44 mag versus 243 for deer

N

newguy07

New member
Indiana just changed its deer hunting equipment laws for this year and I'm trying to decide if I should make a change. For the last several years I have used a marlin 1894 in 44 mag using leverovultion rounds with good success. With the new options this year I am considering buying a 243 for deer instead. Most my shots will be under 100 yards and 125 is probably the furtherest for my location. So is the 243 much better in this scenario? Is it worth going and buying a new rifle?
 
Most my shots will be under 100 yards and 125 is probably the furtherest for my location. So is the 243 much better in this scenario? Is it worth going and buying a new rifle?
Click to expand...


In my opinion.....no. Not at the ranges you are quoting. With a 240 gr bullet sighted in @ 80 yards, there will be negligible change in POI(3'' +/-) from 30 to 125 yards and still enough energy to get the job done, while making a much larger hole. That is unless you are just looking for a reason to buy a new rifle in a different caliber. Me, I'd rather take that monies and invest in a nice .44 revolver to go with the rifle.
 
I never pass on a rationalization for a new gun. The thing about the .243 is that it's great for varmints, too, so you can shoot all year if you want. If you ever go out of state, it will serve you well. That said, if you just want to kill a deer and you won't go beyond 125, the .44 is all you need. Then, as noted above, you have your rationalization to buy a big frame revolver.
 
For shots around 100 yards in the thick stuff it's pretty tough to beat a 44 mag. Plenty of penetration for any angle.

Of course the 243 can do the same with the right bullet and is more versatile for deer size game and down.
 
A 44 magnum rifle makes a much larger hole? I would think certainly not if the 243 is loaded with some good quality bullets. Because of the high velocity the 243 can be pretty destructive. But at the distances given the 44 is plenty, and would destroy less meat.
 
If the .243 is legal I'd choose the .243 100% of the time over the 44mag. Accuracy will undoubtedly be better and for sure not worse. The .243 has more energy available to deliver to your target.
 
In woods I'd stick with the 44.

It's proven it's capable and will usually give you a good sized exit wound for trailing.

At closer ranges 243 bullets will do a lot of damage, but might not make it all the way through.
 
more versatile

A .44 mag is an good killer of whitetails and effective within its limitations, that being it's mortar like trajectory past 100 yds. I hunt a .44 carbine quite a bit, but exclusively under conditions and circumstances where ranges are short and the carbine is at it's best. The greatest virtue of the .44's are the short and handy carbines that launch the cartridge.

The .243 will take whitetails under 100 yds as well, and still shoot fast and flat enough to allow ethical shots out to near 300 yds, though that is a long shot for most folks on any type of game.

I can pick and choose my calibers and rifles for the most part, but were I limited to a single choice, and it was between a .243 and the .44 for whitetails, I'd choose the .243.
 
The 243 will allow you to hunt different areas or stands that the 44 had you limited too. If it doesn't broaden your horizon so to speak then no need for it.
 
For the last several years I have used a marlin 1894 in 44 mag using leverovultion rounds with good success.
Click to expand...


Hunting the same plot of land year after year and reading the above Quote. "Good success" with a rifle your comfortable with and shoot well.

As said: “Beware of the man with one rifle, he knows how to use it.” ;)
 
Indiana is similar in terrain to most surrounding states. It was nice to see Indiana really open things to rifle including some fine bottle neck cartridges. For many years Ohio prohibited rifle so I would head to West Virginia. I took countless deer using a Ruger 44 Carbine rifle. Most shots, like yours, were inside 100 yards and the 44 Magnum was devastating at those ranges. I would remain with the 44 Magnum which apparently has served you well and if I did go with another rifle cartridge in Indiana it would likely be the .308 Winchester. I could never warm up to the .243 Winchester for deer even though I am aware it is a fine deer cartridge. Anyway, I would stay with the 44 Magnum which has served you well.

Ron
 
at the armed you speak of there's nothing deficient about the .44, that being said, who knows what the future holds? You might hunt elsewhere or for other things that require longer shots, and here the .243 shines, making accurate shot placement much easier beyond 100 yards than your .44. If you have the money, and you have a justification, I'd go ahead and by myself a new gun.
 
I'd take a 243 any day over a 44 mag, even up close in dense woods. The key to hitting in thick brush is a flat shooting accurate rifle with good optics that allows you to shoot through tiny openings instead of trying to plow through thick brush. Even at 50-100 yards the trajectory of traditional lever rounds is arched enough to make it difficult to shoot through those tiny openings.
 
Any reason for only considering the .243 Win?

If varmints aren't also on the list I'd opt for a larger caliber (I'm a bit fond of the 7mm-08 and .308 Win, as well as the .260 Rem). Not that the .243 isn't capable but I just prefer a bit more caliber for medium game (with the possibility of larger).
 
The choices are based on the limit options available under the new Indiana law. They only opened it up to specific rounds in .243 and .308 diameter bullet size. I don't like the 308 as I have had shoulder issues and am not fond of the recoil. My ideal round would be the 25-06 but it is. It in the approved list at this point.
 
Charles Whitman made a one-shot kill on a 240-pound man at 420 yards with a 6mm Remington. Skilled shooters have taken elk with the .243. I've tagged some two-dozen bucks with my .243.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top