why would a deer care if the bullet that just went thru his vitals was emitted from a rifle inside a blind, or resting over a day pack, or being held offhand?

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
why would a deer care if the bullet that just went thru his vitals was emitted from a rifle inside a blind, or resting over a day pack, or being held offhand?

It has nothing to do with the animal.

Blinds tend to accentuate the noise and make the rifle seem louder to the shooter. In his case I guess he restricts his 243 shooting to 200 yards which is good, because the .243 does not perform all that well over 200 yards.

that would entirely depend on the construction of the blind. In a solidly constructed blind, with the barrel outside the walls when the rifle is fired, the blind would attenuate the blast.

Both are good but I favor the 25 simply because it's better for game larger than deer.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
that would entirely depend on the construction of the blind. In a solidly constructed blind, with the barrel outside the walls when the rifle is fired, the blind would attenuate the blast.

No it doesn't. Not in a wood blind, metal blind or a car.
Besides what does it matter with either a 243 or 25-06 noise is hardly the reason to pick either. That was what I was pointing out.

"No it doesn't. Not in a wood blind, metal blind or a car."

Would you be so kind as to explain the basis for that statement?

Well guys, shoot what you like and be happy. In my experiance a 100 gr Nosler Partition out of either at 3000+ fps will do nicely on deer size game. My 243 chronos 3020 with them out of a 22 inch tube and I have never had to go looking for my deer. My 240 WBY seems to be the best of both worlds. Flatter shooting than the 25s and harder hitting the other 6mms.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
"No it doesn't. Not in a wood blind, metal blind or a car."

Would you be so kind as to explain the basis for that statement?

I have done it and that is my perception.
Try using a 8 ft dia X 10 ft tall tin cistern for a deer blind. For a teen ager with no family support it worked ok. If you don't like where it is, push it over and roll it to the new location. Right it and put rock ballast back in the bottom.

quote:

Blinds tend to accentuate the noise and make the rifle seem louder to the shooter. In his case I guess he restricts his 243 shooting to 200 yards which is good, because the .243 does not perform all that well over 200 yards.

I have to disagree with that, I have spent a few days in a blind, and with the barrel of the gun outside of the blind, regardless of its construction or the caliber I have never noticed the muzzle blast from the shot being any louder than a shot taken off hand outside of a blind/stand. That is just based on my personal experiences.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
"No it doesn't. Not in a wood blind, metal blind or a car."

Would you be so kind as to explain the basis for that statement?

I have done it and that is my perception.
Try using a 8 ft dia X 10 ft tall tin cistern for a deer blind. For a teen ager with no family support it worked ok. If you don't like where it is, push it over and roll it to the new location. Right it and put rock ballast back in the bottom.

you're making no sense. Extrapolating what you percieved in a tin cistern to "a wood blind, metal blind or a car" is beyond faulty logic.


I have measured the sound pressure level of impluse noises from rifle blasts at the shooter's ear both outside any blind and in several different blinds. The enclosure attenuates the sound pressure level. The percieved noise level in an uninsulated metal blind may be higher, due to the vibration of the walls.

Sorry you can't extrapolate your subjective perception while sitting in a "tin blind" into a categorical statement that any blind makes the noise more intense. Try studying physics.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
why would a deer care if the bullet that just went thru his vitals was emitted from a rifle inside a blind, or resting over a day pack, or being held offhand?

It has nothing to do with the animal.

Blinds tend to accentuate the noise and make the rifle seem louder to the shooter. In his case I guess he restricts his 243 shooting to 200 yards which is good, because the .243 does not perform all that well over 200 yards.

SR4759

Thats not really the case.The problem with the 25's is that they are handicapped by low BC bullets.Stretch the range and the 243 runs away handily.

portwood: what 243 bullet(s) are you referring to

quote:

portwood: what 243 bullet(s) are you referring to

Good question.

From the Barnes Reloading Manual Number 3.

.243 Barnes Original 115 grain bullet,listed Sec. Den. .278, listed Bal. Cof. .322, loaded with 39.0 grains of RL 22 powder @ a listed velocity of 2700 fps., the fastest load listed for this caliber/bullet weight, in this manual for the .243 Winchester.

.257 115 grain Barnes "X" Flat Base, listed Sec. Den. .249, listed Bal. Cof. .429, loaded with 48.5 grains of RL 22, the recommended powder, @ a listed velocity of 2811 FPS.

Somehow, even though I am highly ignorant of such things a B.C. of .322 seems a lot less than a B.C. of .429.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can esplain how the boolit with LESS B.C. can out perform a bullet of larger diameter traveling over 100 fps faster with a higher B.C.???? I am terribly confused on this.

quote:

243 Barnes Original 115 grain bullet

Think you have a typo here unless I need educating. I believe that the heaviest .243 bulet made is either a 105 or 107 grain and they are not Barnes.

quote:

Think you have a typo here unless I need educating. I believe that the heaviest .243 bulet made is either a 105 or 107 grain and they are not Barnes.

Barnes Reloading Manual Number 3 on Page number 133, Load data for the .243 Winchester, 115 grain Barnes Original bullet.

If it is a typo, it is a typo containing load information for 8 different powders for that bullet. Of course I am probably wrong and it is just another of my factless opinions!

CHC: The Barnes Originals were made from pure copper and pure lead and are no longer offered except for a few large caliber rounds, per their website.

Sierra, Berger, and Hornady all offer 105gr 243 bullets which have BC's over .500. They are made for the long range crowd, and for the most part are not recommended for hunting. They also recommend an 8" twist, whereas most factory rifles in 243 have a 10" twist.

The 257 Speer 120gr BT has a BC of .48 and can be launched from a 25/06 faster than a 105gr bullet from a 243. So you're gonna be pretty far downrange before the 243 bullet overtakes the quarter bore...beyond where most folks should be shooting at deer, IMO.

So unless portwood knows of some other magic 243 bullet, I'd have to disagree that the 243 "runs away handily"...unless he is referring to something esoteric like 1000 yard target shooting with custom built rifles.

I believe what you are saying, that does not change the fact that the data is still listed in the manuals, now does it?

Using the listed data, how can a smaller diameter bullet with a lower BC do a better job than the larger bullet with a higher BC.

I disagree with portwoods statement also, but as long as load data is listed in a manual can it not be cited?

Feel free to cite whatever you want to.

quote:

Feel free to cite whatever you want to.

That is one way of avoiding giving an answer.

I agree with the idea that portwood's statement is off, what I find strange is the posting of verifiable data is somehow wrong.

Does a .243 with a smaller diameter, lighter grain weight, lower B.C. bullet out perform a.257 caliber cartridge with a higher grain weight, higher B.C anmd larger diameter?

I'm not sure that there's a better suited round for deer sized game than the 25-06. The velocity is perfect, the bullet drop minimal, recoil marginal, penetration is perfect and it just seems to drop deer right in their tracks. The .243 is also nice but it's like goldilocks and the 3-bears, the .25-06 is just right with a perfect balance.

In regards to the discussions of the Barnes bullets and available bullet weights for the .243 vs. 25-06. Barnes literature recommends that you use "light for caliber" bullets for optimal performance. For me, regardless of manufacturer, the perfect bullet weight for a 25-06 is 100gr. If I were to use it on elk, I'd bump it up to a 117 or 120 grain, but reduce my range.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Feel free to cite whatever you want to.

That is one way of avoiding giving an answer.

I agree with the idea that portwood's statement is off, what I find strange is the posting of verifiable data is somehow wrong.

Does a .243 with a smaller diameter, lighter grain weight, lower B.C. bullet out perform a.257 caliber cartridge with a higher grain weight, higher B.C anmd larger diameter?

CHC: what you posted is not wrong, it's just not sufficient. Comparing one 257 bullet with one 243 bullet proves nothing. For example, I can show data, from current reloading manuals, showing that certain 243 projectiles with very high BC's do, infact outrun 257 projectiles at very long ranges. So portwood's statement is correct to a limited extent. The problem with his contention is that those projectiles are generally not designed for hunting and they require custom twist barrels.

For most normal hunting bullets and normal hunting situations, the 243 does not "run away handily".

The unknown is what was portwood's parameters. Was he talking about long range target shooting or normal range hunting? In specialized situations, yes the .243 can out perform the 25-06. Is that the case under normal hunting conditions, say out to 300 yards?

exactly. and that is the reason I asked him what bullet he was referring to. A question that he has not responded to.

If there are hunting bullets, which magically make the 243 superior to the 25/06, I'd like to know what they are.

With what you have, you have most if not all of the bases covered. I'd come away from the ledge.

My post was in response to the 243 not being good past 200 yards.For long range target shooting Berger does indeed make a bullet that makes the 243 shine.I would not hesitate to use a 95 grain Ballistic Tip well past 200 yards for deer.I own a 25-06 and it is a great cartridge for deer but no flies on the 243. Take a 243 and AI it and see what you get for a long range deer killer.105 A-Max's are great deer bullets by the way.

quote:

The .243 is also nice but it's like goldilocks and the 3-bears, the .25-06 is just right with a perfect balance.

And I thought that balance was spelled 2 7 0.

Oh well,

it seems that the discussion needs to include the rifle. The 243 is short and fits in a M70 Featherweight Compact. The 25-06 fits in most standard rifle platforms. As mentioned in another thread in Medium Rifles, my son's wife needs a small platform, so balance may be spelled 243.

For the guy on the ledge, if a little rifle is desired, get a 243.
If something longer is wanted, then 25-06 or 270. Both of the latter are now bona fide bean field rifles with small for calibre monolithics like the 110gn TTSX in 270.

quote:

A-Max's are great deer bullets by the way.

While I have to doubt that an AMax will kill a deer handily, most of the time.

In the details section on the 105AMax on Hornady's website it says:
"*Match bullets are not recommended for hunting."

I'll take the recommendation of the manufacturer...

quote:

Originally posted by portwood0341:
Take a 243 and AI it and see what you get for a long range deer killer.105 A-Max's are great deer bullets by the way.

quote:

SR4759

Thats not really the case.The problem with the 25's is that they are handicapped by low BC bullets.Stretch the range and the 243 runs away handily.

Portwood
Where did you get that goofy worthless idea?
You need to get a new set of manuals AND get out and shoot both. There is NO comparison. The 25-06 will leave the .243 for dead.....

SR4759, A 243 certainly does leave the 25-06 in the dust at long range!
243, 105 Hornady BTSP @ 3000fps
500yds energy= 1195ft lbs
drop=19.2"
drift 10mph wind=13.4"

At 700yds energy=934ft.lbs
drop=69.2"
drift=27.9


25-06, 117 btsp @ 3100fps
Energy@ 500yds=1167ft lbs
drop=20.7"
drift=18"

Energy @ 700yds=827ft lbs
Drop=75.2"
Drift=38.3"

FUBAR:

Are we talking hunting or long range target shooting? I think Drummond (the OP)is a hunter.

The 6mm diameter has caught the interest of the 1000yd target crowd, due to its reduced recoil. So Hornady, Sierra, Berger, etc have intorduced heavy target/match type bullets with BC being an important design criteria.

We all know that once the range exceeds 500 or 600 yards, BC becomes very important. Much more important than the headstamp on the cartridge.

While at "normal" hunting ranges (say 300 or less) the BC of most hunting bullets doesn't matter much.

There has been little interest from the long range crowd in the quarter bore. Hence almost all the bullets offered are designed for hunting...and terminal performance is an important criteria.

So to cherry pick the one bullet designed in 6MM for ultra long range and compare that in the 243 with a hunting bullet in the 25/06 makes no sense.

BTW, the 105-107 bullets in the 243 require a custom barrel with a 8" or 9" twist. Your normal off the shelf 243 hunting rifle won't stabilize them. This is another reason why your comparison is not pertinent.

Try to find a 6MM hunting bullet (100gr or less) and launch it from a 243, and see if it can keep up with a Speer 120gr BT (BC=.480, designed for hunting)from a 25/06 at 3100fps.

olarmy,

Yes of course you are correct, the B.C. advantage doesnt kick in till around 500yds.
Many people today with the advance in optics
with accurate turrets and computer ballistic charts, and the improvement in bullets and laser rangefinders are consitantly able to make 500+yd. shots.

Also the 105gr Hornady will stabilise in a factory Remington 1/9.25 twist but not a 1/10.
I am personally running a 1/8 with the intention of trying the 115gr bullets.
Many have reported excellent bullet performance on game at long range with the Amax bullets,they are a little softer and expand well.

Its not for everyone but with enough practice and skill its very do-able these days.

I guess my point was dont dismiss the 243 at longer ranges as being inferior.

Now I am sure the anti-long range hunting crowd will flame me for my remarks.

In the interest of full discosure I am a long range shooter of targets, steel, rocks.. and not a long range hunter yet. But my success has been very promising so far. And its a hell of alot of fun!

cant resest adding my 2 cents . as far as im concerned the advantage of the 243 cal is the very soft recoil which allows very accurate bullet placement. having used a sako 243 [ my only heavy rifle ] for 30+ years and shot many deer with my favorite reload i have never observed one that was not completely penetrated out to 350 yds

243 vs 25-06? i was thinking the same thing a few years ago.. so I just went went with the .260 remington.. and glad i did

quote:

Originally posted by IRFUBAR:
SR4759, A 243 certainly does leave the 25-06 in the dust at long range!
243, 105 Hornady BTSP @ 3000fps
500yds energy= 1195ft lbs
drop=19.2"
drift 10mph wind=13.4"

At 700yds energy=934ft.lbs
drop=69.2"
drift=27.9


25-06, 117 btsp @ 3100fps
Energy@ 500yds=1167ft lbs
drop=20.7"
drift=18"

Energy @ 700yds=827ft lbs
Drop=75.2"
Drift=38.3"

That is a totally ridiculous argument.
First - You can't make a 105 go that fast in a 243 in REAL life.
Second - are you going to be stupid enough to back up that far to gain some Mickey Mouse advantage that only exists in your mind and in a loading manual. Have you shot any game animals in excess of 250 yards?
Third - How about you go try a .25-06 for real?

quote:

Originally posted by gsganzer:
In regards to the discussions of the Barnes bullets and available bullet weights for the .243 vs. 25-06. Barnes literature recommends that you use "light for caliber" bullets for optimal performance. For me, regardless of manufacturer, the perfect bullet weight for a 25-06 is 100gr. If I were to use it on elk, I'd bump it up to a 117 or 120 grain, but reduce my range.

My .25-06s seem to kill deer about like lightning would if it struck them.

I use both 110 grain Fowler "match" bullets and my few remaining 130 grain Hi-Precision RNs. Never had any trouble stabilizing either from 1-10" twist rifles, and both are very accurate from my guns.

I have a couple of .243s too, and have had yet others. But they never go huntng with me any more. I like my .25-06s too well to bother toting both.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

portwood: what 243 bullet(s) are you referring to

Good question.

From the Barnes Reloading Manual Number 3.

.243 Barnes Original 115 grain bullet,listed Sec. Den. .278, listed Bal. Cof. .322, loaded with 39.0 grains of RL 22 powder @ a listed velocity of 2700 fps., the fastest load listed for this caliber/bullet weight, in this manual for the .243 Winchester.

.257 115 grain Barnes "X" Flat Base, listed Sec. Den. .249, listed Bal. Cof. .429, loaded with 48.5 grains of RL 22, the recommended powder, @ a listed velocity of 2811 FPS.

Somehow, even though I am highly ignorant of such things a B.C. of .322 seems a lot less than a B.C. of .429.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can esplain how the boolit with LESS B.C. can out perform a bullet of larger diameter traveling over 100 fps faster with a higher B.C.???? I am terribly confused on this.

For one, you are comparing a roundnose to a spitzer.

Okay, which one is going to perform better on game? Only time I shoot paper is to sight in a rifle and the only time I shoot much over 200 yards is if I miss what I am shooting at.

This discussion has drifted into the area of long range target shooting performance and some folks are morer concerned with normal hunting range use on critters.