Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 02, 2009, 09:18:33 AM
What say you?
-Steve
Post by: Ray on July 02, 2009, 09:32:45 AM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 02, 2009, 10:00:19 AM
-Steve
Post by: shanevg on July 02, 2009, 10:41:37 AM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 02, 2009, 11:09:38 AM
-Steve
Post by: jackelope on July 02, 2009, 11:10:47 AM
Post by: saylean on July 02, 2009, 11:12:33 AM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 02, 2009, 11:18:50 AM
I'm still learning all that size stuff. I've seen some big ones in years past, but the smaller ones sure do out number them.
Hmm... Kinda the same as my Deer sightings. What's up with that?
-Steve
Post by: saylean on July 02, 2009, 11:24:30 AM
6'2" from nose to tail. Spring bear 09, shameless self promotion ;) Not the biggest of all bears, but the biggest for me.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 02, 2009, 11:36:56 AM
Post by: saylean on July 02, 2009, 11:39:02 AM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 02, 2009, 11:41:35 AM
When you have a Hide Laid Out Flat (Not Stretched)
- Measure the From Tip Of the Nose to the Tip of the Tail, Hair NOT included.
- Measure from Tip to Tip of the Front Claws.
- Add these two measurements together
- Divide by 2
-Steve
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 02, 2009, 11:44:01 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2009, 12:08:21 PM
Post by: shanevg on July 02, 2009, 12:09:46 PM
Better keep an eye on him till season....
Don't worry about that. :)
Post by: bucklucky on July 02, 2009, 12:47:57 PM
Post by: bucklucky on July 02, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2009, 02:13:05 PM
A good friend from western WA killed this bear with me back when we could still use dogs. To date it's the biggest bear I have caught or killed out of many hundred bear. We used to run the dogs a lot just for fun, we took pictures and let as many or more bear go than what we killed.
This bear treed in heavy black pine cover over a mile hike in. Usually the really big bear will bay up on the ground but this one climbed a tree with only three dogs after him. I will never forget seeing this huge friggin bear up a small tree, There were no big trees in that overgrown mess. My friend wanted to kill a bear with his pistol so here we are standing there looking at one of the biggest bears in Washington with nothing but 44 mag pistols between us. OH SH$$.
A pistol will do fine at close range on most bear up to about 300 pounds if you hit them good. The problem with big bear over that size is that they are so thick through that a pistol just doesn't get enough penetration. Obviously my friend was not going to walk away from this bear so we got ouselves into the best position possible and he started shooting. Unfortunately it took more than one shot but this brute died. I respect game a lot, (especially bear), I like to see one shot quick kills whenever possible, it's our responsibilty as ethical hunters.
We couldn't hardly move him around for photos, so we propped his head up and took photos pretty much where he died. I also butchered him in the same spot. We managed to carry out the front shoulders and rear legs in two pieces but I boned out the neck and what was left of the back and rib cage meat. Having been involved in many bear that scaled between 400-500 pounds, I am certain this bear would have weighed about 550 so that's what I call him even though I didn't get to weigh him.
Just so you know, my friend shot well, but I found most of the bullets in the chest cavity and they were barely penetrating to the vitals and not having the energy to do enough damage for a quick kill. We were simply undergunned.
It was all four of us could do to carry out this bear in pieces. I remember his hide was close to 8', but I would have to get ahold of my friend to get the exact measurement. He said he entered him in SCI under handguns and at that time he was #7 in that category. The taxidermist used a grizzly form and adjusted the shape as needed for a live mount. It is an awesome huge mount.
Post by: shanevg on July 02, 2009, 02:28:33 PM
Post by: oneezreiter on July 02, 2009, 02:35:12 PM
Post by: bucklucky on July 02, 2009, 02:38:43 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2009, 03:17:17 PM
Post by: bucklucky on July 02, 2009, 03:21:08 PM
Post by: tlbradford on July 02, 2009, 03:37:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2009, 03:44:56 PM
Not Found The Bear
Passed The Shot
Shoot It Myself
Not quite sure what you are asking.
Post by: zackmioli on July 02, 2009, 06:33:14 PM
Post by: BC CHASER on July 02, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2009, 09:52:02 PM
Here is my son a few years ago when he was about 17. This was the first big bear that he was the guide. They killed it in the berries, the boy that shot it I beleive was only 15 and it was his first bear hunt. If I remember right the bear was 383 and real close to 7'.
Post by: scroder on July 02, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,28381.msg328966.html#msg328966
Post by: tlbradford on July 02, 2009, 10:27:40 PM
I'm not sure in what respect you are asking??? Explain your question a little more so I know how you want me to answer.
Not Found The Bear
Passed The Shot
Shoot It Myself
Not quite sure what you are asking.
I just meant that I would feel a whole lot safer with dogs between me and a big wounded bear. I was asking if you were close enough to shoot that bear with a .44, but didn' have dogs with you, would you have taken the shot?
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2009, 11:30:19 PM
Since the bear was in a tree I knew my friend would get at least 3 shots in the bear before it could get out of sight. I knew he could shoot fairly well and I was armed with a 44 myself. If anything bad happened, I could have intervened if needed, so we did it.
Big Rifles, bows, and shotguns are best for bear. I like a 300 magnum the best and a 338 or 7MM next best. If I lived in heavy cover and long shots were rare, I would probably lean toward a 45/70 etc. But where we hunt, we sometimes are shooting longer ranges so i like the flat shooting magnums.
Pistols really don't have the power and neither do muzzleloaders unless you have a heavy or modern projectile in the muzz. I was in a bad situation a couple times where we had a big bear on the ground with a muzzleloader guy shooting round balls, the round balls were not getting enough penetration. On one of those bear the guy ran out of loads and I had to finish a half live bear by cutting its throat. One of the few times I had forgot to carry my pistol. That did spook me, but we couldn't leave a wounded bear, and I was very careful how I approached the bear so that he was focused on everything else, his throat was cut and I was out of reach before the bear knew what happened. It's amazing what a sharp nife and some adrenilin can do.
Post by: littlebuf on July 02, 2009, 11:52:44 PM
Post by: littlebuf on July 02, 2009, 11:53:28 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 03, 2009, 01:11:34 AM
-Steve
Post by: stringflinger4elk on July 03, 2009, 01:43:26 AM
I like the magnum outcome way better alot less trackin crawlin through brush on your havds and knees prayin you aren't going to find him staring at you 6 inches away... :chuckle:
Post by: winston2789 on July 06, 2009, 08:19:16 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 07, 2009, 04:11:39 PM
Quote
what weight bullet do you prefer out of the 300 for bear.
littlebuf
For over 30 years I have been shooting 180's to 220's out of my own 300 magnums on all types of game including many bear and I have watched my hunters also use just about every caliber imaginable on all types of animals. Bullet type is critical. I will not let a hunter hunt bear with Nosler ballistic tips, but on the other hand Nosler partitions are pretty darn good. Corelocks actually will kill fairly well but the bullets just don't hold together as well as they should. The premium bullets hold together well but some may not expand as well as they need to at long range.
I had settled on 180's the last 10 years or so because it just seemed what really mattered was hitting a bear just right and they don't kick near as much as the larger bullets. The guys with the 180-200 partitions are packing one of the all around best loads, that's for sure. Recently I have been pretty impressed by animals I have seen shot with Barnes Triple Shock. The other thing I like about Triple Shocks, they don't lose any weight. I am experimenting with switching over to Barnes 168's. As soon as that bullet is halfway through an animal it still weighs more than many larger bullets that start losing weight as soon as they hit. I have seen excellent success on elk and mule deer with Barnes triple shock bullets and if given the opportunity I will try to determine how they do on bear.
A big bear will take a lot more punishment than any other lower 48 animal that I know of. The best thing is to try and break bone and get the lungs. A bear will run nearly every time unless you break bone. But he also won't die unless you hit vital organs. I like the shoulder lungs combo with a shot if at all possible.
A neck, backbone, or head shot is extremely effective, but most hunters do not shoot well enough in hunting situations to recommend those type of shots.
I would be very interested to hear if any of you guys have used Barnes 168's on bear.
Post by: Craig on July 07, 2009, 05:31:50 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv411%2Ftruck1%2FIMG_1887.jpg&hash=9a578ec256e88ef1802b22d8193a0ecf713eb26e)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv411%2Ftruck1%2FIMG_0168.jpg&hash=79f500cddb1070517c214d3d17288e8c34c19ce6)
Post by: D-Rock425 on July 07, 2009, 06:46:27 PM
Post by: stringflinger4elk on July 07, 2009, 08:38:40 PM
kawhoomp!!!! nothing but a taxidermy bill left over and a pile of bear summer sausage and jerky left to eat YUM YUM YUM!!! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Branden on July 07, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
I had settled on 180's the last 10 years or so because it just seemed what really mattered was hitting a bear just right and they don't kick near as much as the larger bullets. The guys with the 180-200 partitions are packing one of the all around best loads, that's for sure. Recently I have been pretty impressed by animals I have seen shot with Barnes Triple Shock. The other thing I like about Triple Shocks, they don't lose any weight. I am experimenting with switching over to Barnes 168's. As soon as that bullet is halfway through an animal it still weighs more than many larger bullets that start losing weight as soon as they hit. I have seen excellent success on elk and mule deer with Barnes triple shock bullets and if given the opportunity I will try to determine how they do on bear.
I would be very interested to hear if any of you guys have used Barnes 168's on bear.
The first bear bear I ever shot was with a regular 180 Barnes. It was a bad angle and I probably should have shot sooner when it was broadside but was waiting for it to stop. It was about to disappear and I wanted to shoot a bear so I shot when it was walking straight away. Hit it in the hip and the bullet broke almost every rib before exiting the front shoulder.
Shot two other bears with 180 triple shocks and both died in there tracks. Never have recovered a Barnes bullet from any animal I have shot. So I would think they are keeping full weight retention. I think they are possibly the best hunting bullets made.
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 07, 2009, 10:02:23 PM
-Steve
Post by: scroder on July 07, 2009, 11:01:42 PM
:yeah:
check out the pic of the bullet i got out of my bear. 180 gr 30-06 40 yards broadside the bullet broke two ribs and had just broken the hide on the opposite side.
Post by: BLUEBULLS on July 08, 2009, 05:58:31 AM
Post by: lewy on July 08, 2009, 06:21:54 AM
Post by: littlebuf on July 08, 2009, 07:50:36 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 08, 2009, 08:23:01 AM
So what is the best bullet for bear? I think you need a bullet that goes clear through a bear and does as much damage going through as possble. Therefore you need weight retention, quick expansion at close range, and quick expansion at long range, those three requirements are a tough combination to achieve.
I am not sure it matters what bullet is used if you don't get a good combo of vitals and bone. If you hit the lungs, heart, or liver and no bone a bear will most suredly run some distance. If the bullet doesn't leave a big exit hole there will not be much tracking blood due to plugging of the wound by all the fat. That problem in itself results in some bear not being found.
However, weight retention is the reason I am not yet sure if the partition is the best bear bullet. It does an outstanding job, but it does lose a lot of weight and it doesn't always exit.
I have not seen enough stuff shot with accubonds to form an opinion on them. I will have to take a look at them from what you say. Seems I heard Barnes has a new bullet design out, does anyone know about that bullet?
Post by: SHANE(WA) on July 08, 2009, 11:47:31 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2009, 12:57:42 AM
Post by: BC CHASER on July 11, 2009, 09:47:04 PM
Post by: Bofire on July 12, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v446/Bofire/?action=view¤t=PDR_0072A.jpg
This one measured 7'2" my biggest
Carl
Post by: SHANE(WA) on July 13, 2009, 11:58:00 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 14, 2009, 12:00:15 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on July 14, 2009, 01:02:18 PM
Quote
Hear too many people say you dont need the magnums. Well spot and stalk situations may present 300-400 yard shots, getting a bullet to punch thru is critical.
I agree. A well placed 350yd shot on a Bear with 30-06 is exactly why I bought a magnum after I lost a Bear in the woods. I also prefer a bullet that's going to hold together and even go through. I want two bleed wounds no matter what gets hit inside. I don't want a bullet that lodges in the meat/muscle on the far side at all. Heavy bullet that stays in one piece at high velocity that goes through. That's the ticket.
-Steve
Post by: SHANE(WA) on July 14, 2009, 03:35:11 PM
Post by: Black Bare on July 15, 2009, 09:27:30 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 15, 2009, 09:50:18 AM
Post by: Black Bare on July 15, 2009, 10:44:30 AM
AZ, last April.
BB
Post by: bearpaw on July 15, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
Post by: Black Bare on July 15, 2009, 11:42:12 AM
I doubt that. It ties for #34 all time in AZ and #446 in north america (and mexico). Per B & C.
But a good looking bear none the less.
Post by: sooperfly on July 21, 2009, 12:06:16 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rivercolor.com%2Fimages%2Fbluemountains%2Fmike_bear.jpg&hash=0569e3c2da8f0913cb7dc4923556a3f2ee5cd9e5)
More here if you want to look. http://www.rivercolor.com/images/bluemountains
Post by: bullchaser on July 21, 2009, 02:25:57 PM