I don't wish to open again the debate on using the .243 for elk sized game. Clearly, the consensus among experienced hunters is the round is not reliable.

I'm curious, though, why a 6 mm fails to do the job. Is the expanded 6 mm bullet simply to small in diameter to provide an adequate wound channel? Is the typically low SD (under .250) too small to allow the expanded bullet to penetrate well?

Cartridges of the World shows a century old round, the 6x58, launching a 127 gn bullet (SD .307) at over 2700 fps. If, say, Swift made an A-frame of this size, would the .243 be lifted from inadequate to marginal?

I may be on the wrong track here, but I think it is more of an issue, of having room for error versus not having room for error.

In competent hands the 6mm/243 with 100 grain bullets can do some amazing things. The key here is "Compotent".

In non-competent hands, any gun is practically worthless.

But, with hunters the goal should be to produce the fastest and most humane kill as possible. The 243/6mm in a lot of folks opinion, including mine, does not give any room for mistakes. Even slightly larger calibers, say the 6.5x55 with their slightly larger diameter, but longer and heavier weights, tend to give a hunter that window, that will, if the shot is a trifle off, produce a wound that will allow the hunter a little fraction of time to sort things out. The 100 grain bullet out of the 243/6mm, doesn't have that little margin of error. This is just my opinion.

The .243 already has several bullets in my opinion that equal the A frame in the Barnes X and the Nosler partition. Even with this the .243 is a marginal cartridge for Elk sized game. Not only is an accurate shot required to kill elk humanely with this round but the experience to know which shot to take and which shot to pass on. A quartering away bull on the move can be had with 30/06 but that same shot with a .243 may be the waste of an animal and knowing when and when not to shoot when you have a .243 in your hands is all the difference in whether this size projectile is marginal or inadequate.
Please keep in mind that I am a huge fan of the .243 Win but I cannot advocate that the general population equip themselves with one for elk hunting.

asdf, I guess for me it's a matter of why? There are so many other rounds that deliver bigger bullets that penetrate farther & make a bigger hole, why hunt a 600#+ animal w/ a varmint caretridge, unless that's all you have. If one can handle the recoil of a .243 then a .270 is managable. If a 6mm was all I had then I would load a Barnes or Swift & get as close as possible. A 6mm will "kill" elk, it will kill just about anything you shoot at. How quickly the animal expires, how far do you have to track it, those are the questions that come to my mind when people want to stretch the 6mm beyond small deer/antelope in the open (JMO).

Though I am a big fan of the 6MM/243 rounds on deer I simply won't reccomend the rounds for elk. I have seen a few elk killed with the 243, all neck or head shots with good results but to me a minimum elk round is the 7x57 or 308.

quote:

I guess for me it's a matter of why?

I don't wish to hunt elk with a .243, if for no other reason than I don't (and I don't wish to) own a .243. I'm curious why it doesn't work well. If it's lack of penetration, would a higher SD bullet change things? If it's simply too small to create a wide enough wound channel, it's hopeless for the round, and likewise if the high SD bullets in this caliber tend to veer and tumble. My own guess: there's just not enough metal (mass) to provide the momentum to cut up enough tissue for a quick kill. Even a 127 gn .243 wouldn't have enough oomph to cut up enough tissue. But I'm very inexperienced as a hunter, so I'm trying to pick other's brains for some knowledge. Again, I accept it doesn't work reliably, but why doesn't it work well?

The comment on it not being suitable for a quartering shot suggest penetration is a problem. The recommendations for 165 gn .308s and 140 gn .284s, though, suggest the wound channel isn't enough. Then there's the issue of bones, and whether such light bullets can break them and still penetrate. I imagine it's a combination of all these, with insufficient bullet mass being the central issue.

An rifle/cartridge/bullet appropriate to elk could utilized the 6mm bore -- it's just that currently produced rifles and cartridges on the 6mm bore are intended for bullets of only up to 100 or 105 grains and for medium-to-small game.

A partition-type or controlled expansion 6mm bullet of 125 or so grains (which would require something like a 7.5 or 8 inch twist) launched at 2800 or 2900 fps (might require a case capacity similar to a .244 Rem Improved) would certainly be more effective on elk than cartridges like the .30-30, and fully as effective as a .25-06.

To say that the 6mm bore is not appropriate for elk is simply to acknowledge that current 6mm cartridges and bullets are not designed for elk, not that the bore diameter itself is inherently too small -- although its small size does create techinical challenges.

I've used the 6/06 with the 85 and or 95 TSX on elk and it works just fine.

This to me is much like taking deer with a 223, it'll work you just gotta be a bit more on your game when you drop the hammer.

Mark D

I have my doubts that most who make these blanket statements regarding a particular chambering on a particular animal have ever shot one with it, or even seen one shot with it, but are simply repeating what they have heard others say who had no firsthand experience either! That being said!..........

As others here have said the 243 Win/6mm rem are not what I'd reccomend to the average guy who is about to go on an elk hunt! However, also, like others have said here, "I" personally have no qualms about shooting elk with a 243 Win rifle, and have done so many times, without haveing to track him anywhere! I consider the 243 Win cartridge to be one of the finest deer rounds ever invented, as long as the right bullets are used, but it is true, the 243 is maginal on large animals like elk, which, by the way, can take a lot of shots, and keep on keeping on, if they are not placed properly,from any rifle.

I find Moose easier to kill than elk. It is not so much his size, as it is the elk's nearvious system, that requires a great amount of shock to put him down reliably. A man who knows how to use the 243 can slap him on his butt with it every time, but that man also needs to know a lot about elk as well, and when to shoot, and not shoot. That is why I say I wouldn't reccomend it to just anyone wanting to hunt elk.

It all boils down to the fact that no bullet of any size will make up for poor shooting, or the poor choice of bullet! I would set the bottom for the average guy hunting elk, to be around 7mm mag,with premium bullets, and on the other end, there is a place for the 375 H&H in elk country, but the allround chambering,IMO, is the 338 Win Mag.

The 243/6mm is not a varment rifle, as some suggest, a 100 gr premium bullet in the boilerroom, through the ribs, at 3000 fps will decentagrate the lungs of a bull Elk, and even through the shoulders, or a quartering away shot on a Muledeer, and if you want the hide of a coyote, or wolf, you better not shoot him with a 243 Win, because it wll have an exit wound 8" across.

In the right hands the 270Win is perfect, for that person, but in the wrong hands a 470NE wouldn't be right! I class the 270 in the same room as the 243, 25-06, and consider the 280 Rem, with the right bullet to be better than either of them, for elk.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
I don't wish to open again the debate on using the .243 for elk sized game. Clearly, the consensus among experienced hunters is the round is not reliable.

I'm curious, though, why a 6 mm fails to do the job. Is the expanded 6 mm bullet simply to small in diameter to provide an adequate wound channel? Is the typically low SD (under .250) too small to allow the expanded bullet to penetrate well?

Cartridges of the World shows a century old round, the 6x58, launching a 127 gn bullet (SD .307) at over 2700 fps. If, say, Swift made an A-frame of this size, would the .243 be lifted from inadequate to marginal?

Asdf;

Most of the guys who complain about 6mm not doing a good job, complain about it because either they haven't used it... or they had it fail, and they blamed the bore size... when maybe they should have been blaming something else...like themselves for poor shot placement or poor bullet selection, or trying to make the bullet do a bigger job that it was designed to do....

I have had a 300 Mag fail on a large deer at 100 yds, with a 200 grain bullet in it.. bullet zipped right thru and didn't open... was too hard, even for a large deer according to the manufacturer... so would that mean a 300 mag with a 200 grain bullet is too light for deer since them.. some fools would think so...

I'd take a 6mm Elk hunting.. I just know I need to carefully place a shot, and would limit the how far away the game would be from me...I am aware of a friends brother in law, who works for the State of Montana who is in charge of dispatching nuisance elk at times... he kills them up to 750 yds at times off of the hood of his pickup... since he works for the state, he can use any rifle and round he cares to use....
His choice? 220 Swift, head shot or neck shot..Match grade bullets, one in 8 twist...

on the personal note.. a long time ago, when I was 11, my dad was transferred to England in the USAF, we lived in your fair town of Peterborough in council housing for the first 4 months over there...I hated council housing, was that an eye opener for an American....

but I sure met a lot of wonderful people in your town.. as did our family... we made friends that my folks in particular keep in touch with for a long time... one lady friend of my mom's who was older, passed away in 95 or so...I think she was the last one....

but cheers
seafire

Seafire did you ever find the deer the 200 gr 300 mag bullet zipped right through. If I remember the story right it was in Northen MN near evening at the edge of a swamp.

Nope Prairie Dog shooter..

That swamp turned into a winter jungle within 10 feet... I did look the next morning for quite a while... a good 4 or 5 hours if I remember correctly...

too bad as it was a very very large buck with an enormous rack...

but Sierra blamed the failure to anchor the buck on the bullet, saying it was really for larger game like Elk or large bears....

one of those instances I would have been better off with a 6mm than a 300 Mag... Go figure!!!

failure was due to lack of knowledge and a poor choice for deer hunting.. so I blame the shooter... unknowning or not.. so I learned from a mistake with a sad ending...

there was a very large bear in the area.. I am sure the bear probably found the deer...

would have been nice to have dogs available to find it...

out here in Oregon now, when I shoot one that is in thick brush, I usually wait a little and listen for the bees and flies... they find the downed animal in a heart beat... you can hear them buzzing all around it...

kinda hard tho when it is 10 degrees like back in your neck of the woods ...


seafire

Doesn't sould like it was the bullets faults nor the caliber nor the shooters. Sounds like it was a bad spot. kind of hard to follow a blood trail in water.

Should of the deer dropped right there. Who knows most deer I have shot and seen shot hundreds of them go some distance.

I seen deer drop at the shot with 22lr to over 40cal dgrs. I all so have seen them run with a 300gr 416 cal at over 2600 through the heart and lungs.

No failure here just a bad area to track.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
I don't wish to open again the debate on using the .243 for elk sized game. Clearly, the consensus among experienced hunters is the round is not reliable.

Hey asdf, The normal cartridge used to kill cattle and horses is a regular old 22LR Rimfire. And most of them outweigh Elk by a lot.

quote:

I'm curious, though, why a 6 mm fails to do the job. Is the expanded 6 mm bullet simply to small in diameter to provide an adequate wound channel? Is the typically low SD (under .250) too small to allow the expanded bullet to penetrate well?

As is seen in the responses above some folks have actually used various 0.243" and 0.224" Centerfires to kill Elk.

Had the wind shifted slightly, their steady position changed a bit at the shot, or Random Group Dispersion caused the bullet to be outside the typical grouping for the rifle, then the results would have been quite different. And taking a "Follow-Up Shot" if needed on an Elk with a 6mm or 220Swift should be clear enough about why that is a problem(physical and ethical).

I'll keep my thoughts to myself about why anyone would intentially take such a cartridge when hunting Elk.

IIRC, the rules of mass and energy go something like this: double the weight of a bullet traveling at the same speed, and you double the energy. Double the speed of the same weight bullet and you square its energy.

Having said that, to increase the energy of the .243" bullet, ammunition manufacturers and handloaders up the muzzle velocity. That subjects the relatively small diameter bullet to incredible amounts of what I will call destructive forces as soon as it contacts an animal's body.

Typical cup and core bullets rely on a copper jacket to "work harden" as it peels back, expecting the jacket to eventually stop doing so as the bullet slows while simultaneously holding the lead core together. A pretty tall order...

What sometimes happens with smaller high velocity bullets is the bullet disintegrates due to jacket failure, or the bullet tumbles inside the animal and the core is ejected from the jacket. Since the core is soft lead, it fragments, and since energy is a function of mass, as mass decreases, energy decreases, and sometimes the bullet fails to exit. A whitetail (and even more so an elk) can absorb a lot of energy and still run. If the bullet fails to exit, animals can be, and sometimes are, lost, because there is no blood trail.

Finally, even a TSX of 90 or so grains is going to leave a relatively small exit hole, and that will directly affect the blood trail quality, as I see it.

The meager blood trail seems to be a given; from what I've read, 35 caliber is about the minimum to ensure a good trail.

Can a little bullet be made to penetrate on the quartering shots is the big question, I suppose. This company offers bonded core hunting bullets of more respectable SD, esp. the 150 gn .257. Anyone care to speculate on how these might do out of a .257 Roberts; it should go at over 2400 fps. I wonder if such skinny bullets are more prone to tumbling, even when using the necessary fast twists? If they're still in business, having 135 gn .243s would be interesting.

Hello the campfire:
What cal. is a broad head arrow? The ones I shoot are 100 grains, do not fly at very high speeds ( way less than 1000 f/s), and would have a SD less than a .243.
They also bring down animals and leave a good blood trail.
The .243 is easy to shoot, accurate, and will do the job. Ass a preminum bullet and you have a good combo for huunting at least white tails.
Judge Sharpe

Judge, w/ all due respect, it gets old hearing people compare broadheads (30-40yds) to bullets (30-400yds). The applications are totally diff. & the dynamics too. A broadhead will go through a sand filled bag, most bullets will not. What the broadhead does do is exit after tearing a large hole. Bigger bullets, bigger holes.

quote:

Hello the campfire:
What cal. is a broad head arrow? The ones I shoot are 100 grains, do not fly at very high speeds ( way less than 1000 f/s), and would have a SD less than a .243.
They also bring down animals and leave a good blood trail.
The .243 is easy to shoot, accurate, and will do the job. Ass a preminum bullet and you have a good combo for huunting at least white tails.
Judge Sharpe

Well, that mirrors my thinking perfectly (or I mirror the judge's . . . take your pick).

If a 6 mm loaded with decent bullets (Nosler partitions, Barnes, etc.) flying at a reasonable speed isn't adequate to kill a deer when the hunter puts the bullet into lungs or heart, does that mean that bow hunting is also not adequate? Or, if it is unethical to hunt with a 6mm, does that mean that it's also unethical to bow hunt?

If a bow hunter can be trusted to exercise proper discipline, to employ adequate knowledge and judgement, to have practiced judiciously, to be competent in the ways of his bow and arrow, to have mastered various confounding factors (such as range and distance), and to shoot within himself, why can't a rifle hunter who shoots a 6 mmm achieve the same level of competency?

I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

I have a bud who is a guide in Cibola County, New Mexico and works with the sheriff's department there to put meat and taters on the table. His rifle for hunting meat elk is the 6mm Remington. This fellow is a fantastic shot with a rifle and still "hunts" elk. His favorite shot, one that puts them down fast, is the neck shot. Me, well, I'm a good shot too with my rifle, but I don't think I will take neck shots only. Johnny said there is only one year in the last 10 that he failed to get an elk. That was the year he did not draw out and the landowner tags were going for way more than his paltry salary could afford. Other than that, I have no dog in this fight. Tom Purdom

quote:

Hey asdf, The normal cartridge used to kill cattle and horses is a regular old 22LR Rimfire. And most of them outweigh Elk by a lot.

I'll agree with this statement having grown up on a farm/ranch, but when I start hunting elk haltered to a tree I'll start using my .22 LR. A 17HM2 or a arrow with field points are capable of killing an elk but is it ethical? I think most of us will agree that it is not. Hot Core I know you do not advocate the use of .22 in hunting elk, but every time someone questions a caliber as being to small the old .22 LR is always brought up.

We need to respect the animal that we are hunting and use the proper calibers for what we are hunting. I'm not saying that a 6mm/243 is too small for elk, hell a lot of people say a .30-30 isn't an effective elk rifle but both are capable of getting the job done. What ever caliber of weapon you use for hunting just be as proficient as possible with what you are using.

I met a guy who was using a .338 Win Mag that took six shots to finish off his cow elk. There wasn't an edible piece of meat left after he was done. He lost most of both hind quarters, one front shoulder and gut shot his cow. He obviously needed more range time or a rifle that he wasn't scared to shoot. He was catching so much crap from his buddies in camp I don't know if he will ever hunt again.

quote:

I don't wish to hunt elk with a .243, if for no other reason than I don't (and I don't wish to) own a .243.

asdf I think if you ever tried the .243 Winchester you would fall in love with it. It is a great round for deer sized and smaller game and you can have a lot of fun shooting at the range.

I've never lost a single head of game that I pulled the trigger on with a 6mm -- and the majority of that game has been taken with a 6mm-.223 (6x45) and an 80 grain Single Shot Pistol bullet at 2700+ fps from a 14-15" barrel. I keep the range reasonable, place a premium on precise shot placement (which I do with ANY caliber) and burn lots of ammo throughout the course of the year. From deer to varmints to some of Texas' exotics species, the 6mm-.223 has served me well.

The energy figures of the 6mm-.223 are unimpressive. But the results of a properly-placed projectile are absolutely conclusive. And, the bullet is the right one for the task at hand and performs so reliably that it is almost boring.

Granted, you could call any of the 6mms "marginal" for deer (I DO consider them marginal for elk). But stick a bullet in the wrong spot (or use the wrong bullet), and that .333 MegaPowderBurningBoomer is just as "marginal" and predictably ineffective. In short, I think we place too much emphasis on energy figures and not enough on the skill and competency of the shooter.

Uhuh......and how about proper bullet selection for the task at hand?

The best shooter putting the bullet in the right spot might not cut it if the bullet is a poor choice for the task at hand.

I have seen too many perfectly placed shots foul up do to not so perfect bullet choice.

skyline wrote: "Uhuh......and how about proper bullet selection for the task at hand?"


Yes, proper bullet selection is critically important -- and that would fall under the umbrella of shooter competency. I hate to admit that a number of hunters I know have no clue as to what proper bullet selection entails. I try and steer them in the right direction but can only do so much.

Gidday Guys,

Why use a 6mm for big game?

The answer is real easy....COZ IT WORKS!!!! End of story.

If it didn't work no one would use it . Its easy to figure out if you apply a little grey matter.

Happy Hunting

Hamish

quote:

asdf I think if you ever tried the .243 Winchester you would fall in love with it.

taylorce1, I have used the .22-250, which is in the same league. It's a fine cartridge, but I enjoy the .30-30 class of cartridges more. For my T/C, I've been looking at a 6 Bullberry (.30-30 case) and the old .22/30 wildcat. I got to playing with a Powley Computer and noted the classic formula -- at least 2350 fps and SD over .300 -- can be met with these. That got me to wondering why the small bores have a reputation for being marginal on big game. Despite the discussion here, I'm still not sure why. Is it lack of penetration, perhaps due to a lack of suitable bullets, or is there some inherent limitation of the small bores, perhaps wound channels too small?

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
[QUOTE]asdf I think if you ever tried the .243 Winchester you would fall in love with it.

quote:

taylorce1, I have used the .22-250, which is in the same league. It's a fine cartridge, but I enjoy the .30-30 class of cartridges more.

The 22-250 is not in the same class as the 243 win, not even close!

quote:

why.
Is it lack of penetration, perhaps due to a lack of suitable bullets, or is there some inherent limitation of the small bores, perhaps wound channels too small?

IMO, it is none of the above! It is simply a myth! In the right hands, and with proper loads, using proper bullets, it kill all out of proportion, to it's size, and paper ballistics!
Most of the nay sayers are opperating on hearsay, not real hands on experience! The 243 Win with 100 gr quality bullets far outstrips the 30-30 winchester, in effectivness, on animals the 30-30 is usually used for! It bucks wind much better than any .22, and has more FPE at 200 yds than a 30-30 at muzzle. Is just as accurate as the 22s, and hits harder than many of the OLD traditional deer cartridges.

The 243 Win/6mm Rem got a bad name for two reasons. #1 a bunch of dummies looked at the charts when the cartridge first came out, and saw the extra 200 fps with the lighter bullets, and tried to use them to shoot deer, with very poor results! The light loads were made for varment shooting, not deer! The 100 gr loads were meant for deer, but nobody tried to figure out why the failiers happened on the deer. They just said, "well the 243 is too light for deer hunting!" IGNORANCE!

I was useing the 243 when it was called the page pooper wildcat, long before it was made a factory round, and I shot big muledeer accross windy canyons of New Mexico, and Colorado with absolute one shot kills every time! I have a Mannlicher Schoenauer MCA rifle chambered for 243 WIN, that has accounted for no less than 50 muledeer, and not one had to be shot twice. Most were hit in the 200 yd range average, and 90% of them were lung shots. The effect was, when the 100 gr bullet @3000 FPS hit them, all four feet came off the ground, up to the belly, and they dropped on their bellys, as if the Earth had been yanked out from under them, never to rise again!

As I said before, the 243Win/6mmRem are not what I would reccomend to the average Joe, for an ELK hunt, and, in fact, it is illegal for elk in many jurisdictions, but in the right hands it will work. On all deer, smaller than elk, it is a magic wand! The 243's main ally is, and 100/105 gr premium bullet pushed to between 2800, and 3000 fps, and placed in the boiler-room by a shooter that can shoot, and knows when, and where to shoot!

It's all a matter of what you want to hunt with, that is personal choice, but I get tired of hearing some of the rediculous statements people make about many cartridges, when they are only repeteing what someone else told them who didn't know either! MOST DETRACTORS have never even shot a 243 Win rifle with proper loads, but assume, and you know what they say about the word, ASSUME! it make an ASS out of U, and ME.

............BYE!

Just something interesting I observed at a Youth Cow Elk hunt in Arizona 2 years ago.

I was assisting at a Base camp set up by the AZ Game & Fish Dept and the RMEF, and there was a Game meat processing company right there with a refridgerated truck to take in elk for processing. The volenteers helped skin and quarter, go out and help drag elk back to the trucks, and even work blood trails.

I took a non scientific poll of about 20 successful youth hunters(girls & boys)ages 12 - 16 asking them what caliber they used. 14 or 15 kids as I remember said .243. Most of the Dads I talked to thought it was the only caliber a kid could handle.

I distinctly remember 1 small boy of 12 with a 30-06. I asked him if it kicked and he said it didn't kick at all when he shot his elk!

Just an observation.

asdf

I believe the 6mm has gotten a bum rap because of its 3,000fps muzzle velocity and cup and core bullets. If you pop a deer at 30yds with this set up the potential for core seperation is very good.

If you read between the lines, guys who have had very good success with the .243 usually shoot their deer past 100yds. If bullets of premium construction are used for close shots the 6mms are just fine for most big game.

quote:

Originally posted by fgulla:
asdf

I believe the 6mm has gotten a bum rap because of its 3,000fps muzzle velocity and cup and core bullets. If you pop a deer at 30yds with this set up the potential for core seperation is very good.

If you read between the lines, guys who have had very good success with the .243 usually shoot their deer past 100yds. If bullets of premium construction are used for close shots the 6mms are just fine for most big game.

fgulla, I have shot Muledeer from as close as 10 feet, to 350 yds, and I use only 100gr bullets, pushed at 3000 FPS, and I have never had a failier,on about 100 muledeer over 54 years useing a 243 Win mod 70 win,since 1952, and ten years before that as a 240 Page Pooper wildcat, which is the 243 Win befor Win hung their name on it.
I don't know what to tell you!

Is it sane to use the same logic the military is using in going to the 6.8SPC from the 223?

And the 45ACP is the standard by which all other personal defense pistols are judged.
IE 9mm debacle in Florida

Bigger diameters kill better due to increased tissue destruction leading to faster blood loss leading to faster death. They also transfer more energy. ie shock to the body

I have seen/killed elk with 243-375. IMO only, the 338 and bigger diameters seem to work much better on elk.

If you are going to use smaller than accepted cartridges for game animals, you should change your mind set about what to expect as far as animal reation to the bullet impact.

You would be well advised to approach it with a bowhunter's mentality.

That's my opinion.

And one last thing is that a person shouldn't then come on with a sob story about the one that got away.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
Judge, w/ all due respect, it gets old hearing people compare broadheads (30-40yds) to bullets (30-400yds). The applications are totally diff. & the dynamics too. A broadhead will go through a sand filled bag, most bullets will not. What the broadhead does do is exit after tearing a large hole. Bigger bullets, bigger holes.

Actually Broadheads SLICE through things, bullets crush/tear through things.

Sliced tissue bleeds more than crushed/torn tissue.

Stastically speaking you are more likely to die from a sharp penetrating trauma (a stabbbing with a knife) than from a wound from a bullet.

You think the mechanism of death is any different for deer?

the difference is that firearms have a greater effective range and if a bullet strikes bone
bone fragments will frequently add additional wound channels.

I've personally gutted one deer where the bullet, though close to the heart, lungs and major arteries, managed to miss them all, but a chunk of bone the size of my thumbnail lacerated the aorta and the animal bled (like a firehose) out through the exit and entrance holes and ran less than 30yards.

If the bullet has sufficient energy to expand and reaches either the cardio-vascular system
or central nervous system and the animal goes less than 100yards there was absolutely nothing wrong with any component used to make the kill.

"DRT" is an unrealistic goal, because no matter what you use there will be a freak bullet path that would leave the deer moving even if shot with a 50BMG...

so how about we substitute "D<100yd" for the overly demanding "DRT"?

AllanD

Im something of a smallbore advocate, but I tried the 243 for a few years on deer and for me it is simple. Given the choice, Ill take a bang flop over tracking any time. I found the 243 to be marginal for deer. Oh they died alright, and dont usually run too far, but I much prefer watching them fold on the spot. Ive found the .257 to be quite a bit more effective on deer, for Elk I like going with at least a 7mm slug. Thats just my opinion and I do have the option so thats how I play it.

Now having said that, if I didnt have a choice I would use a 6mm, even on an Elk. But in doing so I would choose a tough bullet, largest in caliber and I would go with either an Accubond or a North fork. Reason being is the way they hold together and the large diameter mushrooms they provide. Not to mention the potential for accuracy. I believe there is merit to such an approch, not only for a 6mm but also for something like the controversial 270 on an Elk.

Try comparing an expanded 270 accubond or Northfork with an expanded .30 cal partition or grand slam and youll see what I mean. With one of those type of bullets, I wouldnt hesitate using a 270 on Elk for one millisecond. Then again, I dont have a 270 so I dont have to worry about it.