.243 for Whitetails??

[MeekAndMild]

I got a 243 this year to use for deer due to some really bad shoulder problems which developed last winter. But since then I've been in rehab and will try to start the season with a heavier rifle. The 243 will be ready to use though in case I just can't stand the other one even with a recoil pad.

I think that for a hunter who doesn't get buck fever and doesn't take running shots the caliber is less important in killing the deer than we tend to think. Last year, the first time I'd been deer hunting in 20 years, I had worries about being able to consistantly place the shots where I wanted to and cleanly kill with a 35 Rem and was even considering using a 308 but I found that I don't get buck fever so for me it seems as easy to aim in the woods as on the range.

You just have to remember that no matter what, there are always more deer, so take time to aim well and get a good shot. Taking the time to get a good sling support and using a steady rest if possible (a walking stick makes a good monopod) makes a lot of difference.

[P-990]

Put me down for a vote for the .260 Remington!! I know, the difference in bullet diameter is only .5mm, but I feel that the extra weight of 6.5mm bullets gives me an edge over the .243. I have no doubt that if I get lucky and tag a buck with one of my 125gr Partitions, he is going down. Maybe not in his tracks, but with enough blood trail to lead me to him. But for hunting in really think cover I think that my 96/44 might be more convenient. Either way, I know I have enough gun to do the job. And I am confident that the .260 will work on game even bigger than whitetails should the need arise, to ranges beyond where I can accurately shoot. FWIW, I live in New Hampshire, and our deer terrain is very densely wooded and hilly.

[kjm]

.243 is an awesome whitetail rifle. I thought that is what it was invented for! Really! My mother uses one and has always dropped them in their tracks. I use a 30.06 because I like a Garand, but that 243 will probably be what I get my son for his first deer rifle. .308+ is probably overkill for the tiny deer we shoot here (100-) so if you got similar, get the .243. It is a rifle you can enjoy until you're too old to pull the trigger.

[Legionnaire]

dakotasin, good questions on choice of caliber. When I decided to buy my son a hunting rifle, I determined I would buy one for all around use in the fields and hardwoods of PA and NY. I wanted something adequate for deer, but something he could also use for woodchucks and other varmints. The .243 looked like a good intermediate cartridge. As his interests develop and he takes on more and more responsibility for pursuing his own likes and dislikes, he's free to fill out his arsenal in any way he likes. In the meantime, he practices diligently with the .243 and I have great confidence that he can hit what he aims at.

Personally, I hunt deer with a .308 and most often carry a .223 afield for varmints. The .243 is a nice intermediate cartridge that is capable of both. And thus far, our experience with the .243 has been nothing but positive.

[WYO]

For the parameters set by Fabrat's post, the .243 is fine for whitetail. I hunted whitetails for years, and never had any more problems with the .243 (100 grainers) than with the .30-06 (180's). With either caliber, some would drop in their tracks, others might run 100 yards. I couldn't tell the difference, and I never lost a deer. The .243 is much easier to shoot, and can be obtained in a handier package.

[GONETOFAR]

Not that the subject hasnt been well broached so far but i will put my .02 in here. I think the 243, with the proper bullet, is an excellent deer cartridge. Ive worked in the firearms industry for close to 10 years now on frontline retail sales at many diffrent locations. I get to see and hear alot of what works and what doesnt. I think the main the thing the 243 has going for it is recoil, or rather lack thereof. People who shoot this caliber (along with 260/7mm08 class) tend be surgical with it. In my experiance an excellent bullet to try would be the Federal load with the Trophy Bonded bullet. This has proven to be arguably (again my my worthless opinion here) the best game bullet on the market. That one, along with the Barnes X bullet, should give you all the penetration and power you could need from the 243. Weight retention and the ensuing penetration are key in this instance. And either of the aforementioned bullets will lend themselves well to that end. Good luck and happy huntn. Peace.

[Al Thompson]

Glad to have you here!

[P-990]

tend be surgical with it

True. And many of the people who shoot the super-magnums need to be surgical too. As in SURGICAL shoulder treatment for damage. Honest, I saw one guy show up at the range last week with a .340 Weatherby and a 7mm Remington Magnum. Two-three days later I saw him where I work. He was walking like a man injured (the way he was carrying his shoulder sent up warnings). He confessed that he had fired all 20 .340 rounds he had off of the bench that day. All I can say is "Ouch!" And that I no longer want any kind of Magnum. Thinking a 30-06/.338-06 would be a nice power upgrade from my .260 w/o severe beating.

[H&H,hunter]

What is shot placement?

In America where there is much grass eater hunting, people tend to think of it as a perfect broadside presentation allowing one to slip a bullet inbetween two ribs and pierce the lungs or heart.

In Africa it means reaching the vitals from any angle. And having a rifle of adequate power and penetration to do so.

Shot placement mearly infers that we make a killing shot. It doesn't have to be from a hunting magazine braodside pose. Infact in the real world it seldom is.

I would say that the rifle you chose should be able to penetrate from off angels and still make it to the boiler room.

A 30-06 or a 260 would be a fine choice on whitetail. As would many other rounds mentioned. A .243 is on the light side yet adequate under ideal conditions.

As far as recoil goes well once again it's a subjective thing, however rarely does one suffer any long term harm or permenant damage. I often go to the range with several heavy and medium bore rifles firing 20 or more rounds from each for testing purposes. I've yet to sufer any long or even short term damage and have never any paralise in the shoulder as a result. Recoil is purely a state of mind if want it to hurt then it will.

Of course an adequte recoil pad never hurt anything either and are standard equipment on all of my rifles. I wouldn't dream of shooting multiple round from the bench with a hard buttplated .340 or some such animal.

[omega5]

A .243 is a necked down .308. A .270 is a necked down 30.06. Would you use a .270 on deer. YES and that answers your question about a .243 too. The .243 is a great little cartridge. Recoil is light but it shoots flat with the .308 power behind it.
Years ago, Jack O'Conner labeled the .243 as a womans gun when he let his wife use it in Africa on some of the plains game there. It performed perfectly on the antelope type game as well as a leopard or two if memory serves me. But because a "woman" used it, it developed a rep as a weak weapon.. Let me get off the subject just a tad for a second. The .223 is the cartridge of choice by the politico's that rule our military and yet it is illegal in most states to use it on anything bigger than a coyote.
I've used both the M16 and M14 in combat in Vietnam and I feel sorry for anyone in combat carrying an M16.. But back to your .243 question. I've taken several whitetails with the .243 and while my favorite is a .308, I'd not hesitate to use a .243 on deer or in combat. It's beat the hell out of a .223...

[BlkHawk73]

"Would the apparent hunting area being Maine make any difference? The deer get a tad bigger there."

Hmmm... to my knowledge, deer up here aren't any tougher than other places. Seriously though, I always get a kick out threads like this. So many people are so convinced that unless it's a "magnum" it can't cleanly take down a whitetail deer. The cartridges of old worked just fine so why people have it ingrained in their gray matter that they won't work now bewilders me.

To answer your original question, sure the .243 will work fine as long as you do your part (shot placement) I suppose these "gotta have a magnum" people believe shot placement is not important. I know of people that successfully hunt w/ a .22 magnum. I myself use on occassion a .22-250.

[Art Eatman]

BlkHawk73, there are other reasons for more powerful cartridges than the .243. For instance, a lot of my deer hunting has been in open country, where the range might easily be 300 or more yards. In my present home country, the deer population is sparse. You take what shot you get. So, if it's a running buck at 300 yards, I want more than a .243.

Back in central Texas, on the smaller deer at closer ranges, I was quite satisfied with the performance of my .243 on some 20 bucks. I've also been happy with my '06 on bigger deer at longer ranges--and have made shots that I would not have taken with the .243.

My notion is that if I make a bad hit with an '06, the deer will still be anchored long enough to get in a second shot. This might not be the case with the .243 out around 250 or 300 yards.

Art

[BlkHawk73]

No disrespect intended. I guess I was thinking more along the lines, err... distances I see and hear about up this way. Around here 100yds is a long shot. For the long shots I do realize a more powerful cartridge is desired. I was referring more to those people that will launch a 300 wby into a 100 lb doe @ 50 yrds and say it was needed. Or how about 5 shots of 12 ga 00 into a 40lb fawn. Overkill? It happens. Of course I'm also more likely to choose a cartridge that few would use - or sometimes heard of.