neccesary bullet energy to bag deer

Rick65Cat

Rick65Cat

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Location
Edmonton
I don`t have my Hunter training manuals anymore from the 80s. I can`t remember the ft/lbs required at 100 yrds to put down a deer. I`m remembering a number like 1100?
I`m thinking of a new rifle...either a 243 or a .270, kinda leaning towards a .243 as its a flatter shooter? I also want it for giggles on gophers or maybe even coyotes if I can find a spot where they are plentiful.
I`ve been looking on-line and the heaviest grainage in a .243 is 100 but the .270 I found 150 grain bullets. Doesn`t the .243 shoot a heavier bullet?

I do have a 1942 6.5x55 swedish mauser, but the barrel is cut to about 19 inches. I doubt it would be accurate enough at 200 yrds.
 
243 maxes out at 100 grain factory ammo for hunting, and if you compare the 243/100 gr to a 270 Winchester with even 150 grain 270 loads, it does not shoot flatter.

For a dual purpose varmint/deer rifle, the 243 Winchester is hard to beat.
 
I just dropped a big doe yesterday with the 6mm, slightly bigger brother of the 243. Double lung shot at 50 yards, it went 30 feet. 100gr federal factory load.

I have shot and killed many deer with the 6mm with 100 gr factory ammo, some out to 300 yards. In a pinch I have also dropped a few with 80 gr factory ammo.
 
........................................MIN................Adeq..............Preferred

Deer and the like.................900.................1200..............1500ft/lbs
Elk Bear up to 600..............1500.................2000..............2500ft/lbs
Large bear Moose...............2100.................2800..............3500ft/lbs
 
There were 105 RN .243 bullets available for reloading.....I have used 243 and 270 (and 350, 375 etc) on Eastern Ontario deer and they all work the same .. dead deer when hit solidly in the chest area .. I don't have personal experience with the 243 on bigger game... the 270 works fine on moose fwiw.

I would certainly use the 243 on bigger western deer if that was all I had -- 243's tend to shoot accurately for average shooters for a lot of reasons and if you stay under 200 yards the average shooter can keep them accurate (less holdover required) and has adequate energy assuming a reasonable bullet design.

Course having a 243 gives you an excuse to get another rifle ... just "cause". Maybe a 338W...nothing beats a 250gr bullet at 2500fps for getting it done...not too unpleasant to shoot and plenty of energy for everything in N America. And the bullets usually hold together....sorry .. got off topic..:)
 
Last edited:
cdngunner said:
........................................MIN................Adeq..............Preferred

Deer and the like.................900.................1200..............1500ft/lbs
Elk Bear up to 600..............1500.................2000..............2500ft/lbs
Large bear Moose...............2100.................2800..............3500ft/lbs
Click to expand...

So I guess by your flawed logic......my 303 moose destroyer isn't enough gun. :sucks:
 
:stfun00b:
PGKris said:
So I guess by your flawed logic......my 303 moose destroyer isn't enough gun. :sucks:
Click to expand...

You f**king turd
Go pound one out would you!!!!:jerkit::jerkit:

He asked for what it said in the Hunters guide, thats what it says.

Why dont you put your brain in gear before you touch the keyboard!
Frikin NOOBS!
:stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b:
 
Last edited:
Well believe it or not I think that the large deer muzzle energy lower limit we have in England and wales actually makes sense for Fallow and upwards though not Roe. 1700 ft lbs and thats not a lot from anything .240" and upwards.
 
cdngunner said:
:stfun00b:

You f**king turd
Go pound one out would you!!!!:jerkit::jerkit:

He asked for what it said in the Hunters guide, thats what it says.

Why dont you put your brain in gear before you touch the keyboard!
Frikin NOOBS!
:stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b::stfun00b:
Click to expand...

Very nice, tactful reply........NOT! :(

While the Hunters guide lists these figures for taking Deer/Elk/Moose, I often wonder where they come up with such drivel. I also suspect that the animals do not read the Hunters guide, so have no idea about whether they have been hit with enough energy to kill them or not. Additionally, the number of dead animals that have been shot, and continue to be shot with cartridges that fail to meet the criteria listed in the Hunters guide logically should tell us that bullet placement and expansion are far more important than some arbitrary "minimum" energy figure. If the tables are adhered to, several very commonly used cartridges become useless beyond 50 yards or so, others never meet those so-called minimums. Still others, like the 30-06 are only adequate for moose out to 175 yards or a bit more. Sheesh! I have taken Moose cleanly out to 400 yards a number of times with the lowly old 30-06, and never fired a second shot to do it. I saw a cow elk taken this year at just over 500 yards with 1 shot from a 7-08 Remington and the 140 Accubond. Bet the energy at that range was considerably shy of the figures listed by the Hunters guide. I guess what I'm trying to say is if figures intrigue you, then those listed in the guide may have some appeal. In the practical sense, I think they are useless. JMHO, Eagleye.
 
Rick65Cat said:
I`m thinking of a new rifle...either a 243 or a .270, kinda leaning towards a .243 as its a flatter shooter? I also want it for giggles on gophers or maybe even coyotes if I can find a spot where they are plentiful.
Click to expand...
Then given your criteria the 243 is the perfect package for you :)
From Varmints to deer it will work just fine.

FWIW: I know a fella that shoots Deer every year with a 243...he also uses the cheapest 100 grain ammo at Canadian tire he can find......waits for perfect broadside shots on his deer and I know for fact he has never lost an animal or recovered a bullet from one ?
 
Thanks for the replies guys. I do have other rifles that I suppose I could use,...The 6.5X55 swedish, a 7.62x39 Sks (shot my buck in Ont with that)
Guess I just got the itch to buy anthoer gun.
A Stevens 200 in .243 for $329.95 brand new might just be what the doctor ordered.
 
Eagleye said:
Very nice, tactful reply........NOT! :(

.
Click to expand...
No more tackful than his reply to my post.

And yah an old indian lady shot and killed a polar bear with a twenty-two.

yadah yadah yadah!

The guy asked for a table, all I did was post it.

Considering the skill of the majority of "hunters" I have seen, I would sleep better knowing that they brought more gun then they needed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom