.243 for Whitetails??

Only CNS shot I've ever seen (any caliber) was my last (first & only) antelope - a pure John Wilkes Booth-shot. Anything would have realistically dropped this critter DRT - any caliber.

Every other .243 hit was all center-mass broad side & either double lung or heart-shots. They all dropped on the spot, perhaps after having done the obligatory "scoot from the shot" - but were dead upon "scooting" - perhaps ten feet.

Again, I've either shot 'em myself or watched 'em - all broadside lung/heart shots with .270s through .30-06 & all have run 100 yards or so. Never happened with a .243 - again, just what I've seen.

No doubt, & I'll swear to it, that a .308, etc. kills deer to no end - just in my experience, you have to walk further from the shot to gather the goods.

Every .243 shot I've seen has dropped everything in its tracks.
 
Guess I'll wade into this one. :rolleyes: I'm not pointing to any paticular individuals. This comes up time and time again on several boards. Why is it some folks talk about "proper shot placement" with a caliber they deem "small" or "adequate", but not with the latest rocket launcher? Does having a larger rifle some how allow them the luxury of closing their eyes when pulling the trigger? Do they plan on just "hitting it somewhere", hoping to cripple it so they can close the distance to where they should have been in the first place to make a killing shot? After all, if you don't hit a deer in the kill zone, how the heck are you going to kill it? Blow it in half? Guess that would save a lot of time if you had to quarter it and pack it out. Wouldn't even have to get the grinder out either, just scrape the meat off of the surrounding trees. Or, is it that they just need to have something bigger and badder than the next guy?
If a bullet didn't expand in a deer's lungs, a bigger rifle isn't the cure, using the correct bullet is. A deer's lungs should have been shreadded by a .243. A "premium" bullet made for a magnum has no place in a .243 or any other standard cartridge case. I only aim for the lungs. Using a 30-06 and a 250 Savage (basically the same performance as a .243), the exit hole was only the size of the mushroomed bullet, with very little blood trail. Never had a deer go past 50 yards, even though it took 30 minutes to find one of them because of the conditions and where he landed.

There's only 2 things that I can think of where close counts. That's horseshoes and atom bombs.
 
Dogjaw, I sure agree with you. Howsomever, I think for many of us--I can only know for certain for me, of course--the idea is that a more powerful cartridge might anchor an animal long enough to get in the necessary second shot.

Say I pull off a bit from a heart/lung aim, and hit four inches or so back. (Flinch, rolling rock, cactus...) With a .243, the deer might be able to jump and run, and I might not be able to track it. (Or .223 or .30-30...) With an '06, the deer might drop and then get up or start to get up. I'd have those few seconds to get in a second shot.

So, for me, particularly, when I talk of proper placement and "enough gun", this is the sort of thing I'm referring to.

An example: I was gonna shoot a doe in the neck. 60 yards, '06. Just as I touched off, she took a step. The bullet entered the right shoulder blade, passed beneath the spine, and blew out the entire top of the off leg. She spun and ran a hundred yards and then dropped, bled out. She'd left a blood trail some two feet wide. The whole deal was like something from a Peckinpaugh movie. It seems to me possible that the bullet of a lesser cartridge might not have exited, and the deer could have escaped me to die elsewhere. Bummer.

I guess I look at it as "insurance". I've never had my house burn, nor been sued from a car wreck, but I have insurance...

None of which means I won't take my .243 out whitetail huntin'...

:), Art
 
My friend who lives up in the mountains has used a .243 for years and has taken too numerous deer to count with it. Always a 100 gr bullet, I think. Oh and one elk. I seen one of the deer shot and it was like Labgrade said, dead right there. He says he's never had to chase one down, but then he's a good shot too.

The Elk was head shot. The deer were mostly neck shots he says. The deer I saw him take was a little low on the neck but it dropped right now. Yum.:p
 
Well........................

As evident, this can be argued without end. Suffice to say, ANY centerfire cartridge is capable of downing a whitetail. providing the distance is appropiate and the shooter's skills are adequate.

The last .243 carried to the deer woods was in New Mexico's Gila Wilderness, a Remington 600 carbine that had been rechambered to .243 Ack Imp. Never got a chance for a buck, but came close to using it to stave off a black bear sow with cubs.

This year I head back to the area with a Marlin 1895 lever gun in 45-70 caliber for the same purpose. One extreme to the other, eh? (Oh, yeah- the customized 6.5-06 goes along also, in the event the deer are being coy and staying out beyond 150 yds!)
 
I got a 243 this year to use for deer due to some really bad shoulder problems which developed last winter. But since then I've been in rehab and will try to start the season with a heavier rifle. The 243 will be ready to use though in case I just can't stand the other one even with a recoil pad.

I think that for a hunter who doesn't get buck fever and doesn't take running shots the caliber is less important in killing the deer than we tend to think. Last year, the first time I'd been deer hunting in 20 years, I had worries about being able to consistantly place the shots where I wanted to and cleanly kill with a 35 Rem and was even considering using a 308 but I found that I don't get buck fever so for me it seems as easy to aim in the woods as on the range.

You just have to remember that no matter what, there are always more deer, so take time to aim well and get a good shot. Taking the time to get a good sling support and using a steady rest if possible (a walking stick makes a good monopod) makes a lot of difference.
 
Put me down for a vote for the .260 Remington!! I know, the difference in bullet diameter is only .5mm, but I feel that the extra weight of 6.5mm bullets gives me an edge over the .243. I have no doubt that if I get lucky and tag a buck with one of my 125gr Partitions, he is going down. Maybe not in his tracks, but with enough blood trail to lead me to him. But for hunting in really think cover I think that my 96/44 might be more convenient. Either way, I know I have enough gun to do the job. And I am confident that the .260 will work on game even bigger than whitetails should the need arise, to ranges beyond where I can accurately shoot. FWIW, I live in New Hampshire, and our deer terrain is very densely wooded and hilly.
 
.243 is an awesome whitetail rifle. I thought that is what it was invented for! Really! My mother uses one and has always dropped them in their tracks. I use a 30.06 because I like a Garand, but that 243 will probably be what I get my son for his first deer rifle. .308+ is probably overkill for the tiny deer we shoot here (100-) so if you got similar, get the .243. It is a rifle you can enjoy until you're too old to pull the trigger.
 
dakotasin, good questions on choice of caliber. When I decided to buy my son a hunting rifle, I determined I would buy one for all around use in the fields and hardwoods of PA and NY. I wanted something adequate for deer, but something he could also use for woodchucks and other varmints. The .243 looked like a good intermediate cartridge. As his interests develop and he takes on more and more responsibility for pursuing his own likes and dislikes, he's free to fill out his arsenal in any way he likes. In the meantime, he practices diligently with the .243 and I have great confidence that he can hit what he aims at.

Personally, I hunt deer with a .308 and most often carry a .223 afield for varmints. The .243 is a nice intermediate cartridge that is capable of both. And thus far, our experience with the .243 has been nothing but positive.
 
For the parameters set by Fabrat's post, the .243 is fine for whitetail. I hunted whitetails for years, and never had any more problems with the .243 (100 grainers) than with the .30-06 (180's). With either caliber, some would drop in their tracks, others might run 100 yards. I couldn't tell the difference, and I never lost a deer. The .243 is much easier to shoot, and can be obtained in a handier package.
 
Not that the subject hasnt been well broached so far but i will put my .02 in here. I think the 243, with the proper bullet, is an excellent deer cartridge. Ive worked in the firearms industry for close to 10 years now on frontline retail sales at many diffrent locations. I get to see and hear alot of what works and what doesnt. I think the main the thing the 243 has going for it is recoil, or rather lack thereof. People who shoot this caliber (along with 260/7mm08 class) tend be surgical with it. In my experiance an excellent bullet to try would be the Federal load with the Trophy Bonded bullet. This has proven to be arguably (again my my worthless opinion here) the best game bullet on the market. That one, along with the Barnes X bullet, should give you all the penetration and power you could need from the 243. Weight retention and the ensuing penetration are key in this instance. And either of the aforementioned bullets will lend themselves well to that end. Good luck and happy huntn. Peace. :cool:
 
tend be surgical with it
Click to expand...

True. And many of the people who shoot the super-magnums need to be surgical too. As in SURGICAL shoulder treatment for damage. Honest, I saw one guy show up at the range last week with a .340 Weatherby and a 7mm Remington Magnum. Two-three days later I saw him where I work. He was walking like a man injured (the way he was carrying his shoulder sent up warnings). He confessed that he had fired all 20 .340 rounds he had off of the bench that day. All I can say is "Ouch!" And that I no longer want any kind of Magnum. Thinking a 30-06/.338-06 would be a nice power upgrade from my .260 w/o severe beating.
 
What is shot placement?

In America where there is much grass eater hunting, people tend to think of it as a perfect broadside presentation allowing one to slip a bullet inbetween two ribs and pierce the lungs or heart.

In Africa it means reaching the vitals from any angle. And having a rifle of adequate power and penetration to do so.

Shot placement mearly infers that we make a killing shot. It doesn't have to be from a hunting magazine braodside pose. Infact in the real world it seldom is.

I would say that the rifle you chose should be able to penetrate from off angels and still make it to the boiler room.

A 30-06 or a 260 would be a fine choice on whitetail. As would many other rounds mentioned. A .243 is on the light side yet adequate under ideal conditions.

As far as recoil goes well once again it's a subjective thing, however rarely does one suffer any long term harm or permenant damage. I often go to the range with several heavy and medium bore rifles firing 20 or more rounds from each for testing purposes. I've yet to sufer any long or even short term damage and have never any paralise in the shoulder as a result. Recoil is purely a state of mind if want it to hurt then it will.

Of course an adequte recoil pad never hurt anything either and are standard equipment on all of my rifles. I wouldn't dream of shooting multiple round from the bench with a hard buttplated .340 or some such animal.
 
A .243 is a necked down .308. A .270 is a necked down 30.06. Would you use a .270 on deer. YES and that answers your question about a .243 too. The .243 is a great little cartridge. Recoil is light but it shoots flat with the .308 power behind it.
Years ago, Jack O'Conner labeled the .243 as a womans gun when he let his wife use it in Africa on some of the plains game there. It performed perfectly on the antelope type game as well as a leopard or two if memory serves me. But because a "woman" used it, it developed a rep as a weak weapon.. Let me get off the subject just a tad for a second. The .223 is the cartridge of choice by the politico's that rule our military and yet it is illegal in most states to use it on anything bigger than a coyote.
I've used both the M16 and M14 in combat in Vietnam and I feel sorry for anyone in combat carrying an M16.. But back to your .243 question. I've taken several whitetails with the .243 and while my favorite is a .308, I'd not hesitate to use a .243 on deer or in combat. It's beat the hell out of a .223...;)
 
"Would the apparent hunting area being Maine make any difference? The deer get a tad bigger there."

Hmmm... to my knowledge, deer up here aren't any tougher than other places. Seriously though, I always get a kick out threads like this. So many people are so convinced that unless it's a "magnum" it can't cleanly take down a whitetail deer. The cartridges of old worked just fine so why people have it ingrained in their gray matter that they won't work now bewilders me.

To answer your original question, sure the .243 will work fine as long as you do your part (shot placement) I suppose these "gotta have a magnum" people believe shot placement is not important. I know of people that successfully hunt w/ a .22 magnum. I myself use on occassion a .22-250.
 
BlkHawk73, there are other reasons for more powerful cartridges than the .243. For instance, a lot of my deer hunting has been in open country, where the range might easily be 300 or more yards. In my present home country, the deer population is sparse. You take what shot you get. So, if it's a running buck at 300 yards, I want more than a .243.

Back in central Texas, on the smaller deer at closer ranges, I was quite satisfied with the performance of my .243 on some 20 bucks. I've also been happy with my '06 on bigger deer at longer ranges--and have made shots that I would not have taken with the .243.

My notion is that if I make a bad hit with an '06, the deer will still be anchored long enough to get in a second shot. This might not be the case with the .243 out around 250 or 300 yards.

Art
 
No disrespect intended. I guess I was thinking more along the lines, err... distances I see and hear about up this way. Around here 100yds is a long shot. For the long shots I do realize a more powerful cartridge is desired. I was referring more to those people that will launch a 300 wby into a 100 lb doe @ 50 yrds and say it was needed. Or how about 5 shots of 12 ga 00 into a 40lb fawn. Overkill? It happens. Of course I'm also more likely to choose a cartridge that few would use - or sometimes heard of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top