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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally wouldnt feel undergunned with a 223 on a whitetail. I KNOW I can out the bullet where it needs to go out of my AR.

I would lean .243 on Elk, but have no experience on Elk.
 
Well I don't have any personal experience with elk, however I have with the .223 on whit-tails, oddly enough if you put a good (read as designed for the job) bullet through the vitals (heart/lungs) they pretty much go down like with anything else. I have no doubt that if I were going elk hunting and had to use a .243 and loaded it with 100 grain Nosler Partitions, or Barnes TSX's then put that a bullet through the heart/lungs it would result in a kill. Now as for the whole staying withing the range of the chosen caliber and skill of the shooter that is pretty much a consideration whether its a 7mm Mag or a .243. I would rather hunt with someone who used a .243 and could put his bullets in the right spot and knew enough to pick his shots, than someone with a .30-378 who would be taking 500 yard shots without the skill to place the bullets correctly. LOTS of folks are routinely taking feral hogs with .223's and they certainly are not an easier kill than a deer. Like Brian a .243 wouldn't be my first choice to elk hunt with, but then hunting them with a bow or ML probably wouldn't be either, but they work.
 
Well, yeah, although there's nothing wrong with debating those two underlying questions, that's what I really didn't want in this particular thread. I just wanted to know which everyone thought was closer or further away to being a slam-dunk than the other, and why would you say that? But I suppose there's really no way to get that without igniting and discussing the underlying opinions/debates.

Your answer to the underlying questions might be

-heck yes, heck yes
-Yes, yes
-Yes, no
-No, yes
-No, no
-heck no, heck no

or any one of several other combinations not listed above (with hecks thrown in here or there). I just wanted to see which was the more legit debate, on the whole, if that could be ascertained... Which a few answered (thanks). But then again, "neither - and they're equal" and "both - and they're equal" are legitimate answers too, I guess.

But ok, why not - I think they're both ok - fine even - but not ideal (like most people) - with the usual caveats - match bullet construction to speed at the point of impact, and limit your shots to those that make sense (i.e. no quartering toward or texas heart shots).

Looks like they're both marginally- to moderately-legit debates, roughly equal in intensity and need for the debate, with a possible slight skewing of more people coming down on the ".243 for elk is more of a stretch / not a good idea / more debatable." Such as my own opinion. And of course, these will never be resolved. :) I'll be happy if man just conserves nature enough that we can continue to HAVE the debates!

Then again, I guess if, in one's mind, the answer to either is "hell no", then that would make it "NOT debatable" rather than "debatable". In other words, the more of a "stretch" it is, the more debatable it is, up to a point, at which time it suddenly becomes less debatable, if that makes sense. Hmmm. I just confused myself.
 
Last edited:
Perspective on elk: in my province of Canada it is legal to take moose with a .243 (the smallest calibre permitted). However, a minimum bullet weight of 100 grains is legally mandated in that calibre for that purpose, and there are muzzle energy minima too.

Granted, energy isn't everything (and neither is bullet weight). But all else being equal, it doesn't hurt to have more of both - provided you can cope with the recoil.
 
.243 for Elk, without a doubt.

I'd say .243 for elk is a larger stretch, both because Elk are larger and thicker skinned and also typically shot at larger distances than white tails. IMO .223 is a great round for white tails with decent shot placement. Poachers kill deer with .22LR all the time with head and heart/lung shots- of course only the head and heart shots are really ethical and I would not suggest using .22lr on a deer, but its plenty of round if you need it to be.

I think .223 was banned in most states for deer because when the laws were made, the only .223 rounds available were FMJ. With modern hunting rounds, I think .223 is a perfect white tail round.
 
I agree with all that. But would you say the same about 300 lb Saskatchewan bruisers?

And my states says that .22 cal centerfire rifles must use "55 grains or larger" bullet to be legal. Probably what they *should have done* and should in fact do is state either "55 grain and larger and not FMJ construction" or "60 gr and larger", or even "50 grain and larger and not FMJ construction".

Interesting about the .243 is ok for moose in Canada, but only in 100 gr+.
 
I have a good friend who lives in Colorado. Due to some events of the class trip to S.E. Asia he can't take the recoil from the larger caliber rifles. His elk rifle is a 243 win loaded up with 105 grain bullets. All he takes are neck shots within a 100 yrds. He is well aware of his limitations and the need to be close to make to fill his tag. He says if a bowhunter can get close enough to kill with an arrow, 50yrds, then I should be abel to get within 100yds. As an end note he has killed a fair amount of elk too.
 
In my mind, they are both medium range cartridges. But with hesvier animals they loose their advantage. However, I use .243 on deer and on sometimes I've seen excessive damage. I've seen a bullet fragment and so some damage. But this is all at closer ranges, around 150 yards and less. I've once shoot a deer, at a long distance and it didnt die. It needed an extra shot.

But I'd use the .243 on elk before I'd use the .223 on deer. I'm not a fan of the .223 catridge. It's not a bad one, I just don't like it.

For the record no cartridge has magic powers, and even rounds more potent have their bad days. I've seen a .30-06 require 3 shots, the last 2 in the head to kill a doe. These are all under 30 yards.
 
I know one person who uses a .22 mag with a depredation permit to control the whitetail on his farm at night. A well placed bullet will put them down. A .223 is even more effective, neither are the most ideal but both will do the job.

.243 on an elk, a bit light, but with good bullet choice, shot taken at close range, with the right bullet, would kill an elk just as dead as any other caliber. I feel it's less of a stretch than using a .22 mag on a whitetail.

Probably pretty even between them. I would personally use a larger caliber for either animal. But that being said people have taken elk with wood longbows and stone arrow heads for longer than the gun has even existed.

A well placed projectile into the vitals of any animal will put it down. Big hole in the heart/lungs, little hole in the heart/lungs, it's going down. Might take a little bit, but it's going to die.
 
A 725 lb bull elk weighs 108% more than a 300 lb whitetail buck
Click to expand...


We don't do much elk hunting in Ohio, so I'm not sure how many 725lb bulls are out there. While they do exist, those 300lb bucks aren't very common, even here. Most are closer to half that. In a lot of southern states, a .223 would be one of the better choices where they have 200 yard shots and 80lb deer. Also most shots are well under 100 yards for deer here. When I think elk, I think Rockies, and a little farther than that.

Nothing worse than people using under powered hunting arms to impress others. Sure shot placement is important, but that kill zone gets a lot bigger, and you have more of them when you have a caliber that will reach it, and penetrate though it from any angle and any reasonable range.
 
We don't do much elk hunting in Ohio, so I'm not sure how many 725lb bulls are out there.
Click to expand...
700-735 lbs* is average for Rocky Mountain Elk bulls (Roosevelt run 750-960 lbs*).
500-535 lbs* is average for Rocky Mountain Elk cows (Roosevelt run 575-635 lbs*).
*(Exact figures depend on your source.)

Even just the three most recent elk tags filled in my family fit those statistics well.
We didn't weigh them, so they're just estimates, but my brothers and I figured my "small" 2012 satellite bull was 700-725 on the hoof. My brother's 2010 bull was pretty respectable and had a large body. We figured he easily broke 825 lbs. And, last year's cow (another brother) was good sized and had some excellent fat reserves. If she came in under 600 lbs, I'd eat my boots.
(All were Rocky Mountain Elk.)


Small bullet, big bullet, spear, truck... it doesn't matter. If you don't strike vital organs, they aren't going to die immediately. Shot placement and knowing their anatomy kills. Magnumitis just creates excuses and results in a lot of wasted game.
 
Zumbo

http://books.google.com/books?id=RX...AGEjIHgDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't know if this link will work, but it is a Jim Zumbo book, so has some expertise behind it. Part of this goes through this topic on elk calibers. The article talks about the skill of the hunter and the situation when choosing a rifle, which also is a common theme on this site.

In elk hunting situations where the terrain is rough, longer shots, all kinds of other less than ideal conditions, plus the thicker hides and bigger animal , the .243 would not be my choice because if I do miss by a little, hopefully the damage from a bigger round would give me some room for error. I wish I was a good enough hunter to be confident using something smaller, even down to a .270 which is very popular here for elk, but I am not. For whitetail, it seems people like to sit a creek bottom in a stand or blind where they can get into pretty close range and can get a pretty good shot at a deer, so the .223 would not be out of the question. You would still have to be pretty skilled to make a quick and good shot. I like room for error here, too. Put a bullet through a squirrel's eye type deal or use a shotgun because you can't see his eye at twenty yards. I m in the second group.

So what were the choices for answers again? I think both are really pretty close in that that they are both more like fade away threes instead of the slam dunk. Both take skill, but the slam dunks (bigger guns) are higher percentage. Not a basketball guy, did that make sense?
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

So, would this be a bad time to bring up the .22 Hornet I take Elk hunting every year?
 
I've taken whitetail with .223, and I believe that most people are using too much gun and not enough practice for whitetails. However, I would not recommend .223 for whitetails.
Also, I know a guy who has taken elk with .243, and 6mm Rem. This was a very seasoned hunter and one of the best marksmen I've ever seen. He got close, used good bullets (NP), and shot in the neck. I asked him about it one night and he said "it can be done. I suppose most times you should have more rifle. Besides, you have to pass up a lot more shots than the guys with an '06 or a 7mm."


I say 243 for elk is more of a stretch.
 
.24 is the minimum caliber here. So .223 is off the list and .243 wins by default.

I know several people who have taken elk with .243.
 
Now I must point out the Brian's link to the Greybull vid of the long range elk shot with .243 win was on a cow elk, not a bull elk, so perhaps 200 lbs less. I ain't saying a .243 isn't plenty, and I ain't saying it is, necessarily. Just pointing out that it wasn't a huge bull, in the interest of full and fair analysis.
 
Now I must point out the Brian's link to the Greybull vid of the long range elk shot with .243 win was on a cow elk, not a bull elk, so perhaps 200 lbs less. I ain't saying a .243 isn't plenty, and I ain't saying it is, necessarily. Just pointing out that it wasn't a huge bull, in the interest of full and fair analysis.
Click to expand...
It's still a healthy, mature cow that's likely well over 500 lbs.

And... you didn't specify any sex-specific scenario in your first post.
I hunt as many (probably more) does and cows, as I do bucks and bulls. And I know a lot of other members here do the same.

Asking us to weigh the appropriateness of .243 Win against Elk is likely to bring all Elk hunting into consideration. For example.... Last year, I had a cow tag and a 'spike' bull tag; but I wasn't hunting for a 'spike'. I intended to fill the cow tag, and really just had the 'spike' tag because I had to have it to possess the cow tag (and incase I stumbled across one through dumb luck ;)).
 
i think that the 243 for elk would be a bit further of a stretch than 223 for deer.

thats not to say that either is not capable. my first deer ever was a 223 rem. 50 yard shot right at the base of the skull she dropped right there. i put another through her dome at close range.

i have never hunted elk but am planning to. and to be 100 percent honest i believe that the 243 with the heavier bullets have sufficient sectional density to penetrate. and a large enough cross section to do some pretty severe internal damage. lets face it bow hunters (myself included) harvest animals every year poking a 1.25 inch hole through an animal. no hydrostatic shock no dramatic wound channels just a hole in the lungs and lots of blood.

i would assume if you were to shoot two identical animals. lets use elk for this example.

one with a bow with a cutting broadhead of say 1.25 inches right through the boiler room. i bet that animal does not go for 30 seconds before it expires.

take an identical animal and shoot it in the right spot with a 243 (double lung shot) say with a 100 grain tsx. when you open both animals up i would be willing to bet that the elk shot with the 243 will have more internal damage.

enough of my rambling neither would be my choice. as others have said and i believe in the words of brian "bullet selection is paramount" that said the 243 is a bit more of a stretch in this case but with a good bullet and assuming the shooter places a good shot is it really a stretch at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top