Hunting large game and caliber selection... (Anchorage, Fairbanks: rent, camper, place to live)

[cry_havoc]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

It's very common to encounter bears while hunting moose, sheep, deer, and other animals. It means that if you can shoot a big rifle, by all means go for it. Something else, for Alaska hunting it's a lot more convenient to use cartridges that are most common, just in case you have to purchase ammo at the local stores. The most common cartridges in Alaska, by a very wide margin when compared to the rest, are the .30-06, .300WM, and .338WM. There are others that are popular out in the bush, some that are considered quite small. For example, the .30-30 used to be quite popular years ago, but not so much these days.

While physics are important in relation to bullet size and such (SD, BC, etc.), a big bullet that passes through still leaves a big hole behind. A lethal shot (a shot on the right spot), is a lot more important than physics when it comes to killing an animal. For example: a brain shot, a shot to brake the neck (vertebrae), a heart shot, a shot to break the spine, or the brake a bear's shoulder. For most of these shots you want a bullet that can plow through fat and muscle and hold together to break skull or bone. Something else: an arrow-shot animals most often dies from bleeding (because of a wound), not necessarily because of the amount of energy from the arrow.

Yes, but if the bullet doesn't kill the animal immediately it could maul you. It would die eventually but by then you could be dead. Even if a smaller round doesn't kill the animal it can send it into shock eliminating the danger.

This is what elephant hunters in Africa found out, often the hard way.

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Trapper Creek, near Talkeetna, is a good place to hunt ptarmigan. Also along Petersville Road. A good dog to flush them out is advisable because ptarmigan like to run. They will fly if they have too, but they seem to prefer running more than any other game bird I have encountered.

Is it true that Alaskans refer to ptarmigan as "stupid chickens"?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

Is it true that Alaskans refer to ptarmigan as "stupid chickens"?

Only those who cannot spell ptarmigan.

Chicken, Alaska, was so named because they could not agree on how to spell ptarmigan.

Chicken, Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Only those who cannot spell ptarmigan.

Chicken, Alaska, was so named because they could not agree on how to spell ptarmigan.

Chicken, Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's awesome.

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

Is it true that Alaskans refer to ptarmigan as "stupid chickens"?

Spruce grouse are often called "fool hens".

Willow ptarmigan that have been hunted can wise up quickly. They will often flush from 100 yards away. But you can also find them where they will just run.

Or in the mountains the rock ptarmigan will often just sit still and try to blend in. I've bagged several with rocks from just a few feet away.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

Yes, but if the bullet doesn't kill the animal immediately it could maul you. It would die eventually but by then you could be dead. Even if a smaller round doesn't kill the animal it can send it into shock eliminating the danger.

This is what elephant hunters in Africa found out, often the hard way.

I just don't understand you logic, I guess. If any bullet, be it small, large, medium weight, as fat and heavy as a brick does not kill the animal right away, there is a chance that it will maul you. I can agree with that, but one should always choose a gun/bullet that can reach the animal's vitals, not just one than can kill a moose shot through the lungs. In Alaska, since one is hunting in bear country, it makes no sense to use just a cartridge that can kill a moose, but one that is powerful enough to break a bear's shoulder as well. That's why most Alaska hunters prefer the tree cartridges I mentioned above, and also because ammo for them is sold all around Alaska. I don't know about you, but given the choice to be hit on the head with a 2"x4" or with a 1/4" stick, I would choose the later.

[cry_havoc]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

I just don't understand you logic, I guess. If any bullet, be it small, large, medium weight, as fat and heavy as a brick does not kill the animal right away, there is a chance that it will maul you. I can agree with that, but one should always choose a gun/bullet that can reach the animal's vitals, not just one than can kill a moose shot through the lungs. In Alaska, since one is hunting in bear country, it makes no sense to use just a cartridge that can kill a moose, but one that is powerful enough to break a bear's shoulder as well. That's why most Alaska hunters prefer the tree cartridges I mentioned above, and also because ammo for them is sold all around Alaska. I don't know about you, but given the choice to be hit on the head with a 2"x4" or with a 1/4" stick, I would choose the later.

It is about velocity, and that velocity hitting the animal. Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy and if it goes through the animal so does most of the energy. If the bullet stays the Kinetic energy hits them incapacitating them.

Like I mentioned earlier this is what early elephant hunters learned the hardway.

Perhaps modern technology has changed things, but the principle remains the same.

Im saying this more from a physics perspective. I am not a hunter, have never hunted, and never plan to hunt. I have nothing against it, but I love animals and dont want to harm any, except rodents. I am familiar with guns and physics though. My opinion is more from this perspective. I enjoy the conversation, but I dont want anyone to use it as hunting advice.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

It is about velocity, and that velocity hitting the animal. Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy and if it goes through the animal so does most of the energy. If the bullet stays the Kinetic energy hits them incapacitating them.

Like I mentioned earlier this is what early elephant hunters learned the hardway.

Perhaps modern technology has changed things, but the principle remains the same.

Im saying this more from a physics perspective. I am not a hunter, have never hunted, and never plan to hunt. I have nothing against it, but I love animals and dont want to harm any, except rodents. I am familiar with guns and physics though. My opinion is more from this perspective. I enjoy the conversation, but I dont want anyone to use it as hunting advice.

I have hunted moose and other Alaska animals for numerous years already, and don't rely on physics to kill such, but on creating a wound channel or to damage the largest amount of tissue of a vital organ. As I mentioned before, of all the moose I have killed for the past 25 years or so, I have only been able to retrieve a couple of bullets.

As I mentioned before, bow hunters rely on the arrow to kill moose and other animals by bleeding. You don't need kinetic energy to push an stiletto into somebody's heart and hill the person. A BB gun does not produce a lot of kinetic energy to kill a moose. Would you agree with this? Well, we had an older fellow in Anchorage who was taken to court by Fish and Game, because he shot a moose with a BB gun to scare the moose out of his yard, and the pellet passed though between two ribs and put a tiny hole on one of the lungs. The moose bedded and died later.

By the way, one of the reasons why I like the .338WM is because the heavy bullets around 250 grains have great SD. This SD helps with penetration, and when some controlled expansion bullets such at Barnes X, TSX, Fail Safe, Berger, and others are used, these usually pass right through. These are a few of the most deadly hunting bullets available today.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

It is about velocity, and that velocity hitting the animal. Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy and if it goes through the animal so does most of the energy. If the bullet stays the Kinetic energy hits them incapacitating them.

Like I mentioned earlier this is what early elephant hunters learned the hardway.

Perhaps modern technology has changed things, but the principle remains the same.

Im saying this more from a physics perspective. I am not a hunter, have never hunted, and never plan to hunt. I have nothing against it, but I love animals and dont want to harm any, except rodents. I am familiar with guns and physics though. My opinion is more from this perspective. I enjoy the conversation, but I dont want anyone to use it as hunting advice.

It's not about velocity. It has never been that way. Would you use a lightweight and extremely fast bullet used to kill Prairie dogs to go moose hunting?

I have hunted moose and other Alaska animals for numerous years already, and don't rely on physics to kill such, but on creating a wound channel or to damage the largest amount of tissue of a vital organ. As I mentioned before, of all the moose I have killed for the past 25 years or so, I have only been able to retrieve a couple of bullets. The bullets that have passed though have killed moose just as fast as the two I have retrieved. Also, with a heavy bullet that has good SD, you can also slow-down an animal by breaking the shoulder, before you kill it with a follow-up shot. Very experienced bear hunters and guides sometimes do this if the bear charges (I don't hunt bears).

As I mentioned before, bow hunters rely on the arrow to kill moose and other animals by bleeding. You don't need kinetic energy to push an stiletto into somebody's heart and hill the person. A BB gun does not produce a lot of kinetic energy to be used for hunting moose. Would you agree with this? Well, we had an older fellow in Anchorage who was taken to court by Fish and Game because he shot a moose with a BB gun to scare the moose out of his yard, and the pellet passed though between two ribs and put a tiny hole on one of the lungs. The moose bedded and died later.

By the way, one of the reasons why I like the .338WM is because the heavy bullets around 250 grains have great SD. This SD helps with penetration, and when some controlled expansion bullets such at Barnes X, TSX, Fail Safe, Berger, and others are used, these usually pass right through. These are just a few of the most deadly hunting bullets available today.

[cry_havoc]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

I have hunted moose and other Alaska animals for numerous years already, and don't rely on physics to kill such, but on creating a wound channel or to damage the largest amount of tissue of a vital organ. As I mentioned before, of all the moose I have killed for the past 25 years or so, I have only been able to retrieve a couple of bullets.

As I mentioned before, bow hunters rely on the arrow to kill moose and other animals by bleeding. You don't need kinetic energy to push an stiletto into somebody's heart and hill the person. A BB gun does not produce a lot of kinetic energy to kill a moose. Would you agree with this? Well, we had an older fellow in Anchorage who was taken to court by Fish and Game, because he shot a moose with a BB gun to scare the moose out of his yard, and the pellet passed though between two ribs and put a tiny hole on one of the lungs. The moose bedded and died later.

By the way, one of the reasons why I like the .338WM is because the heavy bullets around 250 grains have great SD. This SD helps with penetration, and when some controlled expansion bullets such at Barnes X, TSX, Fail Safe, Berger, and others are used, these usually pass right through. These are a few of the most deadly hunting bullets available today.

I understand what you are getting but the BB is different.

First off a BB as nowhere near the kinetic energy of a real bullet. Also, you want a big of a bullet as possible, but you dont know want it to leave the body. a .22lr might not leave the body but it doesnt delivery enough energy to stop large game. Ideally you want a round that can delivery this energy and stay in the body.