The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 16, 2009, 08:20 PM   #26
James R. Burke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: U.P. of Mich/Quinnesec
Posts: 1,897
My wife use's a .243 with a good bullet for whitetail. Just myself I think it would be a little light on a elk. You no doubt can do it. You probably no your rifle, practice alot, no your limits, and when to leave them walk. Not everyone knows all of that. Most follks just dont shoot enough. A few shots before season the gun is on, and thats it. A .22 rimfire probably killed lots of whitetails, elk, moose etc. but would I use one for that? Would you use a .223? Why or why not? On Elk?

Last edited by James R. Burke; November 16, 2009 at 08:21 PM. Reason: Add:
James R. Burke is offline  
Old November 16, 2009, 08:22 PM   #27
matt_3479
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2009
Posts: 117
243. win is what the legal minimum caliber is usually. But i wouldn't use anything much smaller then a 270. win with the exception of maybe a 257. weatherby magnum. That caliber seems to really impress me
matt_3479 is offline  
Old December 20, 2009, 10:02 PM   #28
oldidaho
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Posts: 3
+1 for moderate recoil allowing for good shot placement.

My wife uses a 7mm-08, in a Remington M700 Youth Model, the shorter stock and 20" barrel fits her 5'-5" size well. I handload for her, 145 grain Speer Grand Slams, at ~2600 fps, about 200 fps less than factory. She took a nice bull this year with one shot, broadside at 170 yards, through ribs, hit the heart and broke the offside shoulder bone. The bull made one jump and died.
Our hunting plan for her was to limit shots to 200 yards, standing broadside or quartering with exposed ribcage. With the mild recoil, and the good R3 recoil pad on the M700, she was able to comfortably shoot up to 20 rounds at the range. Her range time was spent shooting from all field positions at cardboard "deer", not bullseyes.
oldidaho is offline  
Old December 21, 2009, 11:35 AM   #29
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
I think any good constructed HUNTING bullet that develops 2000 ft lbs of energy at the range the critter is to be taken, within the legal limits of the law.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old December 21, 2009, 05:33 PM   #30
James R. Burke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: U.P. of Mich/Quinnesec
Posts: 1,897
There are a few good ones. I agree with a .243 being a little to small. It is a great rifle, and my wife does have one for whitetail, but even with them shot placement is key, just like any rifle. She has got everything she shot at, but has let a few nice ones walk away not having the placement. For Elk just myself a 30-06 with a Nosler Partition. But there are many good ones .270, 7mm, etc.
James R. Burke is offline  
Old December 25, 2009, 12:42 PM   #31
James R. Burke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: U.P. of Mich/Quinnesec
Posts: 1,897
My wife has a .243 for deer and I use a 30-06, that .243 has dropped a few deer. There is no doubt the correct placement and it would work on a elk, but I would not use it, if I had a choice. I bet a few been dropped with a .22LR but whats the point?
James R. Burke is offline  
Old December 25, 2009, 07:11 PM   #32
VeryOldDog
Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 35
Seven years ago, I took a Bull Elk with the help of a Mescalero Indian guide at approximately 45 yards with a a Ruger Super Redhawk chambered in 480 Ruger with a Burris 4X pistol scope in North Central New Mexico.
VeryOldDog is offline  
Old December 25, 2009, 09:59 PM   #33
bowtekhunter
Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2009
Location: coburg,oregon
Posts: 54
for elk i dont think you can really go "too" big, my elk gun is a 338 ultra mag,or a 300 win mag, 375 H&H,7mm mag at least 300 and up, IMO
bowtekhunter is offline  
Old December 26, 2009, 11:38 AM   #34
hoppes-no9
Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 23
6.5x55

160gr bullet at 2500fps is gonna leave a mark on both sides of an elk
hoppes-no9 is offline  
Old December 26, 2009, 03:58 PM   #35
cerberus65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 30, 2008
Posts: 384
Sounds like we better go .50BMG just to be safe.


I don't worry about hunting southern whitetails with a .243. For elk I'd want to go just a little bit bigger. Friend of mine did all his elk hunting with a .270. I reckon that's big enough. I probably wouldn't feel bad with a 6.5 Swede either. If you shoot your rifle enough to know its limits and yours then I think you're good to go.
cerberus65 is offline  
Old December 31, 2009, 08:23 PM   #36
9Para
Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2009
Posts: 25
.223, or .243 depending on range.
9Para is offline  
Old January 1, 2010, 11:35 AM   #37
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
".223...depending on range."

I dunno. The blowback from a contact wound can be messy.

Pardon the sarcasm, but some ideas are just plumb silly...
Art Eatman is offline  
Old January 1, 2010, 01:00 PM   #38
bcarver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2007
Location: Jackson,Mississippi
Posts: 838
choices

I would not like hunting with a .243. I would be dreading pulling the trigger.
If I left today it would be a .270 as that is what I deer hunt with currently.
Given two weeks notice I would slap a scope on my 7mm rem mag Encore barrel and work up a load for nosler partitions in 175 or 160 grain.
bcarver is offline  
Old January 1, 2010, 01:20 PM   #39
W. C. Quantrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2008
Location: No Man's Land
Posts: 354
O'Connor liked the .270. I would say that it is the minimum caliber to head out hunting elk with. If you live in elk country, and you know the lay of the land, and you are used to shooting at that elevation, and know your rifle well, then I would say that finding a good blind and getting the elk into within 50 yards, you could make a humane kill with a .243, but that is not for the average once a year hunter. If struck square in the chest, the .243 will explode the heart, and its game over. Likewise a side neck shot will do it also at close range, but the little 80 grain pill is not going to penetrate a shoulder at long range.

Lots of common sense needs to be applied here. Do you shoot at least 1000 rounds a year? If not, then better get an elk gun. The .308 will do nicely and it wont kick much more than the .243. However 165 grains of Hornady is much better elk medicine than 80 grains.
__________________
NRA Life
Whittington Center Life
W. C. Quantrill is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 02:07 PM   #40
tachunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2009
Posts: 196
Quote:
Whatever the legal minimum in your state is. Here its .243
I disagree. I wouldn't depend of the "state" to give any type of great opinion on hunting or firearms used. A 243 is a joke. At least a 270. I would rather have a guy use a 50cal before he used a 243. I'd rather have a guy with too much than not enough. Just my opinion.
tachunter is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 02:19 PM   #41
OldJim
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 7
It is our responsibility as hunters to use enough weapon to do the job. I have helped track elk wounded by others while using .243s and .338WMags, mostly because the bullet did not go where it needed to go.

Be an ethical hunter, and don't forget, PETA and other anti-gun groups are watching our every move, in order to criticize our field manners.

Good hunting to all,
OldJim is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 08:23 PM   #42
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
I personally side with all of those that say "you need to understand the cartridges ability, and your ability". I like to think that most hunters do so in an ethical manner. Then again, I see deer carcasses littering the dirt road I drive home on with only the ham and back straps cut off. If a person is disciplined enough to hold off on a questionable shot, then .243 (or even .30-30 to a very limited distance) should work adequately. For those that aren't that disciplined, I would recommend the -06 or similar powered cartridge on up. Even then, they are still likely to shoot beyond their capability as a human, and that extra firepower will do no good. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.
5whiskey is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 10:38 PM   #43
elkman06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2006
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 885
While I feel I could kill one easy enough w/ my .243, I have never taken it after elk. 140gr and up for me.
elkman06
__________________
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied." Wyoming Constitution Article 1, Sec24

"Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"
elkman06 is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 04:30 PM   #44
9Para
Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2009
Posts: 25
Art, i wouldnt want to use a 223 on elk lol. I wouldn't even use a 243. In fact, i have no idea if the .223 would make it to the vitals before it exploded and did all that wierd stuff they do. But, that is the minimum i think you could shoot once at the vitals, and actually kill the elk without it becoming a wild goose chase. I'm pretty sure even a .22lr can kill an elk, they've been used to kill much bigger animals :P
9Para is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 04:52 PM   #45
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Our whole deal, here, is "clean, ethical kill". And, I figure on what are generally thought of as reasonable distances, which means out to maybe 300 yards. Sure, closer is good, but terrain and elk-notions have more to say about the distance than most hunters do.

So, I'd not figure on a .243 as my primary tool for the job. I'd want something with heavier bullets for more reliable penetration and all that happy stuff. Not any sort of absolute, but anything with around 140 to 180 grains of bullet and around 2,800 ft/sec or better of muzzle velocity.

Multitudes of cartridges in that general range, plus all the bigger stuff...
Art Eatman is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 05:55 PM   #46
Smoke48
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: Eagle, NE
Posts: 4
For Clean Humane Kills, I would start with the .270 Win and work my way up to .325 WSM has become a very popular caliber for Elk Hunters.
__________________
We shall protect the 2nd Amendment with our lives, let them pry the gun from my cold dead hands
Smoke48 is offline  
Old January 4, 2010, 01:36 AM   #47
Rangefinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
I've jumped in on these enough, and have stated enough that I use a Remington 6mm extremely effectively on elk. It's not for everyone, but it IS most effective IF you understand the capabilities and are a little picky about your shot. To back this up, a friend from work finally took hunters safety this summer so she could go hunting with her husband. When presented with the 300 win mag he suggested for elk, she said "no way, no how". She was excited to announce she got her elk clean with her .243 with a lung shot--it took two steps and dropped flat. 4x5 bull at 200+yds using 105gr. sierra soft points (as near as she could describe them). SO... I'll continue to say----if you can use your weapon better than point and pull, YES--a .243 will do the job. Many elk that have come and gone with time in my freezer will testify.
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?"

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Rangefinder is offline  
Old January 4, 2010, 05:16 PM   #48
thinkingman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Location: western WA
Posts: 691
.243 minimum....7mm-08 for balance.....300 is about perfect.
Not an elk alive that won't die from a well-placed 243 with a premium bullet.
Plenty will run away from a bad 300winmag shot.
thinkingman is offline  
Old January 5, 2010, 11:45 AM   #49
skydiver3346
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,222
Minimum caliber for Elk?

Did someone again suggest a .243 for Elk? No way, Jose!
Too many varibles occur in hunting situations for that size caliber to be used on Elk. So, it cannot be considered (in my opinion) the proper caliber for these size animals with their bone structure width and weight. Yes, you can kill a animal this size with a .243 but that does not make it the "minimum" size caliber just for the sake of wondering.....
My minimum caliber choice would be .308, .270 and 6.5x55 to be fair to the Elk being hunted. These calibers are proven to take elk on a regular basis, although probably a .30-06 or higher would be my personal selection.
skydiver3346 is offline  
Old January 5, 2010, 11:57 AM   #50
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,323
I own a 270 and that is what I would use. For me that would be my minimum caliber choice. If I had a 7mm Rem, I'd use that as it gives you a bit more range. But I wouldn't take a shot at 900 yds like I see on TV.
22-rimfire is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10530 seconds with 8 queries