.243 - Just Enough, Not Enough or Perfect

franktank said:
Just use common sense for once
Click to expand...

I try not to make assumptions based on my feelings. You should try it some time.

I know what he was getting at - he is implying 223 has more wound loss. But what is the evidence for that? 308win is one of if not THE most common deer caliber in the USA. That means 308 is likely to be used by a lot of lazy hunters who don't practice, and thus are more likely to wound game.

So while you might think its common sense that 223 causes more wound loss, I don't think it is that simple, and will need to see some real evidence one way or the other before I support either side of this argument.
 
Suther said:
I try not to make assumptions based on my feelings. You should try it some time.

I know what he was getting at - he is implying 223 has more wound loss. But what is the evidence for that? 308win is one of if not THE most common deer caliber in the USA. That means 308 is likely to be used by a lot of lazy hunters who don't practice, and thus are more likely to wound game.

So while you might think its common sense that 223 causes more wound loss, I need more evidence to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
ROTFLMFAO
 
Suther said:
I try not to make assumptions based on my feelings. You should try it some time.

I know what he was getting at - he is implying 223 has more wound loss. But what is the evidence for that? 308win is one of if not THE most common deer caliber in the USA. That means 308 is likely to be used by a lot of lazy hunters who don't practice, and thus are more likely to wound game.

So while you might think its common sense that 223 causes more wound loss, I don't think it is that simple, and will need to see some real evidence one way or the other before I support either side of this argument.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, do you think that’s a combination of bullet dia and/or ftlbs energy at the target/animal re; the .308Win ?
 
Sorry my bad Suth

It was regarding all the elements you suggested. Commonality, bad shot placement, flinching etc regarding the .308Win ?
 
ShrtRnd said:
Sorry my bad Suth

It was regarding all the elements you suggested. Commonality, bad shot placement, flinching etc regarding the .308Win ?
Click to expand...

It is so common because of its connection to the military. It is also a good middle ground in general - big enough for moose and elk, but small enough to have tolerable recoil for the majority of male adults.

I think there is a whole host of reasons why it COULD lead to more wound loss, but they all boil down to the shooter not being up to the task - it could be flinching, it could be a lack of practice, it could be a lack of knowledge about proper shot placement, it could be poor ammo choice, and I'm sure there are other things I'm missing.

Now, does none of this apply to people shooting 223? Nah. I'm sure there are some unprepared/unskilled hunters using the 223 as well. But because of how common/popular the 308 is paired with the fact that many consider the 223 to be marginal on deer, it seems logical to think that there would be a larger percentage of 308 users who fit the category of unskilled hunters.


At minimum, these factors leave me wanting more information on the topic before I draw any conclusions on which is actually wounding more deer.
 
Last edited:
northfork said:
Firearms with recoil energies above 35 ft-lbs create enough head acceleration to potentially cause subconcussive brain injury. Typical symptoms include gradual transition to crazy, right-winged redneck yahoos who frequent gun forums. Currently there is no known cure.;)
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....that could explain alot... I resemble that remark. 👍
 
Suther said:
It is so common because of its connection to the military. It is also a good middle ground in general - big enough for moose and elk, but small enough to have tolerable recoil for the majority of male adults.

I think there is a whole host of reasons why it COULD lead to more wound loss, but they all boil down to the shooter not being up to the task - it could be flinching, it could be a lack of practice, it could be a lack of knowledge about proper shot placement, it could be poor ammo choice, and I'm sure there are other things I'm missing.

Now, does none of this apply to people shooting 223? Nah. I'm sure there are some unprepared/unskilled hunters using the 223 as well. But because of how common/popular the 308 is it seems logical to think that there would be a larger percentage of 308 users who fit that category.


At minimum, these factors leave me wanting more information on the topic before I draw any conclusions on which is actually wounding more deer.
Click to expand...

S’all good. Some of us still can ask questions and have healthy debates on here 😁

I agree with your remarks, although I would think JOC’s fav cartridge would be a very close second to being America’s cartridge.

Cheers sir
 
Yet another simple thread derailed.
Anyway, while the .243 should be fine, it doesn't hurt to have a .270 on hand, also a .308, a 30-30 and just in case, a crossbow, a compound bow, a backup .44 mag in both lever action and revolver. Oh and don't forget to keep a 12G slug gun handy.
Then just build a gun rack in your tree stand/blind and select as needed.
For all the super serious folks out there, this is not a serious post. Have some eggnog, some candy cane ice cream and start prepping your boxing day shopping so my broke a$$ can live vicariously through your purchases.
 
hoytcanon said:
I agree with you... you apparently are not comprehending what I am posting. I am not saying that recoil does not exist, or that it imparts no effect on the shooter, I am also not saying that 9 out of 10 will not shoot better with a lighter recoiling rifle, because 9 out of 10 "DO" have a mental block when it comes to recoil. We have all seen some guy jolt and jerk at the range on a misfire, that is a purely "mental" issue... there was NO recoil. I am referring to the fact that some shooters (say 1 in 20 or 1 in 100, whatever) do not allow recoil to affect their accuracy, they can send the bullet without physically or mentally flinching or spazzing-out in some way and affecting the shot before the bullet leaves the barrel. My point is, that it is NOT true that ALL shooters immediately shoot better with a lighter recoil rifle. If 1 in 20 can learn to send the bullet without any accuracy degrading "flinch," then so can some of the others... it will never be conquered by all or even most, but there are those who can and do shoot a .338 as accurately as a .243.
Click to expand...
One can only comprehend what they read.... The whole idea that it is only mental... is kinda mental?
Every shooter has a reflex to the recoil. Every single one
Every shooter flinches. Every single one. Unless they have a mutation.
Every shooter physically or mentally flinches or spazzes-out in some way and affects the shot before the bullet leaves the barrel. Every single one. There is zero choice here. It happens every time one pulls the trigger.
.
Not really sure where the disconnect is,
ALL shooters WILL immediately shoot better with a lighter recoiling rifle. It is a matter of math and physics.
Physiology and phycology is what make some better at it than most. The mental and physical part.

Understanding this makes everyone a better shooter. That is the motivation behind trying to share and explain the info,

It surely isn't about being a tough guy, or whatever some of inferences suggest. Fact is, there really isn't a choice. Either you can manage it, or you can't. Everyone is different. If you can't, then you can work and work at it, and maybe improve. Some have, and have improved. That's how it works.

An example really is... everyone can box. Not everyone can get punched in the face, take it, and continue to fight., no matter how badly they want to. Practice, muscle memory, and mental preparation all help. Again... everyone can box. Not everyone can fight.
Hope that analogy makes sense?

R.
 
iron cat said:
Brakes are not allowed in metallic silhouette rimfire or center fire competition and a section on prohibited ammunition that will damage the targets, so there is that as well.
:)
Cat
Click to expand...

No doubt, I meant that even a gas op semi in 223 with a brake could cause a newish shooter to flinch.
 
canadaman30 said:
I'm unable to shoot tighter groups with my beloved 270 hunting rig, a pleasure to shoot..
Click to expand...
You would be able to shoot tighter groups with a lighter recoiling rifle, every single time. It becomes a function of practicality at that point. How many groups does one need to shoot to prove it out? The answer is more than most are willing to do. Or even need to do, really.
Fact is, the math and the physics don't care either.
The understanding of the concept is most important.

R.
 
Rman said:
Fact is, the math and the physics don't care either.
The understanding of the concept is most important.

R.
Click to expand...
That’s true. If I didn’t screw this up, The math works like this, the fastest that a human can react to something is 100 milliseconds (.001). A bullet travelling at 2000 fps leaves a 28” barrel in 80 milliseconds (.0008) .0002 seconds BEFORE the shooter can react to the recoil. If it was the physical recoil that prompts a flinch, it would have no affect on accuracy since the bullet is clear of the barrel before the flinch. Therefore, for a flinch to affect accuracy it would have to happen BEFORE the shooter actually feels he recoil, hence the flinch is a mental affliction caused by the anticipation of the recoil. Like you said “ math and physics don’t care”. Of course a shorter barrel or faster bullet is clear of the barrel with more time to spare before felt recoil
 
Last edited:
Licensed to kill said:
That’s true. If I didn’t screw this up, The math works like this, the fastest that a human can react to something is 100 milliseconds (.001). A bullet travelling at 2000 fps leaves a 28” barrel in 80 milliseconds (.0008) .2 milliseconds BEFORE the shooter can react to the recoil. If it was the physical recoil that prompts a flinch, it would have no affect on accuracy since the bullet is clear of the barrel before the flinch. Therefore, for a flinch to affect accuracy it would have to happen BEFORE the shooter actually feels he recoil, hence the flinch is a mental affliction caused by the anticipation of the recoil. Like you said “ math and physics don’t care”.
Click to expand...
If your flinching before the firing pin hits the primer you need to admit to your fear of pulling the trigger.
It's just that simple...accuracy has nothing to do with size of headstamp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom