243 vs 260 for hunting?

O

Olympus

New member
I'm looking at adding a new rifle for primarily whitetail hunting. I've pretty much decided on the Tikka T3 Hunter in either 243 or 260. The biggest factor for me is going to be recoil. If the 260 is closer to a 308 in recoil than it is to the 243, that will push me to the 243. Not to mention I already reload for the 243.

Anyone have experience with both calibers?
 
My 243 is my primary weapon for deer. Here in Florida it is more than adequate and the recoil is minimum. I often shoot both right hand and left hand from my treestand with no issues. I have never lost a deer with it
 
Definitely .243 in my opinion, if not going for anything larger than mulies. But get the 10 twist rate, not the 12.

Ammo is cheaper and much more available.
 
I don't. But i doubt i would pay much mind to the difference of the two in recoil shooting at a deer. I'd really only mind if was going to be doing prolonged shooting at the range.

You already shoot a .243, if you find the .308 harsh but could handle more than the .243, the .260 is the logical middle ground. You load your own ammo. You could load a .260 to have about equal recoil as your .243 and it would still probably be every bit as lethal inside a few hundred yards.
 
I still own one of each (And a 6MM). If you already have the reloading stuff for the .243, it makes more sense to buy a .243. If you are looking for something different to play with, a .260 works well for deer. I never take out the .243 anymore, but have always leaned toward 6.5's. Nothing wrong with a .243, I just favor 6.5's.
 
Well, my 243 is a gorgeous Ruger No 1 that I don't like taking hunting for fear of getting it beat and banged up. I did use it this year to take a nice 8pt buck at about 70 yards. He ran about 20 yards and dropped. I would be more inclined to carry the Tikka than I would my Ruger No 1.
 
90769ac590a3516bdd42ec98ff158ee8.jpg


Don't underestimate the 243 this is what mine did to a half inch I beam at 200 yds.
 
The recoil from a 260 Rem pushing a 120gr bullet and a 243 Win pushing a 115gr bullet are going to be so similar I couldn't tell the difference.

If it were me, I'd get the 260 because the 6.5 bore is very versatile. But, elk hunting is a possibility for me and I don't consider the 243 Win an ethical choice for deer when there are better options available. Not that it won't do the job, just that it is a bit too light for my liking.

But if all you plan on hunting is deer, get the 243, you already reload for it and it is a fine deer cartridge.

Jimro
 
Granted that I'm picky on my shots. .243, Sierra 85-grain HPBT. Blow-up bullet. So, only neck shots or cross-body heart/lung shots; no angling shots.

So far? Tagged two-dozen bucks. Bang/whop/plop. Never any trailing.
 
Seeing that you already load for the 243 I can't think of a reason for you to look any further, your rifle choice is a good one too.;)

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
 
Where do you get 115 gr .243 bullets? And they won't stabilize in a 10" standard twist rate anyway. If you load, get a 260 and load up some 120's .
 
A light 243 is going to be harder recoil wise than a heavier 260.

I do endorse the 243 caliber choice as your reloading can take advantage of it without more investment. If recoil is an issue you should consider a heavier gun in that caliber though.

While I like my 308 a whole lot, I am annoyed that I had to get a new trimmer for it as its not the same shoulder as the 30-06.
 
For hunting what? The .243 is good for up to deer/black bear/antelope sized game. A .260 Rem will kill up to moose/elk.
A .260's 130 grain bullet gives about 1,539 ft/lbs. at 300 yards. A 100 grain(115's are target/varmint bullets and not exactly common. Not seen in any factory ammo.) .243 only 1149 ft/lbs.
Felt recoil is far too subjective to worry about. Doesn't matter when hunting anyway. You won't be in a firefight.
 
I would have to check, but I think I used to load 100 or 115 Grain Hornady in my 6MM. I know I had to load the heaviest bullets I could find because it was a .244 Take-off barrel I used. I do remember they were RN, but it has been quite a while since I reloaded for it.
 
God forbid that you should ever be separated from your reloads, but if you are, you're far more likely to find a box of .243 Winchester on a shelf than a box of .260 Remington. Just thinking in terms of Murphy's Law, here.

Addendum: If you already reload for .243, perhaps the 7mm-08 would be the logical intermediate step between the .243 and the .308. You can reform .243 to the other two, if necessary. I'm told that reforming .308 to .243 is something of a chore, though. Ammo for the 7mm-08 is probably every bit as scarce as ammo for .260 Remington.
 
Last edited:
Better barrel life (as in, throat erosion) from a .260 (assuming loads aren't hot...) than the .243.
Not as important for a hunting application perhaps, but may be a consideration for you.
 
Both are great rounds, you already load for the .243 so that would be a plus, but having something in a different flavor would be good too. Loading your own with either will allow you to find a load that performs with minimum recoil. Personally as I already have a .243 I would go for the .260 Rem just to be different. Unlikely that the best load in your #1 would be the best in the Tikka and having different loads for the same round annoys me for some reason. Nor deer hit well with either one would ever know the difference.
 
I have both and both are Tikkas. Recoil is manageable in either. Much less in 260 than a 7-08. Better ballistic coefficient in the 260. Tikka is a 1-8 twist and if it's like mine it shoots 140 grain bullets sub moa no matter who makes them. Longer shots with less drag and bucks the wind better. You do reload I see because 260 bullets are hard to find and run close to $50.00 or more per box. Midway loves me for 6.5 bullet orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top