Just got back from the lease and killed my first deer with a rifle below .25 cal. No, it wasn't a .243, but a 6mm Rem. Shot a doe at 192 lasered yds, right in the eye. She dropped, and didn't twitch. I was using 100 gr Hornady Spire Pts at 2925 fps, and the rifle shoots between .5" and .6" for 3-shot groups off the bench at 100 yds. Since I was in a tower blind, no wind, sandbag on the window ledge with butt resting on my folded jacket on the chair back, it was just about like shooting off a bench. Would a .243 do the same thing? Most likely, but then a .22 Hornet in the eye would kill the deer as well. Why the 6mm instead of the .243? Well, I just happen to like the looks of the round and its performance numbers as opposed to the fatter .243 with its stubby neck. Matter of choice. If you want to use a .243 and shoot them "where they live" with proper bullets, go for it.

My close friend here in SW Montana killed 3 Whitetails a few months back (November 2,006) with his 204 Ruger Rifle!
All were one shot kills!
An adequate bullet and proper shot placement is 99% of the Whitetail Deer caliber quandry!
Rimfires are not adequate for Whitetails in my opinion - although I have, and I know MANY people who have, killed Deer with rimfires.
Having said that I condemn their usage on Whitetails!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

PS: The 270 Wnchester gets my vote for the best deer caliber!

Very mediocre when compared to the 280 rem and 30-06

OK 1 tooth,

You got any pics of actual shot targets, shot deer and any balistics to back that $hit up?

Just a guess here on my part Ray, but in looking back over this topic, I haven't seen where anybody that stated that the 270 was the worst deer rifle, listed anything that was any better than the 270. I think some folks are just having a little of their brand of fun with this. JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Just a guess here on my part Ray, but in looking back over this topic, I haven't seen where anybody that stated that the 270 was the worst deer rifle, listed anything that was any better than the 270. I think some folks are just having a little of their brand of fun with this. JMO.

LOL - I know

But just had to respond to the "Very mediocre ..."

1 tooth just stirring pot - He's got nothing!

And that would be ..........243. Never again

Gidday Guys,

Ray and Doc you are right the 270 is an adequate deer round, very noisy and inefficient when compared to a 260 or even a 243 but it is adequate.

Check the figures, even with factory ammo a 120gr BT from a 260 outperforms the 270 140 by quite a margin especially once the range gets up a bit.

The 270 works but is a bit like a chap at work makes a lot of noise much blast and lack of efficiency but gets the job done in the end.

Me I prefer the quiet efficient no nonsence approach.

Happy Hunting

Hamish

quote:

Originally posted by ryder:
And that would be ..........243. Never again

I would recommend you change bullets or better yet LEARN TO SHOOT. Cause if you can't kill a deer cleanly and quickly with a 243 then you can't shoot.
Honestly if I couldn't kill a deer with a 243 I would take up another hobby.

The 270 in a 24" barrel is the most efficent deer caliber the world has ever known!

All primative weapons should be banned from hunting, no bows, and no muzzle loaders!

the 260 with 120grn bullets may shoot as far as the 270,but so does my 22-250 and i wouldn't want to shoot a big bodied buck of a life time at 400yds with that little bullet.

the 270 kills as good as anything out to 400yds.the 260 is better then the 243 because of heavier bullet weight ,just like the 270 is better then the 260 in heavier bullet weight.

quote:

Originally posted by ScudRunner:
All primative weapons should be banned from hunting, no bows, and no muzzle loaders!

Which, if we are being honest, is a great point. A .243 will kill a deer a lot faster than the typical bow hunter can.

A good friend of mine one year hit four deer with arrows and didn't recover a single one. Talking with some other bow hunters, that isn't so uncommon. Yet the same guy made fun of another friend for using a .223 (which was legal to use) saying "That isn't enough for deer". Never mind that he could place that .223 right between the eyes, and never lost a deer.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Any bow and arrow!!!

Not a caliber, but I have to agree.

204 Ruger is what a guy down by my grandpa uses, he's lost a buck and I don't know how many does, he has a 300 Weatherby, but I think he's scared of recoil. He doesn't understand varmint bullets and big game bullets.

I have to say .243. i personally have never used it and never will. I have seen more deer shot and not found with this caliber than all others combined. This is in different hunting locations from adults and children alike.

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:
there is no bad caliber for deer as long as it is a legal one and the person using it shoots it well.

Thank you!

Please, everyone, let's kill this thread. The words above would be a fitting elegy.

(on second thought, it is January & it's damn-cold here in Minnesota, and this thread is good for laughs!)

friar

.17 Rem

quote:

on second thought, it is January & it's damn-cold here in Minnesota, and this thread is good for laughs!)

psst!, friar, it's February!

Well well well....I see the thread has now turned against the ML and Bow users...

I've killed probably twice if not 4 times as many animals with my bow as I have any rifle or pistol, or muzzleloader.

From experience and accounts, I'd use a ml over a 243 anyday for deer. Not because the 243 won't get the job done, as Jarrod has pointed out, it does. But, I just don't like those deer to run off like they do with well placed 6mm bullets.

As for bowhunting....well, the longest distance any deer I ever put down with my bow made it about 90 yards, and that was running downhill. This is less than half the distance I saw a deer go that was shot with a 243 with a lung shot and a 100 grain bullet.

I'll take a 3 blade muzzy over a 6mm bullet anyday too.

This topic reminds me of a guy I know that refused to use real, fresh, deer pee even after he visited the operation. He still prefers his Tinks 69. Why? Because of all the seasons he's used it, he actually SAW 1 BUCK come and sniff his scent wick saturated with Tinks 69.

I guess that is my failure. I've seen some game run a very long distance after a killing shot with a 243...only a handful, but 2 of those hunts ended up with other hunters getting to claim the game. That's enough for me personally to avoid the caliber for personal use. In each case, all bullets were well placed, and 3 of the hunts were filmed.

quote:

Originally posted by Hamish:
Gidday Guys,

Ray and Doc you are right the 270 is an adequate deer round, very noisy and inefficient when compared to a 260 or even a 243 but it is adequate.

Check the figures, even with factory ammo a 120gr BT from a 260 outperforms the 270 140 by quite a margin especially once the range gets up a bit.

Define "outperforms." You're funny. At the end of the day, those "figures" you mention are meaningless to me. The ONLY thing I care about is if my bullet is well placed, what is the immediate reaction of the game animal. Did it run or not. I have nothing against the 260 whatsoever. When you state that a 270 is "very noisy," well, that is subjective. I don't recall ever shooting any rifle that wasn't noisy.

My guess is you'd think I run a 270 at it's least efficient. For years, I only loaded minimal charges of IMR4350 and 4831 with Btips because I don't give a hoot about velocity, still don't.

But since you like figures, here's some info on Remington's website comparing the 270 with 2 different 130 grain bullets to the 260 with a 120. 270 wins velocity, energy, and trajectory.

Kinda pathetic considering the 260's 120 bullet has a BC of .480 (listed). Comparing the 243 to the 270 is a waste of time.

Originally posted by Doc:

quote:

I'll take a 3 blade muzzy over a 6mm bullet anyday too.

And furthermore, I would take a 50 cal muzzleloader over your beloved 270 win anyday of the week

anything below 25 caliber........

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Originally posted by Doc:

quote:

I'll take a 3 blade muzzy over a 6mm bullet anyday too.

And furthermore, I would take a 50 cal muzzleloader over your beloved 270 win anyday of the week

So would I if shot was under 150 yards.

Am I the only guy on here that uses the .300 WSM for Whitetail?

Never used the 300 wsm. But have killed whitetails with 300 Win.Mag., 300 Weatherby Mag., 338 Win.Mag., 340 Weatherby Mag. 35 Whelen, 375 H&H, 45/70, and 458 Win. Mag. Haven't hjad one walk off going Nonny Nonny Boo Boo, yet. JMO.

All I can say, is a very bad experience with 243 win when I was really young made me buy a 300 win mag.

I'm in the boat that the 30-06 and bigger calibers just work better on all game species. It just surprises me of all the himming and hawing over sub 30. cal guns, dealing with bullet weight and construction.

Example/

A lot of people like the 270 Win. But then after all of Jack O'Conner hype slowly bleeded off and people realized he was a die-hard sheep hunter and from what I've read so-far, has never said the 270 win was a hall of fame Elk round, then the 7mm Rem Mag came out. Woo-Hoo, we've got the solution, 30-06 power with 270 win trajectory with less frontal diameter, which is usually needed for more tissue destruction. But during all of this up-down hype and gun-store jockeying, most have never questioned the 30-06 and bigger guns.

quote:

-The 30-06 is like a perfect steak next to a campfire, a .300 Win Mag is the same but with mushrooms and a baked potato-

and a .300 WSM is the same as the .300 Win Mag but with a Margarita too!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnum61:

A lot of people like the 270 Win. But then after all of Jack O'Conner hype slowly bleeded off ....

So long as we're talking about bleeding off hype, the Elmer Keith hype needs to be thrown in the trashcan too.

I think the Keith hype was more destructive because it caused many people to think that they need behemoth calibers, but then they can't shoot them well and flinch and end up doing a poor job. But if they had used a smaller caliber, a .270, they would have gotten much better results.

O'Connor used the .270 on elk. He did admit that it was not a good caliber for moose and the largest bears. I think he used a .375 H&H on Kodiak bears.

But I do remember that at one time he wrote that he had killed five grizzlies, three with a .270 and two with a 30-06, if I remember correctly. He also said that all of the ones he took with a .270 were one-shot kills, while the ones he took with a 30-06 required multiple shots.

Oh my gosh! You wouldn't believe it, but, in complete honesty, I was--seriously--thinking it still was January. It's a lot colder up here than I thought--my brayne's dun frose up!



Well, I just double checked, and tomorrow IS the 5th Sunday after the Epiphany, so at least I'll be in the ballpark there.

like I said--we should keep this one going if only for the laughs!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:
So long as we're talking about bleeding off hype, the Elmer Keith hype needs to be thrown in the trashcan too.

Amen.

Don't get me wrong, I still love big calibers. I like the power.

quote:

and a .300 WSM is the same as the .300 Win Mag but with a Margarita too! Big Grin

I have to admit, after my girlfriend got her Tikka T3 in 300 WSM with a limbsaver. I agree with your statement.

I honestly can't say I've had or seen too many issues with adequate calibers on Whitetails. I've seen some deer hit reasonably well and go off a long ways. Sometimes this has been with a .243, but have seen it with .30-06s and .300 RUMs as well. I have also seen marginal body hits knock deer down quickly with the same calibers. The only real trend I've seen is if you hit them right, they generally go down quickly. If I had to pick the most un-impressive killer, it would be .45 & .50 cal flintlocks shooting roundballs and when people tried to push saboted shotguns/MLs out beyond 100 yards. A sharp broadhead is an excellent killer, but it is no where near as effective as a .243 with reasonable bullets.

-Lou

I disagree with that last statement. I'd say a well placed broadhead and a well placed 6mm bullet are almost equal....(but the broadhead comes out on top).

I should have clarified. I agree that on a broadside or slightly quartering away shot to the vitals that a broadhead and .243 are pretty much equal. However, for any frontal quarting or head on shots, I would take a .243 and not even try with my bow.

-Lou

This season I killed 13 whitetail Does. 4 of those were with a crossbow, the rest, my Mathews. I use the 100 grain 4 blade Muzzy in the crossbow and the 100 grain 3 blade in the bow.

I took 3 quartering to shots this season while hunting from the ground. 1 of those was with the crossbow. In each case, the deer made it about 20-30 yards. Quartering to, is the same as quartering away if you know what you are doing.

Head shots...well, I'd rather have the 243 also....with either a partition or tsx.

I'm sure a bow will work, but I would take a .243 for similar shots any day and don't think an arrow is in the same class for frontal shots. Everybody has their limits based on their own experience and based on what I have seen, I pass on these types of shots when I'm archery hunting. Never hunted with a crossbow and am not familiar with how they perform compared to a modern compound, so can't comment on that front.

Honestly, I bought a crossbow 3 years ago, then sold it. Just couldn't get into it. It is legal to use here in Ohio.

The last couple of years, I've had friends and family that do not hunt, request deer meat, and a lot of it.

I can hold my own with my bow, but in some areas, once all the leaves fall, it becomes wide open, and I hunt from the ground a lot. My brother has always wanted a crossbow, and we got a deal if we bought 2, so I tried it again.

It's like I'm using a "limited rifle" when I shoot it but in simple terms, it's definitely a meat getter.

403 grain bolt at 336fps. Has blown through both shoulders of several deer between brother and me. I've been impressed.

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Originally posted by Doc:

quote:

I'll take a 3 blade muzzy over a 6mm bullet anyday too.

And furthermore, I would take a 50 cal muzzleloader over your beloved 270 win anyday of the week

I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this

.25-20 or the .32-20. Bleh.

Yea Jarrod, I found it funny too. Mostly because I agreed with him. I think the intent was to torch me a bit, but it didn't work, ie., it was funny.

I use a ML here in Ohio every year because we cannot use a centerfire on deer. I know what my 50 cal will do and it's quite impressive.



I guess the funniest part of the whole thing is the fact that a broadhead still works better and kills quicker than a 100 grain 6mm bullet IME.