The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles .243 VS elkGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| .243 VS elk | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
Lets see if we can get the same response on this thread. Is the .243 adequate for elk? | ||
|
One of Us |
In a word, retarded.  | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2COAcHZRlI | |||
|
One of Us |
Elk gores .243 and wins hands down! | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
It's funny that you'd post that. During my deer hunt 2 weeks ago, I took some DVD's that I had on hand to watch in my buddy's over-the-top luxurious 5th wheel in which we "camped" LOL! One of them was of these CLOWNS. It was a promotional DVD pushing their long range rifles, scopes, ammo combos. It contained quite a few long range "hunting" shots on film so that they could dupe the average guy who is enthralled with that into buying their "system". Very similar to "Best of the West" system. In MHO, it is a disservice to hunting and the worst influence on the sport in quite a while. They billed their "system" as a "turn key" rig. You get it delivered with everything you need including the ammo to go out and start killing big game at 500 to 1000 yards with ease. Simple. There was so much misinformation in the DVD it was pitiful. The bonehead talked about the Leupold scope in which they had installed their proprietory reticle. It was a VX-III 4-14 power with a second focal plane reticle that had aimpoints for ranging and windage graduations. He touted the 14X as "plenty for accurate 1000 yard shots on game" He touted the second focal plane reticle as "superior to any first focal plane model" Anyone with any long range experience knows better. Now you see them make a perfect shot at 600 on elk with a 129 grain bullet that has about 1000 ft-lbs of energy. I shoot a Creedmoor with a 139 in competition and wouldn't consider it on an elk at 600. It's amazing what folks will do for $ at the expense of common sense, ethics. BTW about the .243 and elk. Ask low wall. He shoots moose that he doesn't have tags for with tiny .22 cals during varmint hunts if he sees them. To him, the .243 is overkill I'm sure. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There are simply better choices. Free men should not be subjected to permits, paperwork and taxation in order to carry any firearm. NRA Benefactor | |||
|
| One of Us |
In the early 1970s I read a story in Outdoor Life by a hunter who took his young son on his first elk hunt. He extolled the virtues of the M70 .243 with 75-grain bullet his son used to kill the six-pointer, with one shot at 200 yards to boot. It has to be a great elk cartridge (especially with the high velocity 75-grain elk bullet) - it said so in Outdoor Life! . | |||
|
One of Us |
On my first elk hunt in 1978 a guy in base camp had a .243. I kidded him a bit and he laughed and explained that he had killed his elk every year for many years using that rifle. He said he knew just where the elk migration route was and after a heavy snow storm a few days later he rode his horse to a ridge overlooking the often used path of the migration. His shot would be no more than 50 yards in most years and he always had a broadside shot and very often got to pick his bull. He lived there and was helping the outfitter saddle up horses and pack mules. Like a novice hunter, I failed to get his name and address for a future hunt!....bummer! Under this situation I'd not hesitate to use a .243 to hunt elk! It comes back to knowing the limitations of your cartridge and yourself! /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
One of Us |
Exaclty. Where you in Wy? I know a guide that lives in GreyBull and he used a 243 for many many years and was always succesful on Elk with the little 243 _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
The difference between a 6.5 140 grainer and a 243 105 grainer is significant. As far as the 243 being capable of killing elk, it is. The same way a .22 mag kills whitetail deer. It relies heavily upon bullet placement and range but it can get it done. Most people opt for a caliber that offers a bit more margin of error and every cartridge and caliber above the 243 will perform exponentially better. Captain Finlander | |||
|
| One of Us |
50yd elk with 243win and choice of shot? Hell id happily use a down loaded 250savage with same weight quality bullet, Smaller still a cute bolt rifle 6.5 Grendel- 95gnGsHV 2900mv would do just fine....   ... 2800fps impact vel. those petals will shear off{as designed}performing as hv secondary projectiles, wreaking havock in his chest cavity... For the FPE affectionados, it has about 1630fpe/50yd, 1500fpe/100yd.I know 6.5x55-110gnGsHV 3100mv, has convincingly folded-up African Eland at 100m. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I believe it would be unethical to hunt elk with a .243 Win. Yes, it will kill one if the shot is properly placed, but so would a bullet from a .22LR rimfire. But if wounded, an elk shot with a small caliber bullet would leave little or no blood trail and would be (in my opinion) hard to track and recover. Losing game is not ethical hunting. That being said, I've read that a favorite cartridge for moose hunting in Scandinavia is the venerable 6.5X55 Swede. It is only a .264 diameter bullet, but 6.5mm bullets are supposedly known for high sectional density and deep penetration. JMHO, Bill. | |||
|
| one of us |
A .243 placed in the heart/lung area will cause sufficient trauma to kill an elk -- in fact, just about as quickly and surely as a .300 Magnum or .338. The problem is getting it there. If the shot doesn't require going through much of the muscle and bone of the shoulder, then the .243 will do about as well as anything. Remember, Lewis and Clark's men sometimes took a half-dozen elk a day feeding the expedition. They did it with muzzleloading balls with limited penetrating ability and generating less than half of the energy of a .243. And they only had one shot at a given elk to either take it cleanly -- no follow-ups for these guys. I guess elk have gotten a lot tougher in 200 years. | |||
|
| One of Us |
RC, I agree with you on this one, buying accuracy is differant then buying ability to use it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What cartridge bullet combo kills Elk with a poorly placed shot? IS a 300 mag an unethical caliber to hunt Elk with, since Elk have been lost with them?? _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
There you go with that FPE BS again  _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
One of Us |
I used to have this argument with a much respected and loved Cousin. Each year we hunted together and spent many miles, hours and stalks together, I with my .338 and 275 Speer and he with his 243 and 85 grain Sierra HP. It was largely an argument based in Theory as we do here on the Web but it was extended way past a few lines on a forum. He had learned and talked Energy and I talked Taylor, Keith and thus Penetration/momentum. The only time we did not argue about this was when we were using all the O2 to pack elk out of the CO Mountains instead of talk. I can tell you that he rifle was lighter than mine and that’s a plus when your dragging or packing elk. I can also tell you that we finally quit arguing about it when I won that 243 rifle on a bet and then gave it back to his wife. She promptly killed a very big 5 x5 that was bigger than the one I killed that year with the 338 with one shot at about 400 yards. Her husband directed the shot to the neck and another elk fell to the bullet that did things it should never have done. When I left CO it had accounted for elk in the 17-19 count area and I am sure the little misses still uses it to this day. The 85 Sierra HP would reliably break the onside shoulder destroy the lungs and end up in the off side hide. If shot in the ribs behind both shoulders, the bullet would exit. Don’t ask me why or to defend it. I can’t. Neck shots were used quite a lot and it would break bone there very well with a DRT effect. I saw a few quartering to and away shots as well and the elk died very dead. As mentioned elsewhere, the 260 and a good bullet are my “minimum” for elk but I also wanted to tell you that it has been proven to me by the shooters above, much to my chagrin, the 243 worked just fine. Also that gun was weaned on Big Mule deer bucks, moving on to Elk later when they invaded our little corner of CO. I wished I was hunting with him today and arguing about guns and loads. Best regards, dmw "The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights." ~George Washington - 1789 | |||
|
One of Us |
I killed my first 2 elk with a Rem 700 in 243 shooting 105g Speer spitzer handloads at 3000 fps. It worked fine out to 250 yards as long as you waited for a broadside shot. I traded it in for a 270 after seeing a couple of grizzlies. That 243 was a great mule deer and javelina gun in Arizona, just too light for Montana in my opinion. Regards, Chuck "There's a saying in prize fighting, everyone's got a plan until they get hit" Michael Douglas "The Ghost And The Darkness" | |||
|
One of Us |
 I just hate these treads. Like,'is the 223 suitable for deer' or 'are barnes bullets any good', yes, no, maybe. I sometimes wonder if they are started for a purposeful outcome in mind.No offence intended to the original poster, by the way. ----------------------------------------------------- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Proverbs 26-4 National Rifle Association Life Member | |||
|
One of Us |
The question was phrased is it adequate. See definition: "ad·e·quate adj \ˈa-di-kwət\ Definition of ADEQUATE 1: sufficient for a specific requirement <adequate taxation of goods>; also : barely sufficient or satisfactory <her first performance was merely adequate> " By definition, if used in specific conditions (perfect shot placement, short range, etc.)it can be adequate and IMHO is always barely sufficient. "Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult." | |||
|
One of Us |
I know people that use a 243 Win or 6mm Rem to hunt elk and do all right but they make up such a small number of people that they’re not worth counting. Even the women hunters I’ve known opt for something heavier like the smaller 7mms or the 308 Win. Whether that was their old mans choice or theirs, who knows, they learned how to use them. The state of Colorado which bands the use of 22s for hunting deer, thinks its just peachy to use a 243 Win with an 85 grain bullet to hunt elk and moose with. There have been a lot of elk killed with lesser cartridges than the 243. I think Stonecreek drove that point home with the Lewis and Clark story. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Worked with a guy who transfered in from L.A. Never been hunting in his life. Went out and bought a .243 Remington 788 Carbine with a 3x9 Bushnell scope. Opening day of Elk season he shot a 5pt (Western Count) Roosevelt Bull through the shoulders with a 100gr Remington Core-Lok at just under 100yds. It walked about 40 feet and fell down. He asked me "Why everyone told him Elk hunting was so hard?" I told him they were BSing him, and that next season would be easier. "Isn't it pretty to think so." | |||
|
| One of Us |
i guess the 243 is adequate for elk IF the elk isn't too far away and IF you pick your shot carefully and IF you have the right bullet, and IF you don't own a larger caliber rifle. otherwise, i'd take something with a bit more horsepower. ymmv. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There's a lot of IFs there. But I agree, there's a lot of better choices. A used .30-06 isn't hard to find and can be fairly cheap at that. | |||
|
one of us |
this question reminds me of one a judge asked a friend of mine years ago who contested a speeding ticket. The judge simply asked, "were you going over the speed limit or not?" Answer: "yes." If a bullet fired from a 243 will kill an elk, then it is adequate. Which is not the same as saying it is a great caliber for elk. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, I just lost all respect for Wayne van Zwoll. Never read any of his crap again. That elk shot was a stunt and anyone that whores out their reputation for money doing stunt shots on live animals doesn't deserve any respect! A whore's a whore. But then I do have respect for the elk cause I've hunted them all my life. For every stunt shot that works there will be a couple of belly gassed elk that get eaten by coyotes after they die in a week or so but nobody ever talks about them shots, in fact if the elk don't drop in plain sight they usually don't even walk over to see if they hit the damn thing, and they call themselves hunters. Makes me wanna puke! Heard about a Inuit woman killed a grizzly with a .22 long rifle years back, guess that makes it an adequate grizzly gun huh?  "If a man buys a rifle at a gun show and his wife doesn't know it"...Did he really buy a rifle? Firearm Philosophy 101. montdoug | |||
|
| One of Us |
Stunt?? The Elk was in plain view and not moving a well placed shot is a given by an accomplished shooter. The claim that the bullet exited, doesn't like it was"inadequate" now does it. The I respect the "Elk" is bogus at best. I do not shoot things that I respect. I respect my parents, as well as other people. I hunt to kill and eat the animal pure and simple. I want a clean kill and I do not want one to be lost. Nothing magical about it at all. I agree with rc about the re-inventing of the wheel with the 1/3 MOA turrect clicks. Why not just use Mills after all there is only .009" difference per click. There are advantages and disadvantages in FFP scopes and SFP scopes. I have both and I am fine using either As to the power IMHO & E 10 will get the job done at 1K _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
The point is/was, once again, a hole in the right place kills things dead. Not some pretend math equation. Now I realize some here have staked their entire hunting lives on such fallacy's, but quite frankly that does not make them valid. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I read on one of these 243/elk posts someplace about the Louis & Clark clan using muzzle loaders in comparison to the 243 claiming less energy but the flaw in that theory is the mass of the projectiles likely did as much damage for the ranges that they were exposed to. 400 years ago elk hunting was different, they were more plentiful, less leery of man and a solo hunter was not responsible for the kill. Usually a hunting party was dispatched and more than one shooter shot at the elk to ensure a quick clean kill. So even if the old cap and balls were inferior to a 243 they likely were hit by multiples at once. Just my humble opinion on that subject. Captain Finlander | |||
|
One of Us |
  | |||
|
One of Us |
Two points, first simply the fact that 'it can be done' on one occasion doesn't in and of itself demonstrate the liklihood of it being repeatable. Furthermore, while 'pretend' math equations may well be misleading, 'real' ones tend not to be. Given Hornady's own load data, that 129 grain 6.5mm bullet had about 1900 fps retained velocity and over 1000 fpe retained energy at 600 yards. Given that the range was lasered, and dial in, and there appeared to be minimal wind to be concerned about, and a stationary broadside was presented I see no discrepancy between the 'math' and the result. Given adequate skill / experience of the shooter, I do not see that as being a 'stunt' shot at all. In fact, under the circumstances presented, it appeared to be an 'ethical' high probabilty shot. The only caveat in all of it was that the construction of the bullet was such as to perform well given the game animal being hunted and the ballistics. Apparently it was more than adequate (as mentioned, it exited from the 'ideal' shot location). | |||
|
one of us |
Nice shot, looked fine to me. Looked like they could have gotten a lot closer so if I criticize that 600 yard elk shot it would only be on laziness perhaps not on cartridge used. -------------------- THANOS WAS RIGHT! | |||
|
One of Us |
I readily agree that a well placed shot with a .243 using the proper bullet at acceptable distance will kill elk. in my experience this isn't always the way it happens.I've killed as many Mule deer an Elk on the move as were standing. often these animals were quartering away or toward me.  A raking shot in this case can be effective but the possibility of a good kill are far less with a .243 than they would be with a 35 Wehlen .  What would be interesting is to have someone like Ray Atkinson let us know how he feels when some one he is to guide on an Elk hunt, shows up with a .243. Now Ray himself has killed Elk with a 25-35 so in that respect he isn't biased.  rogerOld age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| one of us |
The firs couple of deer hunts I was on I carried a 22. At that time nobody thought the 22 was perfect but people carried what they had and people killed deer with 22's and 410's with a slug on a pretty regular basis. This was in the late 50's and early 60's. I don't think most of those people I hunted with knew shit about ballisics and I'm afraid knowing what I know now that a lot of wounded deer got away. Today I think I know a little bit about ballisics and what calibers are adequate for what animals and I would not even under the most perfect conditions try to kill any big game with a 22. I don't have to and there's just too much room for error. I think the same applies to hunting elk with a 243. Why would you use a barely adequate cartridge when there are so many more out there that will work better? Mark MARK H. YOUNG MARK'S EXCLUSIVE ADVENTURES 7094 Oakleigh Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89110 Office 702-848-1693 Cell, Whats App, Signal 307-250-1156 PREFERRED E-mail markttc@msn.com Website: myexclusiveadventures.com Skype: markhyhunter Check us out on https://www.facebook.com/pages...ures/627027353990716 | |||
|
| One of Us |
The problem jwp, is that a lot of things can go wrong at long range. You are accomplished enough to understand that and I'm sure you do. That's fine on a steel plate but Game animals aren't steel plates. A touch of wind that is not read between the shooter and the target, unexpected movement by the elk when the trigger is squeezed etc. could have easily resulted in a gut shot, or one that is out of the kill area. And then you combine those factors with the use of the Creedmoor with a bullet constructed like a Nosler BT and you may end up with what you say you don't want; a lost animal. What montdoug is saying about respecting the elk is that he would get a closer shot with a more suitable caliber. I'm sorry to see that you state, "I don't shoot things that I respect". You should have respect for the game you hunt and that seems to be the main problem. The things I don't like about the scope are: 1. Low magnification. IMO, 14X is not enough for 1000 yards to be precise. I've got some 6.5-20X with the VHR and I use the Mark IV on my target guns that are 8.5-25X with the TMR. My preference for long range is more magnification. 2. The Second Focal Plane Reticle. Yes, they work fine. The problem is that if you are using the scope the way they demonstrate with the reticle aimpoints, you have to have the power ring set EXACTLY for the aimpoints to match your drop. It takes time at the range and practice and sometimes even then the load will not exactly match the aimpoints. With a FFP reticle with the TMR or Mils, a mil is a mil is a mil no matter what the power setting. All that is needed for holdover is the drop data and knowledge of your load and practice for confirmation. If you're dialing like they are and using the center crosshair, it doesn't matter. 3. The Target Knobs. They are like the Huskemaw Optics scope engraved not in MOA or MILS, but with yardages that correspond to the drop of your load. Also above the yardage marks on the turret, they have engraved windage hold off in MOA for 10 mph wind at the particular yardage. It's a good idea and I guess it works. I use a data card hanging off of the gun or my Ballistics Program on the PDA; use a Kestrel to get current atmosphere. I guess theirs is to make it more "user friendly" for inexperienced shooters. Inexperienced shooters are just the folks who shouldn't be taking 600 to 1000 yard shots on big game. Most hunters aren't going to do a lot of practice with the rig. They're just going to go out and try to duplicate what they see on the long range hunting show. It looks easy but they don't realize that the guys taking the shots have a lot of long range experience and practice time invested. The promotors of the rig want it to look easy so they can sell a hell of a lot of them.... Irresponsible, a detriment to the sport of hunting probably resulting in a lot of wounding for the sake of making $$$cash$$$ | |||
|
| One of Us |
This thread is in the wrong catagory. No way is the 243 a medium bore. Moderator please move this brain donor post to the small bore chatroom. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's just fine where it is. Don’t get your underwear bunched up. No one is forcing anyone to read this post. Mike, if you manage to get this thread moved, which normally kills the thread. Are you going to feel good about it? | |||
|
| One of Us |
I understand long range shooting at game, for sure. For an acomplished shooter 600 yards is not a difficult shot set up the way they were. An acomplished long range shooter should be able to read the wind well enough to put a bullet into the kill zone, which is rather large on an Elk. At long range the animals are undisturbed and usualy go down rather quickly with a good hit IME. Respect is not what I think of, not wanting to wound an animal, is personal integrity IMHO. I do not like Leupold Long range scopes nearly as much as Nightforce and S&B. I would rather have a scope with more resolution more so than simply more magnification. I have no problem with the magnification On the scope in question, but the 1/3 MOA clicks are BS IMHO. I would most certainly prefer 1/4 MOA or 1/10 mill clicks. I will use either, but prefer Mills to MOA. 1/3 MOA clicks is a gimick for the uninformed IMHO _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Exactly, you nailed it. These threads ask a specific question and the correct answer does not explain the WHOLE story _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
