quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Did someone say they use a 95 gn BT on Elk? Did someone mention hunting with a crack pipe?

Well. before Al Gore invented the internet I actually thought that the 243 had a great rep as a light recoil deer slaying machine. And then I tried one myself. I must say my experience left me unimpressed. Yes placement is important, but it is the only caliber I ever used with the same kind of bullets hitting in the same target area that failed to give a bang-flop on Utah muleys. For the last 4 or 5 years Ive used a 257 AI with quite satisfactory results.

For me the 243 on deer is still ok, especially for beginners, but there are certianly better rounds out there. Even light recoiling ones. Give me a Bob or 7X57 over it any day.

Sometimes size does matter.

If you can't get a bang flop on deer with a 243 you probably should change your target area then.

Naw, I solved that problem a long time ago by reserving the 243 for coyotes. A .257 to .30 cal behind the shoulder and leave the tracking to the bow hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Did someone say they use a 95 gn BT on Elk? Did someone mention hunting with a crack pipe?

Well. before Al Gore invented the internet I actually thought that the 243 had a great rep as a light recoil deer slaying machine. And then I tried one myself. I must say my experience left me unimpressed. Yes placement is important, but it is the only caliber I ever used with the same kind of bullets hitting in the same target area that failed to give a bang-flop on Utah muleys. For the last 4 or 5 years Ive used a 257 AI with quite satisfactory results.

For me the 243 on deer is still ok, especially for beginners, but there are certianly better rounds out there. Even light recoiling ones. Give me a Bob or 7X57 over it any day.

Sometimes size does matter.

If you can't get a bang flop on deer with a 243 you probably should change your target area then.

Naw, I solved that problem a long time ago by reserving the 243 for coyotes. A .257 to .30 cal behind the shoulder and leave the tracking to the bow hunters.

The only deer I have ever tracked with a 243 were from poor shot placement. Shoulder shot they drop in their tracks and heart shot they normally run about 50 yards and crash.
Leave tracking to the bowhunters now I like that.

I think the LONGest distance I've tracked any deer I killed with an arrow went maybe 50 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
I think the LONGest distance I've tracked any deer I killed with an arrow went maybe 50 yards.

Likewise Doc. To state the obvious: I would much rather put a sharp broadhead through both lungs than have a 'gut shot" or "non-chest shot" with any rifle caliber. Deer just do not go far with both lungs collapsed.

A bad, non-fatal shot is just that - whether with an arrow or bullet.

Back to the 6mm. I am really glad that I have replaced our 600 Rem in 6mm with another after I stupidly sold the first one. With the right bullets these 243 caliber rifles are very versatile. It is my wife's favourite rifle and my young kids will also spend some time with it as they get older.

The only tricky thing is bullets. The varmint type bullets of course will get you in trouble with big game sooner or later and some of the big game bullets don't expand fast enough and core separate when they do. The answer is the Nosler Partition.

85 Grain Nosler Partitions for caribou have been working very well. We get 3100 in the 18.5" carbine and a favourite dose of RL 19. Very dependable. I also like the 100 grain Nosler semispitzer at 2900, fantastic performer. I'd use this combination for moose in a pinch at 150 yards or less.

We have also had good luck with the 115 Barnes at 2750 from the carbine. Very similar to the old 257 Roberts that was once considered a great all rounder.

I enjoy power and have a pair of 358 Norma's for my own use but the little 6's are far more capable than many will credit.

If I had to pick I would choose the 308 as my favorite deer rifle.

That being said, I have killed quite a few deer with a 243.
I would not hesitate to use a 243 for all deer hunting in the lower 48.

My wife and I always used reloads with either 100gr Sierra or 95gr Nosler Partitions.

She killed a few antelope out to 350 yards and a great big bodied mule deer at @ 250.

All one shot kills.

I would use a 243 for deer and have for before. However I know there are much better all around deer rifles than the 243. I have killed a ton of deer, probably 350-400 mule deer with many calibers. This includes about everything from the 222 to the 300 Win Mag and 45-70. Nothing kills deer quicker and more consistantly than the 6.5x55, 270 and 308. The only deer that I have ever lost were with the 243. This was when they first came out. The 243 is best left to varmint hunting IMO.

Bear Hunter 62: I think that when the 243 first came out some bullets where poorly designed. I think the problem with many was under-expansion rather than over expansion. The bullets were a bit too tough giving needless penetration with a poor wound channel. Over time the bullets have gotten better.

That said premium bullets pay off with the 6 and the Nosler Partition gives a great combination of expansion with penetration.

With these bullets small big game up to caribou to 300 yards should be a cinch with good bullet placement.

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. 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....

I think that the dismissal of the 243W has been a fairly recent phenomena.

Long story, but I bought a 243W a few years back 'cause I took a young teenager elk hunting whose father had been called up to Iraq. I hadn't owned a .243 for 20+ years and thought this was a great excuse to get one

I had seen a couple elk killed with a .243 and had no qualms about it, but out of curiosity decided to do a little elk hunting with it myself too.

In the past 4 years that 243 with 100gr Partitions has accounted for 6 elk. From broadside, to raking shots quartering towards and away from me, from 35yds to 250+ yds it has done just fine.

In the past 35+ years I've killed about 35-40 elk with firearms, a few more with archery, and since the time I started following my dad in the early 60's, between family, friends and guiding some, seen another 60-70 elk killed with a variety of cartridges and bullets.

For the past couple of years I purposely took the 243 when my little boy has gone elk hunting with me. I've come to appreciate the low muzzle blast and recoil from the 243W.

I think that bottle-neck cartridges, with the wide assortment of premium bullets now available, and improved powders, are far more effective than we give some cartridges credit for.......

Casey

edited to add: I'm not recommending the 243W as an elk-getter, it's just that it is sufficient cartridge out to, oh, 300yds or so.

You answered your own post. There is nothing wrong with a .243 Winchester as long as it is employed on animals that come under its power and the proper bullet is used.

quote:

Originally posted by cwilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
I think the LONGest distance I've tracked any deer I killed with an arrow went maybe 50 yards.

Likewise Doc. To state the obvious: I would much rather put a sharp broadhead through both lungs than have a 'gut shot" or "non-chest
shot" with any rifle caliber. Deer just do not go far with both lungs collapsed.

A bad, non-fatal shot is just that - whether with an arrow or bullet.

I agree with you guys. I have taken around 30 big game animals with a bow and arrow and with the exception of black bears, none of the critters have gone more than around 30 yards before folding. The tracking is easy when you watch them fall.

quote:

Originally posted by cwilson:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doc:
I think the LONGest distance I've tracked any deer I killed with an arrow went maybe 50 yards.

Likewise Doc. To state the obvious: I would much rather put a sharp broadhead through both lungs than have a 'gut shot" or "non-ch