SmallCaliberCentral

Haven't posted here in years, but own a couple of .204s...Cooper Varmint and M700 with a PacNor 1-11" twist sporter barrel.

Anyway, I was up bowhunting Central Canadian Barren Ground Caribou in central Nunavut in late October and had an interesting "tuned up" Inuit guide. He hunted wolves a lot and used a .204. He also meat hunted caribou with the .204 as well. Well, he was out hunting the week before I got there (mid-Oct) when he found a grizzly track in the snow. He tracked down the bear and shot it with his .204. Said it took three shots to "calm him down". He use a left hand M77 Ruger with a 3-9X scope on it. He was using Winchester 34 gr HP factory ammo as far as I know. He really likes the .204 for wolves...no exit holes to sew up. Says he owns a .308 as well but never carries it. His assistant had a .222 Remington he hunted everything with.

As a side note, a young waitress in the hotel said a polar bear had killed her grandmother 20 years ago. She was a few miles closer to Hudson Bay when it occurred and was considered a hero since she sacrificed herself for the children that were with her. Obviously polar bear and grizzly ranges are very close in this area.

Quite a story. It's amazing what those Inuits can do with a Hornet or 204R. Neither would be my first choice, but who's to argue with the ones who have been "doing it" for many years.

I have a pic somewhere of a grizzly shot and killed by Vern O'Brian with his Sako .17 Mach IV in Alaska, the original O'Brian Rifle Co of Las Vegas from the early 60's who brought out the wildcat 17M4. Again, definitely not my first choice of caliber for large carnivores who will eat you, but he was lucky.

Two years ago, Phil Shoemaker, a well-known Alaskan guide and outfitter was guiding a fishing client thgough the alders and encountered a grizz. He had left his .375 H&H at the cabin and only had his S&W 9mm on his hip loaded with heavy CorBon's. He was able to subdue the bear with his nine, but WOW....not my first choice of caliber! The story was written soon after happening in Rifle Magazine, where Phil was a contributor.

There are many stories of amazing feats of lucky guys with "underpowered" guns for the task that survived to tell the story. In those cases, you just want to be on the right side of "lucky!"

My uncle lived in Alaska back in the '70's. He said one of the natives told him, "22 Hornet good Indian gun, poor white man gun."

I know that for years maybe most still do, the inuits used the 222 Rem for all their seal and even a few polar bear hunts. It was one of the most accurate cartridges for their purpose and they waited til they could place their shot right where they wanted.
Somewhere I also had a photo of O'Brian and his guide with the brown bear one of them shot. Always was a question of who actually fired the shot, on a bet. I also thought the rifle used was chambered in 17-223. That was another question that was never made clear in a couple of the stories put out back in the early/mid 60's. But no matter I always felt that it was a awful light caliber to try and make a point. But also at the same time, just think back as to how many deer and other animals have been killed with the lowly 22lr for food. Many used what they had to provide and put meat on the table. Bill K

I prefer my Winchester Safari in 375 H&H magnum for bear. Good cartridge for most anything with the right choice of bullet. Plenty of knockdown power when bear are around. Controlled feed for when they're too close and you're on your back. But, of course I'm not Inuit either.

Me too Skipper. Years ago when I shot a brownie in Alaska, even thought I was into the 17 calibers I used my Win 70 in 375 H&H. One good 300 grain did the job just fine. I never even gave a thought to using something like a 17. When you are staring down at one of them in those willows and brush they look like a jeep moving. The saying "carry enough gun" really fits. Bill K

A 50 Calibre Desert Eagle would be a nice close quarters companion, too. Me and bears don't get along well. If I had time to take careful aim I might try it with a small calibre, BUT I'de have a big bore at the ready just in case.

An Inuit that I hunted with out of Resolute Bay, Nunavut last winter, did his Polar Bear hunting with a 222 Remington. I asked him what he aimed for and he indicated a heart shot, typically taken as a frontal since the bear knew he was there. He liked being at least 70 yards away. He bought the rifle when in high school and orders in a few hundred rounds of ammo periodically. Seems that the .222 is still popular way up there.

This all reminds me of what my grandfather used to tell me....."it's not what you carry, but where you put that bullet". And this post exemplifies that point.

This is from the old fellow who ran the Circle H Hunting Lodge in north central B.C. for many years, taught me to hunt (really hunt) and stressed the moniker: "Spot, stalk, shoot". Seems the younger set has either forgotten or just ignored the first two tenets. Long range hunting shows, long range rifles, long range this or that, "tactical", ...what ever happened to "hunting"?

I bet if the truth was known, those present day long range shooters and those that are jumping on that bandwagon, loose more poorly hit animals shot at over 500 yards than they ever admit or even attempt to locate.
They are not hunters, they are just people to lazy to stalk and get down and actually hunt on the old shanks mare, instead of riding ridge top too ridge top in their side by sides and/or 4 wheelers. And close the range to less than say 400 yrds or closer. The day of the old stump hunter and foot stalking the woods are mostly days gone by. Bill K

My favorite way for deer here on the west coast is get out and wander the old, overgrown logging roads and skids. I've done a lot of walking, a little bit of stalking and not much shooting but it's still my favorite method. After living and hunting Alaska for 11 years in the mid eighties and nineties it was pretty disheartening to return to Ca. I didn't hunt Ca. except for sage rats for 9 years after returning but have taken up deer hunting again since retiring. Randy.

randyman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:08 amAfter living and hunting Alaska for 11 years in the mid eighties and nineties it was pretty disheartening to return to Ca. I didn't hunt Ca. except for sage rats for 9 years after returning.

I hear ya Randy!

After living and hunting for years in B.C., it was the same for me coming "back down" to Orygun. The hunting is still light years better than CA, but nothun' like up north. In the last few years I lived in CA after the war, sage rats were the only thing I hunted there too. Just got tired of fighting the crowds.

But your style of hunting there is a good way to go, especially the 'stalking' part. You're fortunate to live in the 'good part' of CA too!

Bill K wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:32 pm I bet if the truth was known, those present day long range shooters and those that are jumping on that bandwagon, loose more poorly hit animals shot at over 500 yards than they ever admit or even attempt to locate.
They are not hunters, they are just people to lazy to stalk and get down and actually hunt on the old shanks mare, instead of riding ridge top too ridge top in their side by sides and/or 4 wheelers. And close the range to less than say 400 yrds or closer. The day of the old stump hunter and foot stalking the woods are mostly days gone by. Bill K

Couldn't have said it better...

Wild or feral hogs,i watched them shot at with .223 and it just makes them mad.i use my H&R Buffalo classic in 45/70 on them.505 grain slug cracks those thick hard skulls.
A hog farmer 3 miles from me had a mad employee who let 3 pregnant sows loos and a boar.in 2 years they wreaked havvoc.several of us hunted them weekends thinning them down.still a few left,but we still stay after them.now missouri dept of conservation wants us to not shoot them.they think they can trap them,haha they set traps just before we started killing them.im not sure ifbghey trapped a hog,but we killed many
Ol sows and boars can be mean too