Yukon Men and AR's

[hunt_ak]

AKDoug, don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of folks toting around what I would be considered 'light medicine' for some of our 4-legged friends in the woods. Heck, look at our buddy 'stranger' tipping stuff over left and right with his Nagant.

I would just say that I would not consider it the 'norm', that's for sure...

[PA PATRIOT]

Next year me and the wife will be touring many different areas of Alaska and N/W Canada to locate that retirement home we always dreamed of and while I hope to be slightly more remote then living a few miles out of a major town I know my first line defense would most likely be something with a "30" or "7.62" in front of it.

Now the wife most likely will run with a AR platform but once again a simple upper change into the 6.8 or .300 caliber range will be the minimum emergency use gun to deal with rouge Black Bear and other smaller problems on the property.

Now I said emergency use and not hunting and since we would be using these guns while we age into are golden years so I think we should become accustom to what will be practical and adapt to any limitations the caliber may impose use wise.

[DeltaSierra]

A friend of mine has traveled quite a bit in Alaska, and told me this story.

He was visiting a native village, and met an older fellow that had row upon row of polar bear skulls, each one with a small hole in the skull. Every bear had been killed with a single shot from a .22 rimfire, according to the owner.

Now I have no doubt that the story is true (the fellow that told me had no reason to make it up, and I knew him fairly well at the time he told me) and I also have no doubt that anyone attempting such a feat is just a little nuts....

[AKDoug]

I met a old man on Lake Iliamna many years back that claimed to have killed over 100 brown bears. I have no doubt he probably had since he was in his 90's. His weapon of choice for most of those bears? 30-30. Only on his last dozen or so bears he started using a .270. He scoffed at my .375 H&H, too heavy and too expensive he said.

[AKDoug]

He was visiting a native village, and met an older fellow that had row upon row of polar bear skulls, each one with a small hole in the skull. Every bear had been killed with a single shot from a .22 rimfire, according to the owner.

Not crazy, killed from a boat. A swimming Polar bear isn't much of a challenge from a boat. They also kill caribou from boats when they swim rivers, with a .22LR. I watched over 75 caribou shot with a .223 in my time living in Kivalina. I would say that well over 75% were one shot kills (lots of head shots), and I don't recall any getting away.

The oddest thing I saw out there was a guy that owned a Remington 40X in 6mm BR. He got the rifle with 40 rounds of ammo. He was about 1/2 way through that when I got there. Said he killed 17 walruses with it and three polar bears. That thing had no bluing left and the walnut stock was tie wired around the barrel to hold it together. I was his best buddy when he tried to shoot it and nothing happened. I disassembled the bolt and cleaned it. Worked like a charm after that. My last day in the village he smoked a polar bear that was swimming in the waves at about 200 yards right in the head with that rifle...from his knees using an ATV for a rest.

[DeltaSierra]

Not crazy, killed from a boat.

OK, makes sense now that you mention it....

When my friend told me that story, he neglected to mention the boat bit...

[shootist1970]

I dunno, I read in an article about the AR, I think it was in one of the "Book of the AR-15" by guns and ammo that some retired Colonel working for Colt traveled around the world and shot various large game to prove the .223's effectiveness in the early 1960's including the great bears as a sales gimmick.

Personally if i was facing a Grizzly, i'd think a 155mm Howitzer was too small!!

[usmc1371]

You have to realize there is a big difference between local subsistance hunters and out of state hunters. Locals are meet hunting taking animals that present good shots and not wasting ammo trying for the "big rack". For the price of a caribou hunt I wouldn't take my AR as my first choice, seems the 300wm would make more sense for me. 10,000+ for brown bear means I will pack a couple extra pounds around to have my 375 in my hand when what is likely to be a once in a life chance comes around. Now if I were shooting a bunch of caribou for the freezer it wouldn't make spence to spend $5 a shot.

[Alaskapopo]

You have to realize there is a big difference between local subsistance hunters and out of state hunters. Locals are meet hunting taking animals that present good shots and not wasting ammo trying for the "big rack". For the price of a caribou hunt I wouldn't take my AR as my first choice, seems the 300wm would make more sense for me. 10,000+ for brown bear means I will pack a couple extra pounds around to have my 375 in my hand when what is likely to be a once in a life chance comes around. Now if I were shooting a bunch of caribou for the freezer it wouldn't make spence to spend $5 a shot.

With all due respect I have a lot more respect for so called trophy hunters than so called local subsistance hunters. Subsistence hunters here in Alaska have slaughtered entire herds of caribou and left the animals to rot. (Point Hope) They have used snowmachines to chase down animals and shoot them while driving. (happened to be the mayor in Bethel. A local native alaskan so called subsistence hunter). They go out with SKS's and Mini 14's and spray herds and go in after whats went down with no regard to the many animals they wounded. Trophy hunters follow the law and make ethical shots and don't wound the animals because they want to take the trophy and the meat home. After living 6 years in the bush (western Alaska) I lost a lot of respect for so called subsistence hunting in rural Alaska.
I personally have killed a black bear with a 5.56 using 75 grain Tap. The others I have killed have been with 12 gauge slugs all at work.
Pat

[nineteenkilo]

I feel that I can contribute a bit to what's going on with these stories. I have spent a lifetime hunting and trapping and I've seen a lot. People react strangely under duress (buck fever) and the critters don't always do what we expect them to do.

As to the bear that took 5 rounds from a 416. That's not unlikely. It could have probably taken 100 and died not one bit faster. In fact, the first shot in the boiler room was more than enough and the bear would have expired in due course if the shooter had simply been patient. I have seen this more times than I can count. There's a very good reason why you wait to track wounded animals. Not because they may become enraged (like a grizzly), but because you have to let them wound do it's job. Very, very few critters drop immediately and this applies to every species and not just large game.

As to the 22-250 or any other super fast round, there is an appropriate place and time. It is devastatingly effective when used on just about anything, but it does have some severe limitations.

Every centerfire cartridge is effective on North American game to some degree or another. This is the same discussion that gets hashed and rehashed when it comes to terminal performance on humans. A human being is thin-skinned, medium game in the hunting world. This roughly equates to a northern whitetail deer.

For my purposes, my go to for everything under 200 yards is a 30-30. It is short, light, cheap to shoot, and has a perfect blend of performance and power. 150-180 grains moving at modest velocities ensures good penetration, expansion, and no wasted energy after an exit wound if I do my part. This is why you will often see me make fun of the 270 on a 75 yard green field crowd.

Does the 270 work? Hell yes.

But why?

For trapping anything, I carry a 22lr. It is effective on everything's head at a distance of 1 foot. Even at contact engagement distance. yotes and fox will often run and bash against the chains and stakes. Coons will flip and flop all over the place, etc.

Killing and/or dying is never clean.