'Low' recoil deer caliber recommendation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks all for the input, I'll give it some thought before I make a purchase, although I do have plenty of time before the next season rolls around.

No, I currently do not own a centerfire rifle. I've got 4 .22lr's and my 9mm pistol, but thats it.

All my strength lies in my legs, never had much in upper body due to all the soccer I played as a kid. I'm 5'10", 150lbs, so ya, I'm long and lanky.

I make no claims about planning to hunt alone, frankly I don't like the thought of that at all. When I do go out, I plan on going with friends, more fun with a group.
 
@semi

It would be nice if I could get the best of both worlds, enough umph for larger game, but low enough recoil not to take out my shoulder.

Also, this is to be a hunting gun, so rifle weight will play a factor.

Such a complicated decision :)
 
Well, if you compare a browning light weight stalker BAR in... .308, it weighs in at 7lbs 2oz; against a remington 700 sps compact weighing in at 7.25 lbs...so 16 oz in a pound and that makes the bolt action 2oz heavier with 4" exta barrel length. With the BAR tipping the price scales at an exta $500.

Having shot my Dad's browning 7mag standing with no support and my wife's .243 on a bench with a bipod... I don't remember any significant felt recoil differences. That browning is sweet! My weatherby .308 with the limbsaver doesn't have much more felt recoil than the .243 (bigger push, but its not a kick in the shoulder like the 45-70 is) but I shoot it off a bipod as well. Before I got the recoil pad I'd put about 20 rounds through it and be done. After recoil pad I could put 40-60 rounds through it and be just fine. That was before I started reloading and could only afford 2-3 boxes of ammo at a time. Then I weighed about the same as you, and I'm the same height. I had pretty much the same build, as I was in the army and for some reason we ran 3-4 times a week. Since getting out I've put on 30lbs so my body sucks the recoil up a bit better.

Back when I was younger and not as wise as I am now, stationed in Washington state, I bought a remington 700 SPSS (special purpose synthetic stainless) in .300 Win Mag. Hated that rifle. When I bought it the store had 2 packages set up with leopold scopes, called it the North West package. A .270 and the .300. First time I took it to the range I wanted to season the barrel right, so I shot groups of 5, barrel snaking the rifle after every 5 shots and letting the barrel cool after every shot for a minute. After 18 rounds I went to the car to grab a coke and couldn't pick it up! That thing gave me so many bad habits. Though it was neat to have guys come up at the range and say, "What cannon are you shooting over here?!?"
 
Seem to be a lot of .243 fans here. I've never shot it (but i'd like to;-). Must say I've seen just as many threads argue it's too small for deer, most cons say it's less forgiving of poor bullet placement.
Click to expand...

All the energy in a 8mm Rem Magnum won't make up for poor bullet placement: Gutshot is Gutshot: Messy.

Bolt actions are more accurate than semi's? True 20 years ago.... Not really applicable today.
Click to expand...

Given that;

a) the most accurate ammo for your gun is ammo meticulously developed and loaded for it (neck sized beats full length sizing)..... and

b) handloaders actually shoot their rifles more than most folks that buy their ammo,

picking a gun that is easy to handload for would be conducive to better shooting, provided you take the time to learn to roll your own. So it IS applicable today. And will be tomorrow.

What about the AR-10 and 15 models shooting sub MOA out of the box? Compare that to some of your bolts shooting 1.5-2 in groups out of the box.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges: Compare bolties and semis of similar price: the bolt guns shooting 2 inch groups are 1/3 the price of any AR ..... and often have a better trigger.

AR-10? 1300 Bucks? Show me a $1300 bolt gun that won't shoot 1 MOA, and I'll show you a manufacturer that won't stay in business..... either that or they put $900 of engraving a $400 gun.

All this is probably unimportant to the OP, though... if a person can't hit a deer in the chest with a 2 MOA gun at under 300 yards, he can't likely do it with a sub 1 MOA gun, either.........

My advice remains the same: For deer, a .243 would do the trick. If you think elk might be a possibility later on in life, a little larger caliber would be in order........ 7-08, .308, .270, 30-06...... the best advice I could give you is to learn to reload, so you will shoot your rifle more, and can tailor your ammo to the application. I shoot a .270 WIN, and have loaded everthing from 90 gr Speer TNT prairie dog poppers to 150 gr SGK BTSPs for deer ........ I did not save any money, but have shot thousands of rounds out of that gun- probably more than my grandfather did in the 39 years that he owned it.
 
The .243 sounds like a good fit for you. The recoil is very manageable.

But what about stepping up to the 30-06 and using some recoil management ammo? Just one option.

I have a 7mm mag and I had to put a Limbsaver recoil pad on it. Made a huge improvement in felt recoil.
 
[All this is probably unimportant to the OP, though... if a person can't hit a deer in the chest with a 2 MOA gun at under 300 yards, he can't likely do it with a sub 1 MOA gun, either.........

My advice remains the same: For deer, a .243 would do the trick. If you think elk might be a possibility later on in life, a little larger caliber would be in order........ 7-08, .308, .270, 30-06...... the best advice I could give you is to learn to reload, so you will shoot your rifle more, and can tailor your ammo to the application.]

Excellent advice jimbob.
I once took two rifles to the range. One was only a 2 minute rifle, and the other a 1 minute. I shot from a sitting position out to 500 yards. In those days I could shoot 2 min at 500 yards from sitting with a tight sling at the range.
The results were that the group sizes were identical betrween the two rifles. I had to conclude that as long as a rifle would group in 2 min I would not miss any game as a result of the rifle's acccuracy.

My standard for my big game rifles has always been 1.5 minutes, and I don't think I ever suffered because my rifles did not group sub 1 minute.

Reloading was always a "labor of love" for me. I grreatly enjoyed working up the best loads for my rifles to get good accuracy with top velocity at decent pressures. I never bought a 7MM Mag to get .280 velocities so I always loaded hot. Others take a different approach. But I always knew I had the best ammunition possible for my hunting.

Reloading was almost an end to itself. I can't imagine how much enjoyment I would have missed by not reloading.

Regards,
Jerry
 
243 would work, but I'd prefer a 260 or 7mm-08 as the minimum.

If I already had a larger caliber I'd just buy some of the reduced recoil ammo available now and use it before going to the expense of a new rifle. The 30-06 reduced recoil ammo gets recoil close to 243 levels with the ability to use more powerful ammo in the same gun if the need arises.
 
In those days I could shoot 2 min at 500 yards from sitting with a tight sling at the range.
The results were that the group sizes were identical betrween the two rifles. I had to conclude that as long as a rifle would group in 2 min I would not miss any game as a result of the rifle's acccuracy.
Click to expand...

2 MOA at 500 is about 10", right? A 10" circle that the bullets would hit around the POA.... That's the raggeddy edge of iffy, under ideal conditions.

243 would work, but I'd prefer a 260 or 7mm-08 as the minimum.

If I already had a larger caliber I'd just buy some of the reduced recoil ammo available now and use it before going to the expense of a new rifle. The 30-06 reduced recoil ammo gets recoil close to 243 levels with the ability to use more powerful ammo in the same gun if the need arises.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but for less than the cost of another rifle, the OP could make his own "Reduced Recoil", or clones of the $45 a box "Premium" out there, or anything in between....... A 30-06 and a handloading set-up would make anything in the lower 48, if not North America, is a possibility.

"There ain't many problems/
A Man can't fix/
With 700 Dollars/
And a Thirty Aught-Six."

-Lindy (Cooper) Wisdom
 
Hi jimbob,
Yes 10 inches is iffy, however, what I was attempting to do was to determine if the difference in rifle accuracy was significant under field conditions. My conclusion is that a sub MOA rifle does not offer any advantage in the field.

Now I realize that today there are rangefinders, and maybe shooting sticks help. I also see programs where ATVs get you in fairly close.Much of my hunting required me to carry everything on my back. I am not sure how useful shooting sticks are on the side of a steep mountain and you do not have a lot of time to adjust them. I also would not carry the weight when oz make a difference.

On the other hand depending upon the size of the game 2 inch shooting will take most of it. I have only shot about 3 head of game at 500 yards. Two were antelope, and one a mule deer that I had missed twice as he ran through the low brush.

Anyway, I know folks who are willing to sacrifice a fair amount of velocity for a slight improvement in accuracy. I prefer the higher velocity as long as I get 1.5 MOA.

Regards,
Jerry
 
He said he doesn't not own a 30-06. He has only shot his dads 30-06 and he does not live close to him anymore. That's why he's looking for his own gun in a smaller caliber. What's the point in buying a 30-06 to use reduced power loads. That would be an option that I would look at if I already had a 30-06 and me or wife/child was going to use it and wasn't comfortable with the recoil.
 
try

The .243 is very shootable, and will serve well as an adult caliber as you age. My son stared shooting .243 at age 14, and loves it. So did his 70 year old grandad, who bought it cause he was tired of being walloped by "real" deer rifles. Grandad started to kill deer like never before, BTW.

Another option, that does not have the range and reach of a .243, but is a good 150 yd deer ctg, is a quality bolt rifle in 7.62x39mm.

I am not a fan of the SKS for youth, or any semi for that matter by a beginner, nor the traditional lever 30-30 w/ o a safety. I've found that many youth, women, and some men, can't get the knack of safely letting the hammer down on traditional hammer/non-safety/ lever rifles.
 
Many rifles do not like the reduced recoil loads available as factory ammunition.

Never buy a rifle, planning to shoot reduced recoil loads in it. Murphy's Law will prevail, and you'll have nothing but a rifle you don't shoot, and ammunition that's better off as paper weights.


The consensus appears to be:

Buy a .243, unless you think Elk is a likely possibility. If you need something more appropriate for Elk, step up to something bigger and learn to soak up the recoil.
(As I said in my previous post - Learning to handle recoil makes people better shooters, anyway.)
 
True, the consensus opinion centers on the .243 Winchester.

That said, you may want to take a look at the .260 Remington as an alternative. Unless you plan to do a lot of varmint shooting, the .260 is a lot more effective on deer and larger game and you can get effective full-house factory loads with 100 grain bullets (See e. g., http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=853933 and http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=324662).

These loads will present only about 10 percent more recoil velocity than the 100 grain .243 Win. You will, however, be able to grow into the 140 grain offerings which give you a better reach into the big game world.

If you want to reduce recoil further, try the 6.5 Grendel. It has less recoil than the .243 Winchester but doesn't offer as flat a trajectory. It will, however, offer better big game lethality than the .243 at all ranges (See http://shootersnotes.com/grendelmania/grendel-potential-for-large-game/).
 
Thanks for all the input guys.

It looks like .243 is going to win this. I do appreciate the input into all the other loads though, I might look into them in the future, but the sad thing is is that I don't see many of those on the shelves when I walk through my local shops.

While I have nothing against special ordering ammo, I don't want that to be my only option, which may end up being the case with many of these more 'unique' loads. Yes, you might be able to find them locally, but that doesn't mean that I can :).


I doubt I'll need the additional power/range that anything larger will give me in the near future, but should the occasion arise where I need more, I can just use it as an excuse to go buy another rifle.

Sounds like a plan, right?
 
Sneasle...243 is a good choice for you with 100 grain bullets....Also..U might want to consider an auto like the Remington 742..etc....
 
Sneasle,

Seems like this thread has sorta run it's course, but I think you're making a good choice. I grew up shooting the .243 Win, and I'd venture to say I've probably shot up more .243 ammo than most fellas. I shot out the barrel of my first centerfire rifle (a Rem 600 "Mohawk" in .243 Win) by the time I was about 17. Now I have an older (1956) Winchester model 70 that still gets plenty of attention.

I'm a smaller fella too (5'7", 140 lbs), but I've sort of "graduated" to larger cartridges and calibers for big game hunting. Still use the .243 for smaller stuff, and occasionally still take it for deer, but in the open country out here in the west I like the added range of a 7mm mag. I'll admit that most of my shots could still easily be made with a .243, but I've had the occasional "shoot now or forget it" shot at longer range where the 7mm mag is far superior.

That said, for a very capable cartridge that's easy to shoot, and easy to find ammo for, the .243 is a fine choice IMO. I wish you the best of luck and success with it.

Daryl
 
nobody even mentioned the 6mm Remington?!? Remington just came out with a Stainless fluted M700 chambered in it.
 
The 6mm Remington is a good cartridge, but is harder to find ammo for. It's performance is slightly better than the .243, but it would be hard to notice in the field.

It's lack of popularity is attributable to it's introduction as the .244 Rem, which had a slower twist barrel than the .243. This caused it to not stabilize the heavier bullets like the .243 did, and gave the .243 a big jump start with shooter popularity at the time.

Remington's re-instroduction of the cartridge as the 6mm Remington may have helped save the cartridge from extinction, but it's never caught up with the .243 Winchester in that respect. Sad, because it really is a decent cartridge.

Daryl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top