Can a 22 kill a bear

The authors of the Efficacy of firearms have not released their data. There could be as many as six instances of overlap between the Efficacy of firearms data set and our collection, so a combination of the data is not useful unless the Effficacy of firearms data set is released. We cannot know how many of the six “failures” of the efficacy study might be because the handgun was never attempted to be used, was unable to be accessed because it was buried in a pack, or for other reasons.

A guy took a admittedly poor shot at a bear at close range and wounded it using an addmittedly likely piss poor choice of bullet in a .22 CF.

- Another guy's uncle hunted a lot of bears, and he thought the .45-70 405 soft point was the only thing suitable to the task.

- Two unknown guys borrowed a 1903 Springfield from the Navy, and using God knows what for bullets(Hmmm military FMJ?...) then proceeded to get killed by a KODIAK BROWN BEAR.

- Other folks have seen, know of, or have wounded DEER using .22 CFs

then using good bullets, and taking reasonable shots you should not hunt BLACK BEAR using a .22 CF correct?

I just wanted to make sure I was clear on why not to do it.

Yes.

Hearsay and BS trump actual field experience everytime

Back in the day, a long time ago now, I hunted with a lever 30-30. At that time I was convinced that it was an ideal hunting rifle and was perfect and not just adequate for the job. All of my experience such as it was at the time with that rifle was positive and I had never lost shot game with it right up to the day I lost my first shot deer with it.

I blamed everything but the caliber for that lost deer and happily had unwavering faith in the tried and true 30-30. That is until I gained more experience and lost more deer hit with that rifle. ( I always shoot center line just behind the shoulder)

I can't help but think that the same type of thing will be true for those who shoot bear or deer with a 22 cal. That is especially true because I've hunted with folks who lost deer shot with 22 cal and larger. They blamed everything but the caliber.

Originally Posted by THOMASMAGNUM

Quote

Nope not liars as they are reporting on their own experience which does not encompass ALL shot bear. Simply pointing out that a relative few shot bear doesn't prove that pea shooters will not give up lost game from time to time.

In most situations that pertain to the conversation at hand game lost is lost to bad shots whether poor marksmanship or simply taking poorly chosen shots... and to a far lesser extent to poor choices in bullet for the task at hand.

That is not simply limited to shooting .22 CFs.

For the most part(barring rediculous comparisons like elephant, rhino, grizzly, etc.) regardless of bore size if you pick the right bullet, and the right shot placement the end result is meat on the ground.

Yup there will be meat on the ground the only question is will that meat be found by the hunter who put it there. The question isn't one of the animal being killed as it surely will die but rather of will it die quickly enough or leave a good enough blood trail so that it may be found. The answer sometimes with merely an adequate round is NO. It's happened to me, it's happened to others that I know and it will happen to others who use such weapons.

Originally Posted by THOMASMAGNUM

Originally Posted by Adirondackbushwhack

You're kind of missing the point of my post.

According to your own post you have lost multiple deer hunting with a .30-30. Does that make the .30-30 an unsuitable or inadequate round for hunting deer in spite of God knows how many head big game its killed?

To me it does that is why I stopped using the 30-30. My goal is to kill every deer or bear that I shoot as quickly as possible with no chance of lost game when shot. The 30-30 and others including the .22 calibers are not capable of meeting my requirements in a hunting rifle. However if another hunter does not care to kill as quickly as possible and does not care about the possibility of lost game he may find those lesser cals. adequate. So perhaps it is a matter of our individual definition of adequate.

Originally Posted by Mark R Dobrenski

Originally Posted by Fireball2

Originally Posted by Mark R Dobrenski

Pretty bruin for sure. I still fail to see the reason or thought process behind taking a neck shot on a bruin @ 392 yds? Why didn't you just hit him behind the fronts or thru the shoulders I guess is my question?

IME the target of neck bone is awfully darn small on big game and there's a lot of neck territory that one won't find the quarry with a hit thru it. Especially on a bruin that isn't exactly well known for it's blood trails...

Not trying to bust balls but I sure don't track with your thought process.

Thoughts?

Dober

No offense, not trying to bust balls, but ask the bear... Oh wait, he's dead.

Seriously, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions as I'd like to know what your thinking is. Pictures of other critters and or saying ask the bear just don't answer the question I asked.

Thx

Dober

Mark,
I shot the bear in the neck because it was a rare find for me that I did not want to lose out on, and I could. He was facing away (and walking away) and had his head down while flipping rocks until I made a distress sound with my voice to get his attention. It took several tries to be loud enough for him to hear me. He lifted his head, turned to look at me, but presented me with nothing but the side of his neck. I had been watching him and it was my last ditch effort to get a side view of a shootable piece of bear, which I got with the side of his neck. I had confidence in my rifle, ammo, rest, and ability. I was using a Nosler Ballistic Tip and did not want to give him the old Texas heart shot, as I didn't think full length penetration was assured. I did not want a gut shot bear to trail. I had supreme confidence in the accuracy of the bullet and rifle, if not the bullet construction. I knew the neck was probable, but doubted a full length body shot from behind with a ballistic tip. In my mind, I took the best shot. Now, open for scrutiny, but the OP was talking about 22's and bears. This was a 300 winchester magnum.

Originally Posted by rost495

2 things.

Evidently the 30-30 guy never misses his mark, because he aims for the lungs. Evidently I've just been lucky with the 30-30. Even killed a nilgai with one in a contender. Might wanna google nilgai to see how small the big bulls are. 30-30 not big enough for deer. Gimme a break. And to think the one I shot with my 50 bmg, ran a LOT further than anyone I've ever shot with a 30-30....

Savage 99 dude. I never saw the reply, whats the average group size at 400 yards day in and day out from that gun? And the drop at 400 yards? I"m just curious how well they shoot, I've always wanted to pick one up but wasn't sure how accurate they were.

Rost- sorry for your confusion, I understand if you're skeptical about the 400 yard accuracy of the 99. If you go back and read the posts you'll find that the Savage 99 is not the rifle I made the long shot with. I was using a Weatherby 300 Winchester Magnum. The Savage 99 pictured is a 375 winchester caliber, and while accurate, I would not even speculate on the 400 yard trajectory! It's a great 100 yard gun though.

My largest bear to date was killed with that gun at about 70 yards and iron sights.

Originally Posted by snubbie

I typically stay out of these type discussions as I admittedly have little experience shooting anything with a 22 cf other than coyotes. At this point, I'm not sure if I'm under gunned or over gunned using a .223 on those coyotes!

How lethal is 22?

22 LR bullet is easily capable of killing or injuring humans. Even after flying 400 yards (370 m), a . 22 bullet is still traveling at about 500 ft/s (150 m/s). Ricochets are more common in .