.25-06 vs the .243

Status
Not open for further replies.
By tougher shots I mean shots where the angle isn't perfect or you might have to penetrate a shoulder. Please note that I do NOT mean "Texas heart shots" or any similar foolishness.
Click to expand...

Given the right bullet, will a .243 not penetrate a shoulder at 200 yds or less...?

You can parse my posts looking for nits to pick, but 20% heavier bullet, more frontal area, better sectional density are all real world advantages for the 25-06. If you want to make an argument for the 243, please explain how it is in some way superior to the 25-06, not just "almost as good as".
Click to expand...

That's sort of the point...how good or superior does it have to be for this purpose?
 
Hydrostatic shock is what kills, and I've never seen anything walk away from a .243. Remington now has Elk ammo in .243. If you watch youtube, you will see .243 Elk kills.


Most of these caliber discussions are just ridiculous.
 
Hydrostatic shock is what kills, and I've never seen anything walk away from a .243. Remington now has Elk ammo in .243. If you watch youtube, you will see .243 Elk kills.
Click to expand...


One of those vids was posted earlier in this thread if you want to go back and look at it.
 
Given the right bullet, will a .243 not penetrate a shoulder at 200 yds or less...?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but not as well as a 25-06.

That's sort of the point...how good or superior does it have to be for this purpose?
Click to expand...

Not very much. But since it's not, the 25-06 is the clear choice.

Again, if you can come up with a good reason that shows some relevant advantage for the 243, please produce it.

Adding to the litany of posts stating "but the 243 is only slightly inferior" or "almost just as good" is pointless.
 
"Good" or "better"" seems to be the hang-up with some here...as opposed to adequate. So if you can show some proof it is inadequate please do so.
 
Since the superiority of the 25-06 was well established a few pages ago, I don't see what the arguing is about.

Some folks are just in denial. They have their minds made up and don't want to be confused by the facts.

I guess that's the way these things usually go.

;)
 
The 25-06 does what a .243 does but does it better and at greater distance . They both kill with velocity and shock . I dont know why so many want to use heavier slower bullets for better penatration . If you want a big heavy bullet and deep penatration get a .30 .
 
Since the superiority of the 25-06 was well established a few pages ago, I don't see what the arguing is about
Click to expand...

There is no difference in the two if you stick to the context of the OP


Adding to the litany of posts stating "but the 243 is only slightly inferior" or "almost just as good" is pointless.
Click to expand...
No more pointless than claiming the 25 "kills better"
Shot placement matters more
 
"Good" or "better"" seems to be the hang-up with some here...as opposed to adequate. So if you can show some proof it is inadequate please do so
Click to expand...
.

I am afraid you don't understand the point of the thread. The OP wants to choose between two cartridges for a specific use. Which is "better" is the name of the game.

Inadequate isn't the point. Nobody has said the 243 is inadequate, despite the number of people who seen determined to argue into empty air that it isn't. But - for the last time - the 25-06 is BETTER.
 
No more pointless than claiming the 25 "kills better"
Shot placement matters more
Click to expand...

This might make some sense if the 243 was being compared to something difficult to shoot accurately like a 338/378 Weatherby.

But if you're a good enough shot to achieve good shot placement with a 243, you should have no problem shooting a 25-06 every bit as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top