[gunfan1986]

It seems that the numbers say that the 300 wsm will do great, but i dont want to waste my money on a gun only to get to Alaska and find that it does not do the job. Any feedback?:confused:

[Casefull]

It will be fine. I would get something thicker to hunt coastal bears.

[Maverick223]

It should do fine...but my preference is the .375H&H for very large game (bear and such). The .300WM/WSM, 7mmRM, et al are more suited to long range medium/large game IMO.

:)

[dakotasin]

i've killed plenty of big game w/ a 300 wsm to know that a 180 grain 30 cal bullet moving along at 3000 f/s will kill stuff.

that said, i've never hunted alaska - best to find out from who will be taking you if the 300 wsm is appropriate for your hunt. i.e., if you'll be hunting sitka deer, moose, or caribou, i wouldn't worry. if you'll be hunting brown bears...?

[desidog]

It'll do it. I've sent a 180gr TSX 400 yds and had it travel through both ends of a 300+# piece of bacon.

Never seen a grizzly bear, except at the zoo, on TV, or stuffed, so i can't weigh in there...but enough bear have been dropped with a 30-06 that i do not anticipate any issue there.

[Wanta B]

If your shot placement is good then it should be good to go. I typicaly go for a larger meplate when possible but placement trumps frontal diameter every time.Poviding it has adiquate penetration.

[UniversalFrost]

375 H&H is what most guide carry (or a 12ga with slugs) when you hunt bears. I have not had the opportunity to hunt bear in alaska, but when we were hunting other 4 legged creatures up there we were using 30/06 (200 or larger gr) and 300 win mag. If I were to go specifically for bear I would bring a 338win mag or 375 h&H in bolt guns, for a lever gun I would go with 444, 450 or 45/70.

make sure to use a good bullet like a woodleigh weldcore that will power thru bone and heavy muscle.

[Uncle Mike]

I think the 300WSM would be plenty for an Alaska outing.
If indeed you are going to hunt big bears, then simply get something with a bit more authority.

You should know what you are going to be hunting, right?...and the 300WSM will suffice for anything Alaska has to offer.
It may be somewhat 'over kill' for game such as deer sized creatures and 'under kill' for monsters such as big bears, but IMO it covers 98% of all thing walking or crawling up there!

I'm like desidog, never swapped spit with an Alaska bear, just little black bears around here, in which a 300WSM spewing a 180gr or better bullet would shoot plum through!

So, unless your specifically after the biggest of bar....the 300WSM should do you fine!

Hey....wasn't the 'biggest' bear on record killed by a guy in a, "I'm going to eat you" scenario, shooting a 7mm REM. MAG.? I think he shot that bear 4 or 5 times IIRC, in the head, before it gave up the ghost!

[Maverick223]

I think he shot that bear 4 or 5 times IIRC, in the head, before it gave up the ghost!Way to inspire confidence in the "little mags"...for that very reason I maintain that .338cal+ would be best for the big bear. ;)

[desidog]

.038" change in diameter isn't going to be a game changer.* Shot placement is. IMO

So...whatever you get...don't wander into the zoo with it til you can use it properly!



*: OK, so 1 in 1000000 chance you'd nick an artery when you wouldn't have if you're .038 smaller.

[exbiologist]

"but i dont want to waste my money on a gun only to get to Alaska and find that it does not do the job"
What job did you have in mind for it? There may be more ideal choices depending on what you intend to hunt. But for a versatile chambering, that's tough to beat. If you're really planning on hunting the big critters like moose and brown bears, think about a .325 WSM, 8mm Rem Mag, the various .338s and the like.
Seriously though, .30-06s have killed nearly everything that has ever walked, including rhinos and elephants, so I'm sure the .300 WSM will do be fine if you hold up your end of the bargain and place it where it belongs.

[Maverick223]

.038" change in diameter isn't going to be a game changer.* Shot placement is. IMO

*: OK, so 1 in 1000000 chance you'd nick an artery when you wouldn't have if you're .038 smaller.That 0.038 means a whole heck of a lot when it is coupled with better sectional density, more mass, and more energy. Additionally the relationship between diameter and surface area is exponential, so the rate of frontal area/mass/sectional density increase as the diameter gets larger is a cumulative relationship. For what it's worth I would take the one that is 0.075 larger (for bear, not necessary for anything else IMO), if the job is worth doing the job is worth doing right.

:)

[Uncle Mike]

Way to inspire confidence in the "little mags
Well, that's the way the story went, IIRC.
I think the guy was a park ranger or something like that, the full body mount of this monster is supposed to be in some airport in AK...?