.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.