Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?

[Q_Sertorius]

Here’s a scenario, how many people would actually go to Kodiak for Brown Bear with a bolt action 223 or 243, hell even 264? Assume you are by yourself and don’t have a guide backing you up with a 375 to save your bacon and send you home alive. You encounter a bear 10 yards from your position.

Got a feeling majority of people saying I would never would actually and just all talk.

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for small calibers, currently have a 6UM being built, but they have their place and not a do it all.

I would. You pay for the trip and I will do it. And I am happy to sign any number of liability waivers. I would absolutely hunt bears with a .223 Remington or .22-250 with 77- or 88-grain TMKs. Or a .243 Winchester with 107- or 116-grain TMKs.

The only time I would want “more bullet” is in close terrain with a large, dangerous, wounded animal that was likely to charge. A bolt action .223 probably isn’t the right choice to stop a wounded Cape Buffalo that has decided to kill you. Not enough guaranteed penetration in that scenario at that presentation. I’d be pretty confident against a bear though.

But at 100-400 yards on a broadside shot, it would not be fair to the Cape Buffalo. In that “first shot and follow-up shots” scenario, I’m confident I could do more damage to the Cape Buffalo with my Tikka .223 than I could with my 9.3x62.

 

[dårlig jeger]

Here’s a scenario, how many people would actually go to Kodiak for Brown Bear with a bolt action 223 or 243, hell even 264? Assume you are by yourself and don’t have a guide backing you up with a 375 to save your bacon and send you home alive. You encounter a bear 10 yards from your position.

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for small calibers, currently have a 6UM being built, but they have their place and not a do it all.

Oh snap! Kodiak/coastal/Alaskan brown bears have entered the chat (for the 6,764th time)!

Everyone, quick! Change your minds!

 

[K9kodi]

For argument sake, just to keep people thinking, and for my clarification, you were talking about hunting bear with a 223 or 22-250. But you would want larger more powerful cartridge if looking for a wounded animal that could become aggressive.

What’s the thought process behind that? I mean I figure it’s for the def gaursnteed penetration and quick stopping power. But if that’s the thought process, are you saying that there’s a chance in a “normal” or “routine” scenario the smaller round may not possess the penetration or stopping power?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

For argument sake, just to keep people thinking, and for my clarification, you were talking about hunting bear with a 223 or 22-250. But you would want larger more powerful cartridge if looking for a wounded animal that could become aggressive.

What’s the thought process behind that? I mean I figure it’s for the def gaursnteed penetration and quick stopping power. But if that’s the thought process, are you saying that there’s a chance in a “normal” or “routine” scenario the smaller round may not possess the penetration or stopping power?

It’s not “stopping power.” It’s about is 16” of penetration enough to reach a vital area from this angle and do sufficient damage to inflict a mortal wound on it? In a broadside presentation, with a good .224 bullet, I would be confident of reaching the vitals and doing enough damage to kill.

I am also more confident in my ability to get follow-up shots into the vitals when using a rifle with lower recoil. Given the opportunity, I’d rather shoot an animal three or four times in the chest with a .224 TMK than once or twice with a 9.3x62 and controlled-expansion bullets. A low-recoiling rifle gives me a better chance at that.

Of course, there’s still a use case for the traditional rifle selection (e.g., 9.3x62 or larger for Cape Buffalo), because a traditional high-leg shot with an A-Frame or Partition and once in the hip or pelvic girdle with a solid bullet is a good combination. I’m not suggesting that a .224 is the best possible choice on these very large animals.

I found Cliff Grey’s story about the zebra’s hip instructive in this regard.

Additionally, in a charging scenario where the brain may be very difficult to hit, I’d prefer a bullet that penetrates deeper than 16”. A good double rifle that is going to send a bullet from the buffalo’s nose through its body and out its rear end seems like a better choice to me in that scenario. And that seems to be the weapon of choice for the guides who have to deal with that scenario. Of course, I have only read about that sort of hunting, I have never done it. But what makes sense for a guide to use in an absolutely terrible and chaotic situation doesn’t necessarily make sense for a typical client.

People hunt these animals with bows, air rifles, and handguns. I’d rather have a Tikka .223 than any bow, air rifle, or handgun. But that doesn’t make a Tikka .223 the optimal choice in every possible scenario.

 

[K9kodi]

Well I’m no scientist. At all. Or physics person, or an anatomy-ologist.

A charging bear head in sure, give me a heavy bullet to knock the skull, but if a beer presented , standing up , its way less of a need for penetration being as there’s no shoulder blade, maybe sternum is thicker sure. But if people are claiming devastating results at distance with the smaller calibers why not up close too?

 

[omicron1792]

Well I’m no scientist. At all. Or physics person, or an anatomy-ologist.

A charging bear head in sure, give me a heavy bullet to knock the skull, but if a beer presented , standing up , its way less of a need for penetration being as there’s no shoulder blade, maybe sternum is thicker sure. But if people are claiming devastating results at distance with the smaller calibers why not up close too?

I’m not on this train.

But to your question, a match bullet screaming 3000 at close impact would have the chance for less penetration. A different scenario than putting one in the vitals at 3-400 yards.