Aargard wrote an excellent article called "The 243 for Big Game".
Page 101 "Hunting Rifles and Cartridges.

"[If you need a varmint / deer rifle] ..trying to make a varmint cartridge work on big game is going at it the wrong way around. It would be far better to choose a cartridge for the largest game he intended to hunt with it, the develop a load for it that would work on varmints."

"...the 6mms are essentially varmint cartridges. With the right bullets and careful shooting, they can be made to perform fairly satisfactorily on big game up to perhaps 200 lbs live weight. But why choose a cartridge that is only 'fairly satisfactory' when other cartriges are readily available in rifles that are just as light and have no more kick than those for the 243?"

Question:
do you agree with Aargard?

Choices:
yes
no

 

The .243 is perhaps the best coyote round ever designed, but for deer, I prefer something bigger.

Here in the UK this is an endless debate on the forums, but 1,000s of deer including big Red stags are shot each and every year with the 243. We have tight controls on firearms and the police often will only sanction the possession of a 243 as a first rifle. There is view that bigger rifles are more dangerous - not something most hunters would agree with. I agree that 7mm is a better deer cartridge, but I have used both plus a 270 and I don't think deer notice the difference if the bullet is put in the right place. Where 243s go wrong is when a small varmint bullet is used as that doesn't have the penetration for through shoulder shot on even a small deer - it just blows up. But use a properly constructed 100 gn bullet it works every time. With the 243 deer tend to run 30 yds and drop stone dead, whereas the 7mm knocks them over and they then kick for a few seconds.

Between a friend of mine that uses a 6mm Rem and my .243 and .257 Roberts using 100 grain silvertips I'd wager we have killed 50 whitetails and smaller mule deer......and a few wall hangers as well.....the .243 class of rifle has proven itself to me many times over even though we always use 100 grain bullets and have been blessed with excellent placement.

Do I agree with Aargard?.....yup.....deer is where I draw the line....

I sure hope has don't have to discuss the .223 on deer!!!

Many years ago I used a 243 for deer, and I have a recently purchased M70 push feed in 243 that I plan to put into service after a visit to the gunsmith. I never saw a problem using the 243 for deer, but like Vapo said, I used 100 gr bullets. I can see how those using varmint type bullets for deer out of a 243 could have a situation of results not meshing with expectations.

I'm really looking forward to having a shooter 243 again.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I sure hope has don't have to discuss the .223 on deer!!!

Me too !!!!

KB

I think the original statement is right on the money. When I think of a big game rifle I think of elk. Many elk have been taken with a 243 so we all know it can be done. No argument from me. I believe that picking a small caliber and using it for elk is limiting the hunter too much. There are too many variables when hunting and I wouldn't want to be hampered by having a caliber that is marginal for the job at hand.

.243 is fine for small to medium species of deer, but wouldn't be my pick for bigger game like elk. I use 100 grain Hornady interlocks in my .243 for deer and it seems to work fine. I mostly use it for meat hunting and shoot either behind the shoulder or head/neck.

Just a few days ago I watched my dad shoot a coyote at 535 yds (not guessed but verified with a rangefinder) using 87gr Bergers in about a 20mph crosswind using the winddots on his scope hit a little far back so he held for a little more wind and it was lights out.
Over the years betweeen my dad, nephew and myself I don't have any idea how many deer we have killed ranging from little ones up to around 200 lbs and a lot of them have dropped in their tracks if shot through both shoulders and if hit behind the shoulders do the 25 to 75 yard dash.
I would probably use a 243 on something bigger but would definately pick my shots carefully, however that being said on animals bigger than deer I definately prefer a bigger cartridge. I have killed deer with several other cartridges but if you do your part the 243 is deadly on deer period.
I just shot a doe sunday evening for meat at about 50 yds quatering using 95gr Bergers. Shot hit just behind the shoulder in lower 3rd of animal bullet tore up about everything in its path and exited far side ribs, you could have probably stuck a tennis ball in the exit hole.

A few years ago hunting coyotes with my dad using an electronic caller I looked up and all of a sudden there were 4 coyotes. I dropped 2 of them and by that time the other 2 were running. I tried for a third but missed. Would have loved to of gotten the triple.

Jarrod

I'm working with a new Sako HB in 243, just wondering how your dads load groups with those 87gr Berger bullets and what powder pappy might be using? FS

Would this be a dead horse thread?
Bullets bullets bullets...
Location location location.
Bell proved this long ago.
Right bullet in the right location.
What bullet diameter, velocity and construction will determine the level of deadness

Sounds to me like he's pretty darn steady right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Many years ago I used a 243 for deer, and I have a recently purchased M70 push feed in 243 that I plan to put into service after a visit to the gunsmith. I never saw a problem using the 243 for deer, but like Vapo said, I used 100 gr bullets. I can see how those using varmint type bullets for deer out of a 243 could have a situation of results not meshing with expectations.

I'm really looking forward to having a shooter 243 again.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I sure hope has don't have to discuss the .223 on deer!!!

Me too !!!!

KB

Just for clarification , are you talking about the deer in S. Central AK ? If so than you might be over gunned with a .243! roger

One of my most accurate and favorite rifles is a 243, but I have never taken it hunting. Maybe this year.

I know 4 people who have hunted with a 243, and 3 of them killed deer just like me with my bigger rifles.

My cousin's wife, it didn't go so well. My cousin was worried that every time his wife shot a deer with the 243, they had a long tracking job, sometimes ending with more shooting. Two deer were lost. This year, he bought her a 7mm Mag and loaded a light load with Nosler Partitions. The result, a 40 yard shot and the longest tracking he has ever been on. She shot it at 9:00, and after a long trail, found it dead at 1:00, only 100 yards from where it was shot (it covered nearly a mile in between.)
Turns out, even with a magnum, deer don't die fast when you gut shoot them!


I shouldn't complain about her shooting. I got nothing. On this family hunt, the two women each got bucks, the five men got only one doe.

Yeah, my daughter killed two bucks this week with her 243 and 100gr Coreloks. One went about 30 yards, the other about 20. First deer shot at about 90 yards, second deer at 70. Both shots behind front shoulder and through the vitals. Dad killed a hog with his using a 85 gr Sierra HPBT that I hand loaded for him. DRT. I wouldnt want to carry one after elk, but I think with the right bullets and the right placement its plenty for deer and hogs too. A very versatile round in my opinion.

I have to agree with him.While the ,243 has taken it's share of deer and varmints it is a little light for large deer and tears up the hides on varmints.IMO good deer rifles start with .25 cal and while they also obliterate varmints at least you can be sure of them on big deer,black bear,etc up to maybe caribou if you do your part.

The .243 works fine on deer. My children have killed many with it. The secret is to wait for the right shot.

BTW, Finn Aagaard endoresed the .223 for whitetail too as long as the correct bullets were used.

Terry

Finn Aagaard's broad brush painting of the .243 sure comes across to me as keyboard hyperbole. Doesn't sound like he really has any real world experience with the subject. That type opinion worth about as much as you might get at most gun counters.

I don't like 243 simply because it killed off a much better dual purpose round....the magnificent 257 Roberts. Let's face it, no one really uses the 243 for varmints, 95% of the time they are used on deer. It has to be effective or it wouldn't have become so popular but I still hold a grudge against it for killing off the better 257 Roberts.

Scott--Lot of truth in that the .243 killed off the .257 Roberts and folks don't use it as a varmint round. Had Remington viewed it that way and came out with the 6MM in 1957 instead of the .244 which didn't stabilize heavier bullets--who knows the .243 might not be around. The 25-06 also was a nail in the .257 Roberts coffin and I still ask why. The 25-06 has a large following and is highly popular, but I haven't figured out what it does that a .270 doesn't do better. I have never had a .257 and I do have a .243 but I do like the .257.

Ive got a 243 and a 25-06. The 25-06 is a lot more gun than the 243, in my opinion. I dont have a 270, but have shot my 25-06 next to one, and the only difference i can tell is the 25 doesnt ruin as much meat as the 270. I dont hunt very big deer, much less mulies or elk, and I like to keep as much meat as I can when I kill something, so I prefer to use a little less gun and be a little more paticular on my shot.

The .243/.244 cartridges will kill deer - of course they do. That was not Aagaard's point however. BTW - his name was Finn Aagaard, not Aargard.

His point was, if buying a rifle for game why choose a marginal one when a slightly more powerful one costs the same yet has more versatility? I've used the 6mm Remington enough - with 95-grain Partitions so the bullets were fine - and found it marginal in many hunting situations. That most tired of all statements - "wait for the perfect broadside shot" means that most still hunters may never even get a shot! A bullet with adequate penetration on angling shots is needed, and there are better choices than the 6mms. A .257 Roberts with 120s or a .260 with 140s will work FAR better under these circumstances. Anyone who thinks differently probably has little hunting experience - unless hunting in a heated tree stand with the same rifle and load all the time means a lot of hunting experience.


.

I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Finn must think that the 30/30 is inadequate for deer also

After all, the 170 grain 30/30 load has only 1,873 ft-lbf of energy while the 105 grain 243 load has 2,080 ft-lbf.

Tx Nimrod--Not to flame with you. Yes his point was that he considers the .243 marginal. But my point is, what does he base that on? I have seen it used and used it myself enough that I see nothing marginal about it. Makes me think maybe his answer came at the keyboard and is really nothing more than his WAG (wild assed guess).

I very likely have seen more deer killed with it than he has. It has been as much of a one shot killer from my experience. As a matter of fact, not to start a fight, but the only thing I have shot any number of deer with that never took a step is a .220 Swift, probably shot a dozen with none moving except down. That said, I only used it for meat deer during does only season, but it definitely worked.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Finn Aagaard's broad brush painting of the .243 sure comes across to me as keyboard hyperbole. Doesn't sound like he really has any real world experience with the subject. That type opinion worth about as much as you might get at most gun counters.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Tx Nimrod--Not to flame with you. Yes his point was that he considers the .243 marginal. But my point is, what does he base that on? I have seen it used and used it myself enough that I see nothing marginal about it. Makes me think maybe his answer came at the keyboard and is really nothing more than his WAG (wild assed guess).

From you two post it is clear that you have not read much of Finn's writing, which is a real shame since he was one of your fellow Texans and also one of the greatest gunwriters.

Finn was a PH in Kenya and many of his clients(usually women or younger children) used a 243 for lighter plains game.So he had quite a bit of experience there through guiding clients who used a 243 on different sized game.

After Kenya closed hunting in 1977 Finn and his family moved to Texas where Finn again worked as a hunting guide. In Texas he guided for native and exotic game. Many of his clients(again usually women or younger children) used the 243 on game of various sizes.

Further, when he taught his two sons and daughter to hunt they all used the 243. They all took multiple animals with the 243 with Finn's guidance.

So, Finn had more experience with the 243 than 99.9% of riflemen.

Perhaps most importantly, Finn was a student of bullet performance, shot placement, and wound creation. Finn performed postmortems and kept detailed notes on the animals he killed himself and also on those he guided clients to. Imagine how many total animals, and different cartridges Finn was able to observed in 30+ years of full time guiding. The total would have numbered into the thousands.

It would be fair to bet that Finn was in on(himself or as a guide) the killing of more animals with the 243 than Jack O'Connor was with the 270.

Rest in peace Finn. Thanks for all the great writing.

Jason,
Very well said. Finn Aagaard was a very acompished PH in Africa and in Texas. He also only wrote about what he had personally done or witnessed in the game fields and on the testing range. One of the all time greats. I wish I had more of his writings.
Take care, Les.

JBBrown--You are correct I have not read ANYTHING the guy wrote. Years ago I did read some gun writers and I did like Jack O'Connor and did talk to him on the phone for about an hour. I put these writers in about the same catagory as sports commentators. Some seem to know their stuff and others regardless of their experience seem to have missed the boat. Guiding for exotics in Texas would be guiding on high fenced hunts.
I don't consider it a shame that I didn't spend my money to buy a magazine and read somebodies report that what I have done and seen done for many years is marginal.

Bernie p--.243 a little light but .25 cals fine. What if a guy painted his .243 bullets, would that get them to .25 cal where they would work?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Bernie p--.243 a little light but .25 cals fine. What if a guy painted his .243 bullets, would that get them to .25 cal where they would work?

Can you add 20 grains of paint?

Scott--You ask me a hard question, can you add 20 grains of paint and I'm still confused by this Aargard guy. He has done numerous postmortems and finds the .243 marginal. Were they slightly dead, or did he chase down wounded animals and examine the cavity? Whatever the basis, he deems it marginal but yet has his children using it and clients. That does not sound ethical to me, if it aint working, don't keep doing it.
Yea I guess if you put it on heavy enough you could add a 20 grain coat. If not, is that 20 grain absence gonna be noticed by the animal?

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Many years ago I used a 243 for deer, and I have a recently purchased M70 push feed in 243 that I plan to put into service after a visit to the gunsmith. I never saw a problem using the 243 for deer, but like Vapo said, I used 100 gr bullets. I can see how those using varmint type bullets for deer out of a 243 could have a situation of results not meshing with expectations.

I'm really looking forward to having a shooter 243 again.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I sure hope has don't have to discuss the .223 on deer!!!

Me too !!!!

KB

Just for clarification , are you talking about the deer in S. Central AK ? If so than you might be over gunned with a .243! roger

I was talking about deer hunting in South Georgia, back when I was in college. My first deer rifle was a 243, in the Rem 788. I was pretty happy with the rifle, but I sold it and got a 788 in 30-30, which I thought I liked better for a while.

I recently bought a 243 because I wanted the action, but now I'm thinking about using it as a 243, to at least see how it shoots. Heck, the barrel is paid for.

I don't know if I'll use it for the Sitka deer - maybe, but the rifle isn't stainless, and I mostly take a stainless rifle hunting around here.

I just got back from hunting today, and have pictures, but I think I left my camera on top of the chest freezer at a friends house where we hang deer. The Grendel is a charm, BTW, and those 100gr TTSXs worked very well. I may have found a favorite rifle in that one. I got one doe at 191 yds, per the rangefinder, bullet exited, but did a nasty job in passing. I also got a buck. Pictures later.

KB

The 6mm bullets kill deer fine if used correctly. I shot 35+ deer last summer on a damage permit using a 6mm Remington with 100-grain Hornadys at 3000 fps. I never lost a deer, BUT I took head, neck and high shoulder shots only. I nearly lost a chesty deer near the Grand Canyon one year that took a 100 grain Hornady throught the chest from a .243. There was virtually no blood trail and no exit wound. I believe Finn was right in his belief that if you are going to buy a rifle, why not buy a bigger rifle to start with? The .243 and 6mm are like any other caliber that people argue about-they do the job but cause an argument. If I had it to do over again, I would probably have bought a .260 or 25-06 instead of a .243 and 6mm. I got rid of the .243, but will never part with my 6mm because my kid likes it.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
I'm still confused by this Aargard guy. He has done numerous postmortems and finds the .243 marginal. Were they slightly dead, or did he chase down wounded animals and examine the cavity? Whatever the basis, he deems it marginal but yet has his children using it and clients. That does not sound ethical to me, if it aint working, don't keep doing it.

Just to clarify some things for you.

Finn did a lot of guiding in Texas, I believe most of it was on unfenced properties.

He was a big fan of the 243 after seeing it used on a number of grant's and thompson's gazelles with impressive results. Based on this he purchased a 243 for his sons to learn to hunt with.

Between a couple of dozen animals taken by his sons and his wife and numerous animals taken by clients Finn began to notice that the 243 would frequently give less than spectacular results(small wound channels and poor penetration). The animals would die, but even with perfect hits the animals would not go as easily as with slightly larger calibers.

His wife shot a whitetail doe broadside through the lungs. It ran a short distance and piled-up. It was lying with its head so his wife prepared to deliver a finisher as they approached. As they were approaching the doe got up an ran off. His wife dropped into a sitting position do deliver the finisher, but if fell for the final time before she got off the shot.

He said this was the only animal that he ever saw that ran then fell after being shot through both lungs, and was then able to get up and run off again.

After this he had the rifle rebarreled to 7-08.

He also used a Texas heart shot on a goat that a client had wounded. The bullet failed to penetrate to the vitals.

He also had a hunter kill a small goat with a 100 core-loct through both lungs. The ram ran off as though un-hit. they found it piled up 100 yards later, but found that there was little damage to the lungs due to a very narrow would channel.

My point is that Finn was not a keyboard pontificater, he had a lot of down and dirty use with the 243. He also kept detailed records.

He felt that it was a marginal cartridge for deer because he has seen it give mediocre results on deer(mostly small does) and exotics that weighed about 100 pounds. He had a very large sample size an simply felt that the slightly larger calibers killed better, and do so with little(if any) added recoil.

So his point, based on extensive use, was: why would you choose the 243 when other larger calibers will do the job better and more consistently with no drawbacks?

So I will ask the same question: why use the 243?

BTW, I do like the 243 and I have seen it in use and I was impressed with the results. Having said that, I can't see ever buying one myself. I just don't see a reason to.

I agree with Aagaard (correct spelling btw) but I also apply that same principle to the 222, 223 and 22-250..With the right bullet and proper placement they kill very well indeed.

Some local ranchers around here kill elk every year with the 22-250 and have no trouble doing it...Most locals use lighter rifles than this AR crowd....

For one reason they are not on a 10 day hunt, most are shot at fairly close range from pickups or out the kitchen window while the elk eat off there haystack, or they just pack the gun horseback every day while checking cows or fence and when they jump a elk or deer out they step off the horse, tie him up and kill the animal, and then go about their business and come back and get it later..No need for heavy recoiling rifles, they shoot good and have been raised hunting and most only own one rifle. It is just a part of their every day life.

I believe that it is spelled "Aagaard".

Here is a link to his bio:
Part 1 http://www.fieldandstream.com/...i-story-finn-aagaard

Part 2: http://www.fieldandstream.com/...finn-aagaard-part-ii

I have used the 243 and 70 Nosler BT's regularly during the last couple of seasons on Deer between 30 - 600lb live Wieght without issue even on chest shot animals.

I would never consider myself underguned with this combo however you do have to carefully pick your shots.

JBBrown--Jason thanks for the details. First off, no big deal but I don't think you'll find exotics on unfenced land in Texas.(unless it's one that escaped from a fenced place--usually high fenced). Most all Texas land is private and fenced. You will see some unfenced in areas where they raise cotton for example. One time I shot a yearling buck with my 30-06 and 150 grain bullet. It was longest shot I ever made on a deer--don't know the distance--nothing to brag about though. There was a tank (we call em tanks in Texas and most other parts ponds)in between the deer and I and I had to walk around it. When I got in the area of the deer it got on it's feet somehow and staggered a fairly long distance and then fell dead. That deer should have been dead instantly. It was hit through the vitals and had a bigger than fist sized exit. Had this been done with a smaller cal I'm sure I'd be thinking something 30-06 sized would have killed it instantly. You just never know till you pull the trigger.

You ask why buy a .243? From my standpoint, it's why not? From your description, he saw it successfully used several times bought his wife and kids one then saw a couple instances he didn't think it was spectacular and changed his mind. Should I decide the 30-06 is marginal or something because of that deer I described?

Carpetman1, just a clarifacation for you, and you can check with TP&W on this, but there are lots of free ranging exotics in Texas. Your info shows your in San Angelo, try making the drive from Angelo up toward terling City and you will see all kinds of free ranging Axis deer and those guys are bigger than whit tails. Or go down 281 from Kingsville to Harlingen and see how many Nilgia are running around that part of the country.

quote:

For one reason they are not on a 10 day hunt, most are shot at fairly close range from pickups or out the kitchen window while the elk eat off there haystack, or they just pack the gun horseback every day while checking cows or fence and when they jump a elk or deer out they step off the horse, tie him up and kill the animal, and then go about their business and come back and get it later..No need for heavy recoiling rifles, they shoot good and have been raised hunting and most only own one rifle. It is just a part of their every day life.

There is more truth in the above statement than most folks posting on here will ever know.

Crazyhorse--Sterling City to San Angelo is only 42 miles and I go through there everytime I go to either Midland/Odessa or to Big Spring. I have made the trip to those places numerous times and I've never seen an axis deer there. Glad to know there are some and that area is about 100% fenced. Been through your town a bunch of times too--being from Wichita Falls originally, have gone through Olney many times( my folks lived in Archer City a few years).