"You call the shot," this Friday, 11/2

[BrianBM]

OK, another episode of the usual trio discussing a photo of a deer. The hunter said he was armed with a .243, hunt was in Texas, shot would've been from a stand. I forget the range. End of day, but there was enough light.

The hunter did not shoot because the buck was quarter on towards him, or a little more, nearside front leg forward. Maybe it was more like two/thirds towards him. The hunter's decision to not shoot, with which decision all three were agreed, was based on the limitations of the .243. With that cartridge, he said, he wanted a broadside shot only. Everyone present liked the decision. Everyone liked the cartridge, and all were agreed that it's plenty of gun, but you really want a broadside shot.

This conclusion left me wondering. I read enough here to know that the .243 has lots of fans, and takes lots of deer. That said, if you need a nice broadside shot to take a deer with a .243, then it's a lot less gun then I'd want. The decision implies that it's got nothing to spare. The angle of the shot did permit a clear, downward path through the chest into the center of the breastbone. There might perhaps have been an extra 2" or maybe 3" of tissue depth between the entry point and the heart. If the .243 is so limited that the extra tissue means a wounded deer, as opposed to a dead one ...
I want something bigger. Shouldn't you choose a chambering that is adequate to provide a reliable lethality from one broadside to the other? I can see passing up the "Texas heart shot," which has been discussed before. That's different, but shouldn't you want a round capable of reliable killing at any angle OTHER then from the rear?

[Fremmer]

The hunter did not shoot because the buck was quarter on towards him, or a little more, nearside front leg forward. Maybe it was more like two/thirds towards him.

Fine by me. Any caliber could go the wrong place and then you wind up with a gut shot.

The hunter's decision to not shoot, with which decision all three were agreed, was based on the limitations of the .243. With that cartridge, he said, he wanted a broadside shot only.

I wouldn't worry so much with a good .243 round with a good shot; if he had a good shot to the chest, he'd probably be O.K. The problem with the .243 is when you have a gut shot or some other poor shot; a wounded deer from a .243 can run pretty far, although this can be a problem with any caliber. I stopped blaming the caliber for my bad shooting long ago.

I wanted a little heavier round for better penetration, so I went with the .308 Win. 165 grains has worked well so far.

[swampdog]

I stopped blaming the caliber for my bad shooting long ago

Excellent point.

I think a .243 would have been adequate from any frontside angle, with proper placement, but...

I wanted a little heavier round for better penetration, so I went with the .308 Win.

Brilliant minds think alike.

[rem33]

If the hunter is not comfortable with the tools he is using he should get one he feels confident with.

I have lost nice bucks not taking a so called "Texas heart shot" but felt the firearm/bullet I was using would have done the job just fine, much less from a frontal shot.

No judgments pro or con about a 243 here, but that hunter should get a larger more powerful rifle so he has the confidence to make a good shot when it presented to him. IMHO.

[deerslayer79]

I used to use 160grain nosler part. in my 7mm weatherby and a couple years back I shot a couple of whitetails at under 80 yards and lost both of them,had good shot placement but the local gun shop owner told me the bullets were haulin it to fast to expand so I switched to 150grn nosler ballistic tips and haven't lost another since,and they leave big holes

[Art Eatman]

I *prefer* a neck shot or a broadside shot with a .243. Whether or not I passed a quartering shot would depend on distance and whether or not I had a nice, patient deer so I could take my time in aiming.

I'd probably aim for just inside the near foreleg, figuring to bust the center or offside of the heart.

Art

[Rich Lucibella]

If the hunter is not comfortable with the tools he is using he should get one he feels confident with.

Disagree.

If the hunter is not comfortable with the tools he is using he should simply pass on the shot. This guy did.
I call that a good hunting day.
Rich

[hps1]

the local gun shop owner told me the bullets were haulin it to fast to expand

Seems to me your dealer tells a bit more than he knows. Too much velocity to expand? Actually, the faster any given bullet is driven, the more expansion you will get.

so I switched to 150grn nosler ballistic tips and haven't lost another since,and they leave big holes

Nosler's loading manual indicates the 160 gr. partition would be launched at about 3050-3100 fps and your BT is going about 3200 or so in the 7mm Weatherby. The difference that you experienced in expansion/exit hole is due to bullet design, not velocity. The NP is designed to expand upon contact and many times will shed the front half of the bullet in the vitals and the base holds together for deeper penetration, resulting in a somewhat smaller exit hole than the somewhat "softer" BT which would be expected to be more explosive than the NP at essentially the same speed.

I have shot lots of deer with the 300 Win Mag and 165 gr Nosler partitions @ 3100-3200 fps MV and never recovered a bullet yet. Most exit holes were in the 1" neighborhood indicating proper expansion for that bullet design.

Regards,
hps

[stinger]

I, too, saw this show, and nearly fell out of my chair laughing at these three guys. You must consider the source; the North American Hunting Association/Club is in the business of selling stuff.

If they can make you believe that your Grandaddy's .243, 30-30, .270, or 30'06 can't get the job done, then you will buy that new rifle that they have advertised on page xxx. Of course, that new rifle is a 300 supermagnumshortfatwhizbang.

When you go buy your new rifle, be sure to pick out the doe urine and scent cover as well. You can find that ad on page xxx as well.

What would I have done? I would have very carefully lined up my sights and squeezed my trigger finger.

Shortly thereafter, flap-bang, dead deer. Have I made bad shots with more than adequate calibers, you betcha, but that bad shot wouldn't have been any worse with a .243 or 30-30. If you do your part, any of the aforementioned calibers will make a fine deer cartridge.

[BrianBM]

Glad someone besides myself saw the episode. .... was home anyway, sick as the proverbial dog. The idiot box was the only thing i had the energy to watch.

I don't know enough to fairly assess the credibility of the usual trio of talking heads on that show. Given the popularity of the .243, I suspect N.A. Hunting Club sells the .243 as well as bigger chamberings. However ... I think I will get started with a 7mm-08. (Got leg surgery coming up for the spring, and the injury that required it ended notions of hunting this year.) Not too much, not too little; like the middle bear's portion, it seems Just Right. And easy to reload, too.

The issue of cartridge sufficiency for a given shot comes up now and then. Rich Lucibella had a neat thread awhile ago, when he was breaking in his Ti700 on a Texas mule deer, in company with a new pup, and a lady. At some point he remarked that he'd thought about taking his .308 on that hunt, in case he had a shot at a deer quartering away, but decided to break in the new rifle instead (also a 7mm-08, I think). That comment, which was an aside (it's a really good thread, the man can write) caught my eye.

It seems prudent to me to hunt with a rifle which is mechanically adequate to reach the heart/lung over the forward arc of at least 180 degrees, and maybe through 270 degrees, excluding only the T.H.S. and a 90 degree arc, 45 on each side. And with an expanding bullet, please.

[BrianBM]

Rich - hey, you're in this thread! - I have no quarrel at all with the hunter's decision to not shoot. If there's doubt ... don't. The inconsistency of a "great little deer cartridge" being adequate only from a broadside position is what grabbed me. If you need a broadside position only, it ain't adequate.

I think the range was 115 yards. That's within reach of the .243?

One other argument for a heavier cartridge occurs to me. The scrub on either side of the road, which was the shooting lane, looked pretty darn thick. Easy place to lose an animal. I understand, from reading here, that some deer are going to run a bit no matter how well the heart/lung cavity is destroyed; but the bigger round would decrease the chance of a long run. I think....

There was a line in that mule deer thread that stayed with me. You had to leave the dog behind, and you weren't sure whether the whining was the dog or the lady .... wonderful, LOL.

[Rich Lucibella]

Brian-
I'm not arguing about whether the .243 can get the job done at that angle. Not my deal.

Just saying the hunter made a good call, for him. After all, it was his deer to take or pass, not mine or yours. I've seen lots more wounded game shot by "this gun will get it done" than I've seen live game NOT shot by "Is this shot gonna work?".
Rich

[rem33]

Quote "I want something bigger. Shouldn't you choose a chambering that is adequate to provide a reliable lethality from one broadside to the other? I can see passing up the "Texas heart shot," which has been discussed before. That's different, but shouldn't you want a round capable of reliable killing at any angle OTHER then from the rear?"

This was the question I referred to. Not whether the 243 could, would, or should. If the hunter was uncomfortable he did the correct thing.

[JohnKSa]

"Quartering towards" is not considered an optimal shot on most game.

If the hunter is not comfortable with the tools he is using he should get one he feels confident with.

Part of hunting integrity is defining the limitations of the cartridge/rifle/shooter combination based on whatever information that is available/pertinent as well as results from the shooting range and then living within those limitations in the field.

One might say that is exactly the opposite of not being comfortable with the tools one is using.

...shouldn't you want a round capable of reliable killing at any angle OTHER then from the rear?"

Obviously the hunter in question does not. There are many considerations in choosing a hunting rifle, raw terminal performance is only one of them.

[rem33]

[QUOTE][/Maybe it was more like two/thirds towards him. The hunter's decision to not shoot, with which decision all three were agreed, was based on the limitations of the .243QUOTE]

Limitations of the 243?
Wasn't this the question, or reason the shot wasn't taken?
My understanding of this was the "limitation" was why the shot was not taken, which is why I said he needed a tool/gun/bullet he felt would get the job done.

Part of hunting integrity is defining the limitations of the cartridge/rifle/shooter combination based on whatever information that is available/pertinent as well as results from the shooting range and then living within those limitations in the field.

Rifle/cartage/shooter, Yep! Exactly.
2/3's towards you is a perfectly good shot, IMHO, unless there is reason you can't hold steady or are just not a very good shot or feel your rifle is isn't up to the job. But I do agree if a hunter is uncomfortable with his presented shot, he should not shoot. Several times I have made the same decision. Not being there I can only assume what would/should have been done, but, I feel I would have killed the deer where it stood. I have shot elk in the same situation twice as far way with a 30 caliber 150 grain bullet. And would again in a NY minute. Elk fell where it was , tried to stand but was hit again before it could take a step.

Geezzzsh I give up. It was just TV show. No wonder I don't care for the tube much.

[Art Eatman]

I don't understand the problem with "quartering toward", particularly as I look at the antelope mount on the wall above this computer. I shot him as he was quartering toward me, at about 125 yards. Blew heck out of his heart/lungs. It's when you get an angle on past "quartering away" that I start thinking about not shooting, since you start having "innards" between you and the vitals.

When edible stuff poses prettily at point-blank range, what's a fella to do? Take pictures?

Art

[castnblast]

1+ Art...I too have no problem with the shot. It boils down to a confidence level of each individual hunter, and the group that hunter is capable of shooting at a given distance. Had it been me, and the animal was inside of of 250 yds, I had a good rest, and time to shoot, I would have taken that shot w/ that caliber.

BUT...Hat's off to the hunter who knows his personal limitations, and sticks to them.

That gun is pleanty powerful to take that kind of shot.