Which is more of a stretch: .223 rem for whitetails or .243 win for elk?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Unlicensed Dremel

Moderator
I understand these are great, ever-raging debates. They won't be settled here or ever, and I don't really want to debate them.

I just want to know, in your opinion, regardless of which side you come down on for either argument, *which of those two* (.223 rem enough for whitetail? Or .243 win enough for elk?) is a more of a stretch for the arguably-marginal chambering, versus which of the two is the chambering is closer to being up to the task (or solidly up to the task, if you're on that side of it), do you think?

I think it's a close call, but I think the .243 win for elk is a slightly larger stretch (more arguable/doubtful) than .223 rem for whitetails is.

Notice that you do not even need to know whether I think either is adequate for either, in order for me to tell you that answer, which is what I'm trying to do here.

A 725 lb bull elk weighs 108% more than a 300 lb whitetail buck (to compare apples to apples), but a 105 gr 6mm bullet weighs only 69% more than a 62 grain .224 soft point bullet, and only 36% more than a 77 gr .224 bullet. That's not a perfect proxy of course, but it's a start.
 
I agree with the OP.
While I am not a fan of .223 for whitetail, I think only a legitimate fool would try to take an Elk with a .243.

Can it be done? Possibly
Can it be done humanely and ethically? Me thinks not.
 
Legal

I might have to check but I am pretty sure in my state it is illegal to use anything smaller than a .243 on big game including whitetails. It doesn't say anything about using .243 on elk, but I agree it would be stretch to get through that thick hide and muscle without that elusive perfect shot. I don't know if that adds anything to the conversation, but at one time at least some people thought that a .223 was not ethical for whitetails, so it is not legal.
 
With all the adequate calibers available for hunting why use something that is marginal for the animal hunted? Improper placement of the shot will leave a wounded animal to track. Washington State does not allow .22 caliber for large game..however...I shoot them with my childhood Red Ryder carbine to keep them off my lawn.
 
Gonna have to say .243 for elk. Speaking from extensive experience using a .222 and a .223 on whitetail deer. I just know someone will post that 600+ yard shot some girl took and killed an elk. Suppose anything is possible.
 
I don't believe either is a stretch when the shooter is using the proper bullets and proper constraint on what shots he/she is going to take. Bullet placement and the ability of the bullet to reach and cause damage to vital organs is what kills game.
 
I see a trend forming:

People that don't live in Elk country seem to think they're armor-plated.... :rolleyes:

Bullet through heart = dead animal.
Elk hide behind the shoulders = not very tough.



Allen, please read the question again. You missed it brutha.
Click to expand...
I don't think he did.
If you want to weigh a cartridge in a specific situation against another cartridge in a specific situation, you need to consider what factors contribute to each cartridge's capabilities, as a whole. That means bullet selection matters. You wouldn't go out hunting either animal with varmint bullets, would you?

When it comes to bullet selection, .243 Win has more bullets available that are appropriate for big game use than .223 Rem (in my opinion).



Regardless....
I'd call it a draw.
Neither would be my first choice.
 
Also note, in the video posted by Brian, that the bullet used (105 gr Berger VLD-Hunting) is not a proper "big game" bullet. It's the original Berger VLD, and is quite fragile. ;)


(Their current 'match/target' VLDs use an improved jacket.)
 
It was the right bullet, there.;)

I agree, though, that bullet selection is the paramount factor.

I also agree that neither would be my first choice if I was looking in a safe full of rifles.

My first choice would be .243, .25-06, 7-08 or anything in that realm for deer and 7mm-08 for elk.
 
Peetza, you keep posting that irresponsible stunt as if it proves something.

The fact that the shooter used a custom rifle with a custom load and long range bullet, and has some impressive trajectory calculation skill, and read the wind just right does nothing to make a shot that long a good idea with anything short of a laser: Time of flight is so long that the "hunter" has very little assurance the animal targeted will remain stationary between the time the bullet leaves the gun and arrives on target. The animal (or another one in the herd) can move quite a bit in that amount of time.

Also, their posting it on youtube (and your repeated repostingof it) has probably resulted in many more wounded and lost animals (by folk with inadequate equipment and skills attempting to do the same) than the shooter has personally by trusting a wild animal to stand still for more than a second while their bullet is on it's way .....

Elk and deer are not armored vehichles- poke a decent sized hole through their lungs and they will die, and quickly .....

..... that said, there are better tools for both jobs.
 
jimbob86 said:
Peetza, you keep posting that irresponsible stunt as if it proves something.
Click to expand...

And you keep ignoring the over-arching point, which is that if it does what it does it that video at that range, it is far more than capable of doing the job that the average hunter needs, which will be at 1/3 that distance or less, the vast majority of the time.

It's also indisputable that some folks who hunt elk every year have and do choose the .243Win on purpose every year.

It's pretty well agreed that it's not likely to be the first choice of most folks. That's a completely different statement than "only a legitimate fool would try to take an Elk with a .243.".
 
The primary reason those who brag about using tiny bullets on big game is that they really don't care about hunting or the game.

They just want to call attention to themselves and make others unhappy.
 
I actually don't know anyone who brags about it. There are just some who know what actually happens and there are those who spout baseless and easily disproved opinions on the internet.
 
Some of those who shoot tiny bullets at big game even believe they are good shots.

Thus when they wound big game with a tiny bullet and animal runs off they think the bullet must have hit a twig.
 
With the right bullets both are well within ethical limits. The only limitation is range. With MOST weapons, including bows, muzzle loaders, shotguns, and handguns the range at which you can hit the game is the realistic upper limit. MOST all of them have adequate power at ranges far farther than most people can shoot.

Not so with the 223 and 243, it is possible to make hits much farther than the rounds have the energy for ethical shots. A 223 on deer or a 243 on elk are more than adequate if the shooter is disciplined enough to take shots at limited ranges.

The 688 yard elk shot with a 243 is farther than I'd take or recommend anyone else take. It obviously worked in this case. While I don't condone it, it certainly proves the 243 is more than adequate at much closer distances.
 
Savage99 said:
Some of those who shoot tiny bullets at big game even believe they are good shots.

Thus when they wound big game with a tiny bullet and animal runs off they think the bullet must have hit a twig.
Click to expand...

And folks shoot, wound and never recover all manner of animals every single year with every weapon in the woods, from long-bows to black powder to handguns to shotguns and rifles.

Do you have any data which validates your opinion that someone who uses what you personally consider to be a "tiny bullet" has a higher loss rate than folks who use long-bows, or handguns, or muzzle loaders, or .300Win Mags, that they are poorer shots than those other folks, that they tend to be braggarts or do it to call attention to themselves, or is it just your baseless opinion?
 
There's always an "if"...if you are patient, if you are willing to pass up longer shots, if you're an excellent shot (in the field, not off a pile of sandbags), if you choose the right bullet. Then either will work. I saw a writeup, I think it was a review of the bullet, by a guy who kept shooting this elk with 215 Sierras from a .338 Win Mag. The thing just wouldn't go down. His conclusion: bullet too small. Me thinks his shooting was LTA, but not many will admit that. Personally, I would not hunt elk with a .243 or deer with a .223. I have much better rifles for the job. But if that was all I had, sure. I will say this. There are very few people, youngsters included, who cannot learn to shoot one of the moderate 6.5 or 7 mm calibers if they have a mind to. Much better for elk. And just about anyone can shoot a .243. Much better for deer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top