.243 for deer or pig

The .243 is an excellent caliber for deer and pigs, amongst many other game. I have tagged countless Texas whitetail and slayed more big Texas hogs than I can remember with a .243. About 98 percent of the hogs I have killed have been with a .243 and all of the deer that I have ever killed in my life have all been with a .243.

I used only 100 gr bullets from different brands, mainly Remington Core Lokt and some federals too, just whatever was cheapest at the time. The only deer that I had run off and could not find I shot with a .30-06. All of the deer I have ever tagged were with a .243 and all dropped where they stood with one shot except for one that ran 30 yards and fell and had to be put to rest with a point blank head shot. But I used it with phenomenal results and would recommend it to anyone.

It also works great with pigs, a huge majority of my pigs were killed with a .243 and only one got away. But some people consider the .243 a tad to light for pigs but I never had trouble with that. For example, my very first hog I shot was with a .243 it was a big 290 lbs boar. It was a 50 yard broadside shot dead through the shoulder. The big ol boar just crumpled in its tracks, no flopping or anything just DRT. So a caliber that can drop a 290 lbs boar dead in its tracks without a head or spine shot can definently hold its own. It also works well on coyotes and will obliterate a beaver.

I sighted my scope dead on at 25 yards and had a 4 inch drop at 300 yards with a 100 grain bullet and about a 3 inch rise at 200 yards and dead on at 260 yards. Good good caliber choice. And I only carried a single shot NEF Handi Rifle, I rarely needed a follow up shot with the .243.

Also reading some of the posts on this thread that sound kinda crazy and naive to me about running shots and the .243 not being up to the not so perfect broadside standing still shot have me scratching my head because I never had a problem with this and I agree with alot of stuff Kraigwy said, people just need to learn to shoot, calibers dont learn to shoot, responsible hunters do. Like I said earlier in this post, the only deer I ever had get away I shot with a .30-06, it was my first deer I ever shot at. So I went back home and honed my skills and raised my confidence back up and the next time I went in the woods I had a .243 and never ever lost one single deer. An 06 has far more power as well as a bigger heavier bullet than a .243 so how did that happen to me? My skills and execution needed more practice and confidence, not my caliber choice.

As far as my direct experience with the not so perfect shot, I once dropped a 180 lbs boar hog free handed standing while the hog at a dead run 230 yards off. One shot from the .243 dropped him dead in his tracks, well he kind of cartwheeled upon impact. But by the time I made that shot I as far more experienced and had alota hog hunting under my belt to know the unpredictable nature of the situations and how to make a spur of the moment shot under not so good circumstances. Now yes alot of practical calibers would have made that clean kill on that running hog, some calibers more powerful, and some less powerful than a .243. But it just goes to show what some others have already said on this thread, people just need to know how to shoot.
 
Last edited:
A gunzine story from back when the .243 was fairly new on the market concerned an African hunt with one. Killed several plains-game critters at various distances.

The professional hunting guide's comment after seeing all the good results of its use was, "It shoots bigger than it looks."
 
Kraigwy is dead on, learn to shoot! I'm learning to use a sling right now and wow what a difference it makes.

I go to the range every Friday and send a couple hundred rounds down range from anything from a .380 at 5yds to a .223 at 250yds. It only makes me better and someday I might actually be good.
 
I'm not worried about the picture perfect standing broadside shot. I'm thinking about the less than perfect shot at the biggest effing buck I've ever seen before he gets away.

It seems to me that logic would indicate that if you wanted to land the "biggest effing buck" you had ever seen, then you would not want to be attempting questionable shots on it in the first place. A rushed shot on a prized animal is a very good way to blow the shot. Why would you want to risk the needless wounding and possible loss of your 'biggest effing buck' on anything less than your 'best effing shot"?

But I can get a Ruger Hawkeye .243 lefty for $499 at CDNN.

I am at a loss here. You are debating concerns about killing your monster buck against making a budget purchase only?

Rick Jamison (Shooting Times) has a oft repeated story about a big buck he nailed twice with a 243 that went on to be shot and claimed by other hunters. Page 59 "Rifleman's Handbook":

"I couldn't help feeling that a cartridge with more punch would have anchored the buck sooner."

Wow, I see you have been copy and pasting your quote for years now, lol, or plagiarizing natman.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/5835547/1
http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/243for-deer-yes-no-78149/index4.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=496620&page=2
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.hunting/7KntciqckJI

Feeling like a different caliber would have worked better when a caliber like .243 is known to work fine really sounds like the author is trying to blame less than adequate shooting on his equipment. Yeah, I know the guy had lots of experience, but if he had so much experience, then why was he shooting that caliber in the first place?

A buddy gave me a hard time about losing a hog, basically reciting the oft-restated mantra of 'bring enough gun.' On his next hunting trip, he was using a 12 ga slug gun and missed a broadside big buck, hitting the feeder leg behind it. So I had to razz him. I said, "Man, you should have brought enough." He fell for it and started tell me about the energy of the 12 ga. slug round, velocity, and expansion of the round...all being substantially more than sufficient for a Texas buck. I said, "Really, just how much is enough gun for a miss?" He was not happy with me, LOL.

FYI, the feeder also survived with a hole through the leg and a bend at the POI, but no sign of expansion of the 12 ga. slug and the exit hole was smaller than the entry. Apparently, 12 ga. slugs were not enough gun for feeders either.
 
In my view, the 243 is enough gun for deer. It'll push a 100 gr bullet 3000 fps, and that is enough to do the job. I hunt these days with a 260 and 100 Nosler BTs, and have had no failures on deer, pigs, or coyotes. That said, I have noticed that the 120 gr Noslers in my rifle are more effective on deer than the 100 grainers. I have no doubt of that. So, the 243 is enough, but more bullet and power will still do a better job.
 

I have posted that quote before because:
1) the topic comes up regularly
2) it's still true


Feeling like a different caliber would have worked better when a caliber like .243 is known to work fine really sounds like the author is trying to blame less than adequate shooting on his equipment. Yeah, I know the guy had lots of experience, but if he had so much experience, then why was he shooting that caliber in the first place?

Excellent question. I wouldn't be shooting a 243 at a deer if I had another choice either.:D Actually IIRC, he was using a 243 because that's what the rifle he was testing was in. Gunwriters do that.

Again, it's quite possible to use a 243 on deer and have things turn out well. But you might want to note how many qualifications tend to creep in even from its proponents: broadside shots, head shots, neck shots, if your accuracy is perfect, etc. I'd prefer a cartridge that will work even if the presentation isn't perfect, if the animal is quartering away, if by chance the shot lands an inch or two away from the intended spot. Please note that I am NOT advocating using a magnum to compensate for poor shooting nor taking bad shots. I just prefer a bit more power and I'm perfectly willing to deal with a bit more recoil to get it.
 
I'd prefer a cartridge that will work even if the presentation isn't perfect, if the animal is quartering away, if by chance the shot lands an inch or two away from the intended spot. Please note that I am NOT advocating using a magnum to compensate for poor shooting nor taking bad shots. I just prefer a bit more power and I'm perfectly willing to deal with a bit more recoil to get it.

I have a much greater appreciation for you expressing your own opinion on the matter rather than expressing that of a gun writer. You are right in that gun writers do test things and I would add often do some silly stuff as well or draw conclusions based on exceptionally limited information and pass it off as some sort of fact buttressed by their name and reputation which is then picked up and believed by readers as some sort of standard. In the matter at hand, Jamison made a blanket statement condemning the entire caliber based on a single incident example. I guess gun writers just do that sometimes.

Personally, I find it amusing when writers find that their pet caliber or load doesn't do the trick and instead of blaming the caliber, load, their own shooting skill, they claim that the particular animal happened to be extraordinarily tough.
 
before

I've written before that I was a bonafide .243 basher, based on my Dad's opinion of the cartridge when it first came out. Never owned one, never shot one, but was quick to label it inadequate as a deer cartridge 'casue that's how I'd come up.

And in his later years, Dad bought a .243 to hunt groundhogs, and started hitting them farther out than he ever thought possible. That practice, his growing confidence, and I suspect the influence of some of his older cronies who had been shooting the .243 at deer for some time, swayed Dad to give it a whirl on whitetails too. And he started taking deer on a much more regular basis and not missing them as much. Ol' Dad likely had a bit of a flinch going on with the '06/.270 rifles too, not so with the .243 I suspect.

The .243 came my way after Dad's death, I ironed out some kinks on the rifle (hated to change it, but the budget scope and see thru rings had to go) and I put bamaboy on it. We both killed some deer with it, using W-W factory 100's, and then reloads with 100 gr Noslers. And I realized that I was a fool regards my opinion of the cartridge back in my youth......and went out and promptly bought myself a nifty mannlicher stocked vintage .243 carbine for myself.

That old Mossberg 800M does not seem to like my 100 gr Nosler reloads, and shows an affinity for lighter slugs. Since I have a bunch of 100's on hand, I'll tinker a bit, working towards improvement, and accept its 1.75 MOA tendencies for now.
 
My slide action .243 is the most accurate center fire rife that I've ever owned. It shoots tight little clusters at 100 yards and the recoil is not bothersome to me. In summary this rifle is a joy to hunt with.

I've had very good luck with 95 grain bullets. They're a little faster than 100 grain bullets but produce very ghastly internal damage to the chest organs upon impact. This antelope was toppled at well over 250 yards. The animal never knew what hit 'em.

I suggest take a strong look at FEDERAL Fusion ammo if you're seeking the best penetration but Nosler Partitions have a very good reputation as well.

Jack

 
Maybe the 243 gets some bad press due to the fact it is purchased for/by some amount of beginner hunters. Can't imagine an animal knowing the difference between a 257 Roberts and a 6mm/243.
 
Although I am no expert with any caliber I will say that the .243 is more than capable of taking large whitetail deer and hogs any day of the week with almost perfect conditions and shot placement I have known very many people including my own brother to do so. Point is there has been polar bears killed with 22 lrs and elephants killed with 7.62x39 (a favored caliber by many African poachers) shot placement is eveything!
 
These threads about certain rounds come up from time to time. It seems like they are started to either find a reason to not buy a gun in a given caliber or to argue about something. A .243 caliber 85 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 3100 fps is pretty good medicine compared to a 224 caliber bullet weighing 60 grains. Some people have stated that the .270 Winchester is marginal or too "light" for elk. These kinds of statements are funny, IMO. A blanket statement like that is wrong. Period.

As for running shots on game, well, I have never ever witnessed a running shot on game that hit anything. Ever. A shot like that is almost always off hand. If the animal is over 100 yards away and moving, that is like closing your eyes and throwing a rock, expecting to hit something. You might hit a deer, in the nose, in the tail, in the foot, in the guts, through the neck missing all of the vital stuff. That is not ethical, IMO. And a bigger caliber bullet through a leg is still a messed up shot.
 
Have to agree here with Colorado Redneck. In my opinion, wounded animals are fuel for the anti-hunters who are after our sport/tradition. Pretty gruesome and sad for the animal also. Even a still shot can land in the wrong place.
 
I've killed a number of running deer and a few running pigs over the years. Don't remember hitting but one running coyote over the decades. I've hit them when they were doing a light trot, but when you have gotten a coyote up to full hyper drive, good luck with trying to put a bullet in them, except by accident (or extreme skill, which I apparently do not possess, except perhaps in small measure).

For someone to say they've never seen running game killed just tells me they aren't hanging around with good shots.
 
I've killed a few pigs and deer in TX with 243 and never lost one or had it run too far using 95 SST. That being said, I'm in the market for a 260 or 7/08 in hopes of a little more instant effect on the game.
 
Back
Top