wanting to hear from hunters that have shot elk and moose with a 243 win

wannabe said:
Yes but......perfect shot, perfect conditions....270 308 class are minimum to me....big mules are even too much for a 243 for most people.....chasing after wounded game is never fun....243 is a varmint cartridge suitable for up to deer sized game...

Yes I know countless old guys killed everything with a 30-30 or he'll even a .22 magnum but likely because they HAD to.....
Click to expand...

I apologize in advance for thread drift.

I agree .243 is too light for big stuff. At least for me. 30-30 doesn't generate big numbers either, but then again people get hung up on kinetic energy.

I believe at short range where most game is killed, that the 30-30 is way more rifle than a .243. The bullet has about 30% more momentum at the muzzle than a .243, and has a highly effective way of energy transfer with a RN or FN bullet at moderate velocity. The lower speed usually keeps the bullets together and having about 70% more bullet weight is an advantage for breaking bigger bones and punching through.

I posted a bunch of YT videos on another thread about 30-30 and you can see where it punches through game that I believe a .243 probably would've had more trouble with.
 
struff55 said:
as mentioned not interested in hearing people's oppions about what calibre is best
i have shot 21 moose and 9 elk in my life
308 150 gr 30-06 165 gr 280 rem 160 gr
400 h&r 165 gr
i know what works and where to place the bulletin
only interested in 243 results
Click to expand...

Maybe not the results you were wanting to hear about, but I used a .243 for elk once.

I brought it along elk hunting, meaning mostly to use it on a deer, but possibly for elk also. Seemed to be a quite accurate rifle and I was able to shoot pretty well with it.

I did mean to make sure a bigger rifle was sighted in for elk, as I had some misgivings with the little bullet. But when a big elk popped out at reasonable range, I was somewhat cocky with the snow on the ground, an experienced tracker as my hunting partner, and innumerable hunting stories of great ruminants falling to the diminutive gun.

I popped the great bull right behind the shoulder, and he wheeled and took off. I didn't attempt to shoot again, as I felt it was a good shot that should have taken out his lungs, and didn't want to rip up meat or guts chasing him with unneeded lead.

I went up to where he was and my hunting partner came over also. Found bright lung blood right away. Not lots but a bit. Found a bit more, here and there, and then just nothing. Elk track everywhere, but the blood trail wasn't there.

Up and down, different directions hoping to pick it up again, but that was it. Went out the next morning and spent the day looking for blood, birds, and just nothing to be found.

So that was kind of the beginning and ending of me going after truly big game with that.

I kind of second guess that maybe if I had aimed a little lower, I might have taken off the top of the heart also and dropped him. Or maybe if I had used a premium bullet instead of just some factory round. But I pushed it cartridge-wise and it didn't pay off.
 
KodiakHntr said:
Ahhhh yes. The “shot him perfectly but never found him so obviously the rifle is inadequate” argument. If you didn’t find him, how do you know you actually hit him where you thought?
Click to expand...

If you're addressing me, I can say my aim was steady, and he wasn't too far off. No brush to deflect.

Was taking grouse heads off all fall with the rifle.

And like I mentioned I did find lung blood.

But the bullet appeared to have not made it through. If the bullet had enough energy but was poorly constructed, it should have done enough damage to dump him fairly close.

If the bullet was tough and driven hard enough, I should have gotten an exit wound and better blood trail, so I could have followed it.

Just based on what I saw, I wouldn't want to use it again for elk at least. The elk could've piled up 100 yards away, but it didn't really do my freezer any good.

Combed the area for hours, trying to pick up blood again, or find him tipped over, and went back multiple times looking for scavengers or predators feeding, but you know the rest of the story.

Would a shot lower in the lungs possibly done more damage? Maybe. Briefly considered a head shot, but if I was a little off or he moved, it could just be crippling and a slow death. And didn't want to blow up the skull either. Maybe the relatively light, quick bullet could've broken his neck, but I didn't really like that option either.
 
I've shot a 350 lbs red deer with a 243 loaded with barnes 80 ttsx, at 100 yds. One shot. It ran less than 50 yds.
There was no bullet exit but it did a mess inside the thoracic cavity.
 
struff55 said:
not sure why anyone would shoot a calf moose but each to his own
Click to expand...
Several of our farmland WMU's in Alberta have a preponderance of twin calves , so there is a calf moose draw .
The calf has to be from that spring, a yearling is not allowed to be shot .
The idea behind this is to give the second calf a better chance to survive, the cow can be bred again the following season, and many hunters are not interested in hunting for a full grown moose .
The moose in these areas are very plentiful and it helps to keep the carrying capacity in balance
Makes lots if sense .
Cat
 
Last edited:
Not my cartridge of choice for larger mammals, but I hunted with the father of a friend quite a few times, and that was all he used for everything. Shot bear, deer, elk, moose, coyotes, wolves and cougars with it. Low recoil, accurate. He used 100 gr bullets for everything, factory ammo. Not a reloader. - dan
 
The only thing I can say is, "I hunt deer with a 240 Weatherby in elk country. If I ever came across an elk, a 90 grain accubond will be placed tight behind the front leg."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom