quote:

I asked him to get me the box of ammunition he was using. As I suspected, it was green box Remington and 80-grain projectiles. Don told me that he had had three bucks walk out in front of him and he had shot all three behind the shoulder. All three dropped at the shot, re-gained their feet and blew out as if nothing had happened. He really didn't know what he had done wrong.

I would guess what he did wrong was shoot a little high between vitals and backbone.
Having seen that 80 grn rem bullet break leg bones and stop under the far side. Even exit after breaking bones, I would say 3 deer in a row lost, is faulty shooting.
Oh, I am not a huge .243 fan, have one, but it sits in the corner 99.9% of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

quote:

I asked him to get me the box of ammunition he was using. As I suspected, it was green box Remington and 80-grain projectiles. Don told me that he had had three bucks walk out in front of him and he had shot all three behind the shoulder. All three dropped at the shot, re-gained their feet and blew out as if nothing had happened. He really didn't know what he had done wrong.

I would guess what he did wrong was shoot a little high between vitals and backbone.
Having seen that 80 grn rem bullet break leg bones and stop under the far side. Even exit after breaking bones, I would say 3 deer in a row lost, is faulty shooting.
Oh, I am not a huge .243 fan, have one, but it sits in the corner 99.9% of the time.

Agreed. If he was really hitting them behind the shoulder with that bullet, he'd have a dead deer every time. He had to have flubbed the shots.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubless:
Well, here we go again... I am being challenged on my statement of deer being lost to the .243. Well, here is an anecdote I was personally involved in about 20 years ago...

A buddy of mine called me and asked if I had dies for a .243. He told me he had been to his parents' place in the hill country and lost three deer opening weekend. He was using the beloved .243...

I asked him to get me the box of ammunition he was using. As I suspected, it was green box Remington and 80-grain projectiles. Don told me that he had had three bucks walk out in front of him and he had shot all three behind the shoulder. All three dropped at the shot, re-gained their feet and blew out as if nothing had happened. He really didn't know what he had done wrong.

The problem was, as is obvious to all of us, he was using the wrong projectile. I loaded some 100-grain Speer Grand Slams for him and he went back and filled his tags.



If this guy had done this with a 30-06 because he was using remington accelerator ammo (55gr .22cal sabots) would you be on here bashing 30-06s?

dsmit50, I ain't bashing the .243, andI seriously doubt that Doubless is either.

Your experiences may be different than ours, and my experiences and Doubless' may not exactly be the same.

Aside from that, I have witnessed people shooting Texas deer with a .243 and either losing the deer or having to shoot it multiple times to get it down.

Now I am pretty sure you have never hunted with me, and I have my doubts about your having hunted with Doubless.

With that in mind, are you calling Doubless a liar about what he has personally experienced?

My dislike for the .243 came about because people in the early 70's had a real bad habit of using 75 and 80 grain Varmint bullets in their .243's for shooting deer.

This worked out real well for ACCURATELY placed head/neck shots.

On shoulder/heart-lung shots things did not turn out quite as well. At 100 yards or more, those varmint bullets would come apart on the skin almost.

Now, are you claiming that such things did not happen?

"My dislike for the .243 came about because people in the early 70's had a real bad habit of using 75 and 80 grain Varmint bullets in their .243's for shooting deer."

CHC: sounds like you're blaming the cartridge because some dummies used it incorrectly.

They'd likely have had the same results if they had used varmint bullets in a 270, 280, or a 30/06.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Aside from that, I have witnessed people shooting Texas deer with a .243 and either losing the deer or having to shoot it multiple times to get it down.

So, have you ever witnessed this with another caliber? My guess is there are several Texas deer that are shot with a .308 caliber and either lost or shot multiple times to get it down every freaking year.

quote:

CHC: sounds like you're blaming the cartridge because some dummies used it incorrectly.

As I have gotten older, you hit the nail on the head.

quote:

So, have you ever witnessed this with another caliber? My guess is there are several Texas deer that are shot with a .308 caliber and either lost or shot multiple times to get it down every freaking year.

Graybird, see olarmy's opinion above, it is the same answer I gave earlier in this discussion. It really has nothing to do with the cartridge, because I stated that even though I do not like the .243, I do like the .257 Robert's, and ballistically there is not that much difference between the .243 and .257 Robert's. Personally, I developed a prejudice against the .243 for my own use.

If questioned by someone just getting started in deer or larger game hunting, for the past several years, I openly recommend the .243/7mm-08/.270 Win./.308 and the .30-06. I neither own or use any of those rounds, nor do I personally like them. That does not mean that they are not good cartridges to use.

It looks like a lot of young hunters had positive hunting careers that started out on a 243Win.

I'm happy to have it available for our grandkids.

Maybe I was harsh back when having my then 11-yr-old son switch to a 270 without a recoil pad. His choice was to use a 222 and be restriced to under-100 lb antelope, or use a pre-64 270Win with a hardplastic buttplate and be allowed hartebeests, warthog, waterbuck, or any non-dangerous game. He took to the 270 like a duck to water and we sold the 222. If we had a 243Win back then, he probably would have started with that.

We talk a lot in these threads about recoil. All I will say about that is that my son started going to the woods with me when he was seven. At nine, he shot his first whitetail. He did it with my .270, and he was sitting in my lap at the time. When I asked him if the rifle kicked, he told me if it did, he didn't feel it.

So much for kids and recoil... As I have said before, teach them to concentrate on trigger pull and watching what happens in the scope and they will never feel the recoil. They will know it happened, but they won't feel it, if that makes sense.

Neighbor's nephew got his first deer with a 270 Win, but it was in a single shot I believe a H&R. He's a very very little boy. The rifle didn't have a recoil pad on it either. I shook his hand and congratulated him, while feeling sorry for how much that rifle probably belted him. His uncle felt the same way.

One thing many forget about recoil of different cartridges is what weight rifle they are fired in. A 243 in a heavy rifle is a pussy cat. Firing it in something very light will get your attention. No, it won't be the punishing recoil like a 460 Weatherby Mag.

I built a 260 Rem because I like 6.5 calibers. I was really surprised when I shot it how mild the recoil was as compared to a 243. I believe if I were blindfolded and fired both those cartridges from same model of rifle I couldn't tell the difference, yet the 260 fires a heavier bullet.

quote:

As I have said before, teach them to concentrate on trigger pull and watching what happens in the scope and they will never feel the recoil.

Amen.

The 243 stuff is just for grandas and uncles not to feel guilty.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

quote:Originally posted by Doubless:I don't... it started life as a varmint cartridge and some hotshot writers decided it would kill deer if a bigger projectile was used along with a faster twist.

Actually Winchester introduced the 243 as a dual purpose cartridge, varmints and deer, with 100gr Power Points for deer and 80gr bullets for varmints. But it was first offered in the M70 FWT which was more of a deer rifle than a varmint gun.

Olarmy, why don't you do some research involving a guy by the name of Warren Page? You might find out the 243 originated as a wildcat, made by necking down the .308 case, and it happened long before Mr. Page designed the "prototype" case and submitted it to Winchester...

May be so but Page and Huntington were instrumental in the birth of the .243 Winchester and .244. Remington a in a big way. roger

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Aside from that, I have witnessed people shooting Texas deer with a .243 and either losing the deer or having to shoot it multiple times to get it down.

So, have you ever witnessed this with another caliber? My guess is there are several Texas deer that are shot with a .308 caliber and either lost or shot multiple times to get it down every freaking year.

I've seen guys take 5+ shots to kill a deer with 7mm and .300 magnums. I've also seen a 150 grain bullet out of a .30-06 blow up on the surface of a deer's shoulder.

The point someone overlooked, is that it was not the caliber that caused me to develop my attitude toward the .243, but in the cases I mentioned, it was the shooters choice of bullet/load. The fact that folks went to using more proper weight and constructed bullets mellowed me somewhat toward the .243, but as I clearly stated, while I do not like the .243, I do like the .257 Robert's, and they are not that much different ballistically.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
We talk a lot in these threads about recoil. All I will say about that is that my son started going to the woods with me when he was seven. At nine, he shot his first whitetail. He did it with my .270, and he was sitting in my lap at the time. When I asked him if the rifle kicked, he told me if it did, he didn't feel it.

So much for kids and recoil... As I have said before, teach them to concentrate on trigger pull and watching what happens in the scope and they will never feel the recoil. They will know it happened, but they won't feel it, if that makes sense.

First, I want to be clear that what follows is not a critique of the approach you used with your son.

Recoil tolerances of young shooters are individual, as are their shooting experiences. Recoil effects are demonstrably cumulative: the kid who shoots multiple firearms with frequency will be more recoil-savvy vs the kid who seldom shoots. The former will be capable of making accurate judgments about what he can or cannot handle. Usually, recoil aversion can be outgrown so that "no-go" recoil at 10 may be perfectly manageable at 12. What matters most is that the mentor/instructor monitor a young shooter's recoil perceptions so no permanent aversion develops.

By the time my son was ten he had fired rimfires, various full auto CF machineguns, reduced loads in CF bolt rifles, and .410 and 20 ga shotguns at the clays range. He shot regularly. He didn't like the recoil impulse of that .308 RSI at age 10 - and I was not about to pretend he was somehow "wrong" about something that is essentially subjective. OTOH, the synthetic stocked WBY UL .243 was comfortable for him. From a bench he was able to hit to my POI such that our composite group was less than MOA.

Again, your approach worked for you. But your ideas concerning "kids and recoil" are not applicable to all young shooters.

Sam

Just a touch on teaching kids to shoot. Paramount to me is teaching them safety and I like Jeff Coopers old saying "There no such thing as an empty gun". Then after that comes technique.

Now the biggest surprise in this thread to me was how many members feel the 243 shouldn't be used for a deer cartridge. I certainly can see that debate about the 223 Rem, but not the 243 Win.

Having seen "poorly" shot deer from several different cases from 30 cal down to 223, the 243 has seemed to me to be the most forgiving. With bullets like the Sierra 85 grain Game king, nosler partition, and ballistic tips and Swift sciroccos, less than desireable shots were so traumatic that even big deer were caught up with in less than half a mile while gut and leg shots with 7 mags and 30-06s could take 2 days and cover 3 miles. The difference in a lot of camps is a deer that runs with a 243 hit is not worth tracking cause it wasn't hit hard enough and a deer that runs from a 30-06 was a "miss". I can say I have seen deer hit in the body with light and heavy bullets from the 243 run, but even with poor bullets I have not seen a deer hit forward of the diaphragm go more than 100 yards, and to be honest that is probably closer to 70 yards with a sample of over 25 deer. Even the worst bullet failure I have ever seen, a 70 grain ballistic tip that hit broadside at 15 feet with an impact velocity in the neighborhood of 3500fps. Blew 5 inches of hide open, exploded a rib, and just the lead core tear-dropped in and shredded one lung. It was enough to drop a 4.5 year old MN buck in 45 yards and he was dead in less than 2 minutes. From most bullets the tissue damage created by the 243 on deer sized, even large deer sized game, is not survivable and more often than not, is excessive.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Doubless is right. Many 243s are used by people that are young and once a year shooters. Like the .223 deer hunters they wound a lot of animals. I have owned 5 of them and 3 6mm Rems.
My brothers have owned about that many. While they worked ok we have all moved on to other cartridges for deer hunting due to marginal results of both poor penetration and poor expansion past 150 yards. Remington's view of the round was probably the correct one but people will always try a low or no recoil round before learning to shoot something adequate.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Being the 243 was my first centerfire rifle I have a soft spot for it. Doubless is way off the beam on it losing lots of deer shot with it. I've been doing an informal survey of what calibers were used in deer hunting and how the performed when I meet hunters out in the field. So far, and this is only for me, I have met nobody that has lost a deer to a 243 except one for my brother. He shot at a nice buck with an 80 grain Sierra shoulder shot. He never found it. That's it. I knew a lady that shot 16 deer in a row in 16 hunting seasons. Never lost a one. She also took black bear with it. My current neighbor is using a 6mm Remington, same good results.

It doesn't matter what the cartridge started out as it matters more where it ended up as. Winchester wisely saw it as dual purpose cartridge and gave it the proper twist. Remington unfortunately saw it as a varmint cartridge and lost out on the glamor and sales. They rectified that mistake quickly but too late as the 243 Win went on to glory.

Here's the horse hockey from you again...the lighter non recoiling calibers. I suppose you started out with a 460 Weatherby Mag at age 10.

Now it depends where you hunt with the 6mm's. If you're out west or midwest and have those looooong shot I admit at distance the 6mm's lose steam. If you hunt back east, north or south, those long shots are few and in between.
At those closer distances it has the power for deer and then some.

After my 243 was stolen as I mentioned in the other post I replaced it with a 7mm Rem mag. Some of my other deer rifles are 30-06, 7mm-08, 308, and 45-70. That's just some of them. I've never gone back to the 243, not because I didn't like it, but because I enjoy trying something new.

The only hockey here is yours.
My first CF was a lowly .303 Lee-Enfield and the first box of ammo that I bought was 215 grn Rem RN bullets. Not because that is the only thing to use but it was because it was all that was sold around there.
Where I hunt shots might be anywhere from 20 yards to further than it is reasonable to shoot.
It is sometimes about choice of terrain and it is sometimes about where deer show up.
If a 243 works at short range so does about anything else but it does run out of gas pretty quick. I noticed that it did not penetrate that well at longer ranges and I quit using it. Current bullets might penetrate better but the will do that in better rounds too.

I've had no trouble killing deer as far away as 350 yards with my .243. That's about as far as most people have any business shooting a deer. Of course, that was back before the advent of the Internet and the subsequent development of armor-plated super deer.

quote:

Originally posted by kjjm4:
I've had no trouble killing deer as far away as 350 yards with my .243. That's about as far as most people have any business shooting a deer. Of course, that was back before the advent of the Internet and the subsequent development of armor-plated super deer.

Nice shooting.

Yes, 350 yards is about the max for the little 243 cartridge. That is the place where the remaining energy drops under 1000 ftlbs. In general, for shots over 300 yards on mule deer a flat shooting cartridge with 1500 ftlbs or more remaining energy might be preferred. For example, a 270Win shooting the 129 grain TTSX at 3110fps will drop to the 1500 ftlb. threshhold at 500 yards.

In any case, the 243 will more than hold its own out to 300 yards, as testified by many in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Doubless is right. Many 243s are used by people that are young and once a year shooters. Like the .223 deer hunters they wound a lot of animals. I have owned 5 of them and 3 6mm Rems.
My brothers have owned about that many. While they worked ok we have all moved on to other cartridges for deer hunting due to marginal results of both poor penetration and poor expansion past 150 yards. Remington's view of the round was probably the correct one but people will always try a low or no recoil round before learning to shoot something adequate.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Being the 243 was my first centerfire rifle I have a soft spot for it. Doubless is way off the beam on it losing lots of deer shot with it. I've been doing an informal survey of what calibers were used in deer hunting and how the performed when I meet hunters out in the field. So far, and this is only for me, I have met nobody that has lost a deer to a 243 except one for my brother. He shot at a nice buck with an 80 grain Sierra shoulder shot. He never found it. That's it. I knew a lady that shot 16 deer in a row in 16 hunting seasons. Never lost a one. She also took black bear with it. My current neighbor is using a 6mm Remington, same good results.

It doesn't matter what the cartridge started out as it matters more where it ended up as. Winchester wisely saw it as dual purpose cartridge and gave it the proper twist. Remington unfortunately saw it as a varmint cartridge and lost out on the glamor and sales. They rectified that mistake quickly but too late as the 243 Win went on to glory.

Here's the horse hockey from you again...the lighter non recoiling calibers. I suppose you started out with a 460 Weatherby Mag at age 10.

Now it depends where you hunt with the 6mm's. If you're out west or midwest and have those looooong shot I admit at distance the 6mm's lose steam. If you hunt back east, north or south, those long shots are few and in between.
At those closer distances it has the power for deer and then some.

After my 243 was stolen as I mentioned in the other post I replaced it with a 7mm Rem mag. Some of my other deer rifles are 30-06, 7mm-08, 308, and 45-70. That's just some of them. I've never gone back to the 243, not because I didn't like it, but because I enjoy trying something new.

The only hockey here is yours.
My first CF was a lowly .303 Lee-Enfield and the first box of ammo that I bought was 215 grn Rem RN bullets. Not because that is the only thing to use but it was because it was all that was sold around there.
Where I hunt shots might be anywhere from 20 yards to further than it is reasonable to shoot.
It is sometimes about choice of terrain and it is sometimes about where deer show up.
If a 243 works at short range so does about anything else but it does run out of gas pretty quick. I noticed that it did not penetrate that well at longer ranges and I quit using it. Current bullets might penetrate better but the will do that in better rounds too.

You're such an ass moron. You basically said the same thing I did. The 303 is a fine cartridge, not a lowly round. Yes you take the shot where the deer appears if it's reasonable so that may be very close or it may be far. Like I said back East one isn't going to get those very long shots unless it's in the bean fields down south.

I've never seen a deer shot with a 243 that the bullet didn't exit the deer. I'm sure there are many cases of it not happening. If anything I saw too much meat damage.

quote:

Having seen "poorly" shot deer from several different cases from 30 cal down to 223, the 243 has seemed to me to be the most forgiving. With bullets like the Sierra 85 grain Game king, nosler partition, and ballistic tips and Swift sciroccos, less than desireable shots were so traumatic that even big deer were caught up with in less than half a mile while gut and leg shots with 7 mags and 30-06s could take 2 days and cover 3 miles. The difference in a lot of camps is a deer that runs with a 243 hit is not worth tracking cause it wasn't hit hard enough and a deer that runs from a 30-06 was a "miss". I can say I have seen deer hit in the body with light and heavy bullets from the 243 run, but even with poor bullets I have not seen a deer hit forward of the diaphragm go more than 100 yards, and to be honest that is probably closer to 70 yards with a sample of over 25 deer. Even the worst bullet failure I have ever seen, a 70 grain ballistic tip that hit broadside at 15 feet with an impact velocity in the neighborhood of 3500fps. Blew 5 inches of hide open, exploded a rib, and just the lead core tear-dropped in and shredded one lung. It was enough to drop a 4.5 year old MN buck in 45 yards and he was dead in less than 2 minutes. From most bullets the tissue damage created by the 243 on deer sized, even large deer sized game, is not survivable and more often than not, is excessive.

Well, that does it... I am going to the local pawn shop and hocking every rifle I have larger than a .243. It is obvious based on your post and experience that the rifle is a better choice for killing anything around than such venerable cartridges as the .270, .30-'06, 7 Remington Magnum, etc.

Why do I like the 243 Win?

Well, it can shoot a bullet with a .331 BC at 3300fps in a 20" barrel. That makes for pretty nice exterior ballistics. If sighted-in at 1.7" at 100 yards, it is only -4.7" low at 300 yards with a reasonable 10mph winddrift of 7.9 inches. Remaining energy is 1084 ftlbs which is fine for medium game and smaller. The bullet? An 80grain Barnes TTSX, designed for deer.

quote:

Originally posted by kjjm4:
I like the .243 because it has minimal recoil, shoots very flat, and has enough power for everything up to deer-sized game.

Very well said.....so true!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Having seen "poorly" shot deer from several different cases from 30 cal down to 223, the 243 has seemed to me to be the most forgiving. With bullets like the Sierra 85 grain Game king, nosler partition, and ballistic tips and Swift sciroccos, less than desireable shots were so traumatic that even big deer were caught up with in less than half a mile while gut and leg shots with 7 mags and 30-06s could take 2 days and cover 3 miles. The difference in a lot of camps is a deer that runs with a 243 hit is not worth tracking cause it wasn't hit hard enough and a deer that runs from a 30-06 was a "miss". I can say I have seen deer hit in the body with light and heavy bullets from the 243 run, but even with poor bullets I have not seen a deer hit forward of the diaphragm go more than 100 yards, and to be honest that is probably closer to 70 yards with a sample of over 25 deer. Even the worst bullet failure I have ever seen, a 70 grain ballistic tip that hit broadside at 15 feet with an impact velocity in the neighborhood of 3500fps. Blew 5 inches of hide open, exploded a rib, and just the lead core tear-dropped in and shredded one lung. It was enough to drop a 4.5 year old MN buck in 45 yards and he was dead in less than 2 minutes. From most bullets the tissue damage created by the 243 on deer sized, even large deer sized game, is not survivable and more often than not, is excessive.

Well, that does it... I am going to the local pawn shop and hocking every rifle I have larger than a .243. It is obvious based on your post and experience that the rifle is a better choice for killing anything around than such venerable cartridges as the .270, .30-'06, 7 Remington Magnum, etc.

More then me disagreeing with you Doubless. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I never said the 243 was the best cartridge for deer hunting on the face of the Earth. It does a good job. You know what happens with, for example, the magnums. Those that are knowledgeable about them and maybe hunting too think that no matter what, no matter where they shoot that deer, it's going down. We both know that is not true. I've seen lousy shot deer with all calibers. There was a gun write, and you know what we think of them, that said the 260 Remington was perhaps the best whitetail deer hunting caliber. Do I agree? No.

So now I must ask, since many in this thread feel the 6mm's are inadequate, where do we draw the line? 257 Roberts? 25-06? 7x57 Mauser? Where until it satisfies you and sr4759?

It's not at all about satisfying me. I am completely satisfied with what I shoot. This all started with a question about why we liked the .243. I said I didn't, and here it all came. From me "bashing the cartridge" which I never did, to the outlandish post I flagged as BS, then made a satirical comment about.

I am free to not like what I don't like. I gave my reasons and all of a sudden I am ignorant. Pretty much the normal flow of things.

As I have said repeatedly in these threads, I am typically the outlier. But I will say this: shooting a small bullet of 100 grains or less at a live animal 300 yards away, knowing it has minimal terminal ballistics at that distance is in my mind irresponsible. But again, that is my opinion only, and I am entitled to it.

I have seen what I have seen, and I know what I know, regardless of what others may think. I am old enough that I really don't care what others think.

Well Joe
You have not seen much. But then I have 2 brothers that also hunted with the round on and off since 1970. I have seen the 100 grain factory Core Lokt fail to penetrate a yearling through the upper back at the grand old range of 80 yards. I also had a 100 grn Hornady Intelock that did not penetrate a buck at about 325 yards.
The lowly 303 above was "lowly" because it was a $12 battered and worn 1916 #1 MkIII not because of the cartridge.
The poster above that says the 243 works great out to 350 yards probably has about a 1 ft pace.
Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Doubless is right. Many 243s are used by people that are young and once a year shooters. Like the .223 deer hunters they wound a lot of animals. I have owned 5 of them and 3 6mm Rems.
My brothers have owned about that many. While they worked ok we have all moved on to other cartridges for deer hunting due to marginal results of both poor penetration and poor expansion past 150 yards. Remington's view of the round was probably the correct one but people will always try a low or no recoil round before learning to shoot something adequate.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Being the 243 was my first centerfire rifle I have a soft spot for it. Doubless is way off the beam on it losing lots of deer shot with it. I've been doing an informal survey of what calibers were used in deer hunting and how the performed when I meet hunters out in the field. So far, and this is only for me, I have met nobody that has lost a deer to a 243 except one for my brother. He shot at a nice buck with an 80 grain Sierra shoulder shot. He never found it. That's it. I knew a lady that shot 16 deer in a row in 16 hunting seasons. Never lost a one. She also took black bear with it. My current neighbor is using a 6mm Remington, same good results.

It doesn't matter what the cartridge started out as it matters more where it ended up as. Winchester wisely saw it as dual purpose cartridge and gave it the proper twist. Remington unfortunately saw it as a varmint cartridge and lost out on the glamor and sales. They rectified that mistake quickly but too late as the 243 Win went on to glory.

Here's the horse hockey from you again...the lighter non recoiling calibers. I suppose you started out with a 460 Weatherby Mag at age 10.

Now it depends where you hunt with the 6mm's. If you're out west or midwest and have those looooong shot I admit at distance the 6mm's lose steam. If you hunt back east, north or south, those long shots are few and in between.
At those closer distances it has the power for deer and then some.

After my 243 was stolen as I mentioned in the other post I replaced it with a 7mm Rem mag. Some of my other deer rifles are 30-06, 7mm-08, 308, and 45-70. That's just some of them. I've never gone back to the 243, not because I didn't like it, but because I enjoy trying something new.

The only hockey here is yours.
My first CF was a lowly .303 Lee-Enfield and the first box of ammo that I bought was 215 grn Rem RN bullets. Not because that is the only thing to use but it was because it was all that was sold around there.
Where I hunt shots might be anywhere from 20 yards to further than it is reasonable to shoot.
It is sometimes about choice of terrain and it is sometimes about where deer show up.
If a 243 works at short range so does about anything else but it does run out of gas pretty quick. I noticed that it did not penetrate that well at longer ranges and I quit using it. Current bullets might penetrate better but the will do that in better rounds too.

You're such an ass moron. You basically said the same thing I did. The 303 is a fine cartridge, not a lowly round. Yes you take the shot where the deer appears if it's reasonable so that may be very close or it may be far. Like I said back East one isn't going to get those very long shots unless it's in the bean fields down south.

I've never seen a deer shot with a 243 that the bullet didn't exit the deer. I'm sure there are many cases of it not happening. If anything I saw too much meat damage.

"Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy."

Pretty bold statement. just curious, have you looked at the ballistics of the 80gr Barnes TTSX?

LOL
Looking at marketing pap is a far cry from using it in the field at 350 yard.
Have you ever shot a deer with anything at that range?

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
"Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy."

Pretty bold statement. just curious, have you looked at the ballistics of the 80gr Barnes TTSX?

quote:

I will say this: shooting a small bullet of 100 grains or less at a live animal 300 yards away, knowing it has minimal terminal ballistics at that distance is in my mind irresponsible. But again, that is my opinion only, and I am entitled to it.

Yes sir....you definitely are entitled to your opinion.....but do you mind telling us what the ft-lb energy is at that range from a 100 grain spire point started off at 3100 FPS?

A little late joining into this bullshit session, and I found many of the replies entertaining if not laughable. And here I thought that only the Argentines had enlarged egos.

For what it's worth I believe the .243 is an excellent cartridge for a youngster to start hunting with, provided that he or she is properly instructed. My daughter was a gifted huntress, from age 10, and she really liked her Remington Model 7 in .243. With that rifle she killed quite a few deer, as well as pronghorn and javelina, in our country, and several head of African plains game with one clean shot. My preferred bullet was the 95 grain Nosler partition.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
LOL
Looking at marketing pap is a far cry from using it in the field at 350 yard.
Have you ever shot a deer with anything at that range?

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
"Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy."

Pretty bold statement. just curious, have you looked at the ballistics of the 80gr Barnes TTSX?

As a matter of fact I took 7 animals last season with an 80gr TTSX (deer and exotics). The longest 340 yards. All DRT. And I can assure you that I know EXACTLY what the trajectory from my rifle is at 350 yards.

But the point of my post was that your statement ("Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy.") is patently false.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Well Joe
You have not seen much. But then I have 2 brothers that also hunted with the round on and off since 1970. I have seen the 100 grain factory Core Lokt fail to penetrate a yearling through the upper back at the grand old range of 80 yards. I also had a 100 grn Hornady Intelock that did not penetrate a buck at about 325 yards.
The lowly 303 above was "lowly" because it was a $12 battered and worn 1916 #1 MkIII not because of the cartridge.
The poster above that says the 243 works great out to 350 yards probably has about a 1 ft pace.
Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Doubless is right. Many 243s are used by people that are young and once a year shooters. Like the .223 deer hunters they wound a lot of animals. I have owned 5 of them and 3 6mm Rems.
My brothers have owned about that many. While they worked ok we have all moved on to other cartridges for deer hunting due to marginal results of both poor penetration and poor expansion past 150 yards. Remington's view of the round was probably the correct one but people will always try a low or no recoil round before learning to shoot something adequate.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Being the 243 was my first centerfire rifle I have a soft spot for it. Doubless is way off the beam on it losing lots of deer shot with it. I've been doing an informal survey of what calibers were used in deer hunting and how the performed when I meet hunters out in the field. So far, and this is only for me, I have met nobody that has lost a deer to a 243 except one for my brother. He shot at a nice buck with an 80 grain Sierra shoulder shot. He never found it. That's it. I knew a lady that shot 16 deer in a row in 16 hunting seasons. Never lost a one. She also took black bear with it. My current neighbor is using a 6mm Remington, same good results.

It doesn't matter what the cartridge started out as it matters more where it ended up as. Winchester wisely saw it as dual purpose cartridge and gave it the proper twist. Remington unfortunately saw it as a varmint cartridge and lost out on the glamor and sales. They rectified that mistake quickly but too late as the 243 Win went on to glory.

Here's the horse hockey from you again...the lighter non recoiling calibers. I suppose you started out with a 460 Weatherby Mag at age 10.

Now it depends where you hunt with the 6mm's. If you're out west or midwest and have those looooong shot I admit at distance the 6mm's lose steam. If you hunt back east, north or south, those long shots are few and in between.
At those closer distances it has the power for deer and then some.

After my 243 was stolen as I mentioned in the other post I replaced it with a 7mm Rem mag. Some of my other deer rifles are 30-06, 7mm-08, 308, and 45-70. That's just some of them. I've never gone back to the 243, not because I didn't like it, but because I enjoy trying something new.

The only hockey here is yours.
My first CF was a lowly .303 Lee-Enfield and the first box of ammo that I bought was 215 grn Rem RN bullets. Not because that is the only thing to use but it was because it was all that was sold around there.
Where I hunt shots might be anywhere from 20 yards to further than it is reasonable to shoot.
It is sometimes about choice of terrain and it is sometimes about where deer show up.
If a 243 works at short range so does about anything else but it does run out of gas pretty quick. I noticed that it did not penetrate that well at longer ranges and I quit using it. Current bullets might penetrate better but the will do that in better rounds too.

You're such an ass moron. You basically said the same thing I did. The 303 is a fine cartridge, not a lowly round. Yes you take the shot where the deer appears if it's reasonable so that may be very close or it may be far. Like I said back East one isn't going to get those very long shots unless it's in the bean fields down south.

I've never seen a deer shot with a 243 that the bullet didn't exit the deer. I'm sure there are many cases of it not happening. If anything I saw too much meat damage.

Damn, a half civil post. For starters I've never said the 6mm's were a long range deer cartridge. I've never seen the heavier bullets fail to penetrate in that caliber. I'm sure there are many instances, such as you have stated, that happen. Then again I've seen larger cartridges do the same thing. I definite don't see the 6mm's use on mule deer and up. Whereas that gun write I spoke about saying in his opinion the 260 Rem was the perfect whitetail deer cartridge and that it could be put into use for elk, I have to disagree. Yeah I know all the hype about the famous 6.5x55 Swede and how the Scandinavians use it for Elk and Moose, and the 6.5x54MS taking big game in Africa, but I feel those were in expert hands and they knew short comings of those calibers and knew precisely where to place their bullets. With that statement there am I advocating that with a big caliber that you can shoot sloppy? NO..definitely not. I feel no matter what the caliber all shots should be placed precisely and reasoning should be used in that shot for things like distance and what shot is presented. There is always another day to got hunting and you don't have to take a less then perfect or humane shot.

So I pose again where would you fellows draw the line for the minimum cartridge to reliably take whitetail deer?

Now I'll tell you what one of my favorite cartridges for hunting whitetail deer is for close to reasonable ranges for it and that is the 45-70 with cast bullets.

Ok tell us what the trajectory is with the 80grn TSX. I happen to know that the wounding ability of an 80 grain bullet at 350 yards is PISS POOR.
I know the 100 grain Hornady drops 15 inches using a 200 yard zero.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
LOL
Looking at marketing pap is a far cry from using it in the field at 350 yard.
Have you ever shot a deer with anything at that range?

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
"Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy."

Pretty bold statement. just curious, have you looked at the ballistics of the 80gr Barnes TTSX?

As a matter of fact I took 7 animals last season with an 80gr TTSX (deer and exotics). The longest 340 yards. All DRT. And I can assure you that I know EXACTLY what the trajectory from my rifle is at 350 yards.

But the point of my post was that your statement ("Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range. It is also lacking in energy.") is patently false.

All one has to do is look at the ballistic charts to see what the flat shooters are. Leaving out the newer cartridges the ones that stand out are 257 Weatherby Mag, 270 Weatherby Mag, 264 Win Mag.
The non magnums 270 Win, 7mm Mag, 25-06, 6.5-284. For the larger caliber I feel the 338 Win Mag shoots fairly flat for what it is.

SR:

My rifle is 6" low at 350. I site in 2.5" hi at 100. What's your point?

And how do you "know" that it's a piss poor killer. (I have empirical evidence to the contrary).

Oh, I guess you know that the same way you know that "Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range."

BTW, the 243 is not my first choice at 350, but it WILL work.

Using the 80gn TTSX at 3275 fps and 4000 ft elev., sighted in at 1.8" high at 100 yards---
the bullet never raises over 2.1", and drops 8.5" at 350 yards, with 10" winddrift (10mph), and 1020 ftlbs. remaining energy.

That will work for small deer. Larger animals at that distance would be better off with a 270Win, 338WinM or something in between.

Finally we get the real story.
Yes it will work. Yes you can snipe deer with it. I do not really consider sniping deer like varmints part of my hunting and never plan for it. Just like I do not shoot deer with a .22 CF.
Not only is range and energy a factor but so is the wind and where I hunt the wind is pretty much a given.
It is not my first choice and apparently it is not your first choice either. But you are basing all your claim on a single bullet.
I will always stand by what I say for the .243
The .243 is a SORRY round to use on a deer at 350 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
SR:

My rifle is 6" low at 350. I site in 2.5" hi at 100. What's your point?

And how do you "know" that it's a piss poor killer. (I have empirical evidence to the contrary).

Oh, I guess you know that the same way you know that "Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range."

BTW, the 243 is not my first choice at 350, but it WILL work.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Finally we get the real story.
Yes it will work. Yes you can snipe deer with it. I do not really consider sniping deer like varmints part of my hunting and never plan for it. Just like I do not shoot deer with a .22 CF.
Not only is range and energy a factor but so is the wind and where I hunt the wind is pretty much a given.
It is not my first choice and apparently it is not your first choice either. But you are basing all your claim on a single bullet.
I will always stand by what I say for the .243
The .243 is a SORRY round to use on a deer at 350 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
SR:

My rifle is 6" low at 350. I site in 2.5" hi at 100. What's your point?

And how do you "know" that it's a piss poor killer. (I have empirical evidence to the contrary).

Oh, I guess you know that the same way you know that "Anyone that claims the .243 is a good round to use at 350 yards has no clue what the drop is at that range."

BTW, the 243 is not my first choice at 350, but it WILL work.

Just one thing to pick at what you posted. In beating wind drift there are two factors. One is, yes, the heavier bullet is drifted less, but the other factor, I feel more important, is velocity. The faster the bullet the less time the wind has to act upon it.

Now if you would have posted many post back about not using a 243 for 350 yard and beyond I would have never argued with you.

Again, hunters that learned to hunt back east don't have a grasp on hunting in the west and mid west. Same goes for hunters that learned to hunt in the west and mid west don't have a grasp on hunting in the east.

quote:

Yes sir....you definitely are entitled to your opinion.....but do you mind telling us what the ft-lb energy is at that range from a 100 grain spire point started off at 3100 FPS?

Vapo, the #6 Nosler Manual shows 1262 ft-lbs @ 300 yards if launched at 3100 FPS. It also shows a 10.7" drop from a 100-yard zero. Just about half a deer's body depth.

I also find it rather interesting that of the nine powders Nosler listed as being shot out of a 24" Lilja barrel, only one of the powders eclipses 3100 fps: IMR 7828. Velocity is recorded at 3123...

Finally, their own notes say "With any of our 6m Partition bullets or the 95-grain Ballistic Tip, the .243 is an adequate light deer rifle provided the shot is carefully placed."

Just what load are you shooting that gives you 3100 fps out of your .243? I am more than willing to bet that for every .243 that will eclipse 3100 in factory setup, there are over 50 that won't reach 2950... but again, I am probably wrong, and about to be told how stupid I am.