OK not your typical which one is better question but:
Is the 223 vs deer argument the same as a 243 vs elk argument?

Deer are MUCH easier to kill. Elk are one tough animal. Yes, Elk can be killed with a .243, but it is the wrong tool for the job.If you are going to the effort of doing something take the right tools.

It's obviously a very similar argument. It seems that your premise is that you are "undergunned" in either situation, and you are asking in which situation are you the least/most undergunned, or are you equally "undergunned" in each situation.

Let me answer this way: I would prefer to have something larger than a .223 when hunting deer, and would prefer something larger than a .243 when hunting elk. If presented with the opportunity to hunt either, but had only the respective calibers available to me, I would not hesitate to do each hunt and would have similar adequate (but not abundant) confidence in my gun in each situation. That is, provided that each was equipped with the most appropriate bullet and load.

It seems that the "locals" (anywhere you find "local" hunters) quite frequently use calibers like .223 for deer and calibers like .243 for elk. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the bottom line is that animals shot by the "locals" are reduced to possession at about the same frequency as those shot by the "serious" and "non-local" hunters.

Well put Stonecreek. They both present the same limitations both in bullet selection and shot placement. I would think the 223 would be much more forgiving on deer than 243 on elk. That is to say a 53 grain TSX may get through a shoulder blade or give you 15 inches of penetration through soft on a quartering deer, I don't think you will have that luck with the sturdiest or heaviest of the 243s. It's alot of hide, hair, and muscle and much sturdier bones on the elk.

+1 with stonecreek

SC, thats what i was looking for. I was looking at the Nosler book last night and saw that the 6mm/243 100 grain partition's sectional density was .242. I flipped over to the 270 and their 130 partition round's sectional density is .242. so their terminal balistics on game should be at least similar.

quote:

Originally posted by Rine Everett:
SC, thats what i was looking for. I was looking at the Nosler book last night and saw that the 6mm/243 100 grain partition's sectional density was .242. I flipped over to the 270 and their 130 partition round's sectional density is .242. so their terminal balistics on game should be at least similar.

They have equal SD and that is about it. You need then to figure in everything else and you will find they are not equal. The .270 will come out the winner every time when compared to the .243.

The .270 has a larger frontal diameter by .034" so it will always make the larger hole, and will expand larger than the .243 every time. Plus then if you have equal muzzle velocities of 3000 fps you still don't achieve equal mass, the .270 Win will start out with 600 more ft-lbs of energy. All of this makes the .270 a more effective cartrige on elk allowing more opportunities for taking them.

If you are looking for a light recoiling elk rifle then look at the 6.5X55 or .260 Rem. Both have superior bullet options than the .243 and put it on par with less recoil than the .270 Win. Another good option for elk is the 7mm-08.

The .243 is a fine deer round, but a little lacking for an elk cartridge IMO.

I have no experience with elk. I have plenty of .243 experience with deer and have witnessed first hand a lot of .223 shot deer. Both work great on deer and I'd expect poor results from either if a poor shot is made. I'd expect poor results from a big boomer if poor shot is made. Elk don't wear Kelvar so I see no reason a well placed .243 shot wouldn't do the job. I did mention no elk experience, but I have some experience with moose. Well placed shot and they go down just like a deer.

quote:

Originally posted by Rine Everett:
OK not your typical which one is better question but:
Is the 223 vs deer argument the same as a 243 vs elk argument?

Nawh, not the same argument. Lots of the 223 on deer guys will argue in favor of and justify the 223 on deer, and also say the 243 isn't enough for elk. They talk about shot placment and penetration, etc. It's all BS. It's a double standard.

Also, with the 223 we have the tacticool bunch who will shoot it because it goes bang fast and often, and cheap. That's not so much the case with the 243.

Lots of those who use shoot deer with the 223 will just use whatever bullet they have, varmint, match, FMJ, cheap, whatever they have been shooting bang bang at targets. They seem to have little consciousness of bullet design and purpose. That doesn't appear to be so common with those who use the 243. It's less likely to find a 243 owner hunting deer with a varmint bullet, for example, and it's quite common with the 223.

I wouldn't use a 243 for elk, just like I wouldn't use a 223 for deer, but I don't have unrealistic emotional denial relating to either cartridge. However, if a 223 TSX bullet generally penetrates such-and-such inches, then a 243 TSX, with higher SD, will generally penetrate deeper. 70gr .223 TSX = .199 SD, 85gr .243 TSX = .230 SD. No contest.

If a 223 is good enough for deer then the 243 is good enough for elk. Depends on how close you get, the quality of the bullet, placment, and how much tracking you are willing to do, without much of a blood trail.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:

quote:

Originally posted by Rine Everett:
SC, thats what i was looking for. I was looking at the Nosler book last night and saw that the 6mm/243 100 grain partition's sectional density was .242. I flipped over to the 270 and their 130 partition round's sectional density is .242. so their terminal balistics on game should be at least similar.

They have equal SD and that is about it. You need then to figure in everything else and you will find they are not equal. The .270 will come out the winner every time when compared to the .243.

The .270 has a larger frontal diameter by .034" so it will always make the larger hole, and will expand larger than the .243 every time. Plus then if you have equal muzzle velocities of 3000 fps you still don't achieve equal mass, the .270 Win will start out with 600 more ft-lbs of energy. All of this makes the .270 a more effective cartrige on elk allowing more opportunities for taking them.

If you are looking for a light recoiling elk rifle then look at the 6.5X55 or .260 Rem. Both have superior bullet options than the .243 and put it on par with less recoil than the .270 Win. Another good option for elk is the 7mm-08.

The .243 is a fine deer round, but a little lacking for an elk cartridge IMO.

Good answer. The long and short of terminal performance is in the bullet not the cartridge. Choosing a high sectional density bullet will allow any caliber or cartridge to perform better on big game including elk. The 130 grain 270 is marginal choice for elk IMO but it does illustrate your point that it is still an improvement over the 100 grain 243.

I've used this analogy once or twice before to describe sectional density, imagine several candles of the same diameter but each one a different length arranged from shortest to smallest. Light each candle and track the time it take for each candle to melt away. The longer canle outlasts the shorter one every time right. This is the same relationship a bullet has when penetrating animals, the longer bullets have more mass allowing for more expansion and penetration. The secret is balanceing this out for the game and I would rather error on the side of to high than to low.

The one factor that trumps sectional density is bullet construction. The new monolithics shed little to no weight but have limited expansion. These bullets allow smaller calibers or light for caliber bullets to perform like larger ones changing the game all together. If your considering a 25 caliber or lighter cartridge than you may want to consider using monolithic bullets exclusively but your options are much broader from 6.5 on up.

Primarily, in my view, the limiting factor is what barrel twist do you have?

A .223 Rem with a 1:8 Twist will handle heavy bullets. The 77gr bthp bullets will feed from AR-15 magazines, so you get dual duty if you own an AR with fast twist barrel. Most bolt guns won't be faster than 1:12 or 1:14.

Don't know if Berger makes a "hunting" VLD 80gr bullet or not. That would be a great performer for small deer. A 107gr bthp likewise could legitimately do the job on elk. Not like with such small diameter bullets you are contemplating anything but precision shot placement and open country shooting anyways...

Match bullets may not be legal under your state law for game hunting; but if they are and your preferred target area is bone and muscle mass, the bullets are very tough and will remain in one piece. I have recovered Hornady 75gr bthp .224 match bullets from rock backstop and even mangled like a pretzel, they lost no weight. Would think much less meat damage also would result.

A .22-250 or .222 Magnum with a fast twist barrel could really be interesting. There are 90gr bthp bullets from JLK and Sierra to consider. 1:6.5 twist is necessary but for long range or a .22 with mucho impact energy a 90gr .224 bullet going 2600 to 2800 fps would really be an enabler...

quote:

Originally posted by aklester:
Primarily, in my view, the limiting factor is what barrel twist do you have?

A .223 Rem with a 1:8 Twist will handle heavy bullets. The 77gr bthp bullets will feed from AR-15 magazines, so you get dual duty if you own an AR with fast twist barrel. Most bolt guns won't be faster than 1:12 or 1:14.

Don't know if Berger makes a "hunting" VLD 80gr bullet or not. That would be a great performer for small deer. A 107gr bthp likewise could legitimately do the job on elk. Not like with such small diameter bullets you are contemplating anything but precision shot placement and open country shooting anyways...

Match bullets may not be legal under your state law for game hunting; but if they are and your preferred target area is bone and muscle mass, the bullets are very tough and will remain in one piece. I have recovered Hornady 75gr bthp .224 match bullets from rock backstop and even mangled like a pretzel, they lost no weight. Would think much less meat damage also would result.

A .22-250 or .222 Magnum with a fast twist barrel could really be interesting. There are 90gr bthp bullets from JLK and Sierra to consider. 1:6.5 twist is necessary but for long range or a .22 with mucho impact energy a 90gr .224 bullet going 2600 to 2800 fps would really be an enabler...

I can't believe you forgot to mention the 115 grain DTAC or VLD bullets.............

A match grade bullet that is only 5-7 grains heavier than the premium hunting bullets offered isn't going to help when killing an elk. .243 rifles every year take elk and they will get the job done, but they are far from ideal. Bullet construction is more important when taking game the size of elk, and the .243 match grade bullets lack that construction.

When I hunted elk on the Jicrilla Res. in New Mexico my guide carried a Rem 700 in 243. He said it was his calling gun for close up work. He said if he was after trophy bulls he used his 25-06..Neither would be my choice for big elk..but they worked for him I reckon

quote:

Originally posted by shortgun:
When I hunted elk on the Jicrilla Res. in New Mexico my guide carried a Rem 700 in 243. He said it was his calling gun for close up work. He said if he was after trophy bulls he used his 25-06..Neither would be my choice for big elk..but they worked for him I reckon

A great example of what the "locals" shoot! I hunted the Jicarilla Reservation a number of years ago and our guides used .22-250's for elk. They said that they shoot them in the head, anyway, so what difference does it make? And it was clear that these guys used whatever ammunition was on the shelf at the local store.

Yes sir
My guide was an older fellow and thought highly of his 25-06 as an elk rifle. My hunting partner had a young fellow for a guide and he used the 22-250 with 50 gr factory ammo for elk. My friend and I were using handguns. My guide had guided JD Jones on a hunt some years earlier and thought he liked BIG BORES for elk. He said that the 375 JDJ the JD used was a real loud gun..didn't mention its effect on the elk..just said JD was successful

The over wellming question I have where is the law/rule that says you only have to shoot once at any game animal? I mean if thats the criteria we use to determine if a caliber is adequate for killing then why do we not just use single shot rifles? I have zero worries about putting a second or even a third bullet in an animal! Cause thats why I have repeating firearms! Yes it's nice when I take a shot an the deer/elk or what ever drops at the shot if they don't I'll shoot them again! With a good bullet and shot placement it's not normally needed but I always jack another round into the chamber just in case!

All this discussion about "locals" this and that seems to me to show that somehow associating "locals" with credability has some flawed logic.

Also, I can't recall any instances where I had the opportunity for a good second shot, except DRT, and of course it's not needed in such case. I can't imagine the attitude of going hunting, with the notion that a second shot is routine. Seems to me like a spray and prey tacticool.

KB

Kabluewy
So you only hunt with single shot firearms? I mean if you NEVER take a second shot why spend the extra money on the Not needed Repeaters! Give me a break! Yea sure most of my hunts end with one single shot! But my Mag is always full and I have spare rounds in my pocket! I guess your one of those super shots that never miss at any distance you shoot at! Can shoot the eye out of an eagle at a 1000 yards type!

I've found even if shot or shot at most game will stop at a distance where another shot is possible!

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
All this discussion about "locals" this and that seems to me to show that somehow associating "locals" with credability has some flawed logic.

Also, I can't recall any instances where I had the opportunity for a good second shot, except DRT, and of course it's not needed in such case. I can't imagine the attitude of going hunting, with the notion that a second shot is routine. Seems to me like a spray and prey tacticool.

KB

I don't assign any special credibility to the "locals"; I only note that they routinely use smaller rifles to successfuly take game that most "trophy hunters" regard as inadequate for the game being hunted.

Insofar as "second shots", it's pretty common for an elk to be "dead on its feet" from the first shot, but it's very hard to resist putting an insurance shot into the 800-lb brute rather than face the spector of its trotting off into the deep woods. My hunting partner put three 180 grain Partitions from a .300 Winchester into a bull last fall and any of the three shots would have been fatal by itself; regardless, the bull managed to stumble down into a ravine before going down which somewhat complicated its recovery.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I don't assign any special credibility to the "locals"; I only note that they routinely use smaller rifles to successfuly take game.

My hunting partner put three 180 grain Partitions from a .300 Winchester into a bull last fall and any of the three shots would have been fatal by itself; regardless, the bull managed to stumble down into a ravine before going down which somewhat complicated its recovery.

Do you think maybe the Local would have better success with the smaller cartridge, because he knows something folks who are not from around there don't know? Does being local give a person special skills? I would really like to know, since I'm local around here, and I would like to take a tally of the special knowledge and skills that I might have, so I could carry a smaller caliber rifle, or maybe take longer shots, etc.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by PUMA454:
Kabluewy
So you only hunt with single shot firearms? I mean if you NEVER take a second shot why spend the extra money on the Not needed Repeaters!

I guess your one of those super shots that never miss at any distance you shoot at!

I've found even if shot or shot at most game will stop at a distance where another shot is possible!

I don't think of myself as a super shot, just a careful shot. Yes, I mostly use repeaters.

I've been trying to think of instances where I took an EFFECTIVE second shot where the first one failed. There must have been some, but I just can't think of any. For clarification, I'm talking about a second shot at the same animal. I can think of some instances where I took a second shot at a different animal, effectively. I can also think of at least two examples where I took a second shot, at a different animal, not effectively. IMO, the probability of effectivness decreases greatly after the first shot.

Most of my hunting is in places where second chances are not likely. The veg is usually thick, and the game doesn't have to move much to get out of the zone.

Regardless of whether I have a magazine of extra cartridges, I do my best to make the first shot count, as though there will be no second chance. It's a matter of attitude to me. IMO, if a person's attitude is that the second or third shot will be needed, then it probably will be needed. It's funny how that works.

KB

quote:

Do you think maybe the Local would have better success with the smaller cartridge, because he knows something folks who are not from around there don't know? Does being local give a person special skills? I would really like to know, since I'm local around here, and I would like to take a tally of the special knowledge and skills that I might have, so I could carry a smaller caliber rifle, or maybe take longer shots, etc.

"Locals" generally have the advantages of (1) knowing where to most dependably find the game, (2) having more time to fill their tag(s), and (3) usually since they are hunting for meat rather than trophies, they can wait for the best shot to present itself.

For those reasons they can typically have success ratios equal to or exceeding trophy hunters while using less powerful guns.

If I have traveled a thousand miles and only three or four days to find and take a legal bull (particularly if I have set some personal miniumum standard for an elk I will shoot), then I'll readily take a shot at a good bull as he walks along a ridge 350 yards away. In order to have a better chance of success, I want to be shooting a .300 magnum or something similar.

However, if I have a couple of weeks to find a cow or any type of bull, know where the herd hangs out, and it only takes a half-hour to get to my hunting area, then I'll be plenty confident using a .243 and holding fire until I can get a "gimme" shot at a hundred yards or less.

That's the primary difference in "locals" and "trophy hunters" and a good reason that they each perceive what is required in an elk rifle differently. Different needs, different rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
"Locals" generally have the advantages. they can typically have success ratios equal to or exceeding trophy hunters while using less powerful guns.

OK, I'm convinced. Last time I went to Texas, hog hunting for hogzilla, and took my four-fity-ate, the "locals" looked at me oddly, and I noticed they carried 243's, 260, 7mm-08s and such.

They seemed satisfied with my explanation - "you shoot a 50 cal muzzel loader, with 45 cal sabots, so shooting a 45 cal cartridge rifle, loaded down, similar thing, no big deal". I just didn't explain that it wasn't loaded down that much. I told them that it is my Alaska bear gun, and I'm just looking for the excuse to use it, to get familiar with it. It's new and needs testing.

KB

It's always the same basic arguement with slight variations...Stonecreek put it well... anything else degenerates into the pecker waving and subjective being "right"...not very helpful usually.

I keep mentioning the old boy I used to reload for...Sav 99, 250 Sav cal, open sights, 100 gr bullets at factory ballistics, deer, elk, moose, bear, foxes in the hen house, a pesky rodent, usually one shot per, <100 yds and he spit on your boots if you showed up with anything he considered a "cannon".

Everyone has good valid points...the same point's that that are repeated over and over again on every forum I've ever visited...and the same BAD point's that get repeated over and over again.

It all depends on the circumstances. Under the right circumstances I wouldn't hesitate to plug an elk, moose, black bear etc with a 223. Lord knows I've taken enough deer with a 22LR...and under the wrong circumstances I wouldn't even THINK about popping off a 460 W or my 510 Makatak at a squirrel.

The answer is there, over and over...AND...there ISN'T any real answer for every scenario. You just have to use common sense.

Luck

quote:

Originally posted by FOOBAR:

the same BAD point's that get repeated over and over again.

Lord knows I've taken enough deer with a 22LR.

The answer is there, You just have to use common sense.

Luck

Riiigghht !!! And apparantly it also depends on whose common sense is being spouted.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Rine Everett:
OK not your typical which one is better question but:
Is the 223 vs deer argument the same as a 243 vs elk argument?

Yes

I had a beautiful 4x4 Muley walk out of a draw just two weeks ago while I was yote hunting! Had my AR 5.56mm at the time I had 63gr SEI in it and was about 80-100 yards way -perfect broadside! If it had been a legal hunting day that buck would have died very quickly! And I wouldn't have thought twice about it!

Since I have deer under the tree in my back yard daily and I have to travel and spend a bunch of money on an elk I don't see the arguments as being comparable. I can pass up a bad shot on a deer and forget about it. never gonna happen with elk, I want everything in my favor and that precludes a 243.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Since I have deer under the tree in my back yard daily and I have to travel and spend a bunch of money on an elk I don't see the arguments as being comparable. I can pass up a bad shot on a deer and forget about it. never gonna happen with elk, I want everything in my favor and that precludes a 243.

A perfect example of a "local" on deer and a "non local" on elk.

I will occasionally take a whitetail on my home place with a .223. And while I've got a couple of great .243's, that's not what I pack when I'm travelling a thousand miles to hunt elk.

Answer to the OP: Not in Wyoming. It's illegal to use a .22 caliber firearm on big game here. .243 is legal.

Proper placement and proper bullet. I'd rather see a marksman with a .243 killing elk, than a nimrod with a .338 ultramag jerking shots and blowing off legs.