Best factory 243 deer round

[Hookeye]

For Pete's sake, you don't need to burn 150 to 200 rounds through a rifle to learn it.
If one is of decent shooting experience then it should be zero, and check at yardages and go.
Unless of course the owner buys only stuff with horrible triggers and crappy optics.

I'd guess a box of 20 to zero, another box of 20 to try at yardages, and then 20 to hunt.

Sheite, I just check zero and go, never have a problem. But I already shoot decent .............so it's simply plug the "disc" in my head and go.
"disc" automatically changes when I pick up a different rig.

Lever, auto, bolt, falling block, break open............it doesn't matter.Different safety locations etc...........all understood, never fumbled.

I really don't get this "have to run a bolt .22 rf, similar to bolt HP rifle" burning hundreds of rounds.

Yeah, maybe if a clueless shmuck or zippo rifle experience.

As for .243 win.............my #1 RSI seems to tolerate cheapy WW 100gr. So will pop a deer with that and see what happens.

 

[Hookeye]

I did not buy my #1 .243 win for deer. I bought it to rebarrel to .35 rem (because Ruger never offered it in that).
But since the law changed I figured "why not?"
I also have a .300 Savage..........but will set it back for possible doe tag.
The #1 will get the nod for the buck slaying on the opening weekend.

Which means I'll probably arrow one and screw myself over.

 

[RMC]

243 Winchester is perfectly good for elk and moose and at least black bear, plus it has a better trajectory than a 308. There used to be a guy on here who had killed several of all that stuff with a 243. Convinced me to get one for my wife and she killed an elk cow with it. I ended up using it for the next hunt I did and got a small bull. Did fine both time and the guide had no worries with it.

That just tells me you have no respect for the animals you kill. If a person cannot handle the recoil of a firearm suitable for the game they want to hunt then perhaps they shouldn't be hunting. My wife is small and frail yet she doesn't hesitate to grab a 257 Robert's, 25-06, 308, 30-06, or 7mm mag to go deer hunting. Who notices recoil when shooting at a deer or other large game? I never have and neither has my wife.

 

[RMC]

For Pete's sake, you don't need to burn 150 to 200 rounds through a rifle to learn it.
If one is of decent shooting experience then it should be zero, and check at yardages and go.
Unless of course the owner buys only stuff with horrible triggers and crappy optics.

I'd guess a box of 20 to zero, another box of 20 to try at yardages, and then 20 to hunt.

Sheite, I just check zero and go, never have a problem. But I already shoot decent .............so it's simply plug the "disc" in my head and go.
"disc" automatically changes when I pick up a different rig.

Lever, auto, bolt, falling block, break open............it doesn't matter.Different safety locations etc...........all understood, never fumbled.

I really don't get this "have to run a bolt .22 rf, similar to bolt HP rifle" burning hundreds of rounds.

Yeah, maybe if a clueless shmuck or zippo rifle experience.

As for .243 win.............my #1 RSI seems to tolerate cheapy WW 100gr. So will pop a deer with that and see what happens.

One box should be more than enough even with a new scoped rifle. You probably already know this but others may not.

1st shot at 25 yards. Then adjust scope using 4X the adjustment you'd use at 100 yards to zero your scope. That will get you pretty close.

Next shots should be at 100 yards for fine tuning but adequate cooling time should be allowed between shots or groups. I normally use one shot at a time until the scope is set and then shoot a group of three shots to verify.

I don't think I've ever exceeded 10 shots to sight a hunting rifle in. My last box of 308 lasted 8 years and I still had some to toss when I moved.

 

[two70]

That just tells me you have no respect for the animals you kill. If a person cannot handle the recoil of a firearm suitable for the game they want to hunt then perhaps they shouldn't be hunting. My wife is small and frail yet she doesn't hesitate to grab a 257 Robert's, 25-06, 308, 30-06, or 7mm mag to go deer hunting. Who notices recoil when shooting at a deer or other large game? I never have and neither has my wife.

Really? Choosing a larger gun that you can handle isn't being respectful of anything let alone the animal. A .243 in the ribcage from a rifle that can be shot well by user is a far better, more respectful choice than a 7mm or .30 in the guts from a gun that causes flinching. Bigger and tougher animals than black bear and cow elk have been killed quickly and effectively with the .243 by people that shot it well. You aren't actually suggesting that the .25-06 and especially the Roberts are vastly superior to the .243 are you? I'm really not sure which is more ridiculous in this thread, your comment that hunting with a .243 is disrespectful to the animal or following that comment with a suggestion that is unnecessary to practice with your chosen weapon.

 

[RMC]

Really? Choosing a larger gun that you can handle isn't being respectful of anything let alone the animal. A .243 in the ribcage from a rifle that can be shot well by user is a far better, more respectful choice than a 7mm or .30 in the guts from a gun that causes flinching. Bigger and tougher animals than black bear and cow elk have been killed quickly and effectively with the .243 by people that shot it well. You aren't actually suggesting that the .25-06 and especially the Roberts are vastly superior to the .243 are you? I'm really not sure which is more ridiculous in this thread, your comment that hunting with a .243 is disrespectful to the animal or following that comment with a suggestion that is unnecessary to practice with your chosen weapon.

That is really laughable....shoot elk, moose, or bear with a 243 as the primary choice for firearm. LOL Elk and moose can run extreme distances even after catching a 300 mag in the engine room. How long have you been hunting??? The anatomy of a bear is such that their shoulder protects a large portion of the engine room so a shot from an inadequate caliber is much more likely to wound rather than kill. To suggest a gut shot only occurs with larger calibers is idiotic or just an example of little experience. My wife is 5'-6" and maybe 120-lbs but she handles our rifles and pistols with no hesitation, pain, or complaints. I should also mention she is 60 yrs old. If you can't handle a suitable firearm for the game you are hunting then you shouldn't be hunting, PERIOD. Your analogy that if it will kill it's OK to use is BULL. That's like saying .22 lr is more than enough for deer. Sure it can kill a deer and even larger animals, but seriously? LOL Watch some of the hunting shows on the Sportsman or the Outdoor channel and you will seldom see elk taken with anything less than a 270 and moose with anything less than a 300 mag. LOL, now my ribs hurt....thanks.

BTW, yes, the 257 Roberts and the 25-06 are indeed superior to the 243. They can hurl 117 gr bullets over 3000 fps. The 25-06 has been deemed adequate for elk but not the 257 Roberts. If I were to pay for an elk, moose, or bear hunt at the prices outfitters charge now, I sure as he'll wouldn't be taking a 243. LOL LOL LOL

 

[Broom_jm]

That is really laughable....shoot elk, moose, or bear with a 243 as the primary choice for firearm. LOL Elk and moose can run extreme distances even after catching a 300 mag in the engine room. How long have you been hunting??? The anatomy of a bear is such that their shoulder protects a large portion of the engine room so a shot from an inadequate caliber is much more likely to wound rather than kill. To suggest a gut shot only occurs with larger calibers is idiotic or just an example of little experience. My wife is 5'-6" and maybe 120-lbs but she handles our rifles and pistols with no hesitation, pain, or complaints. I should also mention she is 60 yrs old. If you can't handle a suitable firearm for the game you are hunting then you shouldn't be hunting, PERIOD. Your analogy that if it will kill it's OK to use is BULL. That's like saying .22 lr is more than enough for deer. Sure it can kill a deer and even larger animals, but seriously? LOL Watch some of the hunting shows on the Sportsman or the Outdoor channel and you will seldom see elk taken with anything less than a 270 and moose with anything less than a 300 mag. LOL, now my ribs hurt....thanks.

BTW, yes, the 257 Roberts and the 25-06 are indeed superior to the 243. They can hurl 117 gr bullets over 3000 fps. The 25-06 has been deemed adequate for elk but not the 257 Roberts. If I were to pay for an elk, moose, or bear hunt at the prices outfitters charge now, I sure as he'll wouldn't be taking a 243. LOL LOL LOL

You have a profound misunderstanding of what it takes to kill a big game animal...and an almost pathological need to ridicule others while defending an indefensible position.

The terminal performance of a bullet, either disrupting the CNS or preventing oxygen from getting to the brain, is what kills a big game animal. The long, high SD bullets commonly used in 243 Winchester big game loads penetrate very well and have killed plenty of tough big game animals.

In rapidly descending order of importance, a big game hunting bullet should have the following attributes:

Accuracy - Hitting where you aim is the number one requirement.
Penetration - A big game bullet should penetrate through and through, leaving a sizable exit wound.
Expansion - If designed to do so, a big game bullet should expand appreciably while still holding together, and not so much as to limit penetration.
Energy - The amount of energy a big game bullet has is largely irrelevant, so long as the above conditions are met.

How many big game animals have you killed with a 243? Are you aware of just how many big hogs are killed by such, each year? Also, your assertion that the 25-'06 is adequate for elk, but not the 257 Roberts, further illustrates your ignorance...a modern 257 Roberts, capable of handling +P ammo, is within a cat's whisker of delivering the same kind of performance you get from the 25 Neidner.

You should decline to pontificate on matters with which you are ill-acquainted.

 

[RMC]

You have a profound misunderstanding of what it takes to kill a big game animal...and an almost pathological need to ridicule others while defending an indefensible position.

The terminal performance of a bullet, either disrupting the CNS or preventing oxygen from getting to the brain, is what kills a big game animal. The long, high SD bullets commonly used in 243 Winchester big game loads penetrate very well and have killed plenty of tough big game animals.

In rapidly descending order of importance, a big game hunting bullet should have the following attributes:

Accuracy - Hitting where you aim is the number one requirement.
Penetration - A big game bullet should penetrate through and through, leaving a sizable exit wound.
Expansion - If designed to do so, a big game bullet should expand appreciably while still holding together, and not so much as to limit penetration.
Energy - The amount of energy a big game bullet has is largely irrelevant, so long as the above conditions are met.

How many big game animals have you killed with a 243? Are you aware of just how many big hogs are killed by such, each year? Also, your assertion that the 25-'06 is adequate for elk, but not the 257 Roberts, further illustrates your ignorance...a modern 257 Roberts, capable of handling +P ammo, is within a cat's whisker of delivering the same kind of performance you get from the 25 Neidner.

You should decline to pontificate on matters with which you are ill-acquainted.

Your drivel doesn't phase me one bit because you either don't read what I post or you have a self-imposed limit of comprehension. If you want to go moose hunting with a 243, by all means go for it. Will it kill a moose? Most likely. Is it the best choice? NO. If you disagree agree, too damn bad. Another error on Your part was accusing me of saying the 257 Roberts is not adequate for elk. If you read that sentence closer you'll see I said "deemed" meaning that stipulation came from someone other than me. It was probably in one of my loading manuals. I am very well aware of the capabilities of the 257 Roberts and the 25-06 since I have taken many deer with both and so has my wife. You've killed or know of people that have killed pigs with a 243? So what? I've killed them with a .22 I simply don't brag about it or suggest that others shouldn't use anything larger. If that upsets you too damn bad. In case you didn't know, most pigs taken are a lot less than 300-lbs so I fail to see the relevance of associating them with elk or moose that are 2X-3X larger. Call me strange but I usually choose larger calibers for larger game. If you want to use a 17 HMR, go for it. I don't really care but to post or suggest any and everyone should try it is blatantly irresponsible.

Furthermore, if you go back to my other posts, you will see that I stated that the 243 is an adequate choice for deer. My questioning the choice was because if I didn't already own a 243 and was going to buy a rifle for deer hunting, I would investigate which caliber would be better suited for all North American big game. I don't feel a 243 qualifies and if that bothers you too damn bad. If you don't like what I post or can't understand it you can put me on your "Ignore" list and we'll both be happier. I'm really beginning to wonder how much experience some of you Wannabee hunters actually have. So far sir, I am not impressed in the least. If that bothers you, too damn bad.

I almost forgot. How many animals have I taken with a 243? NONE. The smallest caliber deer rifle I've used is a 257 Roberts but I have used a lot of calibers and I quit counting how many deer I've taken when I broke triple digits over 20 years ago. Other than deer, hmmmmm, 6 or so pronghorn, 2 elk, 1 moose, and one black bear with pistol. I may go for caribou in a few years but I'm planning on doing some deep sea fishing first. Does that bother you?

 

[two70]

That is really laughable....shoot elk, moose, or bear with a 243 as the primary choice for firearm. LOL Elk and moose can run extreme distances even after catching a 300 mag in the engine room. How long have you been hunting??? The anatomy of a bear is such that their shoulder protects a large portion of the engine room so a shot from an inadequate caliber is much more likely to wound rather than kill. To suggest a gut shot only occurs with larger calibers is idiotic or just an example of little experience. My wife is 5'-6" and maybe 120-lbs but she handles our rifles and pistols with no hesitation, pain, or complaints. I should also mention she is 60 yrs old. If you can't handle a suitable firearm for the game you are hunting then you shouldn't be hunting, PERIOD. Your analogy that if it will kill it's OK to use is BULL. That's like saying .22 lr is more than enough for deer. Sure it can kill a deer and even larger animals, but seriously? LOL Watch some of the hunting shows on the Sportsman or the Outdoor channel and you will seldom see elk taken with anything less than a 270 and moose with anything less than a 300 mag. LOL, now my ribs hurt....thanks.

BTW, yes, the 257 Roberts and the 25-06 are indeed superior to the 243. They can hurl 117 gr bullets over 3000 fps. The 25-06 has been deemed adequate for elk but not the 257 Roberts. If I were to pay for an elk, moose, or bear hunt at the prices outfitters charge now, I sure as he'll wouldn't be taking a 243. LOL LOL LOL

Good for your wife. You do realize people handle recoil differently don't you? And that the physical size of the shooter has very little to do with it? Secondly, no one is arguing that a .243 is the best choice but your comments that a .243 can't effectively and humanely kill elk, bear, and moose are just plain silly. As is your assumption that distance traveled after a good shot is an indication of effectiveness. For your information, if do take a guided hunting trip most guides will prefer that your bring a smaller caliber that you shot well instead of a magnum that you don't because experience has taught them that most clients don't shoot the magnums well. BTW, most people use larger cartridges than absolutely necessary for moose not because moose are tough but because many moose are found in grizzly country.

Lastly, the .257 Roberts produces about 2100 Ft./Lbs. of energy at the muzzle with a 120 grain bullet in .257 caliber. The lowly .243 produces 2100 Ft./Lbs. of energy at the muzzle with a 105 grain bullet of .243 caliber. Basically, performance wise and with bullet design being equal the .257 produces a slightly larger hole and transfers the same energy a bit quicker while the .243 penetrates deeper. That's not a difference the hunter or animal will ever notice, let alone a significant difference in performance. Even the .25-06 only boosts the energy level to 2400 Ft./Lbs. of energy, which is at least an improvement in performance but far from the vastly superior performance that seem to indicate.

 

[RMC]

Good for your wife. You do realize people handle recoil differently don't you? And that the physical size of the shooter has very little to do with it? Secondly, no one is arguing that a .243 is the best choice but your comments that a .243 can't effectively and humanely kill elk, bear, and moose are just plain silly. As is your assumption that distance traveled after a good shot is an indication of effectiveness. For your information, if do take a guided hunting trip most guides will prefer that your bring a smaller caliber that you shot well instead of a magnum that you don't because experience has taught them that most clients don't shoot the magnums well. BTW, most people use larger cartridges than absolutely necessary for moose not because moose are tough but because many moose are found in grizzly country.

Lastly, the .257 Roberts produces about 2100 Ft./Lbs. of energy at the muzzle with a 120 grain bullet in .257 caliber. The lowly .243 produces 2100 Ft./Lbs. of energy at the muzzle with a 105 grain bullet of .243 caliber. Basically, performance wise and with bullet design being equal the .257 produces a slightly larger hole and transfers the same energy a bit quicker while the .243 penetrates deeper. That's not a difference the hunter or animal will ever notice, let alone a significant difference in performance. Even the .25-06 only boosts the energy level to 2400 Ft./Lbs. of energy, which is at least an improvement in performance but far from the vastly superior performance that seem to indicate.

I guess I have to correct you AGAIN. I stated I used 117 gr bullets NOT 120 but that's no big deal. My 257 Roberts would crony those just under 3100 fps and gives over 2338 ft-lbs of energy which is substantially more that what you posted. My 25-06 would crony 3300 fps and produce over 2800 ft-lbs of energy, again, way more than what you posted. Obviously you don't have a clue what ft-lbs of energy equates to. I'll try to explain it according to personal experience. Shooting a prairie dog with a 223 with 50 gr V-Max at 3300 fps and yielding 1200 ft-lbs of energy will flip the rodent a few feet into the air. Using the same bullet in a 22-250 at 3800 fps and 1600 ft-lbs of energy will send parts 20 feet into the air. I would say even a mere 200 ft-lbs of energy is more substantial than you are thinking I and know 400 ft-lbs of energy enters a whole new realm of performance. I doubt if a normal person would even notice the difference in recoil between the 243 and the 257 Roberts. Even the 25-06 is mild compared to a 308.

I have no idea what kind of outfitter you use but the ones I hunt with would laugh you off their property if you showed up to hunt elk with a 243. If you're afraid of a little recoil that is associated with a more suitable cartridge then you should stay home because being a wimp is not worth wounding an animal or causing a long, painful death. That's just my opinion, obviously you don't care. I also NEVER said the 243 cannot humanly kill elk, moose or bear. I only said it isn't the best choice for those animals. Why you and Broom get a burr up your butt over things I never said is beyond me and I really don't care. You were the one that whined that I was off topic and here you are keeping everything off topic.

Back On Topic.

You mentioned using a 105 gr bullet in the 243. According to my book it shows 2 projectiles in that weight, A-Max and BTHP. The A-Max would not be my choice because they fall apart after contact and I have to wonder if the BTHP would fragment just as bad. I'm thinking yes. Are there other bullets available in that weight that are designed for hunting instead of target shooting? How available is loaded ammo? I don't see either one of these being capable of penetrating very much if a bone was hit. Also, at that weight the ability of the bullet stabilizing can become an issue in different firearms. I recall my friends using 100 gr Nosler Partition and they worked fine for deer. I would not recommend using Ballistic Tips because they can and do make a mess of things if the shot is under 100 yards. Regardless of what some people say, those are better used on varmits. The red mist is spectacular.

You guys have killed this thread so I'm moving on to spread cheer and knowledge among others.

Before the trolls attack:

The Ballistic Tip comment about being good for varmints only is misleading. At the time (many moons ago) the BT was fairly new and I had used it in my 30-06 with impressive results at long range. This coincided with articles I had read about those bullets. Then Nosler made them available in 25 caliber in 100 gr and 115 gr so I loaded some of the 115 for my 257 Roberts to use for deer hunting. I took a nice buck at approx. 75 yards. The buck was standing broadside and presented the perfect shot and I placed one right behind the shoulder about in the center of the engine room. The animal didn't even flinch. It stood there looking at me as I chambered another round. As I was lining up the cross hairs of my scope to take another shot, it fell over. When dressing it I noticed everything inside the body cavity (intestines included) was like jelly and I was fortunate to have a creek just a few feet away to wash it out. After rinsing I also noticed there was no exit wound to be found. An article in Varmint Hunter magazine pretty much stated that all the lighter-weight BTs were intended for varmints but the heavier ones were perfect or long range big game hunting. The 25 caliber BTs seemed to be teetering on the division between varmints and big game. Unless Nosler has re-engineered the BT in 243, I would not recommend them for deer. However, in my experience the BT's in 7mm mag, 308, and 30-06 work fine.

 

[Broom_jm]

I almost forgot. How many animals have I taken with a 243? NONE. The smallest caliber deer rifle I've used is a 257 Roberts but I have used a lot of calibers and I quit counting how many deer I've taken when I broke triple digits over 20 years ago. Other than deer, hmmmmm, 6 or so pronghorn, 2 elk, 1 moose, and one black bear with pistol. I may go for caribou in a few years but I'm planning on doing some deep sea fishing first. Does that bother you?

Nailed it. Another Internet Nazi, spouting off on a topic he truly knows nothing about. All the cursing in your reply illustrates your struggle to communicate in a respectful, or even marginally effective, manner.

I guess I have to correct you AGAIN. I stated I used 117 gr bullets NOT 120 but that's no big deal. My 257 Roberts would crony those just under 3100 fps and gives over 2338 ft-lbs of energy which is substantially more that what you posted. My 25-06 would crony 3300 fps and produce over 2800 ft-lbs of energy, again, way more than what you posted. Obviously you don't have a clue what ft-lbs of energy equates to. I'll try to explain it according to personal experience. Shooting a prairie dog with a 223 with 50 gr V-Max at 3300 fps and yielding 1200 ft-lbs of energy will flip the rodent a few feet into the air. Using the same bullet in a 22-250 at 3800 fps and 1600 ft-lbs of energy will send parts 20 feet into the air. I would say even a mere 200 ft-lbs of energy is more substantial than you are thinking I and know 400 ft-lbs of energy enters a whole new realm of performance. I doubt if a normal person would even notice the difference in recoil between the 243 and the 257 Roberts. Even the 25-06 is mild compared to a 308.

I have no idea what kind of outfitter you use but the ones I hunt with would laugh you off their property if you showed up to hunt elk with a 243. If you're afraid of a little recoil that is associated with a more suitable cartridge then you should stay home because being a wimp is not worth wounding an animal or causing a long, painful death. That's just my opinion, obviously you don't care. I also NEVER said the 243 cannot humanly kill elk, moose or bear. I only said it isn't the best choice for those animals. Why you and Broom get a burr up your butt over things I never said is beyond me and I really don't care. You were the one that whined that I was off topic and here you are keeping everything off topic.

Back On Topic.

You mentioned using a 105 gr bullet in the 243. According to my book it shows 2 projectiles in that weight, A-Max and BTHP. The A-Max would not be my choice because they fall apart after contact and I have to wonder if the BTHP would fragment just as bad. I'm thinking yes. Are there other bullets available in that weight that are designed for hunting instead of target shooting? How available is loaded ammo? I don't see either one of these being capable of penetrating very much if a bone was hit. Also, at that weight the ability of the bullet stabilizing can become an issue in different firearms. I recall my friends using 100 gr Nosler Partition and they worked fine for deer. I would not recommend using Ballistic Tips because they can and do make a mess of things if the shot is under 100 yards. Regardless of what some people say, those are better used on varmits. The red mist is spectacular.

You guys have killed this thread so I'm moving on to spread cheer and knowledge among others.

Drone on and on about energy, but it's the LEAST important factor in how a big game bullet kills. I notice you carefully avoided that discussion.

This thread has been derailed, but you know good and well you're the party responsible. All the butt hurt...one can only imagine how awful it is.

 

[Matt52]

A .243 Winchester is perfectly capable of taking any big game animal cleanly in North America. Proper shot placement and bullet construction are key as with any cartridge. Modern Bullets such as Barnes TSX or Hornady GMX or even Nosler Partitions work wonders. Is it the "best" probably not but that's subjective. If you look at it this way most shots occur inside of 200 yards anyway at this distance you can expect the bullet to double in diameter upon entry and have twice as much energy as a 44 magnum no one questions its ability to take game cleanly.

 

[Hookeye]

.243 win is legal for some bigger stuff. Obviously it will limit shot selection/range.
But used within the limits...........

Freakin' eskimos used .22 hornet and .222 rem to pop stuff.

Yeah yeah, subsistence hunting can be way different than sport hunting.

Killing stuff might be pretty easy. Finding what you killed might not be.

IIRC Colorado mandates 85gr or heavier in .24 cal...........as a min for elk.
That according to Dave Petzal (I find his writing rather humorous) was probably established at the tail end of the "bad bullet era".

IIRC the old .333 OKH was designed to fill the freezer with elk, no matter what the angle.

 

[Broom_jm]

Great post, Hookeye. I read about a long time Alaska trapper who used a 220 Swift to dispatch everything from beavers to the big bears.

The best 243 factory ammo I've used is the Federal Premium stuff, but that was decades ago. For Indiana deer, pretty much any of the 100 grain loads will get the job done, provided you do your job first.

 

[Hookeye]

I'll try it this yr, but since my shots will be probably under 100 yards, will avoid a direct smack on the shoulder.
Will slip a boring old 100gr WW standard bullet behind the blade and into the heart/lungs and see what happens.

I killed two with shoulderblade hits, in .35 Rem, under 75 yards and did not get "boom-flop".
Got the deer though, 75 yards the farthest trail. Shot D was 50 and 75 yards.

Internet...........I should have gotten a DRT according to all the experts. Didn't happen.

Sport hunting offers way more variables, so should be done with stuff that might allow for a bit of it. Personally, I wouldn't run a.243 win for elk.
But then an elk hunt is gonna cost me a lot of money, it's not like I'm walking out the back door every weekend to go after them.

If I go elk, it's probably a .300 savage, or a .35 Whelen.

 

[Hookeye]

I've been shooting/reloading .243 win for decades. Great chuck/yote round. A little hot for either really, but it works.
Deer? I tried some factory ammo, in my risky little red pad. It shot OK...........pleasant surprise. So I'll just run that ammo.
Gun is zeroed, ready to rock. Will go out and burn a box at 100 and 200 yards and call it good (double check).

Got a few boxes from the same lot # so no worries this yr.

My #1 doesn't shoot as well as my 700................but I'm taking he #1 deer hunting. Because it's cooler

 

[Hookeye]

Shot a lot growing up, even as an adult.
Burning ammo at the range now is boring........merely a check of mods/accuracy/zero.
Once verified...........it's time to go hunting!

 

[Broom_jm]

I'll try it this yr, but since my shots will be probably under 100 yards, will avoid a direct smack on the shoulder.
Will slip a boring old 100gr WW standard bullet behind the blade and into the heart/lungs and see what happens.

I killed two with shoulderblade hits, in .35 Rem, under 75 yards and did not get "boom-flop".
Got the deer though, 75 yards the farthest trail. Shot D was 50 and 75 yards.

Internet...........I should have gotten a DRT according to all the experts. Didn't happen.

Sport hunting offers way more variables, so should be done with stuff that might allow for a bit of it. Personally, I wouldn't run a.243 win for elk.
But then an elk hunt is gonna cost me a lot of money, it's not like I'm walking out the back door every weekend to go after them.

If I go elk, it's probably a .300 savage, or a .35 Whelen.

In an interesting twist, plenty of people who DO live in elk country hunt them successfully with a 243. They take their time, insisting on the right shot angle and distance.

I guess if you pay for an out-of-state elk hunt, you can't be bothered with those details, so you take a gun chambered in a cartridge that will plow through an elk diagonally from 450 yards? I wonder how many people realize that a good many resident hunters kill their elk with pretty much the same cartridges those of us back east use to kill deer?

 

[Hookeye]

Yeah, when they are in your back yard so to speak, you probably know where to get a nice close shot at them.
If not, well you can walk out back and try again next weekend.

One local I know of, borrowed a 55# recurve and whacked a 5x5.
He doesn't have much $, but has a kick arse trophy room...........because he's close to the critters and has the time to chase them.
MZ season he and his wife share their lone muzzleloader.

I personally don't have a problem with heavier bullets/cartridges so won't be limiting myself to a .243 win for elk. Don't really know crap about the things, only went once, and came back empty handed. Did learn on that hunt that if the shot is there, you might be in a hurry to deliver it..........and the perfect angle may not be present.

I'm thinking something that can take a longer angle in to be sound judgement.

High altitude..........20 yrs later............gonna be brutal.

 

[Hookeye]

I did pull my map of the area a bud and I hunted way back, and went to google earth.
Looks way different now.
Sister moved from Carbondale, to Denver. So will start trying to figure out what to do for next yr or so.
Buddy lives in Woodland Park. He got his Bighorn, and had gone grouse crazy. Dunno if he messes with elk anymore.
I'd be content to bowhunt mulies...........but guess that's getting $$$$