Is the .243 as flat a trajectory as the .270? I'm looking for long range accuracy with the least recoil. Mainly for target shooting. Hunting would be secondary.
Choosing best all around caliber?
- Thread starter Garycw
- Start date
- Status
Kreyzhorse
New member
You really can't go wrong with any of them. I prefer the .308 but a sound argument can be made for any of the three.
The .308 does have a little less recoil than the 30.06 if you can shoot one, you can shoot all three. The .308 does have a shorter action as well.
As far as surplus 7.62x51, I've shot some and the accuracy isn't great. I haven't been inclined to purchase any more.
The .308 does have a little less recoil than the 30.06 if you can shoot one, you can shoot all three. The .308 does have a shorter action as well.
As far as surplus 7.62x51, I've shot some and the accuracy isn't great. I haven't been inclined to purchase any more.
from Garycw -
Recoil is light enough that you can shoot a lot more on the bench than the .270, the .308, or the '06.
The .260 Remington and 6.5 Creedmoor will give you better long range accuracy than the others plus are better hunting cartridges. Recoil will be intermediate.
Close enough to not matter for the 80 - 90 gr .243 bullets compared to the 130 gr in .270 Win.
Recoil is light enough that you can shoot a lot more on the bench than the .270, the .308, or the '06.
The .260 Remington and 6.5 Creedmoor will give you better long range accuracy than the others plus are better hunting cartridges. Recoil will be intermediate.
Thanks for that picture Mystro.
Even a 150gr in the .270 loaded up to 2900fps with a high BC bullet (Nosler accubond 'long range' claims a G1 BC of .625) has marginally less drop than the 95 grain .243 load you posted.
I used the same scope height, 1.5'' with a 200 yard zero. At sea level 65 degrees Fahrenheit. It has nearly identical drop to the .243
38.13'' of drop @ 500yrds and what's more important, only 13.65'' of wind drift in a 10mph 90 degree crosswind. Still traveling almost 2200fps and carrying 1611ft/lbs energy, in case you're hunting and not just shooting paper.
Even a 150gr in the .270 loaded up to 2900fps with a high BC bullet (Nosler accubond 'long range' claims a G1 BC of .625) has marginally less drop than the 95 grain .243 load you posted.
I used the same scope height, 1.5'' with a 200 yard zero. At sea level 65 degrees Fahrenheit. It has nearly identical drop to the .243
38.13'' of drop @ 500yrds and what's more important, only 13.65'' of wind drift in a 10mph 90 degree crosswind. Still traveling almost 2200fps and carrying 1611ft/lbs energy, in case you're hunting and not just shooting paper.
If I were hunting big game like elk with the possibility of moose, you could even split the difference with a 140 grain Superformance. Its a toss up because now a good bonded 130 gain might be all you need. I carry 150 grain soft points for heavy brush hunting with my 270. It shoots right at POI as my 130's do and that is a wonderful thing about the 270.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
JASmith said:
The 80gr copper bullets are as effective as a 130gr .270 and the 80gr does not make the .243 a "credible elk gun" so the logical conclusion being that a 130gr .270 of JOC's day was not a "credible elk gun".
Hogwash. Plenty of folks use .243Win on elk. Those charts are as valid as "You need 1000 ft/lbs for deer" or "You need 1500 ft/lbs for elk". Numbers picked from somebody's posterior because it puts their Chosen Cartridge in the "Go Zone" and everything lesser is out.
Brian Pfleuger said:
What's plenty of folks? I know exactly two hunters that have used the .243 Win on elk. One because that is the only rifle he managed to keep in a divorce, and another because that was the only rifle he had with him in the truck to put down a wounded cow. I've seen the video of the girl that killed an elk with the .243 as well and have even posted it a few times.
Of course a .243 Win will kill an elk, so will a .223, .22 Hornet, and .22 LR. Just because it is capable of killing something doesn't make it a "credible" elk cartridge. Anyone who has spent time in hunting elk will tell you just becasue it can kill it doesn't make it ideal for the job.
I don't have a hard and fast caliber/cartridge rule myself for elk hunting. Nor do I beleive there is a magical formula for how much energy is required to successfully kill big game. I do however feel that anything 6.5mm and up is a good place to start for elk. There are just better bullet options available starting in the 6.5 range and up when it comes to hunting elk.
tahunua001
New member
care to elaborate on that? 308 has cropped up very little on this particular thread, probably with good reason. I think I am sensing a pattern here.
lets take a look at your second most recent post:
no other posts regarding 308 and nothing with any detail whatsoever. if you see a thread and want to contribute that's fine and dandy but to contribute without actually contributing anything is pretty pointless. sorry if I'm being blunt but your post offers nothing but an opinion without any amplifying data to allow the discussion to carry on.
ChasingWhitetail91
New member
Can't go wrong with an 06. Depending on your range i'd consider the .30-30 too.
Thanks Mystro for the good research. It shows there is less than 1 moa difference between that 130 gr Superformance round and the 95 gr Superformance round.
Consider the difference in shooter fatigue. One can usually shoot a couple of boxes of .270 from the bench without becoming overly tired and starting to anticipate the shots.
My experience with both tells me that I can shoot at least twice as many of the .243 before fatigue gets to be a big issue.
So, if target shooting is the principal objective with the occasional deer-busting as a secondary objective, the good old .243 is hard to beat.
Consider the difference in shooter fatigue. One can usually shoot a couple of boxes of .270 from the bench without becoming overly tired and starting to anticipate the shots.
My experience with both tells me that I can shoot at least twice as many of the .243 before fatigue gets to be a big issue.
So, if target shooting is the principal objective with the occasional deer-busting as a secondary objective, the good old .243 is hard to beat.
Geo_Erudite
New member
Brian Pfleuger said:
Well, I don't know who's posterior those numbers were picked from, but they do provide a frame of reference for a beginning hunter. It elucidates why a 243 is appropriate while a .204 Ruger is not for deer. That may seem like common sense to everyone here, but what is common sense to one person is not necessarily common sense to another.
You are correct that these number can be dangerous if they are seen as the only thing that matters. Shooting is a skill, a learned skill for most of us, but a skill that should be honed. This skill is more important that ft-lbs.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
No offense, but the "so will..." is not a valid argument. It's a logical fallacy called Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Woman and younger hunters use the .243 on elk regularly and on purpose, unless their husbands/fathers are infected with the magnumitis so prevalent today.
Elk are heavy but they're not particularly thick skinned or heavy boned. They're giant deer for crying out loud. A .243 loaded with 80gr Barnes TTSX will penetrate 3+ FEET in a deer. How thick is an elk? Half that, maybe?
"That video" shows an elk killed with a .243 from nearly 700 yards. Considering that's probably 4 times the average shot distance, how could it even be argued that the .243 isn't a reasonable elk gun?
I have a friend who hunts elk almost every year in CO. He only archery hunts and shoots 315gr arrows out of a 47lb draw weight bow. The same magnumitis from the gun world also infects the archery world. He is regularly told that you need a 70lb bow to kill elk. Mind you, that 70lb requirement has never changed even though today's 50lb bows produced the same or more kinetic energy than a 70lb bow from 15 or 20 years ago, not to mention hunters still use recurves, which tend to make less energy (literally) than a modern 30lb bow. His 47lb bow has *never failed* to fully penetrate an elk.... but you "need" a 70lb bow. Yeah right. What you *need* is to make your shot.
It's no different in the gun world. Bullet technologies and cartridge capabilities evolve, the good ole boys opinions don't.
Good shots are what you need. A bad shot with a .243 isn't going to be a good shoot because you swap in a .300mag. Does a uber-magnum add some effective range? Yeah, probably. Out at 700, 800, 1200 yards, yep. How much does that matter to the average hunter, many (most) of which have never shot that far and literally couldn't hit a house at 1,000 yards.
The difference between a .243 and a .300mag or a .270 or 30-06 or, whatever, at 100, 200, 400 yards, is how much energy the tree on the other side of the animal absorbs.
Ammo prices should be considered as well. You tend to shoot more if the ammo is readily available and affordable. Prices between the 243,270,308,30-06 are about the same from average to premium grade. You stick with one of the mainstream calibers mentioned and you will save yourself ALOT of money and headaches.
To be honest, I shoot my pre64 Winchester 30-30 for that reason alone. I like to shoot and I can get a box of soft points for a steal. Now when it comes to deer hunting in the brush, the good old 30-30 has nothing to prove and the fact that I shoot it ALOT, that will be what I grab for the gun and run hunts. Dont underestimate the power and potential of the 30-30. It has been killing elk and similar game for over a 100 years. In my neck of the woods, the poor families that HAD to get a few deer a year, always seem to be killing machines armed with a 30-30 lever actions.
To be honest, I shoot my pre64 Winchester 30-30 for that reason alone. I like to shoot and I can get a box of soft points for a steal. Now when it comes to deer hunting in the brush, the good old 30-30 has nothing to prove and the fact that I shoot it ALOT, that will be what I grab for the gun and run hunts. Dont underestimate the power and potential of the 30-30. It has been killing elk and similar game for over a 100 years. In my neck of the woods, the poor families that HAD to get a few deer a year, always seem to be killing machines armed with a 30-30 lever actions.
Brian,
One example of a cow elk being killed by a .243 at long range is not statistical fact. Neither is saying "plenty" of people hunt elk every year with a .243, you have no facts to back up your statements. It is as you say "It's a logical fallacy called Reductio Ad Absurdum."
There is a huge difference between a 150-200 lb. deer and 400 lb. cow elk, let alone a 600+ lb. trophy bull elk. Just like there is a huge difference between the .243 and more suitable elk cartridges. Everything adds up in the end and sure there are trade offs and pro's and con's to each cartridge you choose when hunting.
Even if your 80 grain Barnes bullet offers similar performance when compared to a .270 130 grain on paper, it falls short in reality. Even though it starts faster, it will never make as large of a wound channel, nor will ever start out or arrive with as much energy. This is what I mean by things add up, not one thing makes the .243 a better cartridge for elk. Sure you'll have more recoil with .270 but it is manageable, or you can go to a cartridge like the 7-08 or .260 that will offer less recoil.
Will an 80 grain bullet kill an elk, sure it will kill it. I'm not arguing that fact I'm simply stating on my experiences with elk hunting, I've never met "plenty" of hunters that use the .243 Win. In fact if you would ever spend some time around elk hunters you'd find the use of the .243 very few and far between. Plus the women and children remark is just silly, because if the .243 was a good elk cartridge then even us macho male hunters would be using it.
Now back to that girl shooting an elk at nearly 700 yards. She used a custom precision rifle and ammunition that was built by and was coached/guided by John Burns. If you don't happen to know who John Burns is, he is the guy the put "Best of the West" on the map. Though no longer affiliated with BOW or Greybull Precision, he is a precision rifle shooter and builder, who makes a living selling a product being used at the extremes.
There are tried and true elk cartridges for a reason, they flat out work. Plus for as long as I've been a member on this forum, I can't think of one time I've ever recommended a magnum rifle cartridge being needed for elk. While new bullet technology makes some smaller cartridge more capable, they still aren't the ideal combo for larger deer species such as elk and moose. Used within reason the .243 can and does work, but should never be considered as a first choice when deciding on a cartridge to hunt elk.
One example of a cow elk being killed by a .243 at long range is not statistical fact. Neither is saying "plenty" of people hunt elk every year with a .243, you have no facts to back up your statements. It is as you say "It's a logical fallacy called Reductio Ad Absurdum."
There is a huge difference between a 150-200 lb. deer and 400 lb. cow elk, let alone a 600+ lb. trophy bull elk. Just like there is a huge difference between the .243 and more suitable elk cartridges. Everything adds up in the end and sure there are trade offs and pro's and con's to each cartridge you choose when hunting.
Even if your 80 grain Barnes bullet offers similar performance when compared to a .270 130 grain on paper, it falls short in reality. Even though it starts faster, it will never make as large of a wound channel, nor will ever start out or arrive with as much energy. This is what I mean by things add up, not one thing makes the .243 a better cartridge for elk. Sure you'll have more recoil with .270 but it is manageable, or you can go to a cartridge like the 7-08 or .260 that will offer less recoil.
Will an 80 grain bullet kill an elk, sure it will kill it. I'm not arguing that fact I'm simply stating on my experiences with elk hunting, I've never met "plenty" of hunters that use the .243 Win. In fact if you would ever spend some time around elk hunters you'd find the use of the .243 very few and far between. Plus the women and children remark is just silly, because if the .243 was a good elk cartridge then even us macho male hunters would be using it.
Now back to that girl shooting an elk at nearly 700 yards. She used a custom precision rifle and ammunition that was built by and was coached/guided by John Burns. If you don't happen to know who John Burns is, he is the guy the put "Best of the West" on the map. Though no longer affiliated with BOW or Greybull Precision, he is a precision rifle shooter and builder, who makes a living selling a product being used at the extremes.
There are tried and true elk cartridges for a reason, they flat out work. Plus for as long as I've been a member on this forum, I can't think of one time I've ever recommended a magnum rifle cartridge being needed for elk. While new bullet technology makes some smaller cartridge more capable, they still aren't the ideal combo for larger deer species such as elk and moose. Used within reason the .243 can and does work, but should never be considered as a first choice when deciding on a cartridge to hunt elk.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
My saying that plenty of people use the .243 for elk is not a reduction to the absurd. It's true. What would you want? Name and phone numbers? It's funny, because every time I say there are plenty of people hunting elk with the .243, I get no support but I I see people posting the same at random times on the forum. Ah well. It is what it is. People do and it's a decent elk cartridge.
The point about the 700 yard shot isn't whether or not the .243 is a 700 yard elk cartridge. The VAST majority of all shots taken at ALL game animals are under 200 yards. The .243 properly loaded with ANY big game bullet is MORE than sufficient at 200 yards, or 300.
The .243Win doesn't need as much energy as the .270, it doesn't have to leave with as much or arrive with as much, it has to have ENOUGH, and it does. Nobody ever brags about how much energy they put in the tree on the other side.
Beside which, the OP asks for "passable for elk or bear". There's really not much of an argument that the .243 would be "passable" for elk. It is, has been and will continue to be used for elk.
Of the 4 cartridges mentioned in the OP, the .243 is an excellent option. It's extremely common and will never go away. Ammo is common and relatively inexpensive. It can be shot at targets very far away, certainly 1,000 yards with the right bullet. It is an exceptional deer cartridge, black bear are just as dead and it is certainly a "passable" elk cartridge for 99% of the shots that 99% of hunters should reasonably be making.
The point about the 700 yard shot isn't whether or not the .243 is a 700 yard elk cartridge. The VAST majority of all shots taken at ALL game animals are under 200 yards. The .243 properly loaded with ANY big game bullet is MORE than sufficient at 200 yards, or 300.
The .243Win doesn't need as much energy as the .270, it doesn't have to leave with as much or arrive with as much, it has to have ENOUGH, and it does. Nobody ever brags about how much energy they put in the tree on the other side.
Beside which, the OP asks for "passable for elk or bear". There's really not much of an argument that the .243 would be "passable" for elk. It is, has been and will continue to be used for elk.
Of the 4 cartridges mentioned in the OP, the .243 is an excellent option. It's extremely common and will never go away. Ammo is common and relatively inexpensive. It can be shot at targets very far away, certainly 1,000 yards with the right bullet. It is an exceptional deer cartridge, black bear are just as dead and it is certainly a "passable" elk cartridge for 99% of the shots that 99% of hunters should reasonably be making.
There is a reason that those broad head arrows kill reliably while users of the .243 have an uncomfortable loss rate on the larger deer and elk.
That reason is the size of the wound channel. One needs a larger bullet than what the .243 will sling to routinely bring the largest animals down within about ten seconds.
That reason is the size of the wound channel. One needs a larger bullet than what the .243 will sling to routinely bring the largest animals down within about ten seconds.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
So the difference between an unacceptable cartridge and "Thor's Hammer" is 2 or 3 hundredths of an inch?
What's the basis of your claim of an "uncomfortable loss rate"?
What's the basis of your claim of an "uncomfortable loss rate"?
I would inerate that While a .243 winchester is capable, that don't make it reliable to adequately take Elk. I also think that a reasonably seasoned rifleman or woman can validly hunt with that caliber.. I also think that it could be argued At Length, that the hunting elk with a small caliber isn't exactly the best thing to attempt. And the reason I think that is, even though a premium bullet is used, the room for error is smaller than say a 30-06 or .270 win, or even Brians favorite a magnumitis rig.
In closing both Taylorce1 and Brian Phleuger have valid points. But I will side with Taylorce1's replies on this thread because he has hunted and taken elk with a lot of various calibers, and he hunts elk yearly and has more experience hunting various large game on this continent...
In closing both Taylorce1 and Brian Phleuger have valid points. But I will side with Taylorce1's replies on this thread because he has hunted and taken elk with a lot of various calibers, and he hunts elk yearly and has more experience hunting various large game on this continent...
- Status