK has flip-up safari sights that look like they'd survive a lion's swipe. The 673's rear sight is nothing special and the front sight looks like it's gonna get bent easy. But I could be wrong! If you're slogging around Kodiak's swamps and hills with that thing and not coming out with bushes wrapped around the barrel, maybe I am wrong.

The .350 looks like a great cartridge, rifle aside. But one reason I'm leaning toward .375 is because I already have a bunch of it and because it's easy to find even at fairly remote hardware stores. You can find it in Willow, Alaska or in Zambia at the local trading post.

[Badger Arms]

For the sake of clarity, let's separate this discussion into two categories.

Hunting is the intentional tracking, stalking, and shooting of a species for consumption, sport, wildlife management, or whatever the reason. A hunting round should be selected for its ability to cleanly, accuragely, and humanely kill the animal species that is being hunted from the distance one expects to hunt from. Considerations should be made in terms of load and rifle selection to the type of terrain one will be hunting, the stature and recoil tolerance of the shooter, and other factor. Given this, the 300 magnums are just fine for Alaska hunting capable of taking any Alaskan game from reasonable distances and Sheep and Caribou from long distances. That and the availability of 300 WinMag ammo make it very popular.

Protection is the use of a firearm to protect ones life or limb. If an animal is a threat to your safety, you need a round that will anchor the animal or incapacitate it. This means one of three main things. You can break bones, muscle, and tissue to prevent the animal from moving. You can destroy the heart and lungs to block the flow of blood to the animals tissues. You can incapacitate the central nervous system. To do this reliably, you need overkill. You need to STOP the animal. Large, tough bullets traveling at moderate velocities are key. The 375 H&H, 45/70, 416, etc. all pack the required punch to do the job. The 375 needs to be a load which is designed for dangerous game as well. The key on any of these is penetration. The 30 caliber bullet just does not start out large enough to reliably do what you need it to do. If the bullet hits bone and fails to expand, it might penetrate but will do half the damage as a 375 that does not expand.

BTW: Self-defense shots are almost always from the front. If you take a side or rear quarter shot, you'd have a pretty tough time explaining how your life was in danger. Aggresive or defensive bears will not generally give you that kind of a shot either.

Like Kieth said, Guides will carry the 375 almost exclusively. That's because their gun is almost strictly for self-defense. My defense gun is a Remington 870 loaded with Buck. My hunting gun is still a 300WinMag though.

[Keith]

Cosmo,

My gun does not have the rib. It's a custom shop Model Seven with a laminated Mannlicher stock. Similar to this 673, but not quite the same thing.
I'm not sure what that rib deal is all about - maybe the idea is to give you that quick point-shooting like with a shotgun.

Nothing wrong with a .375, and I'm damned fond of CZ's! The Model Seven is a bit handier in the brush, but there are certainly advantages to a more common caliber like .375.

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

A number of years ago a guy wrote an article of Rifle Magazine about his efforts at finding a good "Alaska" rifle that wouldn't break his personal bank, or his shoulder.

He ended up with a .375-06 based on a Winchester action, I believe.

He had some pretty impressive stats for it in the article, too.

[Jaywalker]

Okay, the reason for my question is that I'm a firm believer in "have one rifle and get good with it," and Alaska may be in my future. Since I don't plan to hunt bears, it sounds as if a 300 Mag is a good compromise - excuse me: hunting - round, coupled with a short-barreled 12-gauge for ursine discouragement. (Yeah, I've seen a lot of documentaries of people in bear or tiger country, all carrying shotguns.)

The .300 Win Mag has a lot going for it, especially the "less recoil than the .338 part." Maybe I'm just looking for a reason to buy a Winchester Classic in .300 Win Mag. It weighed 8 pounds 1 ounce and had a really nice stock on it (I wonder where Winchester gets the high-quality wood...). It should keep me safe from rampaging Virginia Whitetails, too.

I really do want to know about the performance of the 300 Mag 180 grain bullet in large game, though. Does it stay inside a moose, broadside shot, or does it exit like the lower-velocity 30-06?

Jaywalker

[Badger Arms]

Boy, that's like asking what rifle is the best rifle. No, it will not stay in the moose if you hit it broadside. Of course, there are many different 180gr loads out there. Range is a factor. If you hit the animal from 50 yards with a 180gr designed for the 30-06, the bullet might fragment. If you hit a shoulder, it could disintegrate and bloodshot that quarter. The bullet might just hold together, pop a clean hole right through and take a main artery with it. Hunting factors are so variable that a question like that might get you 50 different answers, all of them will be right and all of them will be wrong. It depends on the situation.

To answer the question of will you be satisfied... SURE. That's a great gun and it will likely serve you well. I've been in Bear Country many a time with only a 20ga and bird shot to protect me. Of course, the spruce hens didn't care much for that combination. These envirofreaks walk around all the time with their own seasoning (pepper spray) and seem to feel safe. I've read many a story where the hunter gets tackled by the bear as he's raising his gun -- whatever the caliber.

If you can shoot the 300 accurately, nobody should be telling you it's too little gun for a trip to Alaska.

[Jaywalker]

Badger,

Good answer, thanks.

I've learned about "nose shots" to prevent being eaten by a three-legged bear, and now pepper spray as an "enviro seasoner." Good education from folks who live where we'd like to visit. Thanks again.

Jaywalker

[Thegman]

Jaywalker,

I've killed 3 caribou, 2 moose and a grizzly with my 300. I don't keep great records of exit wounds and bullet performance(I should), because I'm usually too concerned with quick and clean field dressing of the game, not autopsies, but I'll tell you as much as I can about it's performance.

#1 Caribou was at about 30 yards. 190 grain Remington. Hit broadside through the lungs. Fell where it stood. I do not recall whether the bullet exited, may have fragmented/exploded.

#2 Caribou was at about 150 yards. 190 Reimington. Hit broadside through lungs 2X. It would have gone down with one shot but as I was planning on shooting two bulls in the group, I wanted the first down before I shot the second. I believe both bullets exited.

#3 Caribou was with #2. First shot through the lungs, following shot through the spine. Both exited.

With both #2 & #3 caribou, the first shot "staggered" the animal and the second brought them down (of course the spine hit dropped the bull like the proverbial "ton-of-bricks")

#1 Moose was at about 80 yards, broadside through lungs. 190 Remington. Bullet exited. Bull staggered and collapsed.

#2 Moose was at about 60 yards, front quartering through ball joint in front shoulder. 180 Reminton. Bullet essentially destroyed the shoulder and exploded in the lungs just above heart, destroying right lung and aortic arteries. Bull staggered about 5-10 feet and collapsed. I followed a trail of lead pieces through the wound track and found the base of the bullet's jacket at about 16" into the animal in a "blood soup". I was actually really happy with that one, as greater penetration would have possibly punctured the rumen....messy.

Grizzly was through lungs broadside at about 30 yards. 190 Remington. I don't think the bullet exited, probably exploded internally. Bear went down right away.

The 300 has yet to fail me, but frankly, I'd probably be just a happy, and successful, with a 30-06 or even a 308; Easier to find brass, cheaper factory ammo and probably just as effective out to 300 or so yards, which is about as far as I'll shoot anyway. Once I "took advantage" of the 300's "long range ability"; I shot at a caribou "estimating" the distance at 400 yards. The shot was a clean miss, but could as well have been a "dirty hit". I thought I was sure of the distance and wind... apparently I wasn't. This brought home just how easy it would be to wound an animal with long range shots...slightly mis-judge distance....slightly mis-judge wind...both...happy gut shooting. In fact, I recently tried to trade a friend my M77 300 for his new stainless Model 700 in "wimpy" 30-06. He was too smart to go for it.

Also, the 30-06 with 220 RN bullets would likely be a pretty decent bear stopper in it's own right.

Oh, and by the way, I know of a bull moose shot this season 6 times with a 300 RUM. First shot was a gut shot the evening before, next 5 were about 15 hours later when the bull was found. It really is more about the shooter than the gun.

[Jaywalker]

Thegman, thanks, good info.

It's too late, though. I've already bought the M70 Classic LT in .300 Win Mag. :D Carrying it around the Virginia hills reminds me why I bought the Ruger UltraLight 15 years ago, though.

Seriously, that's good advice about the long shots. When the Ruger was new to me, I shot at and killed a Utah mulie at 429 paces, downhill. Call it 350 - 380 yards. There was so much luck involved there that I won't ever shoot that far again.

Do you recall which Remington ammunition you were using, i.e., premium or standard?

Jaywalker

[Thegman]

Hi Jaywalker,

The 300 you bought will work just fine in AK. If you like the rifle, and can shoot it reasonably well, you're all set.

Hopefully I don't bore you, but here's my story about what ammo I use(d) in my 300, and my general thoughts on a what constitutes a good rifle for AK.

The 190 Remingtons I used on most of those animals were the Remingtion Extended Range. I used these not so much becasue of the extended rage part, but because when I fist bought my M77, they were the most accurate of the several types of ammo I tried. They shot between 1 and 2 MOA through the M77. I'd still use them if I could....

This year I went to pick some up and was unpleasantly surprised to find out that they'd been discontinued. I bought several boxes of ammo and was further unplesanantly surprised to find that my M77 was throwing shots all over (especially the first) and shooting about about 8 MOA! I was disgusted (I had dropped the rifle this spring on it's muzzle, and although the rifling wasn't touched this may have affected accuracy).

Anyway, as moose/caribou season was upon me, I frantically dressed the crown, floated the barrel, and bought some dies. In the end I was back down to a little over 1 MOA with one hand load, and found the standard (cheapest) Remington Express Core-Lokt shot under 2 MOA (better than the Remington Scirocco, even) fairly consistently, so I used that this season on moose #2. I ended up hitting that moose exactly were I wanted to, so everything worked out just fine this time, but I wasn't totally comfortable with how the rifle was shooting.

I'll spend some time this winter with the rifle and try to come up with a full power, 1 MOA or less load and make sure the rifle has completely stopped throwing first shots. If this rifle can't do that, I'll start looking for one that can. I think that once one has enough energy at the maximum range being shot (IMO a 308 up is fine for moose/caribou up to 300 yards), accuracy and shootability become the deciding factor. I'd prefer to have a light weight, sub MOA 308 with a bi-pod for the odd 300 yard shot, as opposed to a 2+ MOA 300 Win Mag. For hunting purposes, putting less energy exactly where you want it is probably better than putting more energy 3 or more inches away from where you wanted it. I know a guy that has missed lots of stuff with his 375 H&H, he'd be a lot better off with something smaller. OTOH, I know someone who killed a big bull moose with a 7X57 (140s, I think). From what I understand, it took several shots (they were all good shots), and a couple of bullets were stopped by the shoulder. After I heard that, I had a little more respect for my 300, and my ideas about going as light as a 7-08 were put on the back burner, one can probably go too light as well.

BTW, what's your M77 ultralight chambered for and how accurate is it?

[Jaywalker]

Thegman,

My Ruger 77 RL (tang safety) is a .270. I would have said that it wasn't particularly accurate - call it 3 inches at 100 yards - until this season. One of my falls/rifle drops dinged the barrrel channel, however, and the repair may have fixed my accuracy problem. It was looking like half that group size when I had to stop the sighting/testing session. I've bought some ballistic tips for accuracy testing, and may have a chance to test it tomorrow. The barrel cleans up so quickly, that I think it has promise.

Jaywalker

[H&Hhunter]

What use is the .300 mag in Alaska?

I think think the various .300's have a real nich in the Goat and Sheep hunting arena. A light weight .300 makes a great long range hard hitting mountain gun and has enough poop for the just in case scenario with a bear.

I have always thought of the .300 mag as a good platform for heavier bullets like say a 200gr load. That I believe, is where you'll find a benifit in knock down over a an 06.

But if you really want more hit you need more diameter and weight not velocity. I was introduced to the .375H&H in Alaska by an old time Alsakan guide. You may well hear about the overwhelming use of 30-06's and .300 mags in Alaska and it's true in the interior.But in big bear read, The Pen or Kodiak or south you won't find many professional who use a .30 of anykind nor will you find many bear guides who recomend their use.

As a matter of fact when I was working for the Alaska smoke jumpers we sent a load down to Agfonak Is. The jumpers were issued iron sighted model 70's in .375H&H for bear protection. In the interior they get shotguns or they can carry a sidearm.

Sorry to get off on my .375 High horse.........I just really like them.
The .300 with the right bullets will do anything you need it to as a sport hunter in the State of Alaska.

[Thegman]

I took off the scope and remounted it.

I polished up the crown and rifling at the end of the barrel.

I removed more material from the stock's barrel channel, giving the barrel plenty of room.

3 rounds of Remington 180 Express Core-lokt now did 3/4" @ 100 yards from a rest.

3 rounds of Sierra 180 Pro Hunter on 74 grains of 4831 @ 3.4 OAL gave a tight clover leaf @ 100 yards (1/4" center-to-center)! I could scarcely believe it.

All this with Ruger's 40 pound trigger...

I guess I'll stop looking at other rifles, this one's a keeper.

[JShirley]

Thanks for the follow-up.

john

[AK Mike]

After living most of my life in Alaska, I see that a 30-06 will take most game. It will kill a bear. However, I like that the .300 will give you an edge. In the case of grizzlies and Polar Bear (which are common where I am!), I would prefer to carry a .375H&H. Most people will go with the .338, but after shooting a few, I think .375H&H gives you what a .338WM will, but not with such sharp recoil. I want a definite edge in case I have to anchor that bear. Most people I know who have had to defend themselves against a bear got one or two shots off, and in two cases a third short. Invariably, that second and third shot, and sometimes the first, was when the bear was in their faces. They can run 35mph, including uphill which does not slow them down. One guide I know is so confident with his .338, he will actually go up to a bear and yell in it's face (yeah, he's still alive), not something I would condone. While guides seem to carry a .338 or .375, as said earlier, they do so to stop the bear if their client does not. Many of them recommend against those calibers because the clients end up flinching. They don't recommend them unless the client is familiar and comfortable shooting those calibers. Usually when I am hiking around in the bush, I just go with a shotgun loaded with slugs, or maybe a .45-70 lever action - both are quick to shoot and cycle, and will put down bear at close distances. Recently, there was a polar bear that got into our station dumpster and just would not leave permanently after 3 days of hazing by a special crew who's job it is. It finally had to be put down. Simultaneous shots of one .338 and one .375H&H put it down instantly. Polar bear are a different breed - they do not fear man, and are much larger than your garden variety bears. They make black bear look like large dogs. Still yet, I know people who take bear with a 30-06. Some jerk posting on AR15.com was proud that he had 'killed' a bear with his AR-15. He shot the bear 8 times, and it ran off and in the end died violently and painfully from bleeding out. Sure you can kill something with a small insufficient caliber eventually, but one should use a caliber sufficient to insure a quick and clean kill - as much as possible, and having a cartridge that is more than what is needed as a minimum helps insure this. However, if you are flinchy, or can't place that large caliber on target properly, it would be better shooting something you can handle.

I bought a .338WM just for shooting a bear one of these days. After shooting some .375's, I wish I had bought one of those instead. For everything else med to large, I'll just use the .300WM, or perhaps a 30-06 with a load. I think the .300WM is good enough for bear, it's just my preference to have more edge, but I would not feel undergunned with a .300WM.

[Kestrel]

Are there any charts somewhere on the Internet that would show comparisons between the .300 WinMag, .338 WinMag and the .375 H&H? I'm thinking about a .338 WinMag for an Elk rifle, but wonder what the advantage it would have over my .375 H&H. It would be lighter, though.

Another question, if you had a .338 WinMag, is there any reason to use a .300 WinMag?

AK Mike - just curious - do they allow polar bear hunting in AK? (Im not referring to what those guys had to do with the one you mentioned. I know that's a different situation.)

Thanks,
Steve

[H&Hhunter]

I'm thinking about a .338 WinMag for an Elf rifle, but wonder what the advantage it would have over my .375 H&H. It would be lighter, though.

Steve,

If I were going to hunt Elf's I'd use something a little stouter you've never seen one of them pointy eared little buggers charge have you?
:D

In all seriousness a .338 will give you notthing more and very little less than a .375 in fact the .375 starts a 250Gr bullet faster and gives you more bullet weight and shape options than a .338 by a long shot. They are very simular in capability. I've gotten rid of my .338 and gone exclusivley to the .375 I really like it.

AK Mike - just curious - do they allow polar bear hunting in AK? (Im not referring to what those guys had to do with the one you mentioned. I know that's a different situation.)

If you are a non native you can not leagally sport hunt Polar bear in the state of AK. You can do so in Canada and Russia and possibly Greenland. Canada being the primary sport hunting destination for Polar bear.

[Kestrel]

AK Mike,

Haha - I would have thought you could use something lighter on elves... thanks for the warning.

By the way, what size do typical polar bears get up to? How far away do you shoot at them? (Not that I would want to be too close to them.)

Anyone know what it typically costs to hunt Polar bear in Canada? By the way, what would it cost to have a Polar bear mounted? (Trade in a car?)

Thanks again,
Steve

[AK Mike]

Polar bears. No, I don't hunt them. As noted, only Alaskan Natives are allowed to hunt them in Alaska, it's illegal for everyone else. It's kind of like the Indian Reservation thing - they get to play by different rules. I can only kill one in absolute self defense, and if I did, I may still end up in trouble. If you follow this thread: Polar Bear Day in Barrow (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=43&t=173146&w=searchPop) , you can see a polar bear that was recently killed where I am now (in Barrow Alaska), that's the one they shot with the .338 and .375 simultaneously I mentioned. Just a cub really, but once it had a taste for our dumpster, it would not leave. My avatar is a real polar bear sticking it's head in one of our station's windors, undoctored.

How big? I am not sure. Average 800-950lbs, but in 1960 one was taken at over 2200 lbs. A female weighing 400-600lbs (typical) is about 8' tall, so what, perhaps 12'-13' max (record)? Even Grizzly have gotten over 1600 lbs (record)

How far to shoot? As far away as possible for me. Luckily, there are no trees up here to hide behind, and while they may be in or behind a snow blind, and blend in, they are not all pure white, some are a quite dirty yellow.

I am not knowledgable about costs to hunt in Canada or to have it mounted, but I could easily believe over $6,000 - 8,000 (just a wild guess)- this is the largest land carnivore in the world and semi-protected (though there are over 28K total).

I have seen over 35+ polar bear at once, though normally not a social animal, these were coming in off the pac ice and taking turns eating at a bone yard - a place remoted from the village where bones and meat are discarded to keep the bear from entering the village. Most of the time, I only see one momma and may one or two cubs.

The one you see in the thread slept about 50' away from my window which my bed is next to. Even though this is an Air Force station, we (civilians) are allowed to have a weapon centrally located and loaded if there is an emminent threat. I slept next to my privately owned shotgun loaded with slugs - it also has a surefire light forearm, and tritium ghost ring sights as well as a side saddle with extra rounds. I kept one round chambered - not taking any chances.

Shooting one with a .338 or .375 is just extra insurance (well spent!), a .300 would take one down, it's just a really, really big bear (don't bother shooting the skull, I have seen rifle rounds just bounce off and make the bear mad). I like the .375 over the .338 just because it seems to do everything the .338 does, and hurt me less. I like .300's though, shooting them or say a 30-06 all day doesn't bother me (until the next day).

Check out the link, it follows the story from when it started, to the day they shot it, with pics. In it, you can see some newbie idiots just 10 feet away taking pictures out a window of it eating in the dumpster, I am the one 70' farther away taking pictures of the bear and the newbie idiots. I was the only one on station with a firearm, cause I was smart, and as a reward I slept with that only firearm - everyone for themselves!

BTW, the only firearm you need if you and your buddy are confronted by a Polar Bear? A .22 so you can shoot your buddy in the foot and run the other way...

Had to add, hunting Polar bear has got to be the ultimate big game safari on North America. Polar bear fear nothing, anything that moves is potential food, they have NO predators...

[HiFidelity]

as Rob said: "a Rem. 700 chambered in what else, that American classic..30-'06.

Rob

__________________
Failure is not an option!"

Um Rob, I think you need to change your signature or remove it entirely, because if you hunt for Kodiaks with that "ole Betsy" '06, you'd best be prepared for failure, because it has a greater chance of happening with an animal that large, especially with an '06 with any bullet. You are not going to place that shot 100% flawless every single time. If you are an ethical hunter and have to pass up shots that a .300RUM or any .30 cal or higher mag could have taken, having paid thousands of dollars, waited years to hunt Kodiaks or Grizzly's for that once in a lifetime shot, and it's just a bit too far for "ol Betsy", you will begin to see the light.

Same principle, say for instance, someone breaks into you house and is armed. Would you rather shoot them with a .22, which is CAPABLE of killing with good shot placement, or blasting them with a .44mag, or even better a 3" Mag 00 Buck 12ga and knowing for a fact that they are severly and almost 100% certainly stopped dead in their tracks?

Me and the majority take the latter.... As the old saying goes..... USE ENOUGH GUN!! If I were an outfitter taking people after DANGEROUS animals, and you tried to book with me and I knew you were bringing a .30-06, I would tell you to find another outfitter or bring a BIGGER gun. Leave 'ol Betsy home where she belongs, chasing whitetails and the like. It's plain common sense folks. I would feel comfortable with a .416 Rem. If you can't handle the recoil, either be a man and get used to it by PRACTICING or just forgetting about Kodiaks and the like.

[giese]

I enjoy reading these bear postings..... Makes me happy there is somehitng that is this tough out there. Makes me a bit frightened too, I am going to Alaska next year, probalby do some back country hiking or paddling. I was gonna bring a 44 mag but now think I may need to invest in new short shotgun or 45/70, or maybe 338, 375. I think it is a good excuse to go shopping and compare in my own field trials!

[Jaywalker]

HiFidelity,

So, by "enough gun," do you mean either the 300 RUM or the 416 is the minimum Alaska bear caliber? Which?

Jaywalker

[HiFidelity]

Jaywalker, I see what you are getting at. Enough gun is the largest caliber gun you can shoot ACCURATELY. Not 100% accurately, but reasonably accurate. Sure, a .416 will not be as accurate as a '06 in someone's hands who is not seasoned to heavy recoil. That's why I feel that practicing with heavy recoil weapons will make you a better marksman with those heavy cailbers for these dangerous animals. But, if you never plan to hunt these animals, why put yourself through that punishment. If you plan on hunting Kodiaks one day, try shooting mag loads out of a 12 ga until you master slowly squeezing the trigger smoothly and when it breaks, it should be a surprise with NO flinching. Then move up to the magnum calibers and work with them until you get confortable with them. It may surprise you just HOW accurate you can get with those ground pounding earth shaking monster magnums. I hunt whitetail here in the southeast with a .300RUM, primarily because I load for long range shooting and long range hunting or precision shooting. 1/2MOA at 100yds is a disappointment to ME. Maybe not to you, but to me it is. I expect more out of my guns and loads. This pertaining to my .30cal magnums and lower. Highgher than that, I will not quite expect that much. If I were after Kodiaks in Alaska this year, I would probably give the .375RUM a try. It looks VERY impressive. If not, I would pull my model 700 AWR .416Rem out of the safe and have 100 % confidence that I was NOT going to get eaten.