The .243 Win was initially designed as a varmint round, but it is now more frequently used on medium game such as whitetail deer, mule deer, pronghorn, and wild boar. In SA some is even using it on kudu. The .243 Winchester has become a more popular sporting rifle cartridge than one would give it credit for with its max bullet weight of only 100 grains - and mostly loaded with frail frangible bullets in factory ammo.

As a 6 mm cartridge it lags way behind the versatility of the various 6.5 mm cartridges. Could it be because it is not a metric caliber? This cartridge was first introduced in 1955; the same year when the 6mm Remington was lauched. Could someone explain - let us have some views.

Warrior

Going back in memory the .244 was brought out as a varmint cartridge with a slow twist and the .243 was brought out as a combination deer and varmint cartridge with a faster twist. At least that's how they were visualized back than. I remember Huntington and Page shooting a bunch of creatures including many San Clemente goats with the psp and the rock chuckers ( parent cartridges). Right from the get go the .243 was accepted as a white tail rifle.At least that's what my human hard drive has stored. roger

I am thinking being a non metric name helped it advance better than the 6mm Remington. My only experience with the .243 was a bad one. I was in need of a rifle for doe season one year as my rifle was in the shop. Well Being used to shooting .30 cal I was used to not having to pick perfect shots. I shot a doe as she was climbing a hill. Hit her between the shoulders or so I thought. She went right down but got right back up and was gone! There has lots of blood but not the lung blood I expected. Long story short I followed blood a long way and it dried up. I still blame it on the bullet hitting a bone and being deflected. I don't know what the bullets were as they were reloads the family used to kill many deer with before and after my mis hap. Since them I have been against the .243 as a deer rifle right or wrong.

Here in Britain, where there are no "varmints", Holland and Holland in the 1920s introduced the first use of a 6mm as a deer cartridge.

The 240 Apex. Loaded with only the one bullet weight - 100 grains - and copied almost directly except for the shoulder angle and neck length by Weatherby as the 240 Weatherby.

What bullets were available back then? Not much,
compared to today's selection. Most people used
more bullet weight than is now needed. That
mentality is still alive and well. In '55 some
still used lead....other than that the choices
were soft-tipped jacketed or hollow point bullets.
Since then, there have been soooo many advances in
bullets which have made "equalizers" of smaller
calibers.

Donald Nelson, do you suppose your outcome would
have been quite a bit different if you had a
TTSX bullet in that .243?

P.S. The Scandenavians have used the 6.5 Swede
for virtually all of their big game, which
would make it much more versatile for their
purposes than the .243.

quote:

Originally posted by Donald Nelson:
I am thinking being a non metric name helped it advance better than the 6mm Remington. My only experience with the .243 was a bad one. I was in need of a rifle for doe season one year as my rifle was in the shop. Well Being used to shooting .30 cal I was used to not having to pick perfect shots. I shot a doe as she was climbing a hill. Hit her between the shoulders or so I thought. She went right down but got right back up and was gone! There has lots of blood but not the lung blood I expected. Long story short I followed blood a long way and it dried up. I still blame it on the bullet hitting a bone and being deflected. I don't know what the bullets were as they were reloads the family used to kill many deer with before and after my mis hap. Since them I have been against the .243 as a deer rifle right or wrong.

I just finished a really nice article on the 6mm Rem in the newest issue of Rifle Magazine. As was stated, the original name was the 244 Remington. The name 6MM Remington did not come along until a few years later, after the 243 Win had kicked its green butt, due mostly to a slow twist barrel and some good marketing.

The choice of bullets was actually quite wide if you take the Brenneke innovations in Germany, overall, but of course nothing that was chemically bonded to the jacket.

In Britain in the 240 there were two choices (both 100 grains). An spitzer soft point or a spitzer aluminium tip (like a Remington bronze point in design).

Some of the larger calibres used soft point, capped hollow point (Westley Richards), or a soft point with a "split" jacket (actually a conventional jacket with cuts through it to weaken it like they score bottles for launching ships with a glass cutter).

quote:

Originally posted by DannoBoone:
What bullets were available back then? Not much,
compared to today's selection. Most people used
more bullet weight than is now needed. That
mentality is still alive and well. In '55 some
still used lead....other than that the choices
were soft-tipped jacketed or hollow point bullets.
Since then, there have been soooo many advances in
bullets which have made "equalizers" of smaller
calibers.

Donald Nelson, do you suppose your outcome would
have been quite a bit different if you had a
TTSX bullet in that .243?

Yes I think I would have been dragging a dead deer home. Even with a Nosler partition I probably would have. Again I am not sure what bullets were even loaded in the gun. I know back then my wife's uncle did the reloading for my father in law and brother in law. The rifle belonged to my father in law. My brother in law kills deer quite often with them but always broadside lung or neck shots.

Again I don't really blame the .243 for the loss. I didn't think about it's limitations at the time. I have since dropped deer dead in their tracks with 129 grain bullets out of a .260 Rem. Broadside behind the shoulder dead right there!

quote:

P.S. The Scandenavians have used the 6.5 Swede
for virtually all of their big game, which
would make it much more versatile for their
purposes than the .243.

No doubt !

Shooting bullets in the traditional range of 123 to 156 grains.
The load that made it famous - 156 gr Norma bullet @ 2,644 fps.
At range when the bullet slows down it ensures better bullet intergrity.
And that is what makes the bullet perform - slower set-up, better weight retention and better mushrooming. Also known for its good penetration ability, even on Moose.

Necking up a .243 Case to .264 (6.5 mm) seems to be a great improvement to make a 260 Rem.

Warrior

quote:

As a 6 mm cartridge it lags way behind the versatility of the various 6.5 mm cartridges. Could it be because it is not a metric caliber?.... Could someone explain - let us have some views.

Pop physcology theories aside, I really doubt any American shooter does much navel comtemplation before he choses a cartridge so the metric designation actually means nothing. We buy for what we want, the 7-08 has done nicely since its introduction.

Jim,

If we replace "metric" with "european"?
Meaning some foreign designed rifle.
Or the adage of buying American rather than imported?

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Jim C. <><:

quote:

As a 6 mm cartridge it lags way behind the versatility of the various 6.5 mm cartridges. Could it be because it is not a metric caliber?.... Could someone explain - let us have some views.

Pop physcology theories aside, I really doubt any American shooter does much navel comtemplation before he choses a cartridge so the metric designation actually means nothing. We buy for what we want, the 7-08 has done nicely since its introduction.

I wonder how well the 7-08 would have done had the 7mm Remington Mag. not been so popular?

quote:

I wonder how well the 7-08 would have done had the 7mm Remington Mag. not been so popular?

I don't think that's a valid comparison. I think that "280 Remington vs 7mm Remington Magnum" is a valid comparison as both use the same action length.



More relevant might be asking if the 260 Remington would do better if there was no 7mm-08 between it and the .308 Winchester.

I don't think that is what he meant. The 7MM RM was popular so the buying public was used to hearing 7MM as an option so it was familiar to them. Not that they expected the 7-08 to hit like a magnum just that they accepted 7mm as an acceptable bullet diameter.

quote:

Originally posted by Donald Nelson:
I am thinking being a non metric name helped it advance better than the 6mm Remington. My only experience with the .243 was a bad one. I was in need of a rifle for doe season one year as my rifle was in the shop. Well Being used to shooting .30 cal I was used to not having to pick perfect shots. I shot a doe as she was climbing a hill. Hit her between the shoulders or so I thought. She went right down but got right back up and was gone! There has lots of blood but not the lung blood I expected. Long story short I followed blood a long way and it dried up. I still blame it on the bullet hitting a bone and being deflected. I don't know what the bullets were as they were reloads the family used to kill many deer with before and after my mis hap. Since them I have been against the .243 as a deer rifle right or wrong.

Well, I don't know you can be certain that a 30 would have given better resutls.

"Hit her between the shoulders or so I thought. She went right down but got right back up and was gone! There has lots of blood but not the lung blood I expected."

Could have been gut shot or in some other not immediately leathal spot. It could have been the limitation of the round or it could have been the result of poor shot placement that no reasonable hunting rifle could have compensated for. No way to know for sure.

The appeal of the .243 is simple, it has mild recoil, so it is easy to shoot it accurately. And accurately placed shots in the vitlas are what kills animals. It's popular because it works.

So what did I choose for my son's first centerfire? A .243, because I'm more concerned that he has a gun he can shoot well, than one that has the "proper level of power". I also have no doubt that the 85 tsx will take any of the small to medium deer species so long as he places his shots.

And from what I've seen at the range, he does a good job of placing his shots with his .243, and enjoys going through a box or two of ammo each session.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R:

quote:

Originally posted by Donald Nelson:
I am thinking being a non metric name helped it advance better than the 6mm Remington. My only experience with the .243 was a bad one. I was in need of a rifle for doe season one year as my rifle was in the shop. Well Being used to shooting .30 cal I was used to not having to pick perfect shots. I shot a doe as she was climbing a hill. Hit her between the shoulders or so I thought. She went right down but got right back up and was gone! There has lots of blood but not the lung blood I expected. Long story short I followed blood a long way and it dried up. I still blame it on the bullet hitting a bone and being deflected. I don't know what the bullets were as they were reloads the family used to kill many deer with before and after my mis hap. Since them I have been against the .243 as a deer rifle right or wrong.

Well, I don't know you can be certain that a 30 would have given better resutls.

"Hit her between the shoulders or so I thought. She went right down but got right back up and was gone! There has lots of blood but not the lung blood I expected."

Could have been gut shot or in some other not immediately leathal spot. It could have been the limitation of the round or it could have been the result of poor shot placement that no reasonable hunting rifle could have compensated for. No way to know for sure.

My wording was not quite right. I know I hit her between the shoulders. I thought she was down for the count. I have killed more deer than I can count and this is the only one I have lost with a centerfire rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R:
I don't think that is what he meant. The 7MM RM was popular so the buying public was used to hearing 7MM as an option so it was familiar to them. Not that they expected the 7-08 to hit like a magnum just that they accepted 7mm as an acceptable bullet diameter.

Correct I was saying this as to the fact the 7mm Remington got people used to the 7mm bullet. People already liked the .308 so put the .308 case and a bullet from a popular magnum together and you have success.

quote:

Jim, If we replace "metric" with "european"?

Still don't think it matters a bit. In my near 70 years I've have never once heard anyone express any knee-jerk negative view of any metric/european cartridge. Doubt many American hunters even know the 7-08's heritage, that's mostly for reloaders. Hunters buy it because of its reputation on game, ditto the various 7 mags.

The 6mm Rem didn't die until it was reborn as the .244 Rem because it was a "mm", it died because the twist rate was wrong for game. And it's still virtually dead, even tho few today know it ever had a mm name, simply because we don't need it.

The 7x57, excellant as it is, simply wasn't needed in a land with multipule cartridges fitting into the same general range of use and it's loaded down by the factories because of the old rifles chambered for it, ditto the 6.5s; performance of factory ammo for both is lacking. The .257 R. and .308 W. filled the bill nicely until the 7-08 came along and got attention mostly because it was "new" in a land that likes new stuff. The 8mm Mag seems to have died because it's neither fish nor foul for American hunters. Too big for most of our game, perhaps too small for African game. ??

American hunter's choices have been based on need and performance, not the cartridge designation.

Sounds plausible Jim - here is the contrast of the mainstream cartridges in short:

American vs European

30-06 Spr vs 8x57mm (banned after WW2) and later 8x60 mm
270 Win vs 7x64 mm
.243 vs 6.5x55 mm
35 Whelen vs 9,3 x62 mm

I guess the same is true for the Europeans, as to what worked for them.

Warrior

This months "Rifle" magazine has an article on the 6mm Rem. The writer thinks it was that the 6mm first came out as a varmint load in the rem 722 as a .244 with a 1 in 12 twist and no 100 gr factory load. The 243 came out advertised as an all round gun and had a 100 gr load to go with the varmint loads as well as a 1 in 9 twist.

quote:

Correct I was saying this as to the fact the 7mm Remington got people used to the 7mm bullet.

I now understand. Thank you.

The 243 was blessed with the faster twist from the start. It not only was designed as multi-purpose (medium game/varmint) but was available in nearly every model 70 configuration from the start as well.

Airgun, you're correct. The reputation of anything has a tremendous impact on how well it's later viewed and the .243 got a running start for a good reputation as a versatile cartridge.

Foreign cartridges simply had little reputation to build on, it wasn't elietism that reduced their acceptance. Surely the same mindset has applied to European hunters.

From what I've been able to deduce from reading about the 6mm and the .243, it seems to me that Winchester did a better job of promoting their round. The 6mm is actually the better of the two rounds for reloading and should have gained a great deal of popularity, however, Winchester, by making there's a truly multi-purpose round, and being able to convince people of such, came out the clear winner.

quote:

The reputation of anything has a tremendous impact on how well it's later viewed and the .243 got a running start for a good reputation as a versatile cartridge.

The same can be said for the 7 mm Mauser here in SA. It is part of the Boer history going back to the second Anglo-Boer War between 1899 and 1902.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com...er_071907/index.html

"In some ways, history was to repeat itself in the Anglo-Boer War of 18991902 when Boer Commandos, armed with Model 1893/1895 Mausers, proved to be an exceedingly tough match for the Brits. One of the constant themes of the conflict was the accurate, long-range fire the Boers rained down on their adversaries. As the Boers would put it, "Vertroue in God en die Mauser" --"Faith in God and the Mauser."

The Brits were so impressed by the Boers' 7x57 Mausers, they went on to design their Mauser-based Pattern 1914 action and a high-velocity 7mm round (.276) to go with it. Had it not been for the advent of WWI and the crisis the conflict created in British small arms supply lines, that intriguing combination would have been the official replacement for the Lee Enfield and the .303 cartridge."

Warrior

Just to add a little more info for you Warrior, the US got a taste of the 7x57 and the rapid accurate fire of the mauser in the Spanish-American War, circa 1898. We deveveloped the M1903 Springfield and 30-06 as a direct result.

The 6mm was not reborn as a .244 it was other way around. In 1955 when the .244 and the .243 came out Win had the twist to statbilize 100 grainers and guys viewed it as varmint/deer rifle. Rem was thinking varmint and their barrels would not stabilize the 100 grainers. 8 yrs later in 1963 Rem woke up and used the correct twist and renamed it 6MM Rem---the .244 ammo will shoot in it--twist is only difference. Had it not been for this 8 yr head start who knows where the 6mm would be and the .243 in comparison??

IMO the biggest advantage the .243 had over the .244 was that it was chambered in a great looking and sweet handling M-70 rifle....the .244 had to make a living in the Remington M-722.....which would you choose?

quote:

IMO the biggest advantage the .243 had over the .244 was that it was chambered in a great looking and sweet handling M-70 rifle

Agreed.

That is what the would-be buyer is looking at when he stands there in front of the counter - beauty will always sell.

Warrior