.243 vs .30-30 on deer?

MiG25 said:
P1040240.jpg
Click to expand...

Rump roast? :D
 
Boomer said:
You're missing the point. On which big game animals is 12" of penetration sufficient when you're faced with something other than a broadside shot? Once your cartridge's terminal performance has limited you to only one particular shot, your cartridge selection is specific rather than general purpose. The more critical the shot angle becomes, the more specific its use becomes, thereby making it the expert's choice rather than the best choice for everyone. The flip side of the question is if there is an animal you wouldn't shoot with a .243. Elk have certainly be killed with them, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Now premium bullets have been game changers where small bores are concerned, which probably makes the .243 suitable for game up to 200 pounds. Even so I'm still inclined to keep my .243 as a varmint, wolf, seal rifle, topping it out at barren ground caribou. IMHO, true big game cartridges start with the 6.5s, and like many here, I have a selection of rifles that starting with the .270 are fully capable game killers so I don't have to rely on a 6mm or a .22 when I'm big game hunting. If one's personal circumstances limit him to a single rifle for all of his shooting chores, I can see where a .243 might be considered, but for those adults not restricted by physical ailment or limitation, considerations of low recoil and sub MOA accuracy are unnecessary in a typical big game rifle.

If we look at those who hunt the world, it would seem that more often than not their cartridge of choice is a .300 magnum. Why would that be if the .243 is such a fine performer on all game under a half ton? Now I'm not particularly enamored with the .300 myself, frankly if I'm going to put up with that level of bluster and fuss, I'll choose a .375, but I haven't heard of anyone who who would choose a .243 for such duty. Yet the small bore advocates make it sound like the .243 is suitable for all game from prairie dogs to elephants; I think there was even a video posted on here that showed a gal who killed an elk at long range with a .243. Such stunts should be considered a lesson of how not to do it. Even Warren Page who is much credited with the creation of the .243, preferred it for the smaller species of deer such a Euro Chamois and Texas whitetails. When he hunted in BC he chose a .270 and when after Asiatic sheep, and North American elk he preferred his 7mm Mashburn, a round ballistically similar to the 7 mag Remington.

Now much has improved in bullet design and performance since the days of the Page Super Pooper, but only so much can be done with a 100 gr bullet, that expands to .45 caliber. In comparison with the .45 ACP pistol cartridge, the .243 comes up short, weighing less than half, keeping in mind that it's velocity will be similar to that of the .45 at the muzzle, once the 6mm bullet has fully expanded. And that probably puts things into perspective; given the flat trajectory of the .243, making it tempting to take shots out to a quarter mile or more, terminally, you have half of the wounding potential that the .45 auto has at the muzzle.
Click to expand...

The point your missing and your so called 12" of penetration, is how a 243 is only good for 100lb animal, and 30-30 is only good for 200lb animal??? Then explain the thousands of yes Moose, Bear, Elk, Deer, that are harvested yearly with 243 and or 30-30 and as cleanly as many other calibres. For a calibre that's only good for 100lb animal, your right I just don't get your point cause even WT deer are far over 100lbs, let alone moose and bear.
 
That video is pretty distasteful to anybody who has the field experience to know what's really going on and is not blinded by marketing hype. In my opinion only somebody with something to sell, or gullible and inexperienced hunters would promote a video that "proves" the effectiveness of a .243 on elk at 688 yards. It is very obvious that a real hunter, as opposed to a "shooter" could stalk closer than 688yards in that hilly country. Anyone with much experience shooting elk knows that elk do not normally drop at the shot unless hit in the central nervous system. So a lucky shot to the spine knocked that elk down. I doubt very much that it was a "clean kill" - far more likely the elk lay there with a broken back for a half hour while they made their way over there for a finishing shot. The marketing hype from companies like Berger has sadly taken over far too many hunters minds. "Shoot at any animal you can see", is all about the technology, not about hunting skill. Way too many animals are wounded to suffer and be lost by promoting such BS.
 
Longwalker said:
That video is pretty distasteful to anybody who has the field experience to know what's really going on and is not blinded by marketing hype. In my opinion only somebody with something to sell, or gullible and inexperienced hunters would promote a video that "proves" the effectiveness of a .243 on elk at 688 yards. It is very obvious that a real hunter, as opposed to a "shooter" could stalk closer than 688yards in that hilly country. Anyone with much experience shooting elk knows that elk do not normally drop at the shot unless hit in the central nervous system. So a lucky shot to the spine knocked that elk down. I doubt very much that it was a "clean kill" - far more likely the elk lay there with a broken back for a half hour while they made their way over there for a finishing shot. The marketing hype from companies like Berger has sadly taken over far too many hunters minds. "Shoot at any animal you can see", is all about the technology, not about hunting skill. Way too many animals are wounded to suffer and be lost by promoting such BS.
Click to expand...

I could not have said it any better myself!!

As far as I am concerned, it is unconscionable to be shooting at Elk that far away with a 243,
regardless of the bullet being used.

Regards, Dave.
 
I did a one shot kill on a bull moose with the 30-30. It was not a premium bullet, it was a Hornady Interlock loaded to factory velocities. Penetration was 18". You can do that with a 243, maybe, but premium bullets would be needed for sure.
Some years back there was an article in Ontario Out of Doors (I think) where a woman shot a moose with a 243. She got here bull. Seven shots were needed. Shot placement unknown, but probably questionable. It can be done.

'Given a scoped bolt gun and a 165 grain boatail, you can very likely take game at 300 yards with the 30-30, given appropriate loads. Trajectory will not be as flat as a 243, but, it will not be a matter of concern I think on deer sized game. It will also deliver much more energy to target.' The proceeding is a statement from memory from a 30-30 book authored by Sam Fadala some years ago.

I've never had a failure with the 30-30, but I've seen two with the 243. Both deer were recovered, one shot by another hunter in our group (also with a 243), had a fantastic flesh wound where the bullet was apparently deflected by the shoulder, exiting the same side it went in. The other, just ran way too far for a 50 ft lung shot.

When I first started hunting I battled back and forth between the 243 and the 30-30. I'm happy with my choice. 30WCF for me.
 
canadaman30 said:
The point your missing and your so called 12" of penetration, is how a 243 is only good for 100lb animal, and 30-30 is only good for 200lb animal??? Then explain the thousands of yes Moose, Bear, Elk, Deer, that are harvested yearly with 243 and or 30-30 and as cleanly as many other calibres. For a calibre that's only good for 100lb animal, your right I just don't get your point cause even WT deer are far over 100lbs, let alone moose and bear.
Click to expand...

In my previous posts, I alluded to the .243 loaded with premium bullets as suitable for 200 pound game, but with cup and core bullets, its pretty much a wolf cartridge. As for explaining the thousands of moose harvested, well if we're talking about the .30/30 its millions harvested, which frequently over the last century occurred during subsistence hunting where a lack of options had much to do with the choice, although the handy lever action carbines would have been popular regardless of the cartridge they were chambered for. If I was choosing between the .30/30 and the .243 for an upcoming moose hunt, I'd be loading for the .30/30. many of today's subsistence hunters across the north are enamored with the .22-250 . . . it'll kill moose too, but like the .243 wouldn't be my choice.
 
hoytcanon said:
I wonder how many edits it took for that video... and how many mesas, may be slathered in blood from wounded elk???
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Misrepresentation and misdirection are the pitfalls of the "information highway." In this case it is the animals that will pay for it directly, and all hunters and ethical sportsmen indirectly. The truth is that shot should not have been taken at HALF that distance. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with using a .243 for deer... Using a quality bullet of 85 -105 grains and staying within its limitations (NO marginal shots)... It can be deadly... But reason and common sense must prevail. If a hunter is prone to take risks with his shot choices, he should have a weapon that offers more margin... Or even BETTER yet, don't take risky marginal shots... Become a better "hunter" and not just a "shooter."
 
Longwalker said:
That video is pretty distasteful to anybody who has the field experience to know what's really going on and is not blinded by marketing hype. In my opinion only somebody with something to sell, or gullible and inexperienced hunters would promote a video that "proves" the effectiveness of a .243 on elk at 688 yards. It is very obvious that a real hunter, as opposed to a "shooter" could stalk closer than 688yards in that hilly country. Anyone with much experience shooting elk knows that elk do not normally drop at the shot unless hit in the central nervous system. So a lucky shot to the spine knocked that elk down. I doubt very much that it was a "clean kill" - far more likely the elk lay there with a broken back for a half hour while they made their way over there for a finishing shot. The marketing hype from companies like Berger has sadly taken over far too many hunters minds. "Shoot at any animal you can see", is all about the technology, not about hunting skill. Way too many animals are wounded to suffer and be lost by promoting such BS.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Business builds the newest gadgets and a bunch of hunting "charlatan's" flog the stuff as gospel. To bad some drink the koolaid.
 
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...

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.
 
Heres a good job for .243 but at close range the 30-30 came out on tophttp://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=194210.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, you just don't get it. That video "prooves" nothing. Hunters have a far greater responsibility than just hitting a target. Hitting a target is not the same thing as cleanly killing a living, feeling animal. Please explain how "dropping" an elk at long range with a .243 was accomplished with anything but a spine shot. Almost never happens! That shot was a stunt, the animal almost certainly suffered with a broken back way too long, and there is a strong probability that anyone trying to duplicate that shot regardless of equipment or skill will wound instead of killing cleanly.
For what its worth, I have used and like both the .243 and the 30-30 for deer hunting. Both work well at normal hunting ranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom