For the second year I've exclusively used a 243/6mm rem for fallow bucks with a 90gr ballistic tip. These deer weigh up to 200lb but are generaly slightly less.

Each buck has received one shot in the heart/lungs and has been located within 40yards. The bullet has never exited as most have been shot front on. On all occasions the buck could be seen to be hit well through the scope (light recoil) so no follow up shots were made.

I just cannot understand why the 243 gets such a slating from hunters. My own feeling is that such stories originate from shooting at extremely big deer/poor placement(vegetation/moving deer)and/or an unrealistic expectation that heart lung shot deer fall down dead on the spot.

I wouldn't use this combination on huge trophy animals miles from home but for normal deer close to home I literaly never use anything else any longer....

Just my opinion, but I think you answered yourself in your post.

All of those things you listed, along with poor bullet selection, have helped create the reputation the 243 has. A lot of folks still use 243's, and like them. Most if not all of those folks live and work within the limitations of the gun'caliber and with in their own personal limitations as a shooter.

A lot of folks don't and never will. They will always find a reason why it is the guns fault.

I do agree with your idea that too many folks are unrealistic, or have not shot that much game, to have it ALL fall dead on the spot. I have seen it happen, and done it a few times myself, but to me it is the exception rather than the rule.

As far as my feelings on the 243, I think it is a fine caliber for deer/varmits/pronghorn out to 300 yards, with good bullets and proper shot placement.

I recommend them as a good first rifle or if a person is only going to hunt here in Texas, they are a great little gun.

Would I have one, No. I have both a 257 Roberts and a 6.5x55 Norwegian Krag. Both of those are ballistic brothers to the 243, with the exception being that they use heavier bullets.

Course I also wouldn't have a 270 or a 308 or a 30-06. All are great guns, I just don't like them for my own useage.

Like I said, I think you hit the nail on the head as to why the round has the reputation it does, I just don't think many folks are going to admit that operator error or mis-judgement, is why they decided that the 243 wasn't a good round.

The 6mm s kill quickly , as you say , but often IME do not leave much of anything for a blood trail or may not give you much for a visual reaction to a good hit.

So when even when shooting in open country like we have in the Dakotas , you may be right next to very heavy cover like 160 acres of CRP which has waist high grasses or if the sweet clover is rank , it maybe almost head high. Or large cat-tail sloughs with cover well over your head. Or maybe un-harvested corn of a quarter or half section in size.

When your well hit dead on his feet deer runs into such stuff 50 , 60 yards before tipping over , it's desirable to have a bigger entrance and exit hole in him (hopefully leaking lots of blood) than a 6mm might leave......

At one time I too was hard on the .243. I just did not feel it was up to the task. Now this opinion was not formed out of personnal experience with the round. It was formed from tracking the results of other peoples use of the round. Many of these deer required followup shots if found. Many of thee deer were never recovered. One thing for sure the .243 does not leave a lot of blood. But then again neither does a .50 cal muzzleloader with a high lung hit. Initially I thought the round was lacking in efectiveness and that is why I was tracking and trailing all these wounded deer all the time. Over time though as I tracked more and more and talked with the "hunters" about the where was the deer,was he standing or walking or trotting or running, how was he standing, where did you aim, what was the deers reaction to the shot ... I then began to draw quite different conclusions. I would now say that the round is definatetly capable of taking deer. It is not the rounds fault. Typically my question revealed poor shot placement, the hunter not understanding how to place a shot on sharply quartered deer, trying to shoot through brush, and basically poor judgement along with not truely understanding its capabilities and limitations. A 180 grain slug from a 30-06 will plow through more bone and meat than will a 100 grain pill from a .243. That just means you have to be picker about you shot oppertunities. No doubt placement is the key to success and know how to change you point of aim based on how the deer is standing and thereby when notto shoot and wait for a better angle. I also used the .243 on deer one year and personnally had to problems harvesting every deer I shot at with it. Then again I tend to be rather conservative on what shots I will or will not take. Better to let the deer pass than risk a poor shot. But had I quit helping those other hunters or had I stopped asking questions my mind would have reamined against the .243 based on early encounters with poor shots. A poorly placed 30-06 or .50 does no better than a poorly placed .243. Do I now own a .243? No but I plan on getting a .257 Roberts soon.

I do not want to bust anyone's bubble but 243 size calibers do a much better job killing deer sized game then the 270's 30/06's and the big magnums. I base this on I have shot 80+ deer with all kinds of cals. More often then not a bigger cal just does not seem to put enough shock in a deer like a 6mm or 25cal will. Probably because the bullets of the bigger cals are made to hit bigger animals. A 243 will kill Moose, Elk, Black Bear, and Deer within 600 yards or less with the right bullet. Anyone who says different is either a poor shot or has no field experiance with it.

Dear 1894 mk2:

I shot three white tail deer in Pennsylvania with a 243 Winchester, using 100 grain Sierra bullets. All were hit in the lungs and/or heart either broadside or in the front quarter. All were one shot kills. The ranges varied from 15 feet with a 4" diameter exit wound to 65 yards with a .243 exit wound.

The deer weighed approximately 125 to 170 pounds, and none of them traveled more than 40 feet.

But I shot that rifle all summer long at groundhogs, handloaded my own ammo and was only satified with a sub MOA five shot group. So, when I fired that rifle at game, I knew exactly where that bullet was going.

On the other hand, a hunting friend of mine, albeit an excellent shot used to lose deer using a 300 Winchester Magnum. The reason: got tired of handloading and bought off the shelf K-Mart ammo with heavily constructed bullets. So, well hit deer (actually one was slammed into a tree) ran 100-150 yards and immediately became someone elses deer.

Chris Bemis

I shot a few deer with my 243 I was not impressed.It killed small does alright but when it came to big bucks it totally failed me twice and both my 243s have been not been use from the day I lost the bucks.I shot one in a clear cut about 150 yards away .I took a behind the shoulder shot and he ran like a bee got him.There with a few drops of blood but so hard to find I lost the trail.I found him about 1/2 miles in a gully the next year.I then shot a hudge 10 pointer about 50 yards in the same place .He ran untill abother hunter about 1/2 mile away shot him.He never knew he was hit from the first bullet.I put my 243 away and got a 338 win mag and 85 deer with 85 shots later the rest is history.I have a friend whos daughter insisted in shooting a moose with a 243 it took 5 shots the last one to the head and about an hour for it to die.It kept running around.The 243 is a fine varmit gun buts it not my deer rifle any more.Its an aweful gun for beginners I think the 260 Remington is alot better beginners gun.

From my experience, most of the bad rap comes from using the wrong bullet and/or poor shot placememt. Some people are so into cutting the recoil that they use the lightest bullet they can get. These light bullets are made to "blow up" in a prairie dog or equivalent. Wont get in a deer. I have seen the same thing with a 7 mag shooting 120 grain hollowpoints. Nasty flesh wound but deer gets away to die later. With good bullets, and careful placement, the 6mm's are deer killers.

I read an article on this not to long back and I'll try to find it again. It talked about the .243/6mm being a dying breed. I tend to agree with that article in some aspects.

It said the rifles chambered in this caliber filled a niche for people who hunted game deer sized and smaller. The author stated that the .243/6mm was chambered in hunting style rifles that had a barrel to small in diameter for hunting colony varmints and bullet weights too light for larger than deer game. The author loved his .243 but stated that there were better choices out there to do what the .243/6mm caliber does. He stated that most people do not own a one rifle anymore. It was also mentioned that the .243 Win and 6mm Rem never found wide spread use in competition shooting. The author also mentioned that the .243 sales were down and most rifle makers didn't offer a 6mm Rem anymore.

My first center fire rifle was a .243 Win Parker Hale and I still have this rifle and never will part with it. But I have to agree I will never use it on game larger than deer and I rarely use it for varmint hunting. I think this will continue to be a rifle for the recoil sensitive and beginners. With the right bullet choices this rifle remains an excellent rifle for deer sized game and smaller.

Well from reading these posts it is obvious that peoples experience with the .243-6mm is all over the page. I bought one (.243) for my wife ( now ex ) and she took several deer with it and a couple antelope, all very cleanly killed, several were dropped in their tracks one buck ran maybe 80 feet, no second shots or waiting to die here. I was extremely impressed with the .243's killing ability well beyond its size. At one point we were hunting Whitetails in Texas and several guys on the lease were giving her a hard time about a wimpy gun, claiming they've had deer run off from being shot with .243's and losing animals and it not being a big enough gun. One of the same guys on this lease that gave her such a hard time got his buck opening day, 100 yards on a little 7 point and hit it 4 out of 5 shots with a 300 Win Mag. My wife shot hers that day too, one clean shot in the chest from 128 yards, bullet travelled the full length of the deer from chest to just under the hide on the rear ham, the 100 grain Sierra weighed 89 grains upon recovery. When we got the deer back to the ranch house the one fella was bragging about his big 7 pointer so we asked him about the quantity of shots and where he hit it he got smart and said "big deal I got him didn't I where is your deer" We opened the topper and showed him her deer and all he could say was "how many times did you have to shoot him with that gun (.243)" and the wife said "just once in the right place"
For me that story says it all, one proper shot from a .243 is just as effective as 4 or 5 bad shots from a 300 mag.
Gentlemen the facts are in and if the .243 is used with a proper bullet type and weight for the task and the shot executed with a modicum of care and diligence the effects of this round are deadly. When people step up to the larger calibers I think that one should still use care and diligence in their shot placement out of respect for the animal, a magnum doesn't mean just hit'em anywhere cuz its a magnum.
In my experience the most lost animals attributed to one particular cartridge have to go to the 7mm Rem Mag. I've seen more game lost and more bad shooting with this round than all other cartridges combined. Now that said I don't think that the 7 mag is inadequate or can't kill game rather I know it is very capable but it seems to have had a lot of hype behind it to make people believe that you can hit an animal anywhere and at any range and because it is a 7 mag thats all you need to know.

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
I do not want to bust anyone's bubble but 243 size calibers do a much better job killing deer sized game then the 270's 30/06's and the big magnums. I base this on I have shot 80+ deer with all kinds of cals. More often then not a bigger cal just does not seem to put enough shock in a deer like a 6mm or 25cal will. Probably because the bullets of the bigger cals are made to hit bigger animals. A 243 will kill Moose, Elk, Black Bear, and Deer within 600 yards or less with the right bullet. Anyone who says different is either a poor shot or has no field experiance with it.

Not trying to start a pissing match here, but I cannot remember a statement here at AR that I disagree with more than the above. It cannot imagine that the .243 is an ideal cartridge for Moose, Elk or Bear at 600 yards. The .243 may be adequate for deer and could be used for larger game by competent riflemen, but to state that the .243 kills better than a .270 or 30.06 may show a lack of field experience with the .270 or 30.06 class cartridges.

To be fair, I have zero field experience shooting deer with a .243. For me, deer rifles start at the .260 Rem with 120 grain bullets. I know of a family of local deer hunters that switched from .308 Win to .243 becasue they felt that the .308 caused too much meat damage and was overkill for deer. They have been successful with the .243 and have never regretted that switch, BUT their opinion is that the .243 is just right and that the .308 win (and therefore .270 and 30.06 class) are way too much for deer.

Amen CWilson,

Not to flame anybody, but that statement is just plain false! Maybe not for dakor, but for 99% of the hunting public that statement cannot be backed up by facts...ever! I cull does legally on a large plantation and kill more in one month than most will in a lifetime (key word: legally. Crop depredation permits). We use every type of bullet, caliber, etc you can imagine during the course of the culling. It is a wonderful opportunity to see what works and what does not. The only time a 243 can be reasonably expected to work on good size deer is when using stout, well constructed, bullets. It kills me when someone makes a decision to use a 243 and it seems like the next thing you hear is they are trying to see what the lightest, varmit weight, bullet they can use when deer hunting! Why??? You are already undergunned if a good buck walks out on you...you had best be using the toughest bullet you can find.

My two cents worth.

I don't own a 243 but have several friends and relatives that do. My grandfather in colorado had one that took numerous deer and a few elk. He liked it becasue it was a nice compact gun(one of the old Rem 600's I think) that shot good. He also used a 280, 308 and 30-06..sometimes all in same deer season. The elk he shot were all farily close and never monsters but they died without a huge amount of effort.

I know several people now who like to use a 243 on caribou. Their use is probably a lot more like what 1894's use is...a meat gathering tool that they have settled on becasue it has enough power but does not do enormous damage. One guy I know that has shot probably 50+ caribou used a 223 for a long time but decided the margin for error was too small....the 243 was more consistant. He shots caribou in the base of the skull to minimize meat damage, but he is very selective on his shots...<150 yards, wind direction correct, etc. Another friend of mine has decided that he likes kis 300 WM after using a 223 for a few years to harvest caribou for meat. He takes the same shots, just uses a pretty hard bullet.

When the spine is severed they always go done like the hammer of Thor has struck them....17 rem, 220 swift, 223, 243, 260, 280, 300 WM, 338 wm. I personally will take my shots into the chest as one of my favorite parts of an animal is a bone-in neck roast and I have seem those roasts destroyed by a neck shot. YMMV

-phil

quote:

Originally posted by joe25/06:
From my experience, most of the bad rap comes from using the wrong bullet and/or poor shot placememt. Some people are so into cutting the recoil that they use the lightest bullet they can get. These light bullets are made to "blow up" in a prairie dog or equivalent. Wont get in a deer. I have seen the same thing with a 7 mag shooting 120 grain hollowpoints. Nasty flesh wound but deer gets away to die later. With good bullets, and careful placement, the 6mm's are deer killers.

Now I think that hits pretty much right on. The 24's are a change over cal from varmit to big game and theres really no clear line between varmit and game bullets. as a result, many people end up with a varmit bullet they thought was a game bullet and had some very bad luck. In the 243 I'd use only either 90gr partitions and up for game bullets, Not much chance of a bad game bullet there.

I'm on my third? 243 and have really never had anykind of love afair with them. I've killed two or maybe three deer with them without problems, but I also use heavy bullets and choose my shots carefully. ie: I'm not gonna try to put one thru a shoulder even if I believed it was a good shot. And it probally is, I just don't trust it.

I do think that it's a good deer cartridge but I also think there are lots better that are just as user friendly, ie: 250-3000, 257 Roberts, 6.5x55 ect. Mine is set up strictly for shooting at coyotes and smaller.

If you jump up to 25's, the line between varmit bullets and game bullets becomes more clear. 100gr and up, game bullets, under 100gr, varmit bullets.

In my view much of the 6mm bullet thrower requtation is built on the simple fact that it's frequently a beginners rifle. Beginners frequently have less than optimum shot placement.

Less frequently there are people using bullets of too light of a construction for their game. Many 6mm bullets are for varmints and give poor performance on deer sized animals.

End of story.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
For the second year I've exclusively used a 243/6mm rem for fallow bucks with a 90gr ballistic tip. These deer weigh up to 200lb but are generaly slightly less.

Each buck has received one shot in the heart/lungs and has been located within 40yards.

That's good info to have, 1894. I recently came by an older Sako in .244 and found that the 100 grain bullets I usually use would not shoot well in it, presumably due to the slow twist. I tried some of the 90gr B.Tips and they did well, so I loaded a couple of boxes to try on deer this year. Good to know you've had good experiences with them on deer larger than our whitetails.

OK lets get the facts straight. A guy says I have no field experiance making the statement but then says he has never used one. This is typical of AR right here. Now before I hear your bragging I am just going to state the facts. I have shot deer with a 222 rem, 223, 220 swift, 243, 6mm, 6mm-284, 25/06, 270, 7mm mag. 7mm STW, 30/06, 30-338, 300win, and a 375 H&H. Using all kinds of bullets. Here is what I have found smaller cals put the deer down better if you don't like it or think it has something to do that I can't shoot a big bore you are mistaken 80+ deer don't lie. Smaller cals put all there energy into the deer the big ones don't until the speed drops off meaning they are out a ways like 500 yards or more. I for one have not shot Elk or moose with one. But I have seen a moose taking with one and it was lights out. Moose are not tuff to kill. As for Elk there is a guide out in wyoming that guides in unit 89 for Elk. He goes by the name Jonesy he has taken many Elk with his 243. His load is a 75gr Hornady HP because it goes in through the ribs and blows the lungs up.Jonesy said he has seen more Elk lost with a 300win then any other cal and he has been guiding a long time. I also have a friend in Montana who has taken 30+ elk with a 243 and 100gr Nosler Partitions. Both have shot elk out to 400 yards. Black bear and a 243 is no problem seen lots of them shot with them and they put them down. The game Warden where we hunted last year uses a 25/06 with 100gr bullets to shoot his Elk first thing he said is you do not need a canon like people think if you can hit them right. I like this PC quarter backing that has been going on around here as of late. Hell on the alaska forum a 375 H&H is not big enough for a Brown Bear even though one of the most famous guides said it was plenty. I would also like to point out the same guide MR Shoemaker said he would even use a 243 to stop a brown bear and feel comfortable because he knows where to hit one. I wonder how they killed anything back in the old days with a little round lead ball barely traveling over the speed of sound?

I had good luck on does that were about 100 pounds to about 140 pounds.It was the 250 pound big bucks in rut that the trouble cam into with the 243.I shot both of the big bucks I lost with 100 gr remington corelocks.The exit wounds were only about as big as a nickle at best .I didnt try other bullets I tried my 338 with 200 gr power point bullets that flattened deer from 3 yards to 425 yard.The deer ranged from 75 pounds to almost 280 pounds .It didnt tear up much meat you can eat up to the bullet hole .It dropped running deer in their tracks .

I have killed a large pile of critters with my 6mm Rem including black bears. I have not lost an animal either and I can't remember any that took more than one shot. There may be one I can't remember but I doubt it..It is a great deer/ goat round.

I will agree that in addition to proper placement a properly constructed bullet is of the utmost importance when using the .243. Use a varmint bulelt and you will likely have poor results.

Yes, the .243 is touted as a beginers rifle. That is due to the low recoil. Not everyone handloads nor has the desire to handload. A handloader can download the 7X57 or 7mm-08 to recoil levels on par wit hthe .243 and have a larger heavier bullet on top of it.

The most important thing about bringing a new hunter along is to teach them shot placement. How to place the shot and where to aim when the deer is standing at various or odd angles. Next thing to do is limit their range for the first few seasons. Fairly easy to do in Missouri with dense hardwood forrets. Harder to do out west with large vast expances.

Bear in mind that the bullets generally available now are much better than the bullets that were available when the .243 first came out in the early Sixties.

Early failures have a way of haunting a cartridge for a long time; look at the .460 Weatherby as an example at the other end of the spectrum.

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
I do not want to bust anyone's bubble but 243 size calibers do a much better job killing deer sized game then the 270's 30/06's and the big magnums.

I respectfully disagree. Because the exact adverse is true in every account I've experienced since the 80's while in the deer woods.

No doubt the 243 will kill a deer sized animal, but better than all those listed? No.

The reputation (in some circles) of the .243 being a poor deer cartridge mostly springs from two causes: (1) As was mentioned, the .243 is often a "beginner's rifle" and thus many poor shots are made with the caliber, and (2) Factory loads are, for some arcane reason, woefully underloaded of late. Most 100 grain factory loads won't reach 2800 fps in the common 22" barrel. Pump the same 100 grainer up to the 3050 fps or so that the original ammunition traveled and you'll find a lot of difference in the "oomph" of the .243.

As to the assertion that the .243 is a "better" deer killer than the larger rifles, that tends to be true to the extent that most people use too "tough" a bullet in many of the larger calibers. When a properly stoked .243 hits the lungs, deer tyically go down and stay down. When a 180/.30-06 hits the same place, they typically run a distance before folding. That's not to say that the .243 is a "better" deer killer, just that in many instances it is faster.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
I do not want to bust anyone's bubble but 243 size calibers do a much better job killing deer sized game then the 270's 30/06's and the big magnums.

I respectfully disagree. Because the exact adverse is true in every account I've experienced since the 80's while in the deer woods.

No doubt the 243 will kill a deer sized animal, but better than all those listed? No.

dakor also posted yesterday that Jonesy, a guide in Wyoming uses the 243 w/ 75gr Hornady HP's on elk. He also quotes a Mr Shoemaker as saying "he would even use a 243 to stop a brown bear". I have been using 75gr Hornady HP's and I have shot one deer with it. Broadside into the chest just behind the shoulder, that'll never happen again! And the only way I'd risk upsetting a brown bear with a 243 is if I was completely out of options and fixing to die!

dakor reports this stuff like he believes it. Now I understand why he thinks the 243 is a better killer than the 270 ect! I know a 243 in the right circumstances will kill an elk, moose or even a brown bear; I would never suggest it might be worth a try! WOW!!!!!

I gave those examples because those are the truth ask MR shoemaker if he recalls saying what he said and by all means give Jonesy an email and ask him what he uses for Elk. Here is a test for you take a 270win and shoot a deer at 50 yards through the lungs tell me what happens 9 times out of 10. I will bet you are tracking the deer you shot with the 270 a little ways. Try the same thing with a 243, 6mm, 25/06 or 257 weatherby. I bet 9 of those deer do not go more than a few feet because that bullet new it hit something. The 270 bullet is going to open but not like those little pills those will use all there energy. I shot a doe last year with a 375 H&H and a barnes 300gr TSX right through the lungs at 50 yards. She went about 100 yards then fell over and died. Give me that same shot with my 6-284 and that deer is not going anymore than a few feet. That has happen to me a few times with a 375 H&H the bullet just does not spend lots of it energy and shock on deer. As for moose I watched a buddy shoot his at 65 yards with a 357 smith with a 6inch barrel. One shot through the lungs the moose turned stummbled and fell over and died withing a few seconds. That bull weighed 1100+ lbs on the elevator scale. My point in the examples I gave are that people think you need this big canon to kill Deer and you don't. People hunt Elk with 44 mags and those do not even have close to the energy a 243 does. I didn't say go hunt Grizz with a 243 just that one of the top guides in AK said on this forum he feels a 243 could stop one charging in his hands or someone else who could shoot it. I guess if you still do not understand the smaller cal VS the bigger ones at close range. Our hunting party shoots about 20+ deer a year with rifles. I shoot anywhere from 6-8 myself on average. I know what I am talking about when it comes to deer and small cals.

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
Here is a test for you take a 270win and shoot a deer at 50 yards through the lungs tell me what happens 9 times out of 10. I will bet you are tracking the deer you shot with the 270 a little ways.

Sorry but you lost that bet 10 times over. Been there, done that. 270 was my first rifle ever. And I've NEVER had a deer run that took any tracking. In fact, the ONLY deer that made it anywhere was a small Alabama buck that I shot with my first Ruger MK II, M77 with a 150 Btip at 15 yards. He did run about 8 yards and nose dived but it all happened right in front of me in the open hardwoods on Hale Mountain.

In ONE season in MO I shot 2 Does and 1 buck in 2 days with that same rifle YEARS later. 150 grain Btips. Not one shot was over 30 yards and they all fell right there...double lung shots, pass throughs, with blood 10 feet beyond the exit hole. Got lots of witnesses as we were all walking the same ridges 20 yards apart on a slow drive.

The only deer I've ever seen make it any distance were shot with a 243, and I've told this story at least twice here on AR before. The guy shot his buck near the property border, it ran upwards of 150-200 yards with a double lung hit from a (speer grand slam I think). Seconds after my friend shot, 2 other rifles fired and they got to claim the buck because they put it down. We walked up to them and my friend showed them his SMALLLLLLEEEERRRRR bullet hole right where it needed to be, but the unwritten rule in the south is "he who puts it down is the rightful owner."

I've seen similar scenarios happen in AZ, on a VERY nice Coues, one incident in MO, and a handful in Alabama.

Sorry, my 270 dumps deer pretty much where they stand, call it luck I guess, but the 243 will never be a BETTER deer rifle in my book and that is based on my experiences. I won't even go into what my 30.06 has done with the 168 TSX. I've been posting those Bang-Flop photos since 2004. Many under 50-80 yards, and a few over 150 yards.

I hate to be the guy that bursts your balloon but I still RESPECTFULLY disagree 500%.

Oh, and that guy that shot and lost his big buck to those other hunters, well I took him to WY last year for our antelope hunt. We have the Doe hunt on video. WE shot at the same time, me with my 270, 150 Btips, and he shot his 243 with 95 grain Btips that I loaded for him. My Doe dropped and died. His ran about 75 yards with a perfect quartering away heart shot and the bullet passed through.

243 better, not a chance.

That's fine Doc we will call it a difference in opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
I do not want to bust anyone's bubble but 243 size calibers do a much better job killing deer sized game then the 270's 30/06's and the big magnums. I base this on I have shot 80+ deer with all kinds of cals. More often then not a bigger cal just does not seem to put enough shock in a deer like a 6mm or 25cal will. Probably because the bullets of the bigger cals are made to hit bigger animals. A 243 will kill Moose, Elk, Black Bear, and Deer within 600 yards or less with the right bullet. Anyone who says different is either a poor shot or has no field experiance with it.

I'll not jump too far into this one other than to say for me, the .243 makes a dandy varmint round. I'll stick to my .280 for deer & antelope.

The reason the .243 suffers a bad reputation is because it is easier for a hunter to put the blame on an inanimate object, rather than tarnish their own reputation or bruise their own ego. The .243 pretty much performs at the level of its advertised statistics. It is up to the hunter to choose the right bullet, evaluate the shooting conditions, select the target and place the shot into the vitals. Ok, lets assume the rifle is inaccurate and deserves the reputation of a “Bad Shooterâ€; once again, it’s the hunter’s decision whether or not to carry this gun into the field. Also inaccuracy is not normal for the .243, but it can occur in any and all calibers. Oh yeah, let’s not forget the other participant in the hunt; the game animal itself. They drop dead for two reasons, oxygen depletion to the brain and shock to the nervous system, A shot that causes major damage to the heart/lungs will eventually cause death, a spinal shot or brain shot (not necessarily head shot) will result in DRT. Sometimes a shot to the heart/lung or other area will result in sufficient nervous shock to drop the animal; this may be partially dependent upon the independent animal itself. Some have more or less sensitivity to their nervous systems than others, just as some hunters are more sensitive to recoil. I think the .243 deserves a good reputation for what it is designed to do. I have a 6mm Rem. that I’ve used to kill mule deer, pronghorn and a mt. goats efficiently and effectively. I have also missed a couple of deer completely with it. I once wounded an elk by attempting a “raking†shot with a .340 Wby. I hit the hind leg and punctured the paunch; luckily I got another shot to end the suffering. All of my rifles have a good reputation; it’s my reputation that’s blemished. So lets keep debating the merits of our favorite calibers, it’s all harmless fun anyway because everyone knows that the 7mm Dakota is #1.

quote:

Originally posted by Argali:
it’s all harmless fun anyway because everyone knows that the 7mm Dakota is #1.

You mean #100.

My opinion on 243's reputation is based on using the same for a few big game animals as a teenager and my mom's experience with the same rifle after taking up deer hunting in her 60's.

First, there is merit to the beginner angle.

Second most deer are taken at fairly close range. 80-85 gr factory ammo usually utilizes bullets of the vermin ilk ... at speeds in excess of the ideal operating window for those bullets. For example ... "cheap" Federal Power Shoks with 80 grain Speer hot cores have a nominal mv of 3350 fps. At point blank range a person could experience bullet failure - particularly on heavy bone of a big deer.

Since people think of deer guns as "cartridge first ... everything else last" ... for example, ask a guy what he shoots on deer ... typical Bubba answer "Ought Six". Veteran hunter answer "Model 70". Internet connected loading loonie "Partition", "Triple Shock", "Interlock", etc.

IMHO the reputation of the 243 is a cross of "beginner hunters" with "cheap" ammo and the hunting public's inability to separate "cartridges" from "bullets".

Coming full circle ... my dad loaded up some spare 87 gr non interlock SP's for mom this deer season. Her shots can be anywhere from 10 yards to 300. I stole the dies and worked up loads with 85gr TSX's and 100gr Interlocks. Matched the bullets to the likely conditions. Have no fear of bullet failure, nor worries that a properly placed shot will not produce venison.

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
Here is a test for you take a 270win and shoot a deer at 50 yards through the lungs tell me what happens 9 times out of 10. I will bet you are tracking the deer you shot with the 270 a little

I will partially agree with you and partially disagree with you on that point. My experience on deer with a .270 is very thin and long ago. The first, a 195 pound dressed out buck was a bang/flop DRT shot. That's the good news. The bads new I had led him enough and it was a gut shot at maybe 35-40 yards. Bullet was 130 gr. factory load, but it was so long ago that I'm only sure that it was by Winchester. The only other deer was also a DRT deal. The only target available was the head and neck. I broke the neck. Range maybe 50-60 yards.
Now to the .243. I have personally seen six deer killed with the .243 in rifles used by my hunting partners. The first one was a lung shot, maybe 45 yards out, bang/flop. The other five ran anywhere from 50 to 200 yards before falling. The 200 yard run was paced off, and the deer was stopped by running into a fence. He was obviously dead on his feet and running on nerve alone. When we checked out that deer, he had been hit high in the lungs. All the deer mentioned with exception of the first one were shot on a private rnch in fairly open fields. Blood trails on those that ran were so sparse that if the area had lots of cover, odds are the deer probably would have been lost. Ranges for the initial shots on the ranch ranged from about 50-60 yards to 150 yards. Those result, small as they may be do not inspire much confidence in the .243 as a good deer round.
On the other hand, one friend I have used the .243 exclusively for his deer hunt. In the last 33 years, he claims 32 bang/flops and one disaster. He did find the deer. It was properly hit, but did run off into tight cover. It took him and his hunting partner almost five hours to locate that deer. I'll have to take his word on the 32 DRTs though. I wasn't there.
I gues it does hold true. YMMV.
Paul B.

ALL I want to know is what the look is going to be on the guides/outfitters face and response when a person shows up for their bear or moose hunt with a .243 and THEN tells the guide it is actually better for game than a 30-06....
and that it is good for out to 600yards...

and
the .243 do a much better job killing deer sized game then the 270's 30/06's and the big magnums.




YOU KNOW, I have sorta gone the other way in my life after seing what happens when you don't execute the perfect shot with mouseguns. It must be wonderful to never make a bad shot because of weather, mnovement, brush, or other elements, such as the animal moving. AND I have a hard time believing that a .243 thumps a deer better than the 550gr bullet that comes out of my 45-70 or the 250gr out of the 358Win. I have shot through the full length of deer with both. They ALWAYS leave a blood trail that runs about 1 foot to the dead animal as if falls out of its footprints to the ground. I used to hunt with people who swore by the .243 but after spending hours working out trails of wounded but not down deer, swore at them. Heavy bullets in heavy calibers allow for shots you simply cannot take in good faith with a .243

I started hunting white tail when I was 7 and between hunting the states and Canada and having to kill about 50-60 a year as a police officer I have a few of them under my belt.
Sorry, definitely NOT gonna agree with anything that says a .243 is better than the larger bores mentioned. It may kill them, but it is not beter.

Deer are easy to kill with any rifle and the .243 is plenty adequate for the biggest whitetail. The .243's poor reputation is mostly on the internet,as it has a sterling reputation in the hunting fields. A good elk or moose rifle it is not. One thing is for certain if a poor shooter wounds a deer with a .243 it is easy to blame the small caliber, if he does it with a .300 Win Mag, that just isn't possible. Pretty hard to say a .300 is inadequate for a 250 pound animal. My highest percentage of in the tracks kills on deer (with caliber that have killed more than a few) is with the .220 Swift. Part of this is due to the fact I only used it on meat does, no running away through the hedge patch shots. I have shot 12 or 13 with the Swift with 55 Sierras and none have taken the first step yet. On broadside shots it is sudden death. The other sudden killer is the .257 Weatherby with the 100 TSX at 3600 fps, which is my standard beanfield rifle. Just shoot deer with whatever you're carrying.

In Sep issue of Rifle Shooter magazine there is a very good article on "The Fading 6mms" by Jon R. Sundra. He is asking is the era of the dual-purpose cartridge over? It is very informative about the development of the .243/6mm cartridges and why they are falling out of favor.

My son used a .243 on Kudu and other critters in South Africa using 100gr Nosler partitions. No problem. All one shot kills out to 250 meters.

I have used it on deer - 4 or 5- out to 200 yards with no problem.

Use the right bullet and put it in the right place and the critter is a goner....

tayloce1
I just recently read that article myself. It pretty much sums it up. The .243 was designed as a dual purpose round and that idea is no longer so popular. It is (in my view) "too big and too small" To big to be a GREAT varmint round and too small to be a GREAT deer round.

I have a Rem 788 in .243 that prints wonderful small groups and is a joy to shoot. I have shot some deer and pronghorn with it but I really don't like it much for that.

Robin down under

duffy4 things run in cycles though and the dual purpose rifle might come back in vogue someday. I don't think the .243 will fade anytime soon though, just too many of them out there. Like I said in my first post I'll never part with my .243, but it has been passed over for my .270 for anything larger than pronghorn. My Parker is one hell of a coyote rifle though.

I love this thread!

There are great statements and ridiculous statements about the 243 and other calibers here. As a wildlife biologist/manager and a hunter I find the 243 adequate for our local blacktailed deer with a strong and properly designed bullet such as a Nosler Partition, but I have seen this caliber fail as many times as it succeeded. In my opinion half of these have been due to bullet failure, and the other half due to shot placement. With a more potent caliber, half of the bullet failures and shot placement errors would have resulted in a kill, but the little 243 lacks the ummph to make it happen. Yes, I would prefer to have my little 6.5X54 MS to the 243 even though it develops less energy at 100 yards. Why? It is using a time tested 160 grain round nose that penetrates and penetrates, something the 243 often lacks without premium bullets, just like my 25’06.

I once worked with a gentleman that used the 243 on an eradication project for Spanish sheep and California feral pigs. He had great success, however, he also lost animals that were solidly hit. That my friends never happened with the 180 grain slugs out of my Springfield 30’06, even on the hogs. I even had the benefit of seeing one of those forehead shot hogs “deflect†a 90 grain 243 bullet at 75 yards.

Guys, this is just another matter of selecting the right caliber, weight, and design of bullet for a job. For small deer and antelope the 243 will work great nearly all of the time with a solid bullet design, but I would not use it for the larger deer, and or bear and hogs.

Well my wife is moving up from a 223 to a 6mm for caribou and so we obviously aren't scared of using small bullets for big game. These small calibers need good bullets to work and then do quite well. In 223 we used the 53X and 60Partition mostlt though the 64grain Win Powerpoint also got some use. Good to 150 yards not much margin for error but reliable with good hits.

The 6mm in a Rem 600 is a delightful little gun and with 100 Partitions or 115 Barnes O's is an excellent penetrator and cuts a pretty fair wound channel. We are buying our second as I stupidly sold the first and we have missed it ever since.

I mostly use my 358 Norma but it is really over kill...My wife can kill stuff about as well as I can except at really long ranges and we aren't scared to tackle a Moose to 150 yards or so with the 6mm and good bullets.

The 6mm might be a beginners gun as some of said but I think of it more as an experts gun. With a steady shot these small calibers really do a good job. Better than some seem to think and with today's great bullets probably suitable for 90% of a hunters uses.