I just don’t get why people feel the need to get it done with the smallest caliber possible. Certainly no cool points from me for that. I live in B.C. shot my first deer with a .303. When I bought my first serious hunting gun I researched ballistics and bought a .300 mag. Yikes! Did it kick. I started hand loading and shooting it lots. Leaned how to handle it. Being a young/poor guy with only one rifle, I moved to the ..338. That was 40 years ago, have had most calibers since. Smallest gun I’ve used on deer was a .270 and it worked really well. Being able to accurately shoot your gun is a given. This, you can’t shoot magnums accurately is laughable. Sure if the biggest gun you can handle is small, fine. Just don’t assume guys shooting bigger guns can’t shoot or that a 300 doesn’t kill any better than a .243. None of this applies to the OP of course.
.243 - Just Enough, Not Enough or Perfect
- Thread starter -Doug-
- Start date
In BC, the smallest calibre possible is a 22(222/223), which is also plenty for deer.
I just don't get why people feel the need to get it done with ridiculously over powered rifles for medium sized game...See what happened there?
Lack of knowledge and experience makes most reach for the larger calibres.
If you shoot a 300WM well, you'll shoot a 243 better. Much better. Fact.
R.
I just don't get why people feel the need to get it done with ridiculously over powered rifles for medium sized game...See what happened there?
Lack of knowledge and experience makes most reach for the larger calibres.
If you shoot a 300WM well, you'll shoot a 243 better. Much better. Fact.
R.
If it works it works, whats the difference?
Agree on not judging someone by his rifle though. Not til you see them shoot. But its undeniable more hunters are overgunned than under, and that it takes a lot more effort and skill to shoot the bigger stuff well, and not everyone puts that work in.
To me using the least recoiling, flattest shooting rifle you can is just the "easy mode"...or at least most efficient. Again, if it can be counted on to work, big or small, whats the difference?
This worries me with going too tough of a bullet on the smaller calibers. Or not getting an exit, depending. I mean they can run quite a ways with a good hit from a 30 cal too, but they do generally leave some sign.
That said with something like an ELDM or a TMK, the insides are going to be so rearranged, I don't think they will be hard to find. Even if you go through shoulder.
Dead is dead, there is no such thing as "deader".
Personally, I find the deer i have hit with the bigger cartridges tend to move further than the ones hit with the smaller faster ones. Faster being key here.
Don't get me wrong, I love the bigger ones, (Couple different 375's, 405 wcf, 416 rigby, 45-70, 458 win mag) they all killed the deer, just not usually where they were standing.
Fastest deer I've ever had go down? 220 Swift and 25-06. Like a lightning strike.
30-06 with fast 150's usually crumples them on the spot too.
Next year I think I will use a 348 wcf.
First deer I ever shot, (I was 12, probably no more than 80 lbs) we had to track for 2 miles and didn't find it until the next day. I shot it in the guts with a 270 win. Too much gun for a little kid, I think I would have been better served with a centerfire 22(not legal back then) or a 243.
There is a reason why the 243 is close to the top of the list of most popular deer hunting calibres, Its there because it works.
Very solid rebuttal there lol
Same here.
The only reason I still use anything bigger is that since I shoot a lot of monos, I like the bigger hole. A bit wary of going with TOO tough a bullet on the little guys, unless its moving very fast. But even then.
Find they are at their best with a bullet construction that does more damage. Looking forward to trying a 30-06 with 110gr TTSX next season though.
I’ve used a 243 o coyotes for over 40 yrs, my boys used them for deer. They both moved up to med class cal the next year.(7x57). Unless you’r very recoil sensitive a little more gun is more certain to stop game. Just my limited experience.
No need for a rebuttal. That was for the guy saying lack of experience, I live and hunt in B.C. so moose and elk are on the card. I don’t consider mini guns good for stalking big game in the mountains. Hence my choice of the start. I don’t want to argue anyone’s choice. I’m just saying that if someone shoots a bigger gun, don’t assume they can’t shoot it.
I shot two Mulies back in the day with my 338/378 . For one had to wait 45 mins in driving sleet to count points while he lay in his bed across a small ravine at about 225 yards. Threaded the 210 tsx through a small hole in the branches to anchor him. Single shot. 270 would have done the same but bigger doesn’t mean wrong.
Ya I wanted to try it out but to be honest, it did a bit more damage than I was comfortable with. Worked though.
The question was is 243 ethically capable of taking deer for a recoil sensitive shooter, just incase anyone forgot.
The question wasn’t if there’s anything capable of more energy, penetrating further, leaving bigger holes. Obviously there is.
I coule suggest a 35 whelen would have more energy, penetrate ass to head, while leaving a much bigger hole. That’s not relevant to the recoil sensitive shooter though.
The question wasn’t if there’s anything capable of more energy, penetrating further, leaving bigger holes. Obviously there is.
I coule suggest a 35 whelen would have more energy, penetrate ass to head, while leaving a much bigger hole. That’s not relevant to the recoil sensitive shooter though.
Thats incorrect actually. In BC the stipulation is centerfire.
So, I can speak to this a bit to give some context…
And for starters, my back lawn (literally) is grizzly country here in NE BC.
I shot a lot of stuff with big mono’s from a 300 Ultra. Knocked a fair number of moose and elk over with that, busting shoulders.
What I have found, using heavy for caliber match bullets, is that I get more internal damage, less distance traveled after the shot, and faster kills versus mono’s.
I do give up some bullet penetration depth using softer bullets, but I give up wound diameter using mono’s. Its a trade off there on the face of it, but I realized I don’t need or WANT 5 feet of penetration on an elk.
I do want a more aggressively expanding bullet that will give more collateral damage in the event of poor bullet placement, coupled with the more than enough penetration that a heavy for caliber bullet provides.
I could certainly use the same style of bullets in my 300 Ultra, but meat loss would be well above what I’m willing to accept. Would it kill stuff faster than my 223AI? Highly unlikely in an meaningful way. Would it kill stuff more deader? Absolutely it would. And it would make the packouts lighter too. I don’t see that as a benefit though.
It makes zero sense to me to minimize the amount of bullet trauma (bonded or mono’s) at the added cost of more noise, more powder burned, more rifle weight, just to shoot a larger caliber rifle.
I don’t see a downside to less recoil, less muzzle blast, less noise and more effective results. More leeway in the event of poor bullet placement. Spotting my own hits in the scope. Faster follow up if a second shot is needed. And the ability to get on a lighter/shorter rifle faster and more accurately if needed in a hurry.
Bullets matter more than headstamps.
It's funny how something like the 243win brings out the "it's too weak" crowd, but when it comes to things like 30-30 - which has no more energy at the muzzle and loses energy much faster with range - don't get the same reaction.
