Best factory 243 deer round

[Hookeye]

If I score a 7600 carbine in .30-06, figure that'd be fine for elk.
Liked my 7 mag BDL.
But 250's from a .35 Whelen are a hoot.
7600.............in .35 Whelen?

 

[Stickfight]

That just tells me you have no respect for the animals you kill.

Wow I didn't expect a reply like that but I guess I should have.

Others here have have already done a better job than I could have of explaining why it has nothing to do with respect for the animal or that there are no macho points for taking more recoil than the next guy. All I would add is that I used to think like you, bigger animals require bigger cartridges. A few hours of shooting, then looking at mounts with Boone & Crockett plaques and pictures of even more and bigger stuff, killed with a 243, changed my mind so much my 300 WSM hasn't been on a hunt since.

 

[RMC]

Wow I didn't expect a reply like that but I guess I should have.

Others here have have already done a better job than I could have of explaining why it has nothing to do with respect for the animal or that there are no macho points for taking more recoil than the next guy. All I would add is that I used to think like you, bigger animals require bigger cartridges. A few hours of shooting, then looking at mounts with Boone & Crockett plaques and pictures of even more and bigger stuff, killed with a 243, changed my mind so much my 300 WSM hasn't been on a hunt since.

I appologize for being so abrupt but please don't take it so personal. I speak from the experience of being the one to track a deer down through 6 miles of knee-deep snow because of a poor hit with a 243. I know it wasn't the guns fault but a more powerful cartridge would have ended the hunt much sooner with less stress on the animal. I also tracked a pronghorn for most of a day because an idiot took a shot at a range he shouldn't have. Again, it was a 243 and if a more capable cartridge were used it probably would have dropped and stayed down. Instead, the bullet hit the shoulder knocking it down and then it ran off. Personally, I don't mind using a 243 on game but the problem more times than not with bad hits is the shooter lacks the skill to use it effectively. In a forum I find it best to assume the average poster has average skills at best. It seems like everyone in forums thinks because they can kill an animal with a small caliber then everyone should be able to. That is far from the truth. How many have you talked to or seen their posts that think 50-round magazines and 223s should be allowed for hunting? WTF! Anyone that needs that much ammo to get an animal has no business hunting. Could I take a deer with a 223? Absolutely and it wouldn't take more than one shot, but I know how to shoot and what limitations I would have. Most hunters don't bother with the small details like sighting a rifle in or reading anything about the ballistic characteristics of the caliber they're using. Just look at this thread. A few got all huffy and bent out of shape because I said if the 243 isn't already owned then they might want to consider a 308 for larger game. What the hell was wrong with that? That is probably where I got my attitude if that's what you want to call it. Do you honestly think a 243 is a better choice for elk, moose, or bear than a 270, 7mm mag, 308, 30-06, 300 mag, etc, etc? Is that what you would recommend to someone you don't know? I can't do that. Anyway, use whatever you want. I never said you couldn't.

 

[RMC]

If I score a 7600 carbine in .30-06, figure that'd be fine for elk.
Liked my 7 mag BDL.
But 250's from a .35 Whelen are a hoot.
7600.............in .35 Whelen?

I bet hunting with a 35 Whelen is a hoot. I've been pondering the acquisition of a 300 Dakota, 338 or a 30-378. I think they'd be great for squirrels and rabbits.

 

[Broom_jm]

Wow I didn't expect a reply like that but I guess I should have.

Others here have have already done a better job than I could have of explaining why it has nothing to do with respect for the animal or that there are no macho points for taking more recoil than the next guy. All I would add is that I used to think like you, bigger animals require bigger cartridges. A few hours of shooting, then looking at mounts with Boone & Crockett plaques and pictures of even more and bigger stuff, killed with a 243, changed my mind so much my 300 WSM hasn't been on a hunt since.

No, you should not have expected a reply like that...nothing you did or said warranted that degree of condescension. If this forum had even halfway decent moderators, you wouldn't have to put up with someone claiming you have no respect for the animals you kill.

In some forums there are people you learn to ignore, because pretty much everything they write is intended to put others down or generate some kind of controversy. The great thing is, those people either learn to communicate more respectfully (which seems to be the case here) or they realize they've worn out their welcome and just go away...either way, problem solved!

The interesting thing is that these people usually have a lot to offer, due to their experience level, but that's only beneficial if they learn to express themselves with common courtesy. I'd say the jury is still out on that.

One thing the jury has already come back on...is the effectiveness of the 243 Winchester as a big game cartridge. Make no apologies because if the quarry is thin-skinned medium game animals, the same rule applies to hundreds of different rifle cartridges, from 243 to 308 to 500...put the bullet where it needs to go and then go collect your deer or antelope or (smaller) wild hog. Literally tens of thousands of such animals are killed every year with a 243, and plenty of animals are lost to all of the larger cartridges too, when the hunter doesn't do his job. Very few people who have actually hunted big game with a 243 will suggest that it isn't suitable for the task at hand.

My first deer, when I was 13.

My daughter's first deer, when she was also 13.

Think you'll be able to convince either of these young hunters that a 243 won't get the job done? (Both deer dropped right where they stood, by the way.)

 

[Stickfight]

I appologize for being so abrupt but please don't take it so personal.

I don't take it personally and there is really no need to apologize. This is just the internet and it is actually a good place to be abrupt like that.

poor hit with a 243. I know it wasn't the guns fault but a more powerful cartridge would have ended the hunt much sooner with less stress on the animal.

From what I have seen there really isn't a way to bring enough gun to miss. Everybody says recoil doesn't matter, but the big magnum shooters also seem to be the poorest shots. The rifles that are easy to shoot get shot more, at least in my family, which builds better shooting.

Do you honestly think a 243 is a better choice for elk, moose, or bear than a 270, 7mm mag, 308, 30-06, 300 mag, etc, etc? Is that what you would recommend to someone you don't know?

Yes I would because it is lighter recoiling that what you list (except for 308 where it is pretty much equal). It also has a great trajectory if you pick a good bullet which makes for more accuracy at longer ranges. I don't see anything wrong with recommending a 308 instead because there is a ton of good factory ammo out there and it is a really capable cartridge. I just don't know there is any hunting situation that a 308 can do that a 243 can't just as well so it isn't like one is a huge advantage over the other.

 

[Stickfight]

Broom_jim I like those moon boots!

Nice to see hunting start at a young age. I missed that because my family didn't really do it, but I got the taste because my wife's does.

 

[Hookeye]

While there was some mention of animals poorly hit with .243win..............I failed to see what bullet was used.

Thankfully bad hits never happen with bigger stuff, and nobody has ever lost a deer smacked with a 7mm or greater projectile.....................

Not gonna demonize or put it up for Sainthood............the .243 win is just a cartridge.

I'd like to know hit locations, yardage, bullets used.

One might be able to change things to where bigger stuff gets to be similar in performance (lack of it).

 

[RMC]

While there was some mention of animals poorly hit with .243win..............I failed to see what bullet was used.

Thankfully bad hits never happen with bigger stuff, and nobody has ever lost a deer smacked with a 7mm or greater projectile.....................

Not gonna demonize or put it up for Sainthood............the .243 win is just a cartridge.

I'd like to know hit locations, yardage, bullets used.

One might be able to change things to where bigger stuff gets to be similar in performance (lack of it).

In my post, the deer was running and it got hit further back so the heart/lungs were missed but the liver was damaged. The distance was maybe 100 yards and just a few inches would have made a huge difference. A larger caliber would have done more damage to the liver and quickened the kill IMHO. The pronghorn was shot at 300+ yards and it turned towards the shooter as he shot causing the bullet to glance off the shoulder. A larger and/or heavier bullet would have penetrated into the engine room IMHO. That particular antelope was taken at 300 yards with a 308 shooting 165 gr Federal Premium that went through the shoulder and dropped the animal in its tracks. I can't say what bullets were used in the 243s but I believe 85 gr soft points were the most common at that time.

I won't dispute that a well placed shot can neutralize the importance of caliber, bullet weight, or velocity but not all shots are perfectly placed. Thus, those other factors play larger roles.

 

[possumpacker]

maybe the OP wanted a good deer rifle that would double as a good varmit gun after deer season. the 243 is very good that way.

 

[RMC]

Good point.

 

[Hohn]

Federal makes the Power Shok in 100 gr and even heavier in the Vital Shok.
Federal Premium Ammunition - Rifle

I'd roll with the Vital Shok.

 

[Hohn]

Broom_Jim makes an excellent point about .243 suitability.


I've come to think that bigger cartridges can, at a point, be actually LESS effective in hunting. A flinch developed from shooting a 7mm Rem Mag insufficiently is likely to make you less accurate a shooter. Less accuracy= more wounded/maimed animals.

I've started thinking not in terms of caliber, but in terms of sectional density and PF. A larger animal needs more SD and longer range needs more PF. Some "small" calibers can give you high SDs that are more than enough for CPX2 and smaller. Many classic Safari cartridges aren't super "powerful" compared to modern mega-magnum calibers. But they shot very high SD bullets more than enough for the big five.

There are times when heavy and slower is better (.338 Fed) and light and fast is better (.243).

The responsibility of the shooter is to know the limits of himself and his gear in those particular conditions.

It's not that .243 is insufficient. It's just that some shooters lack the skill to execute certain shots under certain conditions. There are guys missing deer with .243s at 100 yards, for sure. And there are guys taking out feral boars with .22LR with earhole shots at 80 yards.

 

[Hookeye]

I grew up being a varminter. Sure I shot a few deer rifles my dad's buds had, but really most of my time was behind a .243win of some sort.

Guy at work was into western hunting, had a few pronghorns and mulies under his belt, and had a few rifles. Went to his house and private range and he was load testing a 7mm Mag BDL. Had a 12X Leupold on it.

Never shot one that I could remember, he asked me to try it.

Had steel plate at 135 yards. Winter, fresh out of the Jeep........I let one fly offhand. Clang!
Asked me to do it again.............clang!

OK, now back in HSI had a Petersen Hunting mag with an article on the big ol 7mm mag.
Where they affixed lights to a .30-06 and a 7mm Mag and took pics to show the diff in recoil.

I was expecting something from the pics...........and didn't get it.
Downright comfy recoil wise, blast was a bit nasty though. 160's as fast as they could go. Rem brass wussed out after 2nd handload.

Yup, I bought that rifle a week later

Bought bigger stuff after that. No flinch.

Not buying into magnums causing problems. Think the problem might be pre purchase LOL

Ya either know how to shoot or ya don't.

 

[Hookeye]

And yeah, I did just like the owner..........1.2" at 100 off the bench.
Must say the 7mm Mag with 160's max'd out......is more comfy than a .300 winmag w 180's.
Neck/back issues got worse with age.
I'd buy a 7 mag again, but not a .300 winmag.
Did find the .35 whelen with 250's cranked was not such a pop, more of a big push. Thumper but tolerable.
I shot two groundhogs with my bud's .35 whelen.
First made it down the hole.....bullet zipped through at about 75 yards and whistled through a small tree behind (and went into hill).
Wooded hunting for safety.
Next one was closer and bullet hit stones on offside of den, blew rocks all over. Severed spine behind the head........recovered.
May be a pic I can scan somewhere..............700 classic............that rifle had balsa type wood (grain and weight).
Expected it to be bad. Surprisingly tame. Do remember elbows on a log for the first chuck............and seeing the sunlight through the canopy in the scope during recoil LOL. Was wearing a Leupold 4x.

 

[Hookeye]

I find recoil to be of no big deal when hunting, so focused on aiming.
It moves my gun and disturbs my line of vision.........which is kind of annoying LOL.
Mentally I'm putting my bullet into the animal right where I'm looking...........all that other stuff...........is stuff.

I shoot things, don't shoot at things.

Dunno, just always been that way, seems to work for me.

 

[natdscott]

...there are guys taking out feral boars with .22LR with earhole shots at 80 yards.

Those guys also have really good rifles...not just any rifle, nor shooter, can place those kind of hits.

Not to detract from your main point. Back to regularly-scheduled programming.

-Nate

 

[Hookeye]

Wonder how many morons will buy a .243 win for them, or their family members........and just bore sight it, think it good enough.
Had enough of that nonsense pre rifle allowance.
This new stuff is going to have more clueless shmucks out there.

But but but..........the .243 win doesn't kick, therefore I don't need to practice.

Too bad every moron has a smart phone. It'd be great fun to hang out at the deer check in, see who shows up with a gut shot deer, .243 win.........see through rings.

 

[Broom_jm]

Wonder how many morons will buy a .243 win for them, or their family members........and just bore sight it, think it good enough.
Had enough of that nonsense pre rifle allowance.
This new stuff is going to have more clueless shmucks out there.

But but but..........the .243 win doesn't kick, therefore I don't need to practice.

Too bad every moron has a smart phone. It'd be great fun to hang out at the deer check in, see who shows up with a gut shot deer, .243 win.........see through rings.

Those "clueless shmucks" you refer to are your fellow sportsmen and women. You know, the folks standing in line with you at the ballot box. They pay their P-R taxes, buy their licenses and do what they can to catch a fish or bring home some game. They're your best and ONLY defense against having your right to hunt, fish and even to simply own a firearm, preserved.

Before you go bashing others, help just one or two people a year become better shooters and better hunters. Quit being so old and crotchety that you can't remember the time when you weren't better'n everybody else. And remember where your bread is buttered, because you're casting aspersions at the very people who are absolutely ESSENTIAL for you to go on enjoying the shooting sports.

Back to your regularly scheduled bashing of the 243, and sportsmen in general.

 

[RMC]

Wonder how many morons will buy a .243 win for them, or their family members........and just bore sight it, think it good enough.
Had enough of that nonsense pre rifle allowance.
This new stuff is going to have more clueless shmucks out there.

But but but..........the .243 win doesn't kick, therefore I don't need to practice.

Too bad every moron has a smart phone. It'd be great fun to hang out at the deer check in, see who shows up with a gut shot deer, .243 win.........see through rings.

That can be a scary thought indeed. In today's world we expect everything to be automatic and flawless and it only makes a person wonder what effects that could have on hunting or other activities involving firearms. My own father put faith into bore sighting but he shot competition on the Navy's pistol team and never hunted with a rifle. I shot competition rifle in the Scouts when we lived on a military base in Granite City, IL so I have always sighted my rifles in on a target at various ranges. I wouldn't think of doing it any other way.

I don't see what the "kick" factor has to do with hunting but I've seen it referenced here numerous times. I have taken well over 100 deer and I can't remember the "kick" the rifle gave me with any of them, even with magnums. You either hit your target or you may end up tracking an animal a long ways or lose it because it got on property you don't have permission to go on. Do you find it ironic that some that claim the 243 is good for LARGE North American game are probably using a 308 for the lowly "deer" of Indiana? Seriously, if a person doesn't like or can't handle the recoil of a big game rifle then they shouldn't be hunting big game. Rifles have great power and with great power comes great responsibility. (Good use of Marvel Comics jargon, huh?)

It sure would be tempting to sit and listen to the DNR channels on a scanner. I imagine the news media will have a heyday with every negative occurrence involving the new law.