.223 for blackbear?

[mountainman]

On a discussion in regards to calibers for blackbear under guns and ammo here, a member made this statement...

"I would go at a bear with a .223 Remington and a 60gr Nosler Partition if it were legal. Of course the proper side arm would be on hand for back up. It's just a black bear. "

Opinions??
 

[Skillet]

It's just a black bear.

Not a bear hunter, so I can't comment on the choice of weapon - but I don't care much for this attitude.   

[D-Rock425]

 

[FC]

You could probably kill one with a potato gun too if you hit it just right but it's not a very kind method for the animal. 

[Special T]

You can use one for a cougar.    Here is what i would say. IF you could use a .223 you would need a perfect shot AND need to be close likely within 100yards or so. I can tell you that i would hunt bear with a .223 if it were legal, but for a different reason than you might think... I am likely to get a savage model 24 or the new 42 in a .223 over a 12 ga under. I would much prefer they offer it in a .243...  This state has a problem with predators of ALL kinds so If i could get a great west side calling gun I would likely hunt predators only like crazy. I think a .223 is much less than ideal and would think that anyone with a .223 also has a more capable rifle/round...

[Biggerhammer]

Just read this thread, it will give you the full context of why Mtn Man's panties are in a knot.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,108474.30.html

[iusmc2002]

Apparently some don't understand context.  Or they don't WANT to understand it and would rather start an interwebz fight.  Either way, if you look at the rest of those posts, the statement equates the animal to the round.  "It's just a black bear (not a grizzly, rhino or wildebeest)  Folks have been killing things as small as "just a black bear" with rounds much less substantial than a .223 with a 60gr Partition for a long time (spears, bow and arrow, anyone?)  But understanding the context just wouldn't make it any fun, now would it??

[Biggerhammer]

Apparently some don't understand context.  Or they don't WANT to understand it and would rather start an interwebz fight.  Either way, if you look at the rest of those posts, the statement equates the animal to the round.  "It's just a black bear (not a grizzly, rhino or wildebeest)  Folks have been killing things as small as "just a black bear" with rounds much less substantial than a .223 with a 60gr Partition for a long time (spears, bow and arrow, anyone?)  But understanding the context just wouldn't make it any fun, now would it??

Bingo! I've watched the Alaskan Natives do some crazy stuff with small cartridges.

[xXLojackXx]

A 60gr partition to the head or a 60gr VMax to the neck will definitely kill a black bear. The margin for error is drastically smaller though. I'd rather put a 200gr Accubond through its heart/lungs

[bobcat]

I'd use a Barnes rather than a Partition, but I'm sure it would kill a bear just fine. Definitely not the caliber I would choose for bear, but if it's what I had when an opportunity at a bear came up, I'd use it (not in this state though, it's not legal).

But really, people hunt bears with archery gear, I think a 223 would be more effective than an arrow.

[Jim the Plumber]

There are some very talented key board users that lay claim to a lot of stuff. If one delves into their post's, you will see these same people, by their own admission,  unable to put down a small 3 point mule deer at point blank range with a magnum rifle they, apparently, are  afraid of.
Then claim to have the wherewithal to do a spine/ brain shot on a bear.

[Jingles]

Coming from a person that killed a 375 pound blackbear with a 243 at 150 yards withe a 100 grqin Nosler partition 1 shot bear went maybe 40 yards before piling up.  the 243 is the absolute smallest I would go and trust me I was a nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rockers after I did because I sat down and got to thinking all I did was Pizz it off now I have to go after it to finish it off with nothing but the 243 and a 45 LC in super think jungle brush.. You know that stuff where you wish you had a machete so you could get through without belly crawling. I personally think a 223 is just a bit small to get the best penetration

[Jim the Plumber]

I'd use a Barnes rather than a Partition, but I'm sure it would kill a bear just fine. Definitely not the caliber I would choose for bear, but if it's what I had when an opportunity at a bear came up, I'd use it (not in this state though, it's not legal).

But really, people hunt bears with archery gear, I think a 223 would be more effective than an arrow.
 

Apples and oranges Bobcat. The arrow kills by cutting, and more often than not leaves an ample blood trail. Bear are notorious for not leaving much of a blood trail when shot with a small cartridge such as the 223 Rem. For bear, in my opinion, The 223 Rem also is a bit in short supply of  penetration and energy .
 To the OP, in a hunting situation, absolutely not. In a survival scenario, absolutely yes.

[bobcat]

Well, I would NEVER consider using a 223 for hunting bears. I was only saying that yes, it would kill a bear. But it's far from ideal.

[Wea300mag]

Too small of a caliber for my liking. If you are hunting with a .223, you are asking for more "lost" bears, especially here on the Westside. My blood curdles when I have to crawl through the brush looking for a wounded bear. 

 

[billythekidrock]

I'd use a Barnes rather than a Partition, but I'm sure it would kill a bear just fine. Definitely not the caliber I would choose for bear, but if it's what I had when an opportunity at a bear came up, I'd use it (not in this state though, it's not legal).

But really, people hunt bears with archery gear, I think a 223 would be more effective than an arrow.
 

Apples and oranges Bobcat. The arrow kills by cutting, and more often than not leaves an ample blood trail. Bear are notorious for not leaving much of a blood trail when shot with a small cartridge such as the 223 Rem. For bear, in my opinion, The 223 Rem also is a bit in short supply of  penetration and energy .
 To the OP, in a hunting situation, absolutely not. In a survival scenario, absolutely yes.

I agree completely.
A bear, properly hit with a .223 will not leave as good of a blood trail as one properly hit with a broadhead.

[SemperFidelis97]

It's twin brother the 5.56 has killed plenty of people larger than most bears you will see on the westside not my preference, but still deadly.

[Biggerhammer]

It's twin brother the 5.56 has killed plenty of people larger than most bears you will see on the westside not my preference, but still deadly.

Exactly, no one ever said it was "Their" preferred cartridge cartridge. It is very well capable of getting the job done. Some like to dramatize it and take it out of text.

[BOWHUNTER45]

I think a .223 is a little light for bear hunting ...unless it is in a tree sitting above your head ...or you plan on shooting him below the ear , which can be easily done in the right hands 

[NW-GSP]

 

[Biggerhammer]

I think a .223 is a little light for bear hunting ...unless it is in a tree sitting above your head ...or you plan on shooting him below the ear , which can be easily done in the right hands 

No way, behind the ear! You would have to take on line shooting classes from" Snipers Hide" to be capable of such a shot.

[BOWHUNTER45]

   Well I learned from this Old Marine ....My dad 

[Rooster1981]

I wonder about questions like this ? The idea of trying to find the smallest caliber of round for whatever the quarry is , "could" it kill the animal always puzzled me.  If I aim at something and shoot  my projectile I have to know that the animal will go down and not suffer. jmo

[Kola16]

Some guys go after wild boars with .22 cal. pellet guns  Personally, I prefer a bigger caliber, but for those that like smaller calibers......it is just THEIR way and not mine 

[fisheral87]

In any hunting situation I want a affordable system that will allow me sufficient mobility and at a level of quality such that I am able engage a animal sized target at a practical distance for my skill level (subjective). The projectile should have  characteristics that will ensure a high percentage of a one shot one kill outcome that maximizes the amount of meat harvested (multiple variables, ethics, my opinion).

Correct placement of a .22lr round could kill a black bear, however, the percentages with that cartridge are significantly lower.

Hunting with lower calibers to me is not like fishing with light tackle. It comes down to the individual and the risk they are willing to accept that their choices leading up to the shot will result in a clean harvest of the animal. This is where the ethics and the individuals responsibility to understand their own system and it's inherent capabilities and shortfalls come into play.

Giving other options I would not choose .223 as a primary cartridge for black bear.

If I had an AR in the woods and was charged by a black bear, I'd light it up like the 4th, because the lower percentages would be more acceptable.

[Jonathan_S]

This is such a funny topic. Is the .223 the new .243 or .257? Nobody in their right mind would hunt black bear with a .223 regardless of the fact that if you heart or brain shot them, they'd die. If I met someone hunting bears with a .223, I would want to kick them... Then I'd run because they probably had an AR. 

[deerslyr]

Itd kill a bear just fine, as stated not the most desired round. I dont know why everyone is wrapped around the fact that its a black bear. Id say 80% if bears shot are the same size or smaller than your average deer (id say most are smaller), and the upper 16% are the size of a large deer, with 4% being true 300+ bears. so it would be no different than shooting a deer with a 223, which is legal in a lot of states. I have a couple buddies that prefer the 22-250 over the 223 though. Ill stick to the 270 for everything which probably isnt preferred or recommended by most on this sight for bear or elk. 

[jess]

bears are one of the toughest critters on earth i dont like trackin blood on a bear as you would if you shot one with a oversized 22!  I shoot them in the shoulders with a big gun.. And would never think of going after one with a .223 dumb idea if you ask me..

[bugs n bones]

I'd use a Barnes rather than a Partition, but I'm sure it would kill a bear just fine. Definitely not the caliber I would choose for bear, but if it's what I had when an opportunity at a bear came up, I'd use it (not in this state though, it's not legal).

But really, people hunt bears with archery gear, I think a 223 would be more effective than an arrow.

X2!!!!! Bears are alot tougher than people think, and speaking from plenty of experience anyone who has killed enough bears would know even if it was legal it is far from ideal and a uneducated choice!!

[Special T]

If you shot it like you would an archery bear i think you would be OK... Bears shoulder and leg bone protect most of the heart and lungs. you have to have a broad side shot with the leg lifted with an arrow, so i would assume the same kind of shot with a .223 would be fine.

[Atroxus]

I'd use a Barnes rather than a Partition, but I'm sure it would kill a bear just fine. Definitely not the caliber I would choose for bear, but if it's what I had when an opportunity at a bear came up, I'd use it (not in this state though, it's not legal).

But really, people hunt bears with archery gear, I think a 223 would be more effective than an arrow.
 

Apples and oranges Bobcat. The arrow kills by cutting, and more often than not leaves an ample blood trail. Bear are notorious for not leaving much of a blood trail when shot with a small cartridge such as the 223 Rem. For bear, in my opinion, The 223 Rem also is a bit in short supply of  penetration and energy .
 To the OP, in a hunting situation, absolutely not. In a survival scenario, absolutely yes.

I agree completely.
A bear, properly hit with a .223 will not leave as good of a blood trail as one properly hit with a broadhead.

If you want a blood trail .223 is not a viable option. If on the other hand you can *consistently* make a spine or brain shot a .223 should be plenty effective. I couldn't/wouldn't do it, but I am sure there are people who could. Course in this state this debate is purely academic since it's not legal.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[inchtowntracking]

We have killed a lot of bear with a .223 and I wouldn't hesitate to do it again. But we are taught to only use head shots for every animal we kill.

[mountainman]

I'd use a Barnes rather than a Partition, but I'm sure it would kill a bear just fine. Definitely not the caliber I would choose for bear, but if it's what I had when an opportunity at a bear came up, I'd use it (not in this state though, it's not legal).

But really, people hunt bears with archery gear, I think a 223 would be more effective than an arrow.
 

Apples and oranges Bobcat. The arrow kills by cutting, and more often than not leaves an ample blood trail. Bear are notorious for not leaving much of a blood trail when shot with a small cartridge such as the 223 Rem. For bear, in my opinion, The 223 Rem also is a bit in short supply of  penetration and energy .
 To the OP, in a hunting situation, absolutely not. In a survival scenario, absolutely yes.

I agree completely.
A bear, properly hit with a .223 will not leave as good of a blood trail as one properly hit with a broadhead.

Best bloodtrails ive seen on bear have been broadhead shots!

[C-Money]

I really don't see a black bear going very far with a well placed lung/heart shot using a 60gr Nosler Partition from a .223. It sure would not be my first choice to do that, but I feel it would be effective at respectable ranges. I am a fan of the current law making .243 cal bullets the minimum.

[bobcat]

I think I read somewhere that Eskimos kill Polar Bears with the 223.

Or maybe the 22 mag (rim fire)?   

[ICEMAN]

Best bloodtrails ive seen on bear have been broadhead shots!

Better than this?

[Mike450r]

Black bear are thin skinned but have some fairly heavy bones.  Good shooting is essentail with every caliber but moreso with the smaller ones.  Bear can also seal up a small wound with fat so the blood trail issue comes into play.

That being said,  a .223 with 60 grn partition would kill a black bear just fine, shot and seen a lot of em get shot,  most of them in the old days while up in a tree and in my opinion they aren't as tough as people think,  but they do have a will to survive it seems and unless its a drop em right there shot those little furballs will jump spin and run pretty darn for so bloodtrailing after shooting a bear with the .223 would be my concern way more than it actually killing it.

[Seabass]

I shot my first black bear with a .243 but I was 18 and didn't think about very much beyond what I was doing at that exact second. My wife shot one with a .243 a couple of years ago. Both were not ideal situations but they happened, both bears died and were recovered. They were both also small and shot at very close range with perfect placement.The last 6 bears I shot were with some sort of .30 bullet from a 30-06 to a .300 Weatherby.

I guess I just don't really understand why a person would choose to hunt bear with a .223 if they had a choice. My dad used to always use this line when a discussion like this came up. You can chop down a tree with the claw of hammer but why would you if you had a chainsaw.

[Kowsrule30]

With correct shot placement and that bullet the 223 will kill a black bear... Wouldn't be my choice of calibers... My first bear dropped in it's tracks with a heart/lung shot from my 243 at 140 yards....

[Jonathan_S]

It's pretty easy to tell that nobody who cares about bear hunting is actually bear hunting   

Since THIS thread is the most active under bear hunting.

I doubt we'll see it at the top next August 

[Deep Forks]

Best bloodtrails ive seen on bear have been broadhead shots!

Better than this?

  Iceman, bet I know what that bear was shot with and it is a very good choice.  

[ICEMAN]

Best bloodtrails ive seen on bear have been broadhead shots!

Better than this?

  Iceman, bet I know what that bear was shot with and it is a very good choice.  

.300 Ultramagnum.....  Didn't go very far...

[mountainman]

Best bloodtrails ive seen on bear have been broadhead shots!

Better than this?

  Iceman, bet I know what that bear was shot with and it is a very good choice.  

:)Now thats a nice bloodtrail!!