.243 - Just Enough, Not Enough or Perfect
- Thread starter -Doug-
- Start date
Don’t think I’ve seen the too week crowd. I said it was perfect for the ops intended purpose.
Don’t think the 30/30 is a 3-400 yard moose gun either. I’ve got one, and a couple of 45/70s. Great guns for their intended purposes.
I haven't shot as many deer as you guys, but my lesson learned is that if it's moving fast, the bullet needs to be tough, even on deer. I settled on Accubonds for those rounds and saw an immediate improvement in that there was WAY less meat damage.
80-90grs moving around 3000fps would be just fine in a .243.
80-90grs moving around 3000fps would be just fine in a .243.
The 243 is the only interesting 308 based cartridge.
IMO it demands good bullets and I think it has suffered due to cheaply made bullets.
My Grandfather killed a Grizzly with it that was in the B&C Book until they raised the minimums and there was even a photo of it in one of the big Outdoor Mags.
It's funny guys forget the lessons of the past, in the Blackpowder Days, guys figured out in a hurry that a soft 44 or 45 bullet as fast as Blackpowder would push it was the way, not a heavy hardcast at a slower velocity. Hence the "Express" loadings because they hit like an "Express Train".
IMO it demands good bullets and I think it has suffered due to cheaply made bullets.
My Grandfather killed a Grizzly with it that was in the B&C Book until they raised the minimums and there was even a photo of it in one of the big Outdoor Mags.
It's funny guys forget the lessons of the past, in the Blackpowder Days, guys figured out in a hurry that a soft 44 or 45 bullet as fast as Blackpowder would push it was the way, not a heavy hardcast at a slower velocity. Hence the "Express" loadings because they hit like an "Express Train".
canadaman30
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Far from the City
So far every deer and black bear shot by family members with 243 needed no more than a few yards to empire. Nothing of any long ranges but that's typical of Ontario woods we hunt.
Best part of having my wife behind the trigger, she doesn't read ballistic/energy charts and never second guesses the cartridges effectiveness. From the on game results she continues to shoot with confidence..
Best part of having my wife behind the trigger, she doesn't read ballistic/energy charts and never second guesses the cartridges effectiveness. From the on game results she continues to shoot with confidence..
I load 6.5 swede similar to 243 for one of my rifles. 100grn softies at 2950fps. (Usually HP for coyotes, but I have a giant bag of soft points) Got me my first buck, and with bad shot placement. But I have no doubt with a good boiler room shot that 11 pointer woulda been anchored. Running shots suck.
But I had considered 243 heavily before I went swede. I like that I have the option of 120 to 160grn for my other 6.5x55 rifle.
But I had considered 243 heavily before I went swede. I like that I have the option of 120 to 160grn for my other 6.5x55 rifle.
I’m big on the 6.5x55 aswell. 130gr sierras are it’s favorites. Currently about to trade a cz .223 for a tikka lsa 55 in .243win… looking forward to playing with that.
Its not a matter of the smallest calibre possible.
Its a matter of what calibre works well and more importantly, that you can shoot accurately.
Of course its possible to shoot a 300WM well. But if you can do that, i promise you will shoot the .243 even better. There is a mountain of empirical evidence for this.
As long as we are talking about centre fire, bullet design is a far more important choice than calibre in getting it done.
Fraggy bullets will kill well at some pretty extreme distances if we are talking about a shot to the vitals.
Monos need a bit more speed to do the job so ranges are shorter.
Both types have to arrive on target with enough speed to perform as designed.
The OP asked about 150 yards so yes, a 243 is more than adequate and can be shot better and more accurately (by everyone) than a 30-06 and the like.
I have a 243 and I love it but I am currently building a very light rifle that I will likely use more with a more modern cartridge design.
I will load ammo to perform out to 250 yards with my chosen mono bullets. Meaning they will arrive at 250 with at least 2000fps.
Even tho Barnes says 1800 will do, in my experience, 2000 is a safer bet at full expansion.
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
While I have no doubt that this is true for some shooters, maybe even most shooters it is certainly NOT universal. I know several people that can out shoot most people with their 300WM. In fact, a buddy of mine, shoots bigger calibres (300WM being one of the smallest) and a better, more proficient and successful hunter is difficult to find. Of all heavy hitters that he shoots, which includes several different .375’s, all of the available .416’s, several .458’s etc, the only rifle he has that has recoil that he feels is a bit heavy on recoil is his 8lb .375 ultra mag. While his youngest son seems to like shooting that one, Robert says it’s the hardest hitting rifle recoil wise out of all his guns. I watched him smoke a coyote at about 300 yards off hand with his .375HH as if he was shooting a gopher with a .22.
You misunderstand me,
Yes. Many people who shoot big guns are capable of shooting them better than some other people shoot smaller calibres. That’s a given.
Im saying the evidence is clear that anyone who shoots any gun will shoot smaller calibres better.
So your friend who shoots the big guns well will shoot smaller guns even better.
is it Universal. Might not be, nothing is.
But the data is very strong.
Maybe your friend shoots huge calibres well but couldn’t hit a barn door with a 243. But I doubt that’s the case
The US Army noted that shooting scores went up using the Remington Model 8 in 25 Remington vs the 1903 in 30-06. The Model 8 isn't exactly known for being a tack driver.
Like many things, shooting ability vs recoil is probably on a Bell Curve.
Like many things, shooting ability vs recoil is probably on a Bell Curve.
I picked up a 243 for giggles last year. I keep hearing about the soft recoil. I like soft recoil and thought a lighter rifle would be nice.
It was an inexpensive Savage. I didn't really like the fit and finish, but I thought what the heck, let's give it a go. For the record, I have another cheap plastic rifle, a Ruger American Ranch (223) that I absolutely love.
It was accurate and I was definitely comfortable out to 100 yards and beyond for accuracy.
But, all this talk of 'low recoiling' is I think a bit overblown. I'm a bit recoil sensitive and I couldn't tell much difference between the 243 and my 270 or even 308. I was disappointed. For me, the recoil reduction wasn't nearly enough to justify switching from my 270. And, the rifle wasn't significantly lighter - so there went that argument.
I had no qualms about shooting game with it. I just didn't see the point in changing calibers.
That being said, I started carrying a 223 during late season deer hunting (when there shouldn't be any bears roaming around). Especially after I have filled the freezer, restricting myself to closer range clean (broadside) shots makes for an interesting challenge that I'm willing to accept.
For my son, I'm going to give him some reduced recoil 308's.
My next buy will probably be a lightweight 6.5. It would be nice to lose a couple of pounds of carrying weight.
It was an inexpensive Savage. I didn't really like the fit and finish, but I thought what the heck, let's give it a go. For the record, I have another cheap plastic rifle, a Ruger American Ranch (223) that I absolutely love.
It was accurate and I was definitely comfortable out to 100 yards and beyond for accuracy.
But, all this talk of 'low recoiling' is I think a bit overblown. I'm a bit recoil sensitive and I couldn't tell much difference between the 243 and my 270 or even 308. I was disappointed. For me, the recoil reduction wasn't nearly enough to justify switching from my 270. And, the rifle wasn't significantly lighter - so there went that argument.
I had no qualms about shooting game with it. I just didn't see the point in changing calibers.
That being said, I started carrying a 223 during late season deer hunting (when there shouldn't be any bears roaming around). Especially after I have filled the freezer, restricting myself to closer range clean (broadside) shots makes for an interesting challenge that I'm willing to accept.
For my son, I'm going to give him some reduced recoil 308's.
My next buy will probably be a lightweight 6.5. It would be nice to lose a couple of pounds of carrying weight.
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
Yes, I understood you perfectly and my comments still stand. The reason I included the coyote example is to show that, he hit a coyote through the lungs at 300 yards off hand with his .375HH. How much better could that shot have been made with a smaller calibre?? Some people just are not recoil sensitive. Granted those type of shooters are in the minority.
I’ve had both. My son used a 7-08 for his first mule deer. The pictures I posted are of his first whitetail. The 7-08 was loaded with 120gr Nosler Ballistic Tips. Both deer died very quickly from 1 well placed shot. I’m not convinced there is any practical difference between the two in the circumstances presented by the OP.
And, I should tell a story from years ago. Barnes used to sell 75gr X bullets in 6mm. My friend was a game ranger in Serbia and asked me to bring him a couple of boxes as he absolutely loved their performance on boar. He was given a box by a client and couldn’t buy any more. I took two boxes and he used them with great success. I’d be lying if I said how many he shot with those 100 bullets, but I can tell you he shot lots.
Good shooting, as always, is the key. Know where to shoot and have the skills to put your shot there from field positions. The rest of the conversation is for entertainment around the campfire - or internet!
