.243 Winchester: What's your take?

theDuck said:
I've killed more deer than I can remember out to 200yards with 100 grain bullets. I've shot more groundhogs than I can remember too with lighter bullets. I have 5 rifles in
.243. Good for coyote as well. If I had to pick one caliber for the area I am in, the .243 is it.
Click to expand...

Makes two of us. Have two rifles in 243 and wish I could afford a couple more.:)
 
l1fel1ne said:
Funny you consider 270 a BIG game cartridge, when it has a "whopping" 5% muzzle energy advantage over 308. Oh and because its a long action, the rifle weighs more.
Click to expand...

You also have a lesser mag capacity, longer bolt stroke, and smaller bullet selection than 308win. 270 is not a better cartridge than 308 for range, accuracy, or knockdown so you may as well add it to the list of redundant chamberings. I don't hate on the parent 30-06 cartridge, but when you go long action for 10% more power, you may as well just get a 300win mag.

308win is the perfect hunting cartridge. It's chambered in a short action, plenty of knock down power, very mild recoil, fantastic availability, accurate, and good for mag capacity.

I'm glad that a lot of people have posted that they like hunting with 243 but make no valid points as to why. I get that personal preference exists, and the world would be bland without variety, but we're dealing with a hunting cartridge here. Do we really want an animal laying in the bush, slowly dying for 12 hours because the hunter went 80g instead of 180g? We're dealing with living things, so we should ethically kill them. I can promise you that many animals shot with a 243 and got away wouldn't have with a 308.

If you were to take all the people in this thread that said "My wife / daughter / kid owns one" and put them into one post, you'd start to realize that this cartridge is for women and children.
 
Some other fun facts:

80g and 100g .243 ammo at WSS in Win Super-X costs exactly the same as 150g and 180g 308win @ $19.99 / box of 20.

100g .243 (6mm) Hornady hunting bullets cost .02 less than .308 150g bullets.

Guess what, if you want a mild kicking .308 win cartridge, no need for .243, just get some of these:

http://ca.wholesalesports.com/store...l-centerfire-rifle-cartridges/prod218092.html

You can also go down with .308 but you're not going to go up with 243 simply because a 150g bullet in the chamber would jam on the lands of the rifling.

243 has no advantage whatsoever over .308win other than milder recoil, which you can overcome with reloads or managed recoil ammo.
 
Rocket Surgery said:
Some other fun facts:

80g and 100g .243 ammo at WSS in Win Super-X costs exactly the same as 150g and 180g 308win @ $19.99 / box of 20.

100g .243 (6mm) Hornady hunting bullets cost .02 less than .308 150g bullets.

Guess what, if you want a mild kicking .308 win cartridge, no need for .243, just get some of these:

http://ca.wholesalesports.com/store...l-centerfire-rifle-cartridges/prod218092.html

You can also go down with .308 but you're not going to go up with 243 simply because a 150g bullet in the chamber would jam on the lands of the rifling.

243 has no advantage whatsoever over .308win other than milder recoil, which you can overcome with reloads or managed recoil ammo.
Click to expand...

The 243 is a far superior varmint/light bullet cartridge than the 308. 110gr is the lightest for 30 cal, you can get 55 grain in a 243. It is no less versatile than a 308.
I have some 120 grain Nosler Partition in 243 which is a good load for up to whitetail and maybe a bit beyond for those who pick their shots carefully, IMO.
The OP stated the 243 is a flat shooting cartridge with little recoil, he is bang on. It's not an ideal moose or elk cartridge, but neither is the 308.
 
Otokiak said:
243 is plenty good ... ;)
Click to expand...

Yessir!

DSC00846.jpg


A single Winchester 100 gr PP factory load did this guy in, and it was her first big game animal. My buddy's wife, and he still hasn't taken a bigger bear with his '06. :D

Having said that, I don't hunt bears with a 243..............

Ted
 
bearkilr said:
The 243 is a far superior varmint/light bullet cartridge than the 308. 110gr is the lightest for 30 cal, you can get 55 grain in a 243. It is no less versatile than a 308.
I have some 120 grain Nosler Partition in 243 which is a good load for up to whitetail and maybe a bit beyond for those who pick their shots carefully, IMO.
The OP stated the 243 is a flat shooting cartridge with little recoil, he is bang on. It's not an ideal moose or elk cartridge, but neither is the 308.
Click to expand...

I think that you mean 100 grain Partitions. 120 grainers would be a .257 bullet. I couldn't agree more though, I would use a properly loaded .243 on anything edible (and have for that matter).
 
bearkilr said:
The 243 is a far superior varmint/light bullet cartridge than the 308. 110gr is the lightest for 30 cal, you can get 55 grain in a 243. It is no less versatile than a 308.
I have some 120 grain Nosler Partition in 243 which is a good load for up to whitetail and maybe a bit beyond for those who pick their shots carefully, IMO.
The OP stated the 243 is a flat shooting cartridge with little recoil, he is bang on. It's not an ideal moose or elk cartridge, but neither is the 308.
Click to expand...

So I find that the 100g .30cal bullet to be about $10.00 cheaper than the cheapest 243 varmint bullet for a box of 100.

Also you can shoot a moose or elk with .308win no problem, but you really shouldn't with a 243.
 
About as many as you're going to find on Vancouver Island.

Is there some problem shooting moose with a .308?

It's not about changing minds, you can't use logic on people who think like robots. People who own 243's are going to defend them, I get it. What I'd really like to see is someone use facts other than "Stops em dead" or "243 works great!". I've presented the facts, 243 has no advantage over 308 whatsoever. I've also pointed out earlier that if you're into 243 for managed recoil, you're half a man. You probably have a hyphenated last name, like the fairy-man. Real men used to fire 7.62x51nato fully auto with a steel stock plate, and people now use recoil pads?

I actually own a BLR 243 w/ Leupold scope and guess what, it's at my mother's place. The gun and scope are worth upwards of $1500.00, and I don't even bother with it. I already own a lever gun in 30-30 and there's no way I'm going to spend $19.99 on 20 rounds of 243 when I can spend $19.99 on 20 rounds of .308win

I really challenge you to read this entire thread and find someone who makes a case for the 243 other than: "I LIKE 243!!!1" Also keep an eye on how many people point out that their wives or children own this caliber and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Some will say it's a fine varmint cartridge, sure, not better than 308win though. It's not better than 308 in price, weight, accuracy, knock down, availability, or even recoil if you use Remington ammo.

So tell me, why use a cartridge that could potentially lead to a wounded animal when you could use a 308? I get that you don't require a need to justify posession of something, but once again, ideology is trumping logic here. I get that it's easy and safe to disagree with me, but remember you don't have the right to not be offended. If you could choose only one caliber between 243 and 308 and that's it, I bet you no one would get 243 because it's simply a boutique cartridge, for women and children.


toodles~~
 
Last edited:
Maybe not better as a 308 for a varmint round but alot better than a 22-250 as a varmint round, in my area the 243 killed the 22-250 as a yotes rifle... JP.
 
Never had any taste buds for this chambering.
Better options out there.
As my old Pa used to say, "it's too big to be small and too small to be big!"
I sure can't find much arguement in that statement.
 
Meh, I have one and I like it but it is not worth getting all worked up about like some people. Rocket Surgery I do not know why you insist on going after people that like them and calling them "half a man." That just seems kind of childish. Everyone has their preferences.

Bottom line, it gets the job done for varmints and some bigger game. That cannot be argued but it is pointless to argue whether or not it is better than .308. (just take a look at the debate between 9mm and .45 it just goes round and round so if we could stop d:h: )
 
Someone needs a hug. :bigHug:

Half a man!! Oh my!!

Women and children chambering?? OH NO!!!They must be better shots and not need the compensation.;)

Just curious, why the purchase of the .243 then??

Rocket Surgery said:
About as many as you're going to find on Vancouver Island.

Is there some problem shooting moose with a .308?

It's not about changing minds, you can't use logic on people who think like robots. People who own 243's are going to defend them, I get it. What I'd really like to see is someone use facts other than "Stops em dead" or "243 works great!". I've presented the facts, 243 has no advantage over 308 whatsoever. I've also pointed out earlier that if you're into 243 for managed recoil, you're half a man. You probably have a hyphenated last name, like the fairy-man. Real men used to fire 7.62x51nato fully auto with a steel stock plate, and people now use recoil pads?

I actually own a BLR 243 w/ Leupold scope and guess what, it's at my mother's place. The gun and scope are worth upwards of $1500.00, and I don't even bother with it. I already own a lever gun in 30-30 and there's no way I'm going to spend $19.99 on 20 rounds of 243 when I can spend $19.99 on 20 rounds of .308win

I really challenge you to read this entire thread and find someone who makes a case for the 243 other than: "I LIKE 243!!!1" Also keep an eye on how many people point out that their wives or children own this caliber and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Some will say it's a fine varmint cartridge, sure, not better than 308win though. It's not better than 308 in price, weight, accuracy, knock down, availability, or even recoil if you use Remington ammo.

So tell me, why use a cartridge that could potentially lead to a wounded animal when you could use a 308? I get that you don't require a need to justify posession of something, but once again, ideology is trumping logic here. I get that it's easy and safe to disagree with me, but remember you don't have the right to not be offended. If you could choose only one caliber between 243 and 308 and that's it, I bet you no one would get 243 because it's simply a boutique cartridge, for women and children.


toodles~~
Click to expand...
 
I have shot more deer on 2 commercial deer farms in the UK, 4 different commercial forest leases and Forestry Commission forest than I could begin to count. I shot with professional deer stalkers and forestry rangers.
I shot 6 different species of deer, including red stags at ranges from 5 feet to 400 yards +.
All with the girly little .243.
I brought my rifles here when I moved and have shot mulies and whitetails.
Yes, my wife uses my .243, and why should'nt she?
I have a .308 which rarely sees the light of day as I don't feel the need to shoot deer with it(unless my wife is carrying my .243!)
Calibre has got very little to do with a cartridge"s terminal ballistics if the appropriate bullet is used.(and you hit something the deer needs)
 
Rocket Surgery said:
So tell me, why use a cartridge that could potentially lead to a wounded animal when you could use a 308?
toodles~~
Click to expand...

So, tell me then...why would you bother to use a .308 when a .338 Lapua will do it so much better? Or better yet, a .404 Jeffries, or a .416 Rigby, or a .577 Tyrannasaur? I mean, if we are gonna get the job done, then let's get it done and use a real man's rifle.

I have never wounded an animal that I was unable to recover using a .243 Rossi Winchester Single Shot Rifle I use to borrow when I was a kid. It belonged to my older sister's boyfriend's mother. Since I didn't have a rifle, he always let me use it when we went hunting. SHOT PLACEMENT is what counts. It will do the job, more than adequately and it comes short stocked for youth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom