.243 - Just Enough, Not Enough or Perfect

Given the "talent" of the average hunter, both would be equal...

Not much other than a bear thread gets the opinions as facts factory fired up to full capacity.
A 243AI is the second dirtiest trick a feller can play for shooting deer, at pretty much any distance the skill would allow for.
Plus, it's the best way to neck the suck out of a 308...
200 pound deer at 500M? How about plenty of 300 pound plus deer at a lot further?
Under gunned for Griz in Alberta? Not a chance, if that's what a feller had in his hands....
150 yards max? Nope, add a zero and then maybe, but not always.

Experience and fact trump opinion and pretend every time.

R.
300+ pound deer at "a lot further" than 500yds? What sort of bullet are you using for that?
 
300+ pound deer at "a lot further" than 500yds? What sort of bullet are you using for that?
I can say with absolute confidence that a 105 Amax will smash the giggles out of any member of the deer family out to wherever it ends up at 1800fps impact velocity. Slightly north of 800 yards in my particular 243AI.
 
I never was a fan of the .243 and that could be because I hunt in the foothills where you never know when you could bump into a grizzly so I like packing something bigger.
I suppose a .243 would be ok if you are hunting deer on a farm in southern Ontario but not around here.

Same old litany: pick your shots, double lung broadsides, my-granpappy-back-in-the-depression, more than adequate. Blah blah blah...gets tiresome...

Of course it's "adequate" with good bullets and carefully chosen shot angles. It's especially adequate if you are walking out the door with the "meat hunter" mentality. I have carried a .243 a few times when my goal was a nice fat doe for the freezer, and it has absolutely been adequate. But it's easy to wait for the perfect shot on days like that. In most places, deer are not scarce. There are very few days during deer season that I come home at night without having seen some does or small bucks that day.

But what about those days when you head out with a big buck in mind? Maybe one you've seen a couple times, or caught on camera. So you sit in the cold all day, for days or weeks, passing on deer after deer, and then finally at dusk The Deer steps out at 350 yards, and stands quartering towards you as the last few seconds of shooting light tick away. You can tell he's suspicious, maybe caught a whiff of wind or otherwise mysteriously senses that something's up. He might easily just turn and melt back into the trees; he's not some young dummy spike buck and this hunting season is not his first rodeo. Your self-imposed 150-yard limit will start to feel a lot more like a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. Are you going to grab up your .243 and heave a sigh of relief as you set up for the shot, thankful that you chose it that morning instead of your .30-06 or .300WinMag?

Yeah...I wouldn't either...
I actually would.
100%
Except that I would not take a 350 yard poke at a quartering buck in failing light.

Carefully chosen shot angles should be the standard and should not be compromised by rack goggles.
By your logic, the better the buck, the less you should care about the quality of shot!? Just send a bigger pill, that will make up for your inability to shoot accurately?
You have less respect for a big wily veteran than a spiker?
All that seems backward to me.

I hunt with excellent rifles, quality hand loads, and exceptional glass and I have passed on more than a few studs who presented less than ideal shots, especially in low light. Questionable ethics aside, your ability to resolve detail plummets in low light and distances you can make out appropriate detail also shrink dramatically.

Even so, assuming you were going to take such a questionable shot, the 243 remains more than capable at that range with the right bullet.

AND, Empirical science demonstrates that the best caliber is the one you shoot accurately and literally everyone shoots a 243 more accurately than they shoot a 30-06 or 300 WM.

I like your tension filled narrative but it's just the same old puff chested gym talk.

"Dude, what's your bench??"
 
My wife has shot 4 white-tailed deer & a bear, all with her 243 loaded with 100grain Remington Core-Lokt ammunition. When we were bear hunting, she was teased by the guys who said she should borrow her husband's 7mm Rem Mag... You know what, her bear took like 5 steps after being shot & mine ran about 40 yards!

She also lent her rifle to a friend one year & the doe that was harvested dropped in its tracks.

The 243 is a very effective cartridge! I honestly think we have a case of magnum-itis where folks have been conditioned to think they need a 300WM to kill Bambi. The reality is, folks with magnum-itis would shoot the 243 better than the 300WM that they're afraid of & require a lead sled to shoot...

Cheers
Jay
My wife shot her bear with a 100 grain partition. The bear spun, dropped, death moaned and expired.

I’ve never killed a bear quicker with a broadside shot. Taken bears with 257 weatherby, 30-30, 44mag and 35 whelen.
 
I never owned a .243 but I did have a 6mm Rem. same thing basically. Killed a lot of deer with it and it did the job. Later I stepped up to a 7mm Rem. mag. and there was no going back to the 6mm. Shot placement is important with whatever you use but I just found the 7mm worked better and dropped them quicker than the 6mm. I also have a 6.5 Swede and IMO the 6.5 calibre is the sweet spot between varmint and magnum cartridges. Performs closer to the 7mm than the 6mm. Anyone considering a .243 I recommend going 6.5 instead, far more versatile in bullet weights, great accuracy with minimal recoil. If you don’t hand load the 6.5 Crede is the way to go. Last time I was at Cabelas I saw no less than 14 or 15 varieties of ammo for the 6.5 Crede. Bullet selection is important with whatever calibre you choose.
 
My wife shot her bear with a 100 grain partition. The bear spun, dropped, death moaned and expired.

I’ve never killed a bear quicker with a broadside shot. Taken bears with 257 weatherby, 30-30, 44mag and 35 whelen.
agreed . 243 with a good partions or barnes is a good option for ethical kills. There are better option's..my 257wm is fairly heavy and dosent recoil much more that a light 243. Its just louder in my opinion. But the down range perfromance is noticable.
 
What's not to like, 6mm bullet, low recoil, 100gr bullets will work on damn near everything in NA under 150yrds. The 243 checks alot boxes for me.
 
I actually would.
100%
Except that I would not take a 350 yard poke at a quartering buck in failing light.

Carefully chosen shot angles should be the standard and should not be compromised by rack goggles.
By your logic, the better the buck, the less you should care about the quality of shot!? Just send a bigger pill, that will make up for your inability to shoot accurately?
You have less respect for a big wily veteran than a spiker?
All that seems backward to me.

I hunt with excellent rifles, quality hand loads, and exceptional glass and I have passed on more than a few studs who presented less than ideal shots, especially in low light. Questionable ethics aside, your ability to resolve detail plummets in low light and distances you can make out appropriate detail also shrink dramatically.

Even so, assuming you were going to take such a questionable shot, the 243 remains more than capable at that range with the right bullet.

AND, Empirical science demonstrates that the best caliber is the one you shoot accurately and literally everyone shoots a 243 more accurately than they shoot a 30-06 or 300 WM.

I like your tension filled narrative but it's just the same old puff chested gym talk.

"Dude, what's your bench??"
Oh, please. That is the most desperately biased misinterpretation of what I said that I could possibly imagine. I was not and am not advocating taking iffy shots, on either the biggest bruiser or the smallest spiker. I don't take shots unless I know I can make them. But however strongly you may feel about using smaller cartridges to take deer cleanly, you cannot possibly be claiming that a point-of-shoulder shot on a quartering buck...which is absolutely safe and doable with a larger cartridge...can be considered ethical with a .243 or similar out to the same distances. Sorry, it's just not true. It's very trendy to kill critters with the smallest possible cartridge to show how expert a marksman you are. That's fine, if you only take the shots...the admittedly numerous shots...for which those cartridges are suitable.

But, the fact remains that there will be shots, identically well-placed accurate shots, which will result in a quick kill with a sufficiently powerful cartridge but a wound with a smaller one. A broadside double lung shot is wonderful with many cartridges, but a shot on the point of the shoulder or other big bone on a quartering animal is equally effective with far fewer cartridges.

Is it easier to shoot a small cartridge? Of course it is; so what? A large cartridge requires more practice to master....so practice. Of course you shouldn't take shots you are not confident of making...but you should practice enough to be confident in your ability on the shots at which the larger cartridge can excel.

Thanks for the tutorial on low-light target resolution and questionable ethics, but save it for your buddies...because it is not relevant to what I posted.

You sound like one of those light-tackle fishermen, who strive to catch fish on the lightest line possible to achieve some dubious "line class record"...ignoring the increased stress inflicted on the fish throughout the longer battle required to bring it to hand. Yes, very sporting...congrats on your sterling sportsmanship.

So yes, the .243 is enough...just enough...but for animals approaching the 300-pound range, at the ranges at which they may easily be shot, it is emphatically not ideal.

Feel free to insert a sanctimonious last word here; I won't bother coming back. :)
 
Last edited:
Oh, please. That is the most desperately biased misinterpretation of what I said that I could possibly imagine. I was not and am not advocating taking iffy shots, on either the biggest bruiser or the smallest spiker. I don't take shots unless I know I can make them. But however strongly you may feel about using smaller cartridges to take deer cleanly, you cannot possibly be claiming that a point-of-shoulder shot on a quartering buck...which is absolutely safe and doable with a larger cartridge...can be considered ethical with a .243 or similar out to the same distances. Sorry, it's just not true. It's very trendy to kill critters with the smallest possible cartridge to show how expert a marksman you are. That's fine, if you only take the shots...the admittedly numerous shots...for which those cartridges are suitable.

But, the fact remains that there will be shots, identically well-placed accurate shots, which will result in a quick kill with a sufficiently powerful cartridge but a wound with a smaller one. A broadside double lung shot is wonderful with many cartridges, but a shot on the point of the shoulder or other big bone on a quartering animal is equally effective with far fewer cartridges.

Is it easier to shoot a small cartridge? Of course it is; so what? A large cartridge requires more practice to master....so practice. Of course you shouldn't take shots you are not confident of making...but you should practice enough to be confident in your ability on the shots at which the larger cartridge can excel.

Thanks for the tutorial on low-light target resolution and questionable ethics, but save it for your buddies...because it is not relevant to what I posted.

You sound like one of those light-tackle fishermen, who strive to catch fish on the lightest line possible to achieve some dubious "line class record"...ignoring the increased stress inflicted on the fish throughout the longer battle required to bring it to hand. Yes, very sporting...congrats on your sterling sportsmanship.

So yes, the .243 is enough...just enough...but for animals approaching the 300-pound range, at the ranges at which they may easily be shot, it is emphatically not ideal.

Feel free to insert a sanctimonious last word here; I won't bother coming back. :)
So you make up a story in your head about how i fish and then sarcastically congratulate me for unethical conduct? That’s weird. Possibly deranged.

You seem like a person who puts ketchup on steak. Shame on you sir!!

You suggested the distance. 350 if u recall.
You suggested last seconds of legal light.
You suggested a “quartering to” shot angle.
That was your scenario. Not one i made up out of thin air.

And it would be iffy.
 
As always... these threads would be a lot shorter, and a lot simpler, if it were limited to folks that have actually killed game with a 243.

"So yes, the .243 is enough...just enough...but for animals approaching the 300-pound range, at the ranges at which they may easily be shot, it is emphatically not ideal."

This must be a joke? Or an opinion? Both?

It certainly contradicts a whole pile of facts and experience.

R.
 
I love threads like this on cgn, as it's always interesting to see folks who can't wrap their minds around the difference that the BULLET makes, versus what they think the difference is that the cartridge makes.... The bullet diameter matters far less than its construction and impact velocity. Unless of course you are running down a deer and beating it to death with a sock full of cartridges. Then I would say that a 20 count of 50 BMG's is going to be much more effective than a 20 count of 22 LR.

To the OP, there is a wealth of information available on the internet on various forums that are more informative on the terminal ballistics side of the equation that share 1000's of detailed pics and necropsy pictures of animal internals shot with various bullets within any single cartridge, (or impact velocity range) that will be of a vastly higher quality of information than people arguing between cartridges without speaking specifically to the bullets used. Bullets matter. That is the only interaction we have with an animal. And they can behave in vastly different ways based on construction, even if they are the same diameter or pushed from the same cartridge.

AND, you can still find some stuff like jjohnwm posted above, based on emotions too. No matter where you go, you will always find guys that think that talking the loudest or using insults will make them more right-er.

But if you sliiiiide around the internet enough, and peek under enough roks, you can find good information that is clearly documented around what specific bullets of specific diameters do at specific velocities from enough people that have enough experience doing it to be relevant.
Bullets matter more than headstamps.
 
Certainly hit a nerve for a few posters here. I will chime in. I have previoulsy killed about a dozen deer and 2 calm black bear with my 243's in the late 1990's. All shots were within about 15- 230 yards and were mostly one round clean kills, with a second dispatching shot required for two animals. Average death runs were: drt to running up to 90 yards. One partition bullet was recovered on a diagonal quartering -away shot from about 175 yards , and traveresed thru about two feet of the big buck. I am patient, know how to shoot, place my rounds properly, dont do garbage low- percentage hail marys; or pokes in poor light before dark. With all of that said, my assessment on the 243 is that it is useful and effective when used within its limits by a skilled, disciplined hunter. Since then, I have settled on a midcased 6.5 as my light- medium game chambering as it offers a bit more reach and better penetration for the larger animals.
 
Certainly hit a nerve for a few posters here. I will chime in. I have previoulsy killed about a dozen deer and 2 calm black bear with my 243's in the late 1990's. All shots were within about 15- 230 yards and were mostly one round clean kills, with a second dispatching shot required for two animals. Average death runs were: drt to running up to 90 yards. One partition bullet was recovered on a diagonal quartering -away shot from about 175 yards , and traveresed thru about two feet of the big buck. I am patient, know how to shoot, place my rounds properly, dont do garbage low- percentage hail marys; or pokes in poor light before dark. With all of that said, my assessment on the 243 is that it is useful and effective when used within its limits by a skilled, disciplined hunter. Since then, I have settled on a midcased 6.5 as my light- medium game chambering as it offers a bit more reach and better penetration for the larger animals.
What bullet are you using in your midcased 6.5?

And were all of your 243 animals with partitions?
 
I just checked gun post for used rifles to compare. 118ct for 243 vs 300ct for 6.5CM
For new ammo the gun dealer lists 13ct for 243 vs 33ct for the 6.5CM

I totally agree that used rifles are the way to go. The Gun Dealer only had one selection of 257Roberts ammo for mine. :( I reload.
How many of those 33 for the CM are proper hunting loads vs target/match loads?
I'd be willing to bet all 13 loads for the 243 are hunting loads, and that is what we are talking about here.
 
There is no shortage of options for "proper" hunting bullets with 6.5 Creedmoor. I was out to Cabela's last night. There is no comparison between them. There is nearly a full shelf of 6.5 with plenty of good hunting options. As good as it may be for some .243W is old hat and I doubt it's anything but downhill from here with all the new offerings out there.
 
I've never been a fan of the .243 but debating if it is a good killer of deer sized animals seems ridiculous.

Not every kill goes as planned with every animal, even with a good bullet and good shot placement, so not every .243 deer kill is going to be a spectacular DRT knockout punch. But some posts on this thread remind me of conversations I've had with hunters upgrading their .270 or 30-06 to a 300 magnum as they felt they needed more powder to kill mule deer after last seasons deer ran a bit after being shot.
 
The 243, like the 7x57, in a dialed-in lightweight rifle, are my preferred stalking cartridges. Mild recoil, inherently accurate, and hit well above their paper statistics. 243 is not an ethical nor effective bear cartridge, but is good to go for everything else in NA. I will never part with my mag-fed short-action CZ 557 Lux in 243. Versatile, accurate and handy.
 
I love threads like this on cgn, as it's always interesting to see folks who can't wrap their minds around the difference that the BULLET makes, versus what they think the difference is that the cartridge makes.... The bullet diameter matters far less than its construction and impact velocity. Unless of course you are running down a deer and beating it to death with a sock full of cartridges. Then I would say that a 20 count of 50 BMG's is going to be much more effective than a 20 count of 22 LR.

To the OP, there is a wealth of information available on the internet on various forums that are more informative on the terminal ballistics side of the equation that share 1000's of detailed pics and necropsy pictures of animal internals shot with various bullets within any single cartridge, (or impact velocity range) that will be of a vastly higher quality of information than people arguing between cartridges without speaking specifically to the bullets used. Bullets matter. That is the only interaction we have with an animal. And they can behave in vastly different ways based on construction, even if they are the same diameter or pushed from the same cartridge.

AND, you can still find some stuff like jjohnwm posted above, based on emotions too. No matter where you go, you will always find guys that think that talking the loudest or using insults will make them more right-er.

But if you sliiiiide around the internet enough, and peek under enough roks, you can find good information that is clearly documented around what specific bullets of specific diameters do at specific velocities from enough people that have enough experience doing it to be relevant.
Bullets matter more than headstamps.
Preach.

There are gonna be bullets that perform very well for you at certain weight/constructions/velocities. They're gonna kill what you hit in the vitals with them. 243 very much included. Placing them there is the important thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom