Is This a Big Bear Round?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A .270 Winchester is enough gun for bears or boars, especially at defensive distance, but no gun alone can protect you: you have to hit the critter where it counts, with any gun. If at all possible, avoid a situation where you are placed on the defensive; if getting there, pray the Lord and shoot, that is why you have spent thousands of dollars on practice before you got there. Generally speaking, animals are not that difficult to kill.

That being said, my .270 Winchester is semi-automatic and I would consider this an advantage in the situation you fear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, are you talking big black bears, or big bad Griz? For the former, I'd say yes. Great black bear, heavy deer, boar, light elk load. For the latter, I'd rather have your load than a .454 casul IF I only had time to get off one shot. The other rounds in the cylinder might come in handy on the .454 though, but that's a different topic. BTW, how good are you at throwing a bolt while peeing your pants? (assuming bolt action .270). I found I was remarkably good at it when I was young and a toe-caught coyote pulled out of a number two Bridger and decided to fight rather than flight. Granted, not exactly a ton of grizzly, but the adrenaline glands were definitely activated in a 10 year old boy. Practice, practice, practice.

I guess, I would personally prefer a 30-06 with a 200gr partition, staying within the realm of moderate calibers that can be had in a relatively light rifle that won't beat you up too bad and still be an effective medium to large game rifle to medium-longish range.

Shoot your TSX into some thick, green, soft wood and see what it does.
 
Frostbite said:
A .270 Winchester is enough gun for bears or boars, especially at defensive distance, but no gun alone can protect you: you have to hit the critter where it counts, with any gun. If at all possible, avoid a situation where you are placed on the defensive; if getting there, pray the Lord and shoot, that is why you have spent thousands of dollars on practice before you got there. Generally speaking, animals are not that difficult to kill.

That being said, my .270 Winchester is semi-automatic and I would consider this an advantage in the situation you fear.
Click to expand...

Was thinking bolt rifle - hunting other game, when things go bad.

For an auto? Always carry the M1 Garand w/ .30-06/168 gr. TSX.




GR
 
Random 8 said:
Now, are you talking big black bears, or big bad Griz? For the former, I'd say yes. Great black bear, heavy deer, boar, light elk load. For the latter, I'd rather have your load than a .454 casul IF I only had time to get off one shot. The other rounds in the cylinder might come in handy on the .454 though, but that's a different topic. BTW, how good are you at throwing a bolt while peeing your pants? (assuming bolt action .270). I found I was remarkably good at it when I was young and a toe-caught coyote pulled out of a number two Bridger and decided to fight rather than flight. Granted, not exactly a ton of grizzly, but the adrenaline glands were definitely activated in a 10 year old boy. Practice, practice, practice.

I guess, I would personally prefer a 30-06 with a 200gr partition, staying within the realm of moderate calibers that can be had in a relatively light rifle that won't beat you up too bad and still be an effective medium to large game rifle to medium-longish range.

Shoot your TSX into some thick, green, soft wood and see what it does.
Click to expand...

Next trip out - it will be pine and oak trees.

And yes, the .30-06/200 gr. NP is a good floor. (but don't have that bolt rifle anymore)



GR
 
If you think so, go ahead and try it. It is possible. I never would. Possible isn't good enough for me.
 
CraigC said:
What bullets do to steel and what they do to tissue and bones are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Agree.

But a bullet that stays together and penetrates steel - should stay together and penetrate tissue and bone, the question is how much.

For this application, don't know if typical hunting bullet performance is essential, or even desired.

Straight-line penetration, w/ sufficient set-up, and velocity and energy remaining to damage vitals.

And a 1/2" of steel caught my attention and got me thinking.




GR
 
MTMilitiaman said:
If you have to ask, then no, it probably isn't a very good bear round.
Click to expand...

Not really looking for a "very good" Bear round - but an adequate Bear round - in a pinch.

Back in the day, guys like Jack O'Connor (who killed Two Brown Bear w/, AFAIK, a .270 Win/130 gr. NP ) were able to make it work.

As stated, not a first choice - but a last resort, while hunting other game.




GR
 
The Alaska DNR did a lot of testing and determined that with the right bullets the 30-06 is a very good choice on Grizzly bears. Some folks think that report is wrong but I don't plan on finding out anyway. In my opinion, what matters most in stopping a charging bear is being able to shoot accurately. Since being an M-2 .50 cal. gunner I have always thought bigger and faster is better when your life depends on it. Big and slow or small and fast doesn't compute. Energy matters and I don't want to give up anything.
 
d2wing said:
The Alaska DNR did a lot of testing and determined that with the right bullets the 30-06 is a very good choice on Grizzly bears. Some folks think that report is wrong but I don't plan on finding out anyway. In my opinion, what matters most in stopping a charging bear is being able to shoot accurately. Since being an M-2 .50 cal. gunner I have always thought bigger and faster is better when your life depends on it. Big and slow or small and fast doesn't compute. Energy matters and I don't want to give up anything.
Click to expand...

Agree.

My "accurate" from field positions envelope ends at ~ a 180 gr. 30-06 from an 8 lb. rifle.

Whereas the 150 gr .270 out of that same 8 lb rifle, or a 168 gr. 30-06 out of a 10.5 lb rifle, is all day shooting.

Hits count - good hits count more.




GR
 
Garandimal said:
Not really looking for a "very good" Bear round - but an adequate Bear round - in a pinch.

Back in the day, guys like Jack O'Connor (who killed Two Brown Bear w/, AFAIK, a .270 Win/130 gr. NP ) were able to make it work.

As stated, not a first choice - but a last resort, while hunting other game.




GR
Click to expand...

Well in that case the question seems more rhetorical because the answer is obviously yes, in a pinch you could probably make about anything work, esp if it meant not being on the menu.

WDM Bell shot about 800 elephants with a 7x57 Mauser. That doesn't mean the 7x57 is an "elephant round."
 
MTMilitiaman said:
Well in that case the question seems more rhetorical because the answer is obviously yes, in a pinch you could probably make about anything work, esp if it meant not being on the menu.

WDM Bell shot about 800 elephants with a 7x57 Mauser. That doesn't mean the 7x57 is an "elephant round."
Click to expand...

Shot'em through the nasal cavity into the brain.

Not ideal.


This question (quest?) is in RE: to rifles more than rounds.

Is the .270 Win. a good enough round to have while hunting in Big Bear country?

Should the M1 Garand be brought instead, at a weight/accuracy penalty?

Should the ole .270 Win. be rebored/reBbl'ed? And, if so, to 30-06 or some other caliber?

Or, just acquire yet another rifle as contingency?


Not keepin' me up at night - just assessing current armament options after first giving away my sporter 03-A3, and then replacing it w/ yet another .270 Win.

Left kindofa hole in the arsenal.




GR
 
Garandimal said:
But a bullet that stays together and penetrates steel - should stay together and penetrate tissue and bone, the question is how much.
Click to expand...
Nope. Steel and wood, completely inapplicable to flesh.


d2wing said:
The Alaska DNR did a lot of testing and determined that with the right bullets the 30-06 is a very good choice on Grizzly bears. Some folks think that report is wrong but I don't plan on finding out anyway. In my opinion, what matters most in stopping a charging bear is being able to shoot accurately. Since being an M-2 .50 cal. gunner I have always thought bigger and faster is better when your life depends on it. Big and slow or small and fast doesn't compute. Energy matters and I don't want to give up anything.
Click to expand...
It's not wrong, it's outdated to the point of irrelevance. It was done in the 1980's with some questionable load choices. For example, all they tested in the .44Mag were generic 240gr loads. Modern loads with heavy hardcast or monolithic solids will be exponentially more effective. The .45-70 is also notably misrepresented.
 
CraigC said:
It's not wrong, it's outdated to the point of irrelevance. It was done in the 1980's with some questionable load choices. For example, all they tested in the .44Mag were generic 240gr loads. Modern loads with heavy hardcast or monolithic solids will be exponentially more effective. The .45-70 is also notably misrepresented.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion on this:

DM~ said:
index.php

DM
Click to expand...




GR
 
Demi-human said:
Of long range bear hunting?

I did not realize that was a viable excuse.

Excellent job.
Now, what shall I get...
Click to expand...

Well...

Initially intended the new M70 EW/SS to be a 30-06.

But then switched it to .270 Win. (along w/ a brief look at the 7mm-08 and 6.5CM), because, well, it's a great hunting round for that rifle and weight, and will shoot it and enjoy it in that caliber far more than the harder-kicking 30-06.

Then considered reboring the ole M700 .270 Win to 338-06, and then 30-06, but hate to mess w/ the ole girl as she is now a classic and a sweet shooter.

And yet Another rifle, just for a contingency? Should probably be avoided at this juncture.

So I'm thinkin'...




GR
 
Last edited:
WD Bell Concluded the 7X57 was enough for elephant and the majority of the 1100 he killed was with a 7X57 and some with 6.5X55. I don't think he ever used anything larger than 30 caliber. Late in his life, after the 308 was developed, he is quoted as saying that he would have used it if it had been available when he was hunting. The key is penetration and shot placement. Forget energy, bullet weight alone or diameter alone. If the bullet penetrates deep enough to reach vitals it will work. Sectional density and bullet construction is what determines penetration.

The original 30-06 load was 220 gr and those bullets have always had enough sectional density to get the job done. There have been multiple gun writers who have tested the therory. Finn Aagard was a noted African guide and writer who determined the heavy for caliber bullets in 30 caliber were more effective than anything else short of 375. Those results have been duplicated by other writers.

The Alaskan study might be almost 40 years old. But the same technology that has allowed 45-70 to catch up to the 30 calibers, can also be applied to smaller calibers. I owned several 45-70's going back to the 1970's. The recoil is simply far out of proportion to performance. With the loads capable of MATCHING 30-06 you get recoil from a Marlin lever gun that EXCEEDS 458 WM recoil from traditional guns.

The 270 is usually not used with bullets with enough sectional density or tough enough construction to be considered viable. But I wouldn't hesitate to use a 270/140 ttsx, or 150 Partition on big bear. Just as soon have one as a hot rodded 45-70. I have a preference for 30-06 for this. But if 270 was what I had and I wanted to hunt big bear I'd take it. And I'm not a 270 fan. But I do recognize that it will work. Basically every thing from 26 caliber to 35 caliber in bottle necked cartridges is designed for all the same stuff. If you choose the projectile carefully.
 
jmr40 said:
WD Bell Concluded the 7X57 was enough for elephant and the majority of the 1100 he killed was with a 7X57 and some with 6.5X55. I don't think he ever used anything larger than 30 caliber. Late in his life, after the 308 was developed, he is quoted as saying that he would have used it if it had been available when he was hunting. The key is penetration and shot placement. Forget energy, bullet weight alone or diameter alone. If the bullet penetrates deep enough to reach vitals it will work. Sectional density and bullet construction is what determines penetration.

The original 30-06 load was 220 gr and those bullets have always had enough sectional density to get the job done. There have been multiple gun writers who have tested the therory. Finn Aagard was a noted African guide and writer who determined the heavy for caliber bullets in 30 caliber were more effective than anything else short of 375. Those results have been duplicated by other writers.

The Alaskan study might be almost 40 years old. But the same technology that has allowed 45-70 to catch up to the 30 calibers, can also be applied to smaller calibers. I owned several 45-70's going back to the 1970's. The recoil is simply far out of proportion to performance. With the loads capable of MATCHING 30-06 you get recoil from a Marlin lever gun that EXCEEDS 458 WM recoil from traditional guns.

The 270 is usually not used with bullets with enough sectional density or tough enough construction to be considered viable. But I wouldn't hesitate to use a 270/140 ttsx, or 150 Partition on big bear. Just as soon have one as a hot rodded 45-70. I have a preference for 30-06 for this. But if 270 was what I had and I wanted to hunt big bear I'd take it. And I'm not a 270 fan. But I do recognize that it will work. Basically every thing from 26 caliber to 35 caliber in bottle necked cartridges is designed for all the same stuff. If you choose the projectile carefully.
Click to expand...

I’m reading “ Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter” as we speak. Bell wrote that he regularly employed the .318 Westley Richards, taking just it and a .22lr on one primarily river-bound safari while his hunting partner “W.” used a 12 bore shotgun and a .450/400. He even wrote that he had Rigby make him a cartridge belt that held 50 cartridges for this rifle to carry ammo on his wanderings through the dense forest on this trip.

On an earlier safari Bell also used a .303 to great effect, with the 10- shot magazine it sounds like a Lee-Enfield. This gun was used for dropping animals like elephant and zebra, the latter to impress natives who were rather sketchy when he encountered them.

He did say that the .275 Rigby (7x57 Mauser) and .256 (6.5 Mannlicher-Shonhauer..sp?) were as effective as a .400/450 if placed in the brain... and he did employ the .275 a lot on his safaris... but it seems the .275 gets all the fame but the .318 is mentioned a lot more by the author, and it was used on many heart shot elephant as well as for head shots.

The .270 load the OP lists would be from the same lines Bell wrote about; it would be effective if properly placed. Since not every shot is a guaranteed winner I’d rather use a bit more gun if a big bear was my primary quarry, but that load combo would do in a pinch.
Stay safe!
 
A lot depends on if you are hunting the bear or he is hunting you. I totally agree that shot placement and knowledge of where to put it is vastly more important than what you shoot with. A miss with a .338 is no more effective than a miss with a .270
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Garandimal
  • Locked
A Note RE: Rifle Recoil...
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Mosin Bubba
M
Garandimal
  • Locked
Why does the 6.5 Creedmoor Crowd claim the 143 ELD-X as the Bullet that Beats the .270 Winchester?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
15K
Art Eatman
A
S
  • Locked
Can someone explain the practical use of the 30-378 and 338-378 rounds??
Replies
19
Views
9K
ants
A
M
  • Locked
What's with all the new calibers for the AR?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
68wj
6
Garandimal
  • Locked
An Interesting Coincidence: .270 WCF and 6.5x55mm
Replies
10
Views
846
Dr T
Dr T
Back
Top