If you would shoot it with a bow why not a .243?

[rhino519]

#### pot stirring at its best

 

[John Y Cannuck]

A shoulder shot on moose is a bad choice with either IMO.

I've seen terrible failures with both bow, and 243, all were the fault of the shooter. Shot placement is key with either one.

 

[Aries-]

shot placement and correct bullet. a 243 bullet that works great on a deer may be to fragile for a moose with its thick tough skin. would want a tougher heavier bullet for a moose.

i personally wouldn't want to use a .243 for a moose. but there are people that routinely take deer with .223 rem and .22 hornet.

 

[liberty]

Do arrows usually pass through deer?

Almost 100% of my .243 shot deer had huge exit wounds.

Only 1 I shot head on in the chest I recovered the bullet in the skin on it's ass.

I'd like to see an arrow do that, field point or not. Not saying it won't as I don't know, I'd just like to see it.

We've shot 4 bull moose with the crossbow so far, (going to do it again this year), all have been pass throughs.

The first one, a 57'' bull was quartering towards us and it was hit just behind the shoulder and exited in front of the hind leg leg on the far side, penetration of about 3 feet of moose.

Bolt was found in the grass behind him.

The last bull we got was hit about 25 yards away.

Just after being hit, it put his chin up, let out a groan, took a step backwards and fell in the swamp, dropped where he was hit.

I've also seen a deer shot through both shoulder blades with a crossbow.

 

[Brutus]

Do arrows usually pass through deer?

Almost 100% of my .243 shot deer had huge exit wounds.

Only 1 I shot head on in the chest I recovered the bullet in the skin on it's ass.

I'd like to see an arrow do that, field point or not.
Not saying it won't as I don't know, I'd just like to see it.

More often than not, the arrow has full pass through. With an adequate bow and broadhead this is normal routine.
As long as the archer is well practiced, is the most important factor I believe.
As others have said here, shot placement is also key to this.

Last deer I shot with a compound bow at 25 yards using Easton 2216s, and Muzzy 125 grain three blade (a fixed broadhead btw) full pass through no problem.

Matter of fact after punching through the deer, the arrow was lost until the landowner was clearing thornbushes and found it fully intact 6 months later.(no harm no foul thankfully)
Clipped top of heart and both lungs struck. Deer laid down 33 yards later, with a generous booldtrail Mr Magoo could find in poor light. Broadside shot, just behind the front leg, it did not jump the string so I had a very clean hit.
A sport not for the trigger happy indeed. This was after four days laying in wait in the treestand. Waiting for the perfect lineup of conditions.

 

[Boomer]

Arrows use a different mechanism to kill game than bullets do. An arrow penetrates into the chest and every time the animal moves that arrow shaft whips back and forth causing the broadhead to continue cutting the internal organs to ribbons, providing the arrow doesn't exit. The blood trail from an arrowed animal is pretty impressive.

Once a bullet has come to the end of it's trajectory, the wound tends to be large in diameter, relative to the bullet diameter, its depth though is dependent on momentum relative to the expanded diameter. The wound has liquified tissue and pulverized bone, but no more damage is done after the passage of the bullet.

The nature the bow requires that a game animal be shot from relatively close range, yet how do most folks set up their .243s? Mostly the barrels are long and the scopes large, in other words these things are equipped to take advantage of the wonderfully flat trajectory; they're ready for the long shot. Mine is no exception having a 22" medium contour varmint barrel and a 4-12X scope. Modern bullets have made the fast moving small bores more effective on larger game, but that doesn't make a .243 an elk gun any more than it makes it an elephant gun. Sure you can be successful if you shoot from short range, and are able to place your bullet with micrometer precision, but that's not what defines a big game rifle to me. To me a general purpose big game rifle should have a reasonable expectation of killing a big game animal with a single shot from any direction or angle within the range limitations of the hunter and/or his rifle. Even those who champion the use of the .243 on large game admit it does not meet this criteria. If you want a high velocity small bore with light recoil for general purpose big game hunting, the .270 is a much better contender.

 

[captonion]

To me a general purpose big game rifle should have a reasonable expectation of killing a big game animal with a single shot from any direction or angle within the range limitations of the hunter and/or his rifle.

Hmmmm. Not sure about this one.

 

[Boomer]

Why not? Its simply a matter of choosing the correct bullet for the game.

 

[captonion]

Why not? Its simply a matter of choosing the correct bullet for the game.

OooKKKKK

 

[bearkilr]

Why not? Its simply a matter of choosing the correct bullet for the game.

I think caliber is more important than bullet for shots from any angle or direction. Exactly this is what the 243 lacks on bigger animals, regardless of bullet used.

 

[captonion]

''any direction or angle'' This would mean taking a risky shot at some point, and time. Very wrong no matter the caliber, or bullet choice.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

So, now we are shooting animals in the ass trying to get to the vitals?

I am sure the anti-hunting crowd would love to hear that one.

If people aren't patient enough to wait for the right shot then maybe then should stay at the range instead of relying on energy and bullet construction to grind meat for sausage in the field.

 

[bearkilr]

So, now we are shooting animals in the ass trying to get to the vitals?

I am sure the anti-hunting crowd would love to hear that one.

If people aren't patient enough to wait for the right shot then maybe then should stay at the range instead of relying on energy and bullet construction to grind meat for sausage in the field.

I don't think you quite understand.
Would you feel comfortable doing a follow up shot from the rear with a marginal caliber like a 243 on moose or elk? We all know it's important to make the first shot count, but some of us aren't as good of a marksman as you.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Do I get to use my bow or peashooter???

I don't think you quite understand.
Would you feel comfortable doing a follow up shot from the rear with a marginal caliber like a 243 on moose or elk? We all know it's important to make the first shot count, but some of us aren't as good of a marksman as you.

 

[Boomer]

''any direction or angle'' This would mean taking a risky shot at some point, and time. Very wrong no matter the caliber, or bullet choice.

It would not be a "risky" shot provided there was sufficient bullet mass and velocity at the impact range to produce sufficient penetration. A 6mm bullet that weighed 140 grs and was fired from a cartridge that produced a MV of 3000 fps would be a very different animal than the .243 we all know and love today. There is no bad shot angle on game provided you choose an appropriate bullet. Any time you choose a bullet which cannot be counted to provide a one shot kill on a quatering away shot means you are, IMHO, under gunned for the game you are hunting. It is about bullet construction and weight, rather than it is about cartidge or caliber, unless the cartridge in question does not have an appropriate bullet made for it. Today, there is no approprate 6mm bullet for elk.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Are we talking initial shots or follow up shots now?

 

[Boomer]

Are we talking initial shots or follow up shots now?

Initial shots, anything you can do to get a hit anywhere on a follow-up is acceptable. A rear quartering shot on a large game animal is the toughest problem for a bullet to solve.

 

[captonion]

There is no bad shot angle on game provided you choose an appropriate bullet.

You might want to wear your hat on those hot sunny days. That might account for your lack of common sense.

 

[captonion]

Any time you choose a bullet which cannot be counted to provide a one shot kill on a quatering away shot means you are, IMHO, under gunned for the game you are hunting.

A rear quartering shot on a large game animal is the toughest problem for a bullet to solve.

LOL....Even less common sense in these quotes...A quartering away shot is the best scenario IMO.

The quartering-away shot offers a clear path to the heart and lungs; and if it is on the right side, will travel through the liver as well. This will result in a very quick harvest of the animal. Though the aiming point at this angle is less than a broadside shot, this is still a good shot for a firearm or bow hunter.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Well to me, I will wait for the animal to present itself with the cleanest shot with best view of the vitals, be patient, most of the time they will move into an acceptable position.

No matter what I am shooting I will wait for that perfect opportunity, I am out to hunt to enjoy the outdoors.It is not a live or die situation if I do not harvest an animal.

I DO NOT agree with the "any direction or angle" scenario no matter what you are shooting, shoot a moose from the ass to the nose with a 50 BMG, sure it will die and make a healthy mess.

As for the main argument, arrow, 243, or whatever.Use a quality broad head or bullet hit the vitals the animal will die, if the shot is questionable..............well that is a personal choice.

Initial shots, anything you can do to get a hit anywhere on a follow-up is acceptable. A rear quartering shot on a large game animal is the toughest problem for a bullet to solve.