.243 vs .30-30 on deer?

Boomer said:
Yup, that was nothing more than a poorly conceived stunt, and should be held up as an example of how not to hunt.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

sheephunter said:
Hard to argue that a 243 won't kill an elk after watching that....lol
Click to expand...

You are an experienced hunter... you KNOW that was a CNS shot, and you KNOW that the animal will be killed... but perhaps not by the shot seen in the video... and you KNOW the risks and luck involved with a CNS shot... hunting should NOT be a "risky" or "lucky" proposition when it comes time to squeeze the trigger.


canadaman30 said:
Because you and your gear are not capable of such a shot, then that's how not to hunt? It prooves on camera with the right gear and know how a 243 is a capable round. I guess target shooters hitting 1000yd targets are just stunt shots hitting with luck. Hell alot of target shooters think nothing of shooting 700yds. Just because some don't have the right gear or skill to make a long shot does not make it a stunt of unethical luck. What next if a 243 is only good for 100lbs then is my 270 twice the gun but limited to a 200lb animal or is it 4 times more potent but limited to a 400lb animal????

To the OP that questioned the use of either 243 or 30-30, I guess your out of luck because your 30-30 is limited to a 200lb animal and your 243 is nothing more than a wolf gun.................Laugh2.
Click to expand...

My friend... IMO, you are either young, or inexperienced or both...
 
hoytcanon said:
You are an experienced hunter... you KNOW that was a CNS shot, and you KNOW that the animal will be killed... but perhaps not by the shot seen in the video... and you KNOW the risks and luck involved with a CNS shot... hunting should NOT be a "risky" or "lucky" proposition when it comes time to squeeze the trigger.




..
Click to expand...

Still hard to argue that a 243 won't kill an elk....
 
It is really too bad that some promote this type of "hunting". And laugh about it. I'm pretty sure nobody needs proof that a 243 will kill an elk. Hell, Bella Twin proved that a .22 will kill a grizzly. HF!
 
sheephunter said:
Still hard to argue that a 243 won't kill an elk....
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that a .243 won't kill an elk... certainly not me. As a case in point, one of the biggest grizzlies ever shot was killed with a .22 Long Rifle... BUT, neither you nor I are likely to go grizzly hunting with an LR anytime soon... are we?
 
This caliber argument will go on forever, it has already been forever since it started. You owe it to the game to ensure as quick a death as you are capable of. Make your choices based on all factors, your own skill will be the biggest variable so hedge your bet a little and err on the big side. Know your limitations and dont make the game pay for your inadequacies. There are too many choices out there today to go out into the field without the proper equipment for the job.
Ultra long range shooting of game is (in my mind) unethical and not hunting. There are paper targets for that.
 
hoytcanon said:
My friend... IMO, you are either young, or inexperienced or both...
Click to expand...

Sorry but your guess is wrong. Some may think hunting moose with a bow is risky at best (not I), as you hit the shoulder it may well stop your arrow, leaving a wounded animal. But I'm sure you know your equipment and how it works for success, just the same as a rifle. To say a 243 is only good for a 100lb animal at best is a joke. A 243 will go through the ribs of a moose and put a drain hole in the lungs the same as an arrow=dead animal. I've seen the damage a 243 can do......it kills much more than some give it credit for.
 
canadaman30 said:
Sorry but your guess is wrong. Some may think hunting moose with a bow is risky at best (not I), as you hit the shoulder it may well stop your arrow, leaving a wounded animal. But I'm sure you know your equipment and how it works for success, just the same as a rifle. To say a 243 is only good for a 100lb animal at best is a joke. A 243 will go through the ribs of a moose and put a drain hole in the lungs the same as an arrow=dead animal. I've seen the damage a 243 can do......it kills much more than some give it credit for.
Click to expand...

I shoot and reload for both .243 and .30/30... I am well aware of what they can each do... I am not involved with the "sub-100 pound" argument... I am of the opinion that if one is going to use marginal equipment (or MORE marginal than other options, let us say)... then that individual would be wise to work within the limitations of their choice and NOT push the envelope... as I believe a 688 yard shot on elk with a .243 is... definitely pushing the envelope. By the way, I have been bowhunting for more than 40 years... 95% of my big game has been taken with archery gear, so I am well versed on staying within the limitations of my equipment choices... I would equate a 688 yard shot with a .243 to a 100 yard shot with a bow... my longest bowshot on a game animal was 40 yards and that was under "ideal" circumstances... the average is under 20 yards... and I practice an awful lot.
 
guido said:
It is really too bad that some promote this type of "hunting". And laugh about it. I'm pretty sure nobody needs proof that a 243 will kill an elk. Hell, Bella Twin proved that a .22 will kill a grizzly. HF!
Click to expand...

Yes. It's funny how the attitude changes when its the shooter who is more likely to suffer rather than the game. You want to be a pansy and shoot elk 688 yards away with a 243. I say Man Up and take your 22lr out Grizzly hunting................... Let me know how that works out for ya! Now that will impress me.

A quick check shows that a 10 mph wind will drift that bullet about 5 feet in that distance. How can you be that sure of the wind? And I always wondered. If the elk ran away. Would they cross all that terrain to go look for blood?
 
Last edited:
Comments supporting antics pulled in vids like that make me wish we had mandatory qualification testing on moving targets with computer readout results like they do in Sweden.
 
hoytcanon said:
Nobody is saying that a .243 won't kill an elk... certainly not me. As a case in point, one of the biggest grizzlies ever shot was killed with a .22 Long Rifle... BUT, neither you nor I are likely to go grizzly hunting with an LR anytime soon... are we?
Click to expand...

Actually it was kind of implied. I was just talking about the 243 and it's obvious ability to kill an elk.....no comment on the LR shot :)
 
g-manz35 said:
I wonder how many Half-wits will try the same thing because "I saw it on the internet" resulting in many more injured elk running off and dying without ever being retrieved.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is, its not just on the internet. There are many shows on outdoor channels and columns in outdoor magazines that naïve watchers and readers take as gospel, just because some t.v. or magazine personality promotes it.
 
IMO at 688 yards it's not hunting anymore.

That's why I asked how a .243 would compare with a .30-30 at up to 150 yards on deer, not 300 yards on elk. That's what .270s and .300 Win Mags are for.

I did a poll here once about the longest shots and 95% of the answers were under 200 yards.

Thanks for all the commentary. I'm getting the picture that most think the .30-30 would be a more reliable deer harvester at woods ranges, unless one feeds the .243 premium ammunition. Then I gather the game changes with premium ammo (e.g. NPT or TSX) to where a .243 should take a deer cleanly out to 300 yards and very effectively at least to 200 yards.

However, many seem to agree that 6.5 and up are further into the reasonable bullet weights and velocities for deer. Deer cartridges are ideally .257/.260/6.5x55/7x57/7mm08/.308/.270/.30-06. If one can afford two rifles, then deer are better taken with one of these.

Fair assessment?
 
yomomma said:
Every thing changed with leverevolution .

30-30 all day long.
Click to expand...

But you have to try CFE-223 in a .243... Then it gets confusing again... I shoot .30/30 in a number of single shot rifles, where premium Spire point bullets can be used... Many lever gun shooters would be shocked the excellent erformance.
 
philthygeezer said:
.257/.260/6.5x55/7x57/7mm08/.308/.270/.30-06. If one can afford two rifles, then deer are better taken with one of these. Fair assessment?
Click to expand...

Glad you put the BOB in there, quarter bores are very legitimate deer takers... I would add the .250 Savage and .25/06 or there are couple of big groups whose feelings will be hurt.

I still feel that the .243 is also a legitimate deer harvester, two of my kids started with .243's for deer... But I took them to the range, loaded partitions, taught them to estimate range (shots only under 200 yards) and most importantly, I taught them to wait patiently for the RIGHT shot to present itself... I am proud to say that they let some deer walk away under marginal circumstances... Others stopped walking when they met.
 
philthygeezer said:
IMO at 688 yards it's not hunting anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not hunting anymore because maybe you couldn't make good at that distance. I know for a fact I would not consider a shot at that distance regardless of calibre and not afraid to admit it. But I won't try to discredit individuals that have the gun, gear and goods to do it, or claim it's not hunting. Trying to knock down others and discredit them for their accomplishments and skills sounds like a bit of jealousy from the ones who can't IMO. Since when was hunting measured by distance?
 
Boomer said:
Yup, that was nothing more than a poorly conceived stunt, and should be held up as an example of how not to hunt.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Firstly, I hunt regularly with a 243 and am keenly aware of it's limitations and I call BS on this video. Secondly, this video was shot for the specific intention of promoting a business - precision shooting. I am wondering how come they never set up an Elk sized wad of ballistics gel at 650 yards to demonstrate effectiveness of caliber/bullet combination. That wind is nice and strong and they way she was fumbling with the rifle after the shot and him telling her "not to worry" tells me that perhaps somebody else was behind the rifle, or that the rifle is closer, or that the caliber is much larger than we are led to believe.

Ever watch "Mantracker"? Lotsa staging, calculated scripting and cutscenes for the viewing pleasure of the audience watching. Now, lets look at the video itself. Notice how clear and telephoto'd the shots are of the Elk, and then the cutscene of the to the two people doing the "testimonial" now. That clarity takes some serious gear. The mic sounds almost like a professional higher quality on a boomer and has likely been edited for clarity. Judging by the way the voices clear up at the 1:25 minute mark, I would not be surprised if they were wearing mics either. The "cameraman's" voice is very distinct and loud announcing that he is zoomed out, yet very quiet when dialoging 1:34. Maybe two guys back there.

There also is no other zooming back to the Elk to see if it is still struggling. We also have to take his word for it that the Elk when shot was 688 yards away.

Hey folks, lets do a "Mythbusting" exercise and see if this is possible with ballistics gel or large milkjugs...just for sh!ts and giggles. Let's see the power of the 243 at 650 yards for ourselves! I only have access to a 300 yard range, otherwise I'd try it. I love my 243 as a 'yotebuster at 400 yards, but that elk at 688, with a wicked crosswind...nope!

To those who are rigidly sticking to the "evidence" on camera...tune into Mythbusters for some episodes where they seriously debunked many Youtube videos.
 
Mythbusting....lol

OR, you could go over to 24hour and simply search "243 vs elk", and read about from the guy who was there. And then maybe ask Burns yourself if it was a set up......(grin)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom