Blain, not to "gang up" on you in here, but let me ask this. How long has buck shot and the shot gun been around? I'm guessing and this is purely a guess. Maybe 150 years??? Maybe longer, maybe not. If buck shot has been around that long, how come many professional hunters (Peter Capstick of Africa fame for instance, or modern day professionals in Alaska, Africa, Canada, America, Austrailia etc...) DO NOT or DID NOT use buck shot when hunting large beasts? Particularly the big bears in North America??? Ok, I'll throw you a "bone" and say maybe a few rare instances here and there, hunters may perhaps have used buckshot successfully. But I'm willing to bet that in those instances, those hunters said, "that's the last time I use buck shot" more times than not.

I believe that pro hunters in THEIR professional opinion and experience believed BUCKshot is better for deer/humans, than big bears and other dangerous game. Hell, a .22lr could and has killed big grizzlys and even an elephant!!!! It's rare and extreme. Hell, BB guns have killed humans too. Anything is possible with firearms, but not probably or practical when it comes to the topic of buck shot and big bears.

I think that in the real and practical world of hunting, buck shot fails to perform on big creatures. It may kill 21" of wet phone books as you claim, but is probably a poor choice to use on a Kodiak. If it was all the rage, I'm sure ammo makers etc... would "push" for more hunters to use the stuff in lieu of heavy hitting rifle bullets.

Heck, look at an African lion for instance. Thin skinned, hardly any fat, lean muscle, but not as thick as a grizzly's muscle. A big bear has several inches of thick fur, fat, bone and muscle. Not to mention a tough hide (skin, which obviously isn't "inches" thick.)

Now, if buckshot works better than a big rifle bullet, why didn't the famed Peter Capstick use it on lions? He shot at close range dozens of dozens of times. You'd think that at close range with a charging lion wanting a "human sandwhich", your buckshot would be just what the doctor ordered. Well, professionals like Capstick didn't feel that way.

What about professional guide services in Alaska or Canada? Do they carry buckshot when guiding their clients on dangerous bear hunts? I'm not sure of the answer, buy I'm guessing a big whopping "NO" for the answer. Im sure Arcticbowman, Thaninator or some other people who live and hunt more in Alaska might know the answer. I don't know, maybe the guide services do use buckshot, but I'd be willing to bet money that they dont. Why? Because a big rifle bullet performs better and probably more humainly than buckshot does.

The limited hunting shows I've seen on TNN, Outdoor channel, ESPN-2 etc that have actually broken away from whitetail deer hunting programs and have shown actual bear hunts, show the guides carrying rifles if their carring anything at all. I've never ever seen one with a shotgun.

Why is that???? Heck, a good shotgun and buck shot is surely cheaper than a decent rifle. I think it's because the guides know better and don't want to take a chance with buck shot of a big dangerous bear, even if the shotgun is cheaper in price. Performance is the key and a rifle bullet simply beats buck shot in that department.

In africa, most of the pro hunters of past carried double rifles because of the fast follow up shot when encountering a close possible charging dangerous animal. Particularly for lion hunters. Like I mentioned above, a lion has weaker "body armor" than a big bear, but the pro hunters demanded a rifle. Not buckshot.

Just my opinion and observation over the years.

Edited by - Hk45USP on 01/14/2002 01:53:05