.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

[roosiebull]

Nobody said it was. There’s just a lot more of it. Hence the amount of muscle you need to penetrate to get to vitals is more.

Bear vitals aren’t protected by muscle, it’s thin hide, fat, and ribs unless you take a hard quarter to shot, but a broadside shot on any bear, where the lungs sit, there is hardly any muscle, if you are shooting through a lot of muscle, you shot too far forward

 

[swavescatter]

Listen fellas - only way to settle this is to send me to kill a buffalo.

Zelle/Venmo/PayPal please.

 

[Pharmseller]

I’m in.

 

[JackButler]

How much more?

O thought you were the expert? I’ve cut up many deer and skinned a number of grizzlies. I’d estimate at least 3 times as much muscle on a griz than a whitetail minimum.

 

[roosiebull]

The potential aggression of a grizzly or coastal brown bear is what sets them apart. When they're hurt and have decided to take their anger out on you thats where the magic usually comes from. They can be quite dangerous, and move extremely quickly. They are faster than a horse, and can be on you really abruptly. Something moving that fast right at you can be hard to kill if you can't maintain control of yourself and shoot under pressure. I ran into a grizzly on a black bear hunt a few years back. I was about 30 feet away from it. It's a sobering experience. Fortunately nothing came of it, but I was done hunting for the day after that.

What does that have to do with cartridge choice? The popular combo is a big cartridge and hard bullet for max penetration

Making a good initial shot is the most important aspect, and ability for quick follow up shots is a benefit… cartridge choice may matter there, but bigger is better would be counter intuitive in that regard

 

[JackButler]

Bear vitals aren’t protected by muscle, it’s thin hide, fat, and ribs unless you take a hard quarter to shot, but a broadside shot on any bear, where the lungs sit, there is hardly any muscle, if you are shooting through a lot of muscle, you shot too far forward

Is the point of this to try to say grizzlies are not significantly different than whitetail as far as killing them? I mean if you shot both with even a 30-06 you’d know. That’s not to say the 223 can’t do the job, it can.

 

[Maverick1]

Do/did you guys actually think there is something special about grizzlies or brown bears that makes them different than every other species?

 

[Thegman]

O thought you were the expert? I’ve cut up many deer and skinned a number of grizzlies. I’d estimate at least 3 times as much muscle on a griz than a whitetail minimum.

I think what roosiebull is saying is that if you're heart/lung shooting a bear broadside, you're not shooting through much muscle. You're shooting through the ribcage, further back than you would a deer.

He's 100% correct about shooting a bear too far forward. A shot that would end up with a dead deer can end with an unrecovered bear. Twice I've killed bears a couple of weeks after I'd hit and lost them from hits too far forward; I'm a slow learner apparently.

They were both alive and feeding when I eventually killed them. I didn’t know either were the bears I'd lost until field dressing them and finding my own bullet in them, broken shoulder and all.

(To add, I've shot both with a 30-06. I've not noticed any appreciable difference in their dying with correctly placed broadside shots)

 

[Formidilosus]

O thought you were the expert? I’ve cut up many deer and skinned a number of grizzlies. I’d estimate at least 3 times as much muscle on a griz than a whitetail minimum.

So… how much muscle is that, in inches? Three times a deer?