In reading through this thread, I've found it interesting that many posters have apparently read the same accounts that I have over the years concerning the reasons for the success of the .243 Winchester over the .244 (aka 6mm) Remington. Most "experts" of the day argued that the faster twist of the Winchester made it a more flexible cartridge that prioritized heavier bullets for deer, while saying that the folks at Remington misread the public's mind and produced the .244 with a slower twist, making it more appropriate for stabilizing lighter bullets and, therefore, making the .244 more suitable for varmints. The public preferred a DEER/varmint rifle over a VARMINT/deer rifle, or so they said.
Author/shooter Jim Carmichel saw the reason(s) a little differently, as he explained in his 1975 book, The Modern Rifle:
"...It has been charged that the folks at Remington got off on the wrong foot by envisioning their new round only as a varmint-getter, while Winchester touched all bases and claimed its .243 was great for both big game and varmints. The source of this charge is that the early Remington rifles had a rate of twist of one in 12 inches, ostensibly for varmint-weight bullets only, while Winchester barrels packed a one-in-10 inch twist in order to stabilize longer and heavier hunting bullets. Now this sounds like a clever piece of supposition, but doesn't explain why Remington offered both 75- and 90-grain bullets. Obviously, if Remington had seen its round as a varmint cartridge only, it wouldn't have bothered with the heavier bullet loading. Winchester, at the same time, offered both 80 -and 100-grain bullet loadings. Anyone who thinks that the .243 load with a 100-grain slug is a big game load (muzzle energy 2090 foot-pounds) while the 90-grain .244 isn't (at 2050 foot- pounds) has been reading too many comic books.
"In time such arguments
did come into vogue and no doubt impressed a good many people. But this was after the fact. At the time of the first encounter between the two cartridges the vote went to the .243
mainly because it was available in a far more attractive rifle! Remember, the Model 722 Remington, for which the .244 was chambered, was a decidedly plain-Jane affair; no checkering on the stock, a finish that looked like clear fingernail polish, and the rattiest-looking tin-can floorplate and trigger-guard unit yet devised. The .243, on the other hand, was available in the great Model 70, one of the most stylish and beautifully made bolt-action rifles ever placed on a dealer's shelf. Its reputation was without peer. Keep in mind that during this time period shooters were actually buying Model 70 .22 Hornets and having them re-chambered to .222, rather than face the ignominy of buying a M722 in .222.
"Also, don't be led down the primrose path and fall for that yarn about the 12-inch twist not stabilizing the heavier bullets. It sounds great in unschooled theory, but in actual practice there's no way to tell the difference...The point is that no other firearms-related topic is more guaranteed to make someone sound like an expert and make a fool of himself at the same time...
"The faster twist offers no improvement whatever over the slower turn-possibly it's not even as good-but was undoubtedly considered necessary to pacify the hoards of ballistic experts overrunning the country. (In fact, I think the 9-inch twist was specified with some malice of heart)."
Anyhow, I found Mr.Carmichel's take to be an interesting "twist" (yep, pun intended
) on this decades old debate.