tahunua001
New member
I agree with about 90% of what brian said. however I would like to point out that in my elk unit 700 yards is only about double the average range for elk, 600 is usually where I draw the line but if I was really desperate for meat and I had my 180 grains of deep curl medication to treat the symptoms of my type 300 weatherby magnumitis, I would probably take the shot. with a 80gr out of a 243, I just do not trust my skills enough. then again my gun hates 80s, the best accuracy round I've found for the 243 has been 100gr federal powershoks and is the only load I have been able to harvest anything with. maybe some tinkering with a 90gr deep curl is in order.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?
now I will also reiterate what brian said by saying that there are a lot of people that hunt elk with a 243. a lot of them are maligned for doing it. a while back(way back) there was a thread here on TFL of a guy that had killed his elk with a 243 and the entire thread was a bunch of goobers claiming that he was unethical and didn't deserve to hunt even though there was another thread running at the exact same time where an idiot had to double tap a deer with a 300 win mag to drop it and he was lauded for his successful hunt. do I sense a double standard here?