US Forest Service 1983 study about big bear defense cartridges...

[saturno_v]

I came across a very interesting document with the title "Safety in Bear Country: Protective Measures and Bullet Performance at Short Range", you can review it here:

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

It is a long (20 pages) but very englighening read. This study was commisioned by the Pacific Northwest Division of the US Forest Service.

They ranked some of the most popular cartridges (and specific loads within the same round) effectiveness against brown bears based on a particular test methodology explained in detail in the document. Only common commercial loads were tested.

There are 2 main rankings, Rifle rounds and Handgun rounds

In the handgun category, the only cartridge that made the cut is the 44 Magnum (no 454 production revolvers and 460 S&W or 500 S&W back then)
A 44 Mag revolver is recommended as backup gun, not primary bear defence firearm.
A 41 Magnum may be borderline adequate with some loads. From the 357 Magnum down, handguns are not recommended even as backup firearms.

Rifle rounds

Some surprises here

The 458 Win Mag is the top cartridge, outperforming even the mighty 460 Weatherby Magnum. The latter is said to have tendency to fragment and/or overexpand limiting penetration at short range.

After these 2, basically there is a tie between the 375 H&H and the 338 Win Mag which, alternatively, occupy the positions from #3 to #10 in the ranking (different loads/bullet weight and type)

Surprise....behind these 4 big and medium bore magnum cartridges, the good old 30-06 take position #10 (220 gr.) and #11 (180 gr.)

Surprisingly poor showings for the 300 Wby (ranked #22 with 180 gr. and #29 with 220 gr.).....even poorer the 300 Win Mag (#28 with 200 gr. bullet and #33 with a 180 gr. slug), basically the 180 gr. 300 WM ranked last!!!

The two 300 Magnums are outperformed by the "little" 308 Win (#18 with 180 gr.)
Better results for the 7mm Remington Magnum (#15 with 175 gr.)

Another surprise is the relatively mid-low ranking for the 45-70, (#17 with 300 gr., #30 with 405 gr.), however there is a disclaimer...the 45-70 loadings tested are on the light side compared to the strongest modern offering for this old cartridge.

The mighty 444 Marlin (#13) is behind the 30-06.

Not very good results for the standard 12 Ga. rifled slug in a 2 3/4 shell (#26)
00 Buckshot it's a big NO-NO

Overall, the very minimum suitable caliber against the big bears among the cartridges included in the test, is the 7x57 Mauser.
One of the suggestions is that if you go deer hunting in grizzly country, you should carry a powerful enough caliber to deal with a potential problem bear...and the 7x57 is that borderline power, overall not recommended.

Of course the list of cartridges is not exhaustive...for example, noticeably absent are the 270 Winchester, the 280 Remington, the 35 Whelen and some others. They did not test the Brenneke 3" 12 ga. Black Magic 600 gr. hardened slug, a well known bear stopper.

It seems that the the most effective rounds are these of high SD and not too fast to induce overexpansion or, worse, fragmentation, a bullet too slow, conversely, may fail to penetrate adequately...the 30-06 seems to hit that sweet spot, that's why is one of the caliber actually recommended by the study.
The report specifically says (page 11) that the 30-06 in 220 gr. may be a better choice than the medium and large bore magnums....one of the advantages, compared to the magnums, is the availability of lighter, more handy and fast repeating rifles (lever, pump, semiauto in case you need to fire more than one shot) other than bolt action.

More modern bullets may shuffle the ranking a bit....however those who think that the good old '06 is inadequate against the big bruins, need to think again...

Among other good advice is to keep your rifle in your hands at the ready when you cross a high risk area...do not rely on it being on your shoulder on the sling, you may not have the time for a shot...actually you should entirely remove the sling walking in bear country.

Again, very interesting read.


So, after all, it was a wise choice for me to get a Remington 7600 in 30-06 as hiking rifle!!

Regards

 

[TehK1w1]

So if grizzlies start showing up in suburban Houston I guess I'm all set.
Interesting info about the 300 magnums, just goes to show you can have such a thing as too much velocity.

 

[saturno_v]

Parts of that reports actually seem to confirm what I heard from some Alaska "experts", people that have been (or are still) there and done that.

1) Some very high velocity rounds are not suited for short range big bruin defence because fragmentation/bullet explosion issues...in particular, one report I heard was a 300 Wby 180 gr. bullet literally blowing apart after penetrating only couple of inches on a grizzly, fired from less than 10 yards.

2) The Remington pump rifles in 30-06 are among the best for wildlife defence, especially with the after market higher capacity magazines (10 or 12 rounds)...I got my 7600 under advice from one guy with more than 20 years experience in the oilfields up there....for me was a choice between that and a 45-70 lever action.

The THR member Caribou, which live up there and know a thing or two about bears and hunting he doesn't feel undergunned not even a bit with his Mosin Nagant...quite few bruins have fallen like sack of potatoes under his M39....

 

[7mmstalker]

Cool, good read there.
Interesting to note their positions on the different handguns. Maybe better than factory slugs would get the 41 MAG ranked better? Elmer Keith, noted handgun authority from a few decades ago, endosed the heavy slug/slower loads for superior killing effect.
The physics seem pretty simple, the main thing happening is the moderate velocity slug transfers more energy to the animal by staying intact better.
Reminds me of the drag racing argument of horsepower vs. torque, what's best?

When in bear country I've almost always chosen a long gun, with heavy for caliber slugs. What use is flatter trajectory at defensive range?...

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I wish you would shoot a bear already and quit this endless speculation on "best bear guns"
By the way, the 7600 may be different but my 760 failed me on a hunt once,refusing to fire. As I recall[this was 25 years ago] the forend wood cracked[invisible from the outside] allowing the slide rail to shift in relation to the wood. The forend would contact the front of the receiver before the slide could lock the bolt.

 

[saturno_v]

Jim

Shooting a bear is the last of my desire...:

I totally agree of the 740/742/7400 (and now 750), I would never trust a civilian hunting semi auto in the woods for wildlife defence (I own a 740 myself)....things have the tendency go wrong exactly at the time when they should not....

The 760/7600 is a different animal (even if similar in appearance).

As reliable as any bolt action rifle..the dual action bar prevents binding...very tough design.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

WHOOPS,I need to correct my post-it was my 760[the pump gun] not a 740 that failed-I always get those two mixed up. Anyway it was like I said-the forend moved enough in relation to the slide that the bolt would not lock fully. Have used nothing hunting but bolts since.

 

[saturno_v]

Jim

The 7600 is a free floating barrel design, it doesn't have the barrel stud with the foreend cap anymore (like any pump action shotgun) so you can pull forward the slide as much as you want...


However I don't know how frequent happened that a 760 malfunctioned...they have the reputation of being extremely reliable (both 760 and 7600)

Malfunctioning can happen in a bolt gun too....again, I do not have the statistics to compare the 2 designs in terms or reliability.

Personally, I would examine my equipment very thoroughly before venturing in the woods, regardless of the type of action.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Well I have never examined a 7600 so I can't say if it could fail in the same way as my760 or not. As far as a pre hunt inspection as I say the crack was invisible unless the forend was removed and even if I saw it beforehand I don't believe I ever would have thought it could cause a no fire. In fact even with the gun apart and knowing there was a problem it took alot of head scratching to figure out what was happening.
Remember most of my big game hunting is 40-150 miles off the road system. There is no such thing as running out to the truck.or home and getting a different gun. Gun breaks,hunt over. In fact not only do I use only bolts for that reason,I use pre 64 M70's almost exclusively. I have just heard to many story's of Rem 700's breaking extractors.bolts,freezing triggers etc. to trust them on a fly in hunt

 

[MCgunner]

I don't see mention of controlled expansion bullets. How's about a Partition or a Barnes bullet. I'm thinkin' 160 Partition in 7 mag vs that 175 grainer. A controlled expansion bullet would insure penetration AND expansion in big boys like the .460 Weatherby. That exploding bullet thing is easy to avoid, it's called BARNES BULLETS! They cost the same as a core lockt, just get 50 to a box instead of 100. Good insurance on a bear, I'd think. Hell, I use Barnes in my .308 on hogs for that reason, penetration insured no matter how thick his gristle plate is.

I never figured a 12 gauge slug would be much on a big critter like that despite all the internet experts that say so. Oh, be better than a .44 mag, I'm sure, but the SD is pathetic on a slug, like non-existent.

Yeah, if browns migrated to Texas, I could always just rebarrel the Savage from 7 mag to .338.

 

[MCgunner]

Can the 7600, if I wanted to carry a .30-06, what's wrong with a Garand? Lessee, do I want a fragile sporting pump, or the rugged war horse beast that drove the Japanese out of the Aleutians and won a world war? Hmmm......

I still think I'd get me a Browning BLR in .325WSM if I ever moved up there. I'd load up with a Barnes bullet on the heavy end of the scale.

 

[kanook]

Just Crap!!!!

Now I gotta explain to the wife why we need to get a 41mag.

 

[farscott]

Can the 7600, if I wanted to carry a .30-06, what's wrong with a Garand?

The only issue I can see is being limited to rounds with the M2 pressure curve so as to not mess up the operating rod. I would also guess that the 220-grain loads are out in the Garand.

I have just heard to many story's of Rem 700's breaking extractors.bolts,freezing triggers etc....

That is interesting to me as I have a 700 in .308, and the 700 action is/was the basis for the military sniper rifle. I would have guessed the 700 would have performed well.

How do the Ruger 77 Mark IIs function up in Alaska? I got one for my daughter for her deer rifle, and it seems to be a dandy.

 

[saturno_v]

+1 on farscott about the Garand

An M1 would be limited to certain load/bullet combination..220 gr. are definitely out.

On top of that the 7600 is at least 3 pounds lighter and shorter.

Even if the 7600 is not a military rifle, it is everything but fragile...

 

[saturno_v]

In fact not only do I use only bolts for that reason,I use pre 64 M70's almost exclusively. I have just heard to many story's of Rem 700's breaking extractors.bolts,freezing triggers etc. to trust them on a fly in hunt

I guess you would love my sporterized 30-06 Mauser 98 then!!

 

[ArmedBear]

1) Some very high velocity rounds are not suited for short range big bruin defence because fragmentation/bullet explosion issues...in particular, one report I heard was a 300 Wby 180 gr. bullet literally blowing apart after penetrating only couple of inches on a grizzly, fired from less than 10 yards.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have hard alloy 405 grain .45-70 LSWC in a compact lever gun, than a 180 grain .300 Weatherby Magnum in a big bolt rifle, for bear defense.

But... I think this particular result has more to do with the bullets available in 1983 than any inherent deficiency of high-velocity rifle rounds in 2009 with appropriate bullet selection.

I'd like to see what one of the recently-introduced solid gilding metal bullets does, not a Core-Lokt or whatever they used for the test.

 

[saturno_v]

ArmedBear

I agree...probably modern bullets would improve the standing of many calibers in that study....however certain exotic loads/bullets were already available in 1983 (non lead solids, partition, etc..)

 

[bpl]

I agree...probably modern bullets would improve the standing of many calibers in that study....however certain exotic loads/bullets were already available in 1983 (non lead solids, partition, etc..)

Did they test them though???

 

[627PCFan]

This is obviously flawed. There is no reference to the ever popular 12.7x99mm NATO

 

[saturno_v]

Did they test them though???

They did talk about only "common commercial ammo offering"
I don't know if they used partition in certain calibers (like the big magnums) and they categorized that bullets as "jacketed soft points"
Safe assumption is that they didn't.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have just heard to many story's of Rem 700's breaking extractors.bolts,freezing triggers etc. to trust them on a fly in hunt

I had a Mashburn trigger (that's an enclosed style, like those on must modern hunting rifles) freeze up on me -- I was hunting in freezing rain, and moisture got into the trigger housing and froze.

That's why I like the Model 70 open style trigger (and also the Mauser/Springfield triggers.)

 

[jim in Anchorage]

That is interesting to me as I have a 700 in .308, and the 700 action is/was the basis for the military sniper rifle. I would have guessed the 700 would have performed well.
How do the Ruger 77 Mark IIs function up in Alaska? I got one for my daughter for her deer rifle, and it seems to be a dandy.
__________________
Scott

And I understand the 700 performs very well in that specialized role, but if military use is our only means of deciding which gun is best for our personal use we could save a lot of discussion and all carry a Beretta 92 as our sidearm
I have never used the Ruger personally, but have never heard anything bad about them, which, I guess, is the same as hearing good.

 

[Kernel]

"Safety in Bear Country: Protective Measures and Bullet Performance at Short Range"

"Two major points can be inferred from our tests: (1) none of the many different types of bullets tested was completely adequate, and (2) high striking velocities may not be particularly beneficial at short range. The best results were from bullets relatively heavy for their caliber fired at moderate velocity. Many experienced people have also observed this: we have verified their observations under controlled conditions."

saturno_v, thanks for the link.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The .35 Brown-Whelen, the most radical form of the Whelen, was developed specifically for hunting Brown Bear. For elk, I use a 225 grain Nosler Partition Jacket at 2,800 fps. For brownies, I think I'd go to 250 grains at around 2,600 fps.

 

[saturno_v]

Kernel

That particular passage in the report did strike me too, however, as others have already mentioned, it seems they did not use premium bullets nowdays widely available...for example you can get partition bullet even on a 30-30 170 gr. commercial load from Federal.