.270 + Black Bear = ???

A .270 CAN do it BUT if you have a choice USE MORE GUN. If you HAVE to use a .270, use the heaviest and best quality bullet you can find. Shot placement is (almost) everything.
 
Drat, this became a moot point suddenly. No bear hunting for me this season, I guess they're all hibernating in the place where we were going to go (Grande Prairie). We should have been up there in September, it seems. Guess it will have to wait till spring. So I guess that means pork mixed in the deer sausage, then, not bear! :(

In the meantime, my uncle says we should try and get drawn for grizz. Yikes! :D

And, as it turns out, my Dad's been using 150gr. bullets in his .270 for deer hunting all along. At least that means we needn't re-sight in the rifle when we do end up going for black bear...

...we had an awesome deer hunt this weekend. I shot me three muleys with three bullets, felt good about that. Am now trying to figger out how to mount a rack Euro-style, with most of the entire skull bleached and what not. I think I'm gonna have to call the cousin in Germany for the nitty gritty on that!

Edit: I'm not going to try for a head shot, anyway.
 
How's this for necromancy, bringing threads back from the dead?

Will be going up to Grande Prairie (or thereabouts) for spring bear on the Father's Day weekend. Jeez, I hope I'm not too late again!

Anyway, I have a related question (but not firearms related) that I hope I could get some feedback on:

Question One: How do I know if the bear I kill is good to eat?!? :redface:

I want to keep the skin, obviously, but I also want to mix the bear in with deer for sausage and render the lard.

But I've also heard that sometimes bear is no good to eat, like if it's been eating fish (????) or I dunno what. Are there telltale signs that I should be aware of? My uncle, who's taking us out hunting (the rest of us are dumb prairie hunters who've no clue what to do with bear) apparently thinks it's stupid to eat bears (or at least, he'd say so if he'd bother telling me. He's a man of few words).

And NOW, my wife's second cousin from Germany tells me bear can have some kind of disease (I can't remember the name of it offhand) which, if I get it, eats my brain! :eek: So apparently if they shoot a bear in Europe (Poland???) they send it away to get tested before they eat it, and make sure it's been deep frozen for a few months before they eat it too. Somehow I don't get the feeling this issue comes up much in Canada, but I thought it best to double-check with you guys.

Question Two: Is it just me, or are there no regulations in Alberta for what ### & age of black bear one can shoot?

My guess is that it would be unethical to shoot a mother bear with cubs (and scary!), unless one wants to get rid of these things like they are crazy pests or something. Anything other than that as far as regulations go? I've read the reg book a few times and don't recall anything on this topic. Maybe I'm a bad reader.

--------

P.S. Anybody got a garage in Edmonton where I could hang this thing, butcher it and brain tan the hide? I live in an apartment, and the inlaws live in a condo off Jasper... :p
 
Last edited:
I have come to realize that it is pointless to recommend minimum big game cartridges. No matter what you suggest someone somewhere has done it with a smaller cartridge, so even if you recommend a small center fire sure as hell someone has done it with a .22 short. Besides - not everyone hunts in the same place or the same way.

As soon as I read that the .270 should be considered the minimum for blackies I thought well if the .270 can do it - then so can a .25-06, and I have personal knowledge of dozens of blackies being taken with a .243 - often not with a bullet I'd choose either. Still, as a minimum recommendation I suppose the .270 makes some sense - if you consider that lots of folks will just buy a box of ammo regardless of bullet type. Under these circumstances any factory .270 load will kill a blackie, where as just any factory .243 load might not. By this logic though, no cross-over cartridges (varmints to deer) would be recommended for big game.

When I started planning my cape buff hunt I ordered a copy of Kevin Robertson's "The Perfect Shot" which is a book about shot placement and bullet-cartridge-gun recommendations for use on African big game. At the same time I saw Craig Boddington had a North American version of the same book, so I bought it as well.

Boddington's cartridge suggestions for blackies is a masterpiece of avoiding a mine field. Firstly he recommends any cartridge from the .270 on up, and adds that the .35 Remington, .44 magnum, .444, and .45-70 are useful when the range is short. He states that the .308 and up in .30 caliber are all good, then he gets into the .338's, big .35's and finally the .375 H&H.

Now I suppose this is all important stuff if you are looking for a new black bear specific gun. The truth is that a black bear rifle does not need to be specific, and any rifle or shotgun normally associated with deer hunting will do the trick. This is not exactly a secret, but the guys who sell gun magazines need to find new ways of saying the same things, so where the .30-30 might of been the recommended minimum for blackies 30 years ago, now because more folks pack bolt guns it has become the .270.
 
Amandil said:
Anyway, I have a related question (but not firearms related) that I hope I could get some feedback on...
Hey guys, the firearms thing was resolved (in my mind, anyway) back when this thread died the first time. ;)

Now I'm asking about eating the bear! :lol: Maybe I should've started a whole new thread...

At any rate, I found some stuff from the Government on Trichinosis, Trichinellosis, or whatever it's called. Don't sound so bad, although I guess I can't just smoke sausage with bear meat in it... :(
 
as long as you put the shot in the kill zone *right behind the forward stretched leg closest to you roughly 2 inches* your .270 will do fine just remember to use premium rounds LOL and the faster the kill the less you have to follow it
 
Well said everyone. .270 is plenty.

Shooting is like golfing. The industry can't profit from our shooting Mausers & Lee Enfields & handing-them-on when we're done, so technology is added yearly to make existing equipment obsolete (& improve our shooting, of course).

The .325 WSM is my favourite example. Other than having a shorter action, I don't think its advantage over .300 Rem Mag is worth the time taken to type this, & certainly not the price of a brand new rifle (chambered for a brand new, expensive & hard-to-find calibre). I personally have never heard shooters complain about the length of their .308's action (nor wil I ever shoot in that company.

If we don't start yelling "BS" every now & then we'll all need 5 rifles & 6 shotguns to hunt moose, bear & small game. Now I love having excuses to buy rifles & I expect that from advertisers, but not from supposed impartial experts on our sport.

I personally feel .303 British or .270 will easily handle caribou, moose & black bear. I havn't hunted in Northern Canada or the U.S. but I know what otherwise. Don't mind the experts - you'll need .338 & a $500.00 scope if you keep listening. Sorry for the rant, but hunting & shooting mags have become printed infomercials with each & every expert pushing the latest & greatest.
 
dionsimmonds said:
The .325 WSM is my favourite example. Other than having a shorter action, I don't think its advantage over .300 Rem Mag is worth the time taken to type this, & certainly not the price of a brand new rifle (chambered for a brand new, expensive & hard-to-find calibre). I personally have never heard shooters complain about the length of their .308's action (nor wil I ever shoot in that company.

.


WTF is a .300 Rem Mag?

:cool:
 
dionsimmonds said:
- you'll need .338 & a $500.00 scope if you keep listening.

Actually a good scope IS important. I'd rather have open sights than a crappy scope.
 
As long as it'll hold zero, have repeatable adjustments, and focus properly, it's not a crappy scope in my book. Better glass is cleaner and brighter, but who cares - it's not like bino's you're going to stare through all day and are trying to avoid eyestrain - as long as it's clear enough to put the crosshairs on the critter in legal shooting light, it's plenty bright.

Just my $0.02 redneck funds.
 
brotherjack said:
As long as it'll hold zero, have repeatable adjustments, and focus properly, it's not a crappy scope in my book. Better glass is cleaner and brighter, but who cares - it's not like bino's you're going to stare through all day and are trying to avoid eyestrain - as long as it's clear enough to put the crosshairs on the critter in legal shooting light, it's plenty bright.

Just my $0.02 redneck funds.

Spoken like a man who has never used a really good scope in the field! ;)

Ted
 
Why not? said:
Spoken like a man who has never used a really good scope in the field! ;)

I work in a sporting goods store - I've handled everything from $25 to $2,500 scopes. And yes, the high end/high dollar scopes are a whole other world of brightness and clarity etc. But, my point stands - a lower end scope (assuming all the solid mechanical attributes I mentioned in my last post), is more than enough to accurately place a bullet during anything resembling legal shooting light.

(by the way, when I say "lower end" scopes, I'm not talking about $25 wal-mart special's here, I'm referring to things like Bushnell Legend, 3200 or some of the high end of the Simmons line or the like - all scopes that can be had in the neighbourhood of $200.)


Binoculars are a whole other story - unlike a scope which I usually spend less than 5 minutes a year looking through, I will likely spend hours and hours looking through my bino's. For this, I want good clear/crisp/etc glass.
 
Back
Top Bottom