Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear? - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-22-2011, 12:48 AM Thread Starter
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mechanicsburg-back where I belong
Posts: 1,115
Back To Top
Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

I've been following the thread about the .270 caliber elk minimum and got to thinkin' why don't Pa have a similar minimum for bear? I myself would not use anything smaller than a .270 (if for no other reason that I don't own anything smaller),but I probably wouldn't favor a minimum caliber restriction. Just kinda curious as to why we don't have one.

Callin all trucks this here's the Duck, we about to go hunting bear!
bearschlayerx2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-22-2011, 01:53 AM
The Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pitman
Posts: 7,781
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

You hear all about the gi-hugic Pa. black bear but the truth is that the vast majority of them still weigh in at under 200 lb....No cannon needed although some still swear that you need one.

An elk, even a cow, averages out at twice as much weight and warrants a little more gusto.
Big Ken is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-22-2011, 02:30 AM Thread Starter
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mechanicsburg-back where I belong
Posts: 1,115
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

I see what you're sayin, but even a 200lb bear can be a pretty tough critter. My 2nd bear took 3 good shots from my 270 weatherby magnum before it expired. First shot went on an angle behind the left front shoulder and exited at the base of his neck.He fell over and started rolling around with his butt facing my way and he was on his back.I thought well he's still moving so I'm still shooting. 2nd shot entered about 4" above his tail and that bullet was lodgedin his right front shoulder.He started trying to get up,so I bolted the gun and fired again.Bullet got deflected by a small branch that somehow grew really fast and was in the way.LOL. uh-oh gun was empty.I grab 2 more shells out of my woolrich pocket and stick em in the gun and close the bolt. By this time the bear was up on 3 legs trying to get the fourth one to to work.I sent another bullet at him and hit him one inch behind where the first shot hit.Down he went! I started walking to him, and he let out his death growl and it was over. That bear had an estimated live weight of 138lbs. and the range was 26 long steps.So they can be tough little critters. I have since "retired" that rifle and bought a new bear thumper, a Marlin Guide gun in 45/70

Callin all trucks this here's the Duck, we about to go hunting bear!
bearschlayerx2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-22-2011, 03:45 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: hearts in New England
Posts: 13,401
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

My dad shot a 200 pound Blackie last year and he had to hit it several times with his .30-06 carbine before it was down for keeps. I shot my 115 pounder 5 times with a .32 Special before it quit. A bear that is hopped up from being pushed can be hard to put down with anything. They can take a lot of punishment. A good shot on a relaxed bear usually ends things pretty quick though. I've carried a .243 for bear in the past so I shouldn't talk but for all the years I've had a .270 around I never remember carrying one for bear. I've always felt better with at least .30 cal on bear. I'd rather take on an Elk with a sub .27 caliber than a Black bear. Although if all I had was a .243 it wouldn't stop me from hunting either one.
*Moose is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 09:26 PM
Regular Member
 
broknaero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3D
Posts: 1,768
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bearschlayerx2
I've been following the thread about the .270 caliber elk minimum and got to thinkin' why don't Pa have a similar minimum for bear? I myself would not use anything smaller than a .270 (if for no other reason that I don't own anything smaller),but I probably wouldn't favor a minimum caliber restriction. Just kinda curious as to why we don't have one.
I don't belive a .270 min makes sense for PA bear. For that matter I don't think a .270 min makes much sense for elk either. I think the law is the way it is because bear legal arms and ammunition was written a long time ago, Elk season is new.

I've never killed an elk, but I've been lucky enough to tag 2 Pa black bears over the years both over 350lbs. Both with a .260. Neither traveled more than 50yards. Where I bear hunt (like I imagine many in Pa do) I can't see more than 50 yards most of the day let alone get off a shot at a black blur in the brush. I agree to min cal restrictions, I just don't know where to draw the line. 6.5mm in my book can carry a whole lot of killing power for game larger then deer. On the same hand if some bone head does'nt pay attention they could select the wrong ammo for 6.5mm or smaller ammo and go after elk and bear with varmint bullets.

Semper Fi
broknaero is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-24-2011, 12:58 AM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Muab Dib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: S Central PA 5A
Posts: 2,577
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bearschlayerx2
I've been following the thread about the .270 caliber elk minimum and got to thinkin' why don't Pa have a similar minimum for bear? I myself would not use anything smaller than a .270 (if for no other reason that I don't own anything smaller),but I probably wouldn't favor a minimum caliber restriction. Just kinda curious as to why we don't have one.
Guess because you can kill any PA bear with a 30-30, a 35 Rem, a .243, a 6 MM Rem., a 250 Sav. or 257 'Bob, or a 7x57 Mauser, or a 300 Sav. or.........

Muab Dib

"There is no District 12"
Muab Dib is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-24-2011, 01:32 AM
The Man
 
Strut10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 2D
Posts: 6,400
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

[QUOTE=Muab Dib]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bearschlayerx2
Guess because you can kill any PA bear with a 30-30, a 35 Rem, a .243, a 6 MM Rem., a 250 Sav. or 257 'Bob, or a 7x57 Mauser, or a 300 Sav. or.........

Muab Dib
As long as the bear presents you with a good, broadside shot....... yep. Guess you can.

demokraten saugen
Strut10 is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-24-2011, 08:27 PM
Regular Member
 
wampire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lancaster
Posts: 2,116
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

how does it make sense to have a .270 caliber min. for bear and at the same time allow archery? If I remember correctly, that "record" bozo or whatever ended up being a pin cushion of sorts with bolts. Not saying anything is wrong with that either. I'd feel more comfortable shooting a black bear with a good bullet in a .243 than my compound bow.

Wampire - going harder, longer and deeper since 1984.
wampire is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-25-2011, 09:44 AM
Senior Member
 
steelerfan58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In the Heart of Steeler Country
Posts: 12,798
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

Because an arrow kills by hemorrhage, and the weight of an arrow is far greater than a bullet, as is the surface diameter. You don't need as much power AT REASONABLE DISTANCES with a bow. That being said, shot placement is still critical as always. A US Marine Sniper would be able to kill a black bear with a 17 HMR with a shot through the eye, but a "got me mo gun than you" fool can wound one with a .50 BMG just as easily as he can with a .22. I'm not a big believer in caliber restrictions alone. A 264 win mag will hit harder than a 30-30, but a 30-30 or 32-20 loaded with BP will cut the mustard for the caliber restriction, the 264 will not. I myself would want at least a .270, because I would want to be equipped for any PA Black bear, not just the average <200 lb.

We’re not going to apologize for caring. We’re not.
steelerfan58 is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 06-25-2011, 11:05 AM
Regular Member
 
ConfusiousSays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: shartlesville pa
Posts: 1,954
Back To Top
Re: Why no .270 caliber minimum for bear?

Because the regs for bear were written long before you needed the newest 338 ultra super mega-ton triple magnum to kill a 100 pound doe

P.S. The monkey really freaks DennyF out
If you stand in front of tanks the tanks are gonna win.
ConfusiousSays is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome