Author Topic: Any 243 Fans? (Read 3037 times)

Cobra7 · « **on:** January 11, 2006, 08:59:16 PM »

I am lucky enough to live in South Carolina where our deer season runs from Aug. 15 to Jan.1 and we can use any weapon we want with no limit. I have hunted in places where farmers would let you hunt for free or even pay you to shoot their deer because of crop destruction. It was not uncommen for me to shoot 20-30 deer a year. When I was young I would shoot a couple of deer with say a 30-30 then trade it the next day for a 7mm and shoot a couple of deer with it before trading it off. It was an expensive experiment but it was fun at the time. I have shot deer with a 30-30, 270, 280, 45/70, 35, 25-06, 308, 30-06, 22., 7mm-08, 6.5x55, 7mm Mag., 44 Mag., Buckshot, Shotgunslugs, Bow and Arrow, Spear(kidding), and a 243. I have hit and killed over 100 deer in my short life and find the 243.to be the best deer rifle for the job. Sean

bladerunner · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2006, 01:20:23 AM »

Cobra7,to me the 243 is adequate,but is the minimum for deer sized game.....I hunted with one for years and brought down quite a few with it,but to me a 7MM-08 or .308 or 25-06 is a better choice

and sorry i didn't say this on my last post

"WELCOME to GB"

Savage .250 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2006, 01:44:59 AM »

The .243 has never let me down. It was my main hunting rifle for years and had many one shot kills. Best part about it was it was light ( weight) as a feather. Even better it`s a savage 110......and old one topped with an old redfield scope. Shoots today just like it did years ago.

" The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience."

Thebear_78 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2006, 02:38:30 AM »

I have shot 17 whitetails with my 243 with both 100gr SBT and 85gr HPBT, both sierra bullets. I have shot a few deer with other calibers from 25/06-35 whelen. They all killed deer. I don't think they did that much better than the old 243. It probably has a lot to do with how accurate my 243 was too, could always call my shots with that rifle.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2006, 02:59:44 AM »

I am a 243 fan also. It is a versatile small caliber for deer and varmints.

3DTESTIFY · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2006, 04:27:15 AM »

I am also a fan of the .243 & agree that this cartridge is the minimum for deer sized game. Bullet type & shot placement are critical for success. A premium quality bullet of sufficient weight, I.E. 100gr. Nosler Partition or Barnes X bullet should be used.

High Brass · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:30:46 AM »

I'm a big fan of the 243 Win. Very flexible and mine shoots great with 100gr. bullets and it's performance on deer is satisfactory for me.

MikeyB · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:53:32 AM »

My first deer rifle I received was a Browning BLR in .243. Served me well over the years on whitetails. I would drop them in place with neck shots.

MikeyB

Brithunter · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2006, 08:27:07 AM »

Hi All,

Nope for some reason I just don't like the .243 Win cartridge. I have taken exactly one deer with a borrowed .243 which was a heart shot and it ran. Took the three of us plus the dog over 3/4 of an hour to find the doe, she was tucked in tight under some fir in the long dead grass and without that dog doubt we would have found her. Oh the Doe was a Muntjac and they stand about 22" high fully grown!

Now earlier this year I picked up a Parker-Hale model 1200V rifle in 6mm Remington. yeah I know it's pretty close to the .243 Win but the price was too good to pass up and I'll admit the 6mm Rem has intrigued me for some reason. As of yet I have yet to shoot the rifle as 6mm Rem is not exactly the most common of cartridges. Well now I have dies and brass, the cases have been prepped now I just have to load some up and get to the range to play :grin: Then perhaps if I can get the 6mm added yo my deer rifles on my licence I may just try it out on Deer and see if it does better than the .243 Win did :wink:

Dave in WV · « **Reply #9 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:45:45 PM »

I have a .243 and love it. It's a great cartridge for deer. I use 100gr Core-Lokts and haven't had any problems.

Slamfire · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2006, 07:31:01 PM »

I used to be, but I've grown out of it. When I shot enough jacks and yotes to take the gilt edge off the accuracy, I had mine rebored to what is now the .260 Rem. Still deadly on deer, and capable on larger game.

Lead Poison · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2006, 04:42:03 AM »

I've killed quite a few deer with my 243 Win, never lost one shot with it, but I still very much prefer a lot of other cartridges for deer hunting.

The 308 shooting a 150gr and the 7mm-08/260 shooting 140gr bullets definitely penetrate much better than the light 100gr bullet of the 243! I want my bullet to do a lot of damage and to exit, thus hopefully providing a blood trail. The other cartridges are just better for the job in my opinion.

I'm very careful with my shot placement and can place a shot with a 308 just as good as I can with a 243, so why not get the extra perfomance and penetration with the slightly heavier bullet.

Bigger is sometimes better. :wink:

DavOh · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2006, 05:01:04 AM »

ITS NOT THE SIZE THAT COUNTS, ITS HOW YOU USE IT!!!! :-D

I wouldnt use a .243 on northern deer... but for central texas 100-120 lbs is a good size deer.... .243 does fine if you do your part. I shot 11 deer with one as a kid and they all dropped in their tracks.

-Davoh

doncisler · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2006, 11:42:24 AM »

.243 will kill northern deer just as well as those little texas deer (always wanted to use little and texas in the same sentence).
shot placement and a good bullet are more important than size.

mjbgalt · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2006, 11:45:39 AM »

yeah, people always say "if you do your part" or "if you put the bullet in the right place" about the .243, as if a .30-06 can kill em with your eyes closed.

EVERYONE has to put it in the right place and do your part. no matter what you're shooting.

there is a good amount of people i have heard of who kill elk and black bears with their .243's, not out of recklessness but because they know they can do it and they care enough to make a good shot every time.

-Matt

Broken-arrow · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2006, 05:48:05 AM »

Quote

yeah, people always say "if you do your part" or "if you put the bullet in the right place" about the .243, as if a .30-06 can kill em with your eyes closed.

EVERYONE has to put it in the right place and do your part. no matter what you're shooting.

there is a good amount of people i have heard of who kill elk and black bears with their .243's, not out of recklessness but because they know they can do it and they care enough to make a good shot every time.

Very well said. I've taken game with 7 different calibers ranging from .223 Rem. to the good old 30-06 ( 6mm Rem. is my favorite )and also 25-30 white-tails with archery tackle and no matter what you're shooting, shot placement is the critical difference between a lost/wounded animal and meat in the freezer. A larger caliber doesn't make up for poor shooting skills. :money:

DavOh · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2006, 07:21:35 AM »

Actually, since I also have experience from both .243(100 gr.) and .308(150 gr), I can tell you that the .308 does allow a greater margin of error in the shot placement department. Not Much, but it does. Larger caliber allows heavier bullet. Heavier bullet delivers more energy which does more damage goin in and going out. The more damage a bullet does on it's way through, the more difficult for the animal to run long enough to out last the blood trail. Which is the main reason why a .30 cal(in a 150 gr. plus bullet) is a better choice for someone with not so steady an aim. I would personally not use a .243 that's not a reliable 1 MOA shooter. I prefer bang-flops.

When placed in the heart or brain energy not a factor because of the correct placement(providing penetration is adequate). The heart is a remarkably delicate organ. The bullet penetrating the heart or brain is all that's needed to dispatch the deer. Not "jellying" as somepeople talk about. Afterall, this is why the preferred weapon of poaching is often a .22LR or mag. Which is why the .243 is MORE than adequate... lets say it together... with proper placement.

On the other hand I've made a few not so great shots with the .308 where the weight of the bullet was the difference in recovery and lost wounded. As a result of more damage being done upon impact.

Mind you, 243 and 308 have nearly identical case capacities. I dont reload, but given the fact that the .243 was developed from the .308, I'm sure some of the reloaders on the forum could confirm that for me.

As for the trusty old '06... I've seen deer shot in the rear quarter with one(not by me mind you :wink: ) who because of the trauma of impact and damage done to said body area, did not go 50 yds before bedding down and bleeding out. With a .243 you'd hardly beable to tell that the deer was hit.

General rule is, heavier bullet = greater margin for error.

Just some observations. And after proper reflection I recant what I said about not using .243 on northern deer. But I'd still rather take my trusty .308.

lilabner · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2006, 08:17:16 AM »

I started hunting deer with a .250 Savage and later used a .257 Roberts. Never lost a deer, never had to track a wounded deer with either cartridge. Nothing but one shot kills. But, I was not spending big money to hunt trophy mulies or big bodied Canadian whitetails. I was hunting meat within 50-100 miles of my Colorado home and practicing careful shot selection. If you check the ballistics tables you'll see the .243 is more powerful than the Savage or Roberts cartridges. So, it isn't the minimum cartridge for deer, as often stated. It also turns up more energy than the 30/30, 32 Special or 35 Rem. and they have killed a lot of deer. My .243 has made nothing but one shot kills, but I wouldn't take it hunting for large bodied trophy deer by the spot and stalk method. For that, a 25-06 or, better yet, a .270 Win. seems a better tool. I need some margin for error. For stand hunting with precise shot placement and using premium bullets, the .243 is deadly on any deer.

conrad101st · « **Reply #18 on:** January 27, 2006, 05:07:56 AM »

I've shot several deer with a .243.

Some drop like they have been struck by lightning.

Others have run and taken considerable effort to find.

Many had no exit wound even if they fell over on the spot.

No exit wound equals no blood trail for the most part.

However, that was before they came out with the new bonded bullets or barnes x solid types that will penetrate all the way through in theory.

Now, I use my 300 for deer and my 243 for PDogs and coyotes.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #19 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:15:04 AM »

I guess I bought my .243 for more of a calling rifle/super sized varminter more than anything---stainless Ruger Ultra-light.

The .243 with light bullets out does ANY .22 cal rifle and I have bigger guns for bigger animals.

Not to say that I wouldn't use the .243 on deer if the opportunity presented itself.

Zachary · « **Reply #20 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:25:38 AM »

Quote from: Cobra7

I have hit and killed over 100 deer in my short life and find the 243.to be the best deer rifle for the job. Sean

Please provide a detailed explanation supporting your belief that the .243 is "the best" deer rifle for the job.

Zachary

vernonp · « **Reply #21 on:** January 27, 2006, 08:51:51 AM »

I really like the 243. In fact I sent my Kimber 84 308 to ER Shaw to be rebarreled to 243.I shoot a lot and I am 69 and getting more recoil sensitive and that 5 lb. 308 just was not a lot of fun to shoot a lot from the bench. It is the minimum caliber for deer I would agree, but if you shoot your rifle a lot and know its limitations you could possibly do better hunting deer with it than a heavy kicker that you do not shoot much.

Zachary · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2006, 03:07:20 AM »

I certainly can agree that reduced recoil = better shot placement = effective harvest. However, the recoil between say, a .243 and a .25-06, .260, or even 7mm-08 is not significant, yet the energy (and I'm not just talking about the "numbers") are more impressive than a .243.

I own a .243 but I have only shot, if I remember correctly, only one deer with it. As such, I question on what basis anyone believes that the .243 is "the BEST" whitetail deer round. I believe it can be a good round, but the "best?" I do not have extensive experience with that cartridge, so it is for this reason that I ask this question.

Keep in mind that, if I don't know something, then I have no problem asking. To me, a dumb question is one that is never asked.

Accordingly, my question is limited - for those of you who use the .243 regularly on whitetail deer, do you similarly believe that the .243 is the best cartridge?

Zachary

Maryland Hunter · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:37:36 AM »

Here are some articles, supporting the .243:
http://www.billsaccuracy.com/art1-p1.htm
http://www.udarrell.com/ultimate_deer_cartridge.htm
Pretty good reading.

MH

Cobra7 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2006, 09:35:22 PM »

Well, for some reason my answer to Zachs questions did not post. So I will post it again. I had two different friends that could not hit the side of a barn if they were inside. One friend bought a 30-06 and missed or gutshot every deer he shot at. And I am talking 8-10 deer. He swore it was the gun. We took it to the range and the gun shot fine but it kicked like a horse. It was a Savage 110. I lent him an extra .243 and he droped 8 deer in a row with neck shots that same season. I feel that their is not a soul on earth that can't shoot a .243 better than say a 300 Win Mag. It's a mental thing. Plus for some reason most of the deer I shoot with the .243 drop like a HAMMER. Even if I shoot them in the ribs. I have also shot alot of deer with a 7mm Mag. and they run 90% of the time if I shoot them in the ribs. That little 100gr. Rem. Core-Lokt is a STINGER. To me the .243 is Magic! Sean

NimrodRx · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2006, 05:46:15 PM »

Neck shots...

Magic...

.243 the "best" deer rifle...

Zachary and DavOh, thanks for providing some reason. I don't even have the patience for this kind of thing anymore.

harvester · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:58:36 AM »

nearly any caliber will kill deer sized game if shot conditions are ideal.

for people to say that one caliber kills as well as another demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge in the area of terminal ballistics. to try to summarize this subject in a single post would be a daunting task indeed. it requires some time dedicated to research on the subject. those unwilling to do so should err on the side of larger calibers.

to over-simplify the issue, bullets kill by tissue damage, loss of blood and blood pressure. this is most easily achieved by large, deep wound channels. preferably passing through the animal.

the .243 will certainly kill deer. its low recoil improves accuracy. however, it has obvious disadvantages. there is a relativley low selection of bullets that are up to the job of deer sized animals. (compare to the selection of .308 bullets, for example). since weight retention is often a factor in these bullets, shot selection is limited as well (or ought to be.)

still don't think caliber matters? ask our soldiers whether they prefer the 5.56mm (.223) or the 7.62mm (.308). from my reading, and discussions with friends in the military, the 7.62 is the preferred choice. too many enemy combatants run away with wounds from the 5.56mm. sure, they may die, but his fate is not readily known.

for simple anecdotal evidence, google the phrase ".243 for deer". far too much chatter about the round that supposedly the perfect deer round.

its rather inconsequential to post about how many deer you've killed with the .243, or what types of shots you've made with it. neither are sufficient evidence to establish grounds for a perfect deer round.

i do not disapprove of using the .243 for deer. for many (preferrably skilled) hunters it is a versatile round. however, i do not consider it to be the perfect deer round. there are better choices for low-recoil, terminally effective deer rounds.

Maryland Hunter · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:49:45 AM »

Quote from: harvester

to over-simplify the issue, bullets kill by tissue damage, loss of blood and blood pressure.

I must repectfully disagree with you on this statement, Harvester, or at least, add to it, that bullets also kill by shock to the central nervous system. Perhaps this was meant to be included in "tissue damage". Your description is more accurate of a broadheads killing power though, not a bullet, especially one at high velocity. This is evident by a round placed in the neck region, dropping the deer in it's tracks. The deer is dead before loss of blood or blood pressure occurs. Of course, this will prompt the "slow and heavy, fast and light" debate, but just another opinion to consider.

MH

NimrodRx · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2006, 12:43:38 PM »

Interesting how a .243 thread is turning into a ballistics discussion

I think youre both right. Again, this is an over-simplification. Rapid death is brought about only by brain death, either through direct trauma to the CNS (Central Nervous System) or indirectly by depriving it of oxygen (Circulatory System). The large deep wound channels that Harvester alluded to result in cardiac arrest or hemorrhaging the resultant loss of blood pressure completely shutting down the circulatory system and the supply of oxygen. As MH stated, the violent pressure wave that accompanying a bullet passing near the CNS is also enough to often provide adequate trauma to the CNS resulting in brain death.

The one thing that I have to respectfully take issue with is the idea of neck shots something that I see crop up often when the .243 is discussed. It is true that a bullet severing or passing near the spine or carotid artery (the only two vital targets in the neck) will provide brain death. However, to attribute this effect to a certain cartridge or bullet is a mistake. It is also true that a bullet path that is just a couple inches lower will have no such result. If the spine is missed, a neck shot animal will be maimed. Because a deer so frequently and rapidly moves its head/neck, it does not lie within the skill of most hunters to make this a reliable target. Add to the variables known trajectory/distance, wind speed, a steady rest and the shot becomes even more irresponsible.

Back to the issue There is no best cartridge. All calibers and their bullets have their attributes and their shortcomings. The key is to match these with the hunter and the quarry. If youre a highly seasoned hunter who has the restraint and patience to pass on marginal or raking shots, then yes, the .243 is a fine round for you. It is flat, and when placed properly will result in consistent kills.

My gripe is with the trend of recommending this as a starter rifle for a new hunter. These hunters more often than not, lack the experience and skill needed to place every shot without fail. A heavier, larger caliber bullet provides a larger margin for error - period.

Bryce Towsley:.

"As a deer cartridge, the .243 Win. is nothing if not controversial. It's often selected as a "first gun" cartridge, and I suspect that's where most of the controversy is rooted. The .243' nearly quarter-inch bullet is adequate for deer hunting, but it doesn't carry much insurance. The little quarter-bore has almost no forgiveness built in as compensation for a poorly placed shot, and a new hunter is far more likely to place the bullet imprecisely than is an experienced hunter."

Very well said in my opinion. I am not trying to argue the legitimacy of the .243 as a deer rifle. It is certainly up to the task. However, I must take issue with the notion that it is the best deer rifle. It is also worth while to consider its limitations.

harvester · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2006, 01:09:28 AM »

Quote from: Maryland Hunter

Quote from: harvester
to over-simplify the issue, bullets kill by tissue damage, loss of blood and blood pressure.

I must repectfully disagree with you on this statement, Harvester, or at least, add to it, that bullets also kill by shock to the central nervous system.

no, i purposely left the idea of "shock" out of the description. i could summarize why, but others have done so more eloquently that i could hope to acheive:

(from the paper titled: "Shooting holes in Wounding Theories: The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics")

"The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is "transferred" to the target, thereby somehow killing it through "hydrostatic shock".

I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps.

Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock.

Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart. It is possible to kill manually by nerve "strangulation". In this case actual damage to the central nervous system is not caused, but the signals governing the heart or diaphragm are shut off, resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness or even death. Certain rare sports fatalities have been definitely attributed to a swift blow which interrupts the cardiac rhythm. Acoustic pressure on the spine can also cause temporary paralysis. These phenomena may account for the rapid effectiveness of some high-velocity hollow-point pistol bullets, especially in cases in which the victim is not mortally wounded and recovers consciousness within a few minutes. Several special handgun loads have been designed with no regard whatsoever to penetration (e.g., the THV bullet) in order to achieve this result. Unfortunately, this is an unreliable mechanism of incapacitation, generally obtained at the expense of effective penetration. No bullet yet designed will produce this effect even 10% of the time. Many of the bullets designed to utilize this effect can be defeated by common barriers, such as glass, sheetrock, and even clothing. Doing this deliberately by hand, even with a profound understanding of the mechanism and vital points, is extremely uncertain; using the passage of a pressure wave from a bullet to accomplish this falls into the freak event category. Such is never an acceptable mechanism for the hunter. "

The author concludes, at the end of this paper, that regardless of bullet construction, kinetic energy, momentum, caliber, etc, the hole caused by the bullet is the only measure of its terminal effectiveness. and in that respect, the bigger, the better. for the most rapid death, hunters should be looking for bullets that produce .75"-1.0" wound channels, with bullets that exit. entrance wounds rarely bleed much.

nimrod - i agree with your assertions - well said.