My friend has a daughter who is seventeen and 110 pounds. We are going to take her elk hunting, but she didn't like the kick of the 7mm-08 we were offering her. I've got a 243, and she's fine with the kick from that. I was wondering, is it okay for short shots on broadside elk? What bullet should I use? I was looking at the 115 grain Barnes Original. What do you say?
I've seen it done with core-lokts. I personally would use the Barnes X, partitions or Hornady's 100 gr. SP. Make it count and its a done deal.
I shot a moose with the 90grXFB and it wasted no time in expiring. Also shot mountain goat and dall sheep with it very successfully. I would be looking at the triple X, personally...
art
A friends 13 year old daughter, an accomplished shot and hunter, took a mature cow in Colorado this year with a 243. She was using the 85gr Barnes Triple Shocks over a full load of H414...... The cow was uphill, at approximately 400 yards. She placed a shot directly into the close side shoulder. The cow toppled down the hill and never moved again, graveyard dead so to say. The bullet took out both lungs and excited the offside shoulder. Thats correct, both shoulders. Can't remember what else he said it took out on the inside, but done alot of damage. I know several may refute this, but thats ok. As you know, even with this, I wouldn't recommend a 243 as an elk cartridge, but under the right conditions and in the right hands, they will work.....
I hunted with a fellow who killed six elk with a 243, all one shot kills, from 50-300 yds, and know another who has killed 40+ with a 250-3000 Savage 99.
Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. I would not recommend it as a great elk cartridge, but with the 100 gr Core-Lokt or better bullet, it'll certainly work.
264Win,
Did you make sure the 7mm-08 fits her? My 12 year old 105 lb. granddaughter used her 7mm-08 I built for her this year to take two nice Mule Deer Bucks and two Wild Boar with. Using loads equal to or a bit better than factory. Why not use slightly down loaded loads for the 7mm-08? A much better choice than the .243 Winchester for Elk. Lawdog
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
264 Win,
I am just a little curious, now, this is not a flame, but I was just wondering, you've been doing a lot of posting lately, asking questions about all sorts of calibers from .243 to .338's I think, so in all this discussion, I haven't seen one word about your namesake. the good ole' .264! Just curious, as I am a certified member of the .264 cult! And, I wish we would have another cult meeting! I certainly hope you haven't given up on your first love! Regards! mudstud
Mudstud,
the last thing you said just isnt true. I posted something on the most versitile gun for North America, and mentioned the 264 then. There was another time, but I can't remember what circumstances.
Glad that I'm not alone with the 264. The greatest cartridge to be shot on earth. (or off of it for that matter)
264Win,
Welcome to the cult! You are not alone! There are several ardent fans of the .264 on these boards, including of course, myself. You may also discover that certain individuals believe it is their duty to condemn this caliber at every opportunity. I just ignore this as background static! If you are not already aware, Mule Deer has worked up loads for the .264 using newer powders and has written an article on his findings which, I believe, will be in the next issue of Handloader magazine, due out next month! I can hardly wait! My apologies for missing any references you made to this wonderful caliber! Carry on, friend! mudstud
A .243 w/85 gr bullet at 400 yds and both shoulders + innards. That's shooting, for sure. At 400 yds "uphill", how far do you reckon the true horizontal distance of the shot actually was?
I used the 243 loaded with Hornady's 100 gr bullet to take alot of elk. Never had much problem. It may not be the best elk round in the world but it certainly will work.
Once she gets used to the 243 then maybe you could move her on to the 7mm-08, if you can talk her out of the 243 .
"triple X????"
What was I thinking? Maybe the movies Spike is always telling me about?!?...
art
Toot, don't know for sure on the "true" distance, but probably more like 100 yards. We know it would be substansially less and yes, it does make a difference........
You can load the 7mm-08 down to the recoil level of a factory .243 round using high BC 140's and still retain decent energy and trajectory out to about 250 yards. My son is 12 and weighs about 120 and that seems to work for him.
Thanks 7 08. I'm now wavering between a 7-08 and a .243 for my wife and it later for Grandsons. I do think it can safely be said that the .243 of today is not the same as that of yesteryears (loads, bullets, etc.).
I quit hunting in Canada when they started the firearms registration at the border. We tried it one year and decided that we'd spend out money in the good old US of A.
Having said that, in the ten or eleven years we hunted Alberta for deer and moose, I couldn't believe the local hunter's armament. Typically, they thought a .243 Winchester was plenty enough for moose.
I remember one guy, One-Eyed Andy (when he got drunk, one eye closed) from Water Valley, who had a beat to Hell Browning BLR in .243. Andy swore one shot was all any moose ever took and, from the pile of moose horns in his barn, I believe him.
After that, I started looking at my Canadian friend's rifles and I was amazed how many .243s there were. These were serious, successful hunters. Blew me away.
Getting within a decent shooting range, waiting for the shot and excellent shot placement with a reasonable bullet will put big game on the ground every time; even with the lowly .243 Winchester.
Kinda reminds me of when I was guiding in Snake River. Our cook was a wisened-up old lady. Had a Hell of a temper and a Savage 99 in .250-3000. Every day, after the rest of us were saddled up and out of camp, she'd finish the breakfast dishes and sit over the horse watering hole (a big pool in Temperance Creek).
Some time during the season, her .250 would speak and a Winchester 100-grain Silvertip would thrash an elk to the ground. I truly don't remember a time when she double-shot an elk. Again, she'd be a reasonable distance from the critter, wait for the shot and dump the elk dead.
One time, an elk died in about two feet of water and she was about as pissed as a half-drowned cat. It was on that day that I learned new combinations and permutations of words I already knew. Funny, very funny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Anyway, I guided for eleven years and the cookie got an elk every year.
Steve
Steve what outfit were you guiding for? And in what part of the state?
Thx and Merry X-Mas
Dogz
Eagle Cap Pack Station. Wonderful, experienced outfitter, but not a business man. They had a unit in Snake River, on the Oregon side. It was a long time ago and I guided for a part of a season and for the opportunity to hunt for another part (area and stock). Good deal for everyone.
By the way, my personal choice of the smallerst gun I'd use for elk would be a .25-'06 with 120 Partitions; and only if I absolutely had to. Give me a .280 Ackley with 140 Ballistics and I'm a happy guy.......pure elk poison. Yup, I've poisoned a few elk.
Steve
We sell a ton load of 25/06 every year, it is such a good round and will work quite well on elk.
A lot of people come in looking for a entry level 243 and we chat about it a bit and they most always walk out with a 25. And you would be amazed to see how many are in use in this country by the very experienced and for all that comes there way.
Another super round is the 260, (a bit tough to sell) but it is one heck of a round. As much as I like the 243 it is quite a bit shy of these other rounds.
The 243 will work, in my wifes 6/06 we load the 85 TS and she has no problems with most all that moves. If we were not such fans of the 6/06 we would defianately be using 25/06's.
I've also seen quite a few elk taken with the 22/250 and the Swift. Get that head in behind the front shoulder and it is lights out Irene. This round is only for the very disciplined but it will do just fine.
Twer it me for the youngster I'd definately be pushing for a Tikka T3 in a 25/06.
Have a super X-Mas gang!
"GET TO THE HILL"
Dogz
Now, if I'm not mistaken the 240 Weatherby Magnum is basically a 6-06 with the Weby shoulder and a belt. Am I correct?
I have a fair amount of experience with the 6mmand 243 on bigger animals in my hunting camp in Africa. What I have seen amazes me and dissapoints me every other animal with these small bore guns. Elk are as tough to kill as most African Plains species so I think it's a fitting comparision.
I have never seen an elk shot with a 243 or a 6mm and would never shoot one with either. There is a big difference between killing an animal and finding one. I have seen Elk shot well with big to very big cartridges travel a heck of a long way. One thing people just have to accept is the responsibility of the hunt. It may not be a practical species for every single person alive to hunt for. If the cartridge needed is too much for the hunter to use then the limit of the hunters potential has been exceeded.
I have seen well hit Kudu, much less difficult to crumple or stop then an elk run hundreds of yards with a couple drops of blood when hit with a .243, I have seen Impala run at least a hundred yards when hit with a .243 and leave no blood, same with blesbok and balck wildebeast. These animals are much smaller then elk and less difficult to kill. On the other hand I have seen Kudu shot and fall where they were standing the same with warthogs.
The .243 and 6mm are just not the kind of consistant killers of big game that the cartridges over 30 caliber are. My daughter was 9 years old when she began shooting my down loaded 30/06. It was shooting 125 grain bullets at 2500 fps. This is an easy to shoot load with very little recoil. I would not have even considered her shooting elk with it. However I could have swapped out the ammo for a premium 165 grain bullet with a full load when she shot an elk and she would never have known it under the excitement of the hunt. I have done this with my wife for many years now. She shoots that 30/06 with loaded down ammo and hunts with full power loads. She has never felt the recoil a single time when shooting game.
Consider that the 243 may be easy to shoot, but also consider that the loss of a big animal will disturb her for life. In my opinion the 243 is marginal for an experienced shooter.
Thank you JJ Hack for lending some sanity to this thread. I wouldn't even conisder the 243 a good deer cartridge much less an elk cartridge. One of the reasons is that people choose the 243 because they are intimidated by anything bigger. They are not big fans of practice because of muzzle blast or whatever. So you have a situation where they close both eyes and yank the trigger and hope that the bullet will be guided to the animals vitals by divine intervention.
Last year my brother in law had his wife shoot a 243 for deer season. At the last minute he decided to substitute the 80 gr bullet because she was a little bothered by the recoil. It ended up with her wounding an 8 pt buck
which required several hours of three stooges tracking. This included going out without a flashlight or gun and jumping the deer which then ran even further into the swamp. They finally went back and got a light and a gun and put it out of its misery. Out of fairness I handload for a friend and force him to use 100 gr Hornady interlocks and he has cleanly killed several deer which are shot from a stand about 20 yards away. He practices a lot. I would like to say that Bob Hagel once wrote that you should not use a cartridge that will do the job under ideal conditions, you should use a cartridge which will do the job when everything goes wrong.
Great White North
Most of the problem with people using the 243 comes from examples like just stated above. Using bullets that weren't designed for game on game.
I firmly believe there are more cripple loss each year to the supposeddly "suitable cartridges" than there are the 243. And quite a bit of the bashing the 243 gets is from folks who never used one, just regurgitating what they've heard or read.
I spent alot of time guiding deer hunters in the Black Hills of Wy. I always had my 243 on hand. There was no limit to the amount of ribbing I took about my peashooter rifle being no good in that kind of brush. But guess who got to go crawling thru that brush with which rifle to find the crippled deer that had been shot with the "better" cartridges.
Its all in the bullet placement, and bullet construction, and the hunters ability to follow up on a shot whether it looked good or not.
Couple of things.
1.) First - the 243 is not an elk cartridge. I have seen it take a cow moose at close range. It was with a 95 gr Barnes X and a real stiff load of H414. Blew a rib back through the lungs. Moose went about 30 feet before piling up. My wife was the shootist. She asked me for a bigger rifle on the way to the downed moose. I gave her one.
2.) I cut down an old 30-06 Tikka to fit my wife and daughter. It is now their rifle. It doesn't fit me anymore. I started looking at ways to reduce the recoil without sacrificing performance. I settled on a 150 grain Nosler Partition bullet at 2800 fps ahead of a 46 gr charge of IMR3031. It shoots 1" groups at 100 yards. Virtually NO recoil to speak of. Both my wife and daughter shot deer this year. Three shots fired - three perfect hits at 190 and 195 yards. By the way, they are both 5'4" and around 120 pounds.
I would recommend for you to do a little research before getting a too small cartridge for a too big game animal. Sure, they may work under ideal conditions, but conditions are not always ideal.
Common sense would dictate a different cartridge. But the common sense is not all that common anymore.
Let me start off by saying I detest the 243. For no rational reason. I love the 240 Wby, and they are two peas in a pod....
That said, I have some experience with recoil shy shooters. What I have done is concoct about 100 training loads each for the kids and wife, using Hodgdon "youth loads" (
www.hodgdon.com), and H4895. Alternatively, Speer has reduced load data in their manual. With these, they get all the practice they want (and a 12 year old with a pile of ammo, plenty of targets and a new gun is a sight to behold!).
When time comes to pull the trigger on the real thing, none of them ever noticed that the recoil was twice that of the practice round. My wife got both her elk and her antelope this year, with near perfect shots. Never said a thing about recoil......
Load the 7/08 with 140 gr. TSX's, put on a scope with lots of eye relief, and no elk is safe as far as she can hit the right spot. JMO, Dutch.
With the numbers of cartridges available in over the counter rifles now, as compared to 40 years ago, there really isn't any reason to start someone on the 243, and I'm a firm believer in the ability of that pip squeek cartridge.
I don't have any experience with the 7-08 but I do the 7x57, and I have to question if a young/new shooter can't handle the recoil of either of those loaded with 140-150 gr bullets , with a good recoil pad and stock adjusted to fit, whether that shooter has any business shooting at live game at all.
To many times new shooters are dumped into a position of having to use a rifle that don't fit well, and then is expected to have to make shots at distances , under conditions , that the person mentoring probably doesn't have any real business pulling the trigger on.
Does anyone recomend the 115 Grain Barnes Original? What's the story with this bullet?
264- is this the same .243 that you're limited to factory loads for deer hunting? If so, I don't think the Barnes Originals are available in loaded ammo so the 115 gr. bullet isn't an option. Or have you decided to start handloading? If that's the case and you want to use one bullet for deer and elk I'd recommend a Barnes X or 100 gr. Nosler Partition as an adequate deer/ marginal elk bullet. I've shot a lot of deer and antelope with a 6mm Rem. and it's always worked but I wouldn't deliberately take it elk hunting.
dale
Sonnie
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
art
Depends on a lot of stuff.
I have a friend that swears by the 243 for elk. He hunts with a rifle like he hunts with his bow. No shot till the elk is blowing snot in his face. This individule also regularly shoots 85% or above on our Department qualification course.
If you hunt in this manner & use a good heavy for caliber bullet then OK, otherwise absolutely not..
If you are looking for a light recoiling accurate round for smaller statured folks, the 6.5x55 Swede is one of the great secrets of the shooting world. The 7x57 is another. Of course using heavy for caliber bullets & Practicing with your round being used 'till personal limitations are established & then not exceeded.
Another thought to keep in mind, going too big & scareing the shooter with the noise & rrecoil is counterproductive. I remember reading a comment by a professional guide something to the effect that he would much rather see his hunter with a well used 30/06 than with a unblemished big magnum. ( he was speaking of big bears & such). The idea of course is that a well placed small caliber bullet works better than a missed shot with a big one.
I think there is someone on the board whose "signature" reflects that.
My old Army roomate from the Platte river valley area of WY and his 2 brothers all took there first few elk with .243's...He never mentioned any problems with it...as a matter of fact he still had his rifle, a Winchester, and used it quite successfully deer hunting at Ft. Bragg.
If people can launch low SD and BC pistol bullets out of a sabot from a smokepole and hammer elk than I don't see how anyone would argue against a 95-100 grain wonder bullet being adequate. Now if you're the guy that has to shoot and try kill no matter the angle or range then anything short of a 155mm howitzer is probably insufficient.
Mike
264- is this the same .243 that you're limited to factory loads for deer hunting? If so, I don't think the Barnes Originals are available in loaded ammo so the 115 gr. bullet isn't an option. Or have you decided to start handloading? If that's the case and you want to use one bullet for deer and elk I'd recommend a Barnes X or 100 gr. Nosler Partition as an adequate deer/ marginal elk bullet. I've shot a lot of deer and antelope with a 6mm Rem. and it's always worked but I wouldn't deliberately take it elk hunting.
dale
I agree. It's a real problem and, after a lot of thought, I think the idea of downloading the 7-08 is probably right on. Prolly 140 Partitions at 2700 or so.
I've killed elk and moose with small cartridges, but it's always been when I was hunting deer and got an opportunity to kill the larger critter. Stuff happens and the best rifle for the job is the one that happens to be in your hands.
I've killed a bunch of elk and I have a fair idea where to hit them. Would I personally purposely go in the bush, hunting for elk with any bullet in a .243? Mmmmmm, probably not.
Several years ago, I killed a couple of elk with a .25-'06 with 120 Partitions and they did a hell of a good job. Thinking that I'd pushed my luck far enough, I backed off and continued using my standard guiding rifle; a Remington 700C in .30-06 with 150-grain Nosler Partitions. Hey, it works and I was never afraid of the rifle.
It was only later that I discovered the .280 Ackley and it works better.
The .30-'06 is still great and I've used it to kill over fifty Afrikan animals. Stuffed with 180 Hornady Interlockeds or Partitions, it still swats critters over DRT.
Steve
Whitetail in MT,
I can get the 115 grain Origional from Superior Ammunition (Superiorammo.com) I hadn't found it whent I posted the thing with factory loads.
I guided elk hunters for awhile, a little over 20 years. I wouldn't go out and buy a .243 for an elk rifle, but I sure would have a lot more confidence in a guy that could shoot a .243 well, than I would in a guy shooting a magnum that he was afraid of. When working as a licensed outfitter my advice to my hunters was that if they weren't already shooting a mag, don't go out and buy one just to hunt elk. Most guys did better with the deer rifles they were acustomed to. IMO a magnum is best used by those looking to increase their range beyond the 300 yds that the '06 based rounds are adequate for. I wouldn't hesitate using my .243 on elk, assuming relatively short ranges, say 150 yds or so, heavy Barnes or partition bullets, and broadside shots. I think of it as a varmint round that, with proper bullets and positive shot placement, can be used for elk.
This thread has gotten away from the original intent of the opening question. It was not whether an experienced marksman, hunting guide, or confident big game hunter could use a 243 and get away with it. It was whether or not a fist time elk hunting teen age young lady with little to no big game experience should be able to use this round on an Elk.
There is no doubt that a 243 can, and has killed many elk. Nobody will ever know how many have run off to die a miserable death after taking a tiny little .243 bullet though.
As stated before by me, sometimes you just have to accept that not every animal is a logical target for every hunter. There are some people that will just never be able to handle the fire arms needed to hunt every species. As backward and slow to evolve as Africa seems at times they have set some logical and very functional minimums for big game. I hate anyone intruding on my desires but I have to respect that it's the right decision after many years and thousands of animals which have formed these opinions, or as it stands now RULES.
Even archery has minimum draw weights for many species. I have accepted the fact that I will never shoot several species there with my archery equipment. My accuracy is fantastic, my equipment is the best available. But my draw weight is only 70 pounds max( and that is pushing it!). I need 80 lbs to hunt buffalo legally, and I cannot shoot 80 pounds with my frequently dislocated right elbow.
I have to move on and hunt the things I can handle. Much like an inexperienced hunter who would like to have some instant gratification. Elk do not come easy without the effort, practice and dicipline to manage the size of a rifle needed to do the job right.
I do not mean to sound harsh or without feeling. However I see quite frequently so many folks that seem to think big game hunting is like fishing where you try to take on the biggest fish possible with the lightest gear. We have no catch and release with bullets. One bad shot and you have caused the sickening and horrible slow death of a very valuable animal. The majority of which will then begin looking for another animal when they don't find the first one. How fair is that to the rest of the hunters who have done everything right, learned to use the right tool and don't get an opportunity for a shot because of the dropping population of Elk? This is often caused by those who attempt big game hunting without the dicipline, or experience to do it right?
If a hunters tag was punched with the very first time they pulled the trigger at an animal, .... I promise you there would be a hella lot more practice and proper firearms in use. There would also be a hella lot more game alive in the bush as well.
Thank you Jim, It's been awhile but i'm back. -- no
I think that every hunter should consider his tag filled as soon as he pulls the trigger. If he @#$%s up the shot than he should have to suffer, and rip his tag in half.
By the way JJHACK, I got the answer I wanted, (That the 243 will work if the shot is placed perfectly, the bullet is of the best kind, and the animal isnt one of those super-tough-freaks-of-nature) and I dont care where this thread goes now, as long as it's interesting.
With the muzzle brakes out there now there's no reason to not use enough gun. I'd rather see someone use a .270 or a .308 with a brake on it and give the benefit to the elk but that's just me.
I agree, elk are tough game and require more than a 90-100 grain bullet barely making 2000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Yes premium bullets will get the job done, but a 243 Win does not bring the best probability of success to the table. Especially when we are talking about a young hunter. The 243 Win's reputation is built on really well placed shots by really good marksman. It is a favorite when used for culling, but this activity is for the most experienced of shooters.
I started my elk hunting with a 308 Win and it is a fine cartiridge for that purpose if you know your's and the cartridge's limitations. It is plenty of gun for cow elk, which is what I dedicate it for now. For bull elk, I have gone to the 338 Win Mag over the last 10 years and the 444 Marlin, depending on conditions. The 338 Win really puts em down with 250 grain loads.
As a minimum for her, I would stress a 140 grain 6.5mm (Rem or Swede), 150 grain 7-08 Rem, but would say the 165 grain 308 Win may be the best fit of all.
We know most western states require a minimum of .23 caliber on big game. Yes the 243 Win is legal, but does that mean its prudent. Col. Townsend Whelen's standard is a pretty good one. Have 1000 ft-lbs at impact for deer and 2000 ft-lbs at impact for elk (his experience and observations led him to this). Perhaps outdated advice by todays standards from bullet design, but none-the-less, I believe it has some merit.
Consider that a 243 Win can barely make 2000 ft-lbs at the muzzle with 90-100 grain bullets. Consider also that it has 1700 ft-lbs at 100 yards, 1500 ft-lbs at 200 yards and 1250 ft-lbs at 300 yards. Now I know energy figures don't mean alot these days, however, it is a way of drawing some measure or standard of a cartridges potential on game. Forget about using optimum gain weight figures, the 243 Win on bull elk does not shine very brightly.
Maybe JJs right, some consider the anchoring of big game like elk with a 6mm an equivilant to winning the yearly Broward County Light Anglers award. Catching a 30 lbs Cobia on a 6-lbs test line is quite a feat, but then again losing a once hooked fish is nothing like losing a wounded majestic elk.
JJHACK stated:
�
There is no doubt that a 243 can, and has killed many elk. Nobody will ever know how many have run off to die a miserable death after taking a tiny little .243 bullet though. �
I�ve been hunting Colorado�s elk for 20+ years, and during that time have talked to a fair number of hunters who were looking for one that ran off after being shot. More of these involved a young hunters and a .243 (Colorado�s minimum elk caliber) than any other caliber. One involved the most magnificent bull I have ever seen, another involved an illegal shot (taken form a roadway while the hunter�s dad cheered him on) into a herd of cows. When nothing fell, the father and son got in their truck and drove off. Another case involved a bull we never saw, but we saw fresh blood in the snow for three days running � I don�t know how an elk could lose that much blood and keep going. In this case the shooters gave up on the third day.
If the shooter is recoil sensitive, I would suggest a 7mm-08 or 7x57, a lightly loaded .308 or even a .30-30 before I would suggest a .243.
JJ, your point is well made. After blowing around that earlier bit of hot air I will add that for my daughters first elk rifle I outfitted her with a 7-08 equipped with a muzzle break, firing 140 gr bullets - not a .243. My oldest daughter uses a .300 win mag.
Quote:
�With the muzzle brakes out there now there's no reason to not use enough gun. I'd rather see someone use a .270 or a .308 with a brake on it and give the benefit to the elk but that's just me�
Steelyeyes, good shot placement is the most important issue regardless of caliber. You are correct; a muzzle break does allow people to shoot larger calibers without the associated discomfort of more recoil. But, I will stand firm in my belief that a break does not necessarily promote better shooting. In many ways people or more likely to flinch from excessive noise and excessive muzzle blast then they are from slightly more recoil. The point being, I think a younger shooter will shoot a 7mm-08 with 140�s or a 308 with 150, better than they will shoot a 270, 30-06 or 7mag with a muzzle break. Case and point, my 10 year nephew has been lucky enough to shoot 2 deer in the last year. The gun he prefers to shoot is his father�s kimber 84m in .308 with 150�s. He shot one of his deer with his father�s 280 that has a muzzle break and said his ears were ringing after the shot and he was afraid to shoot it again. Not to mention, he got a face full of dirt and leaves because he shot a gun with a muzzle break from the prone position. He shot the other deer with the .308 and found that gun to be much less offensive. That little 84m is pretty light and recoils a lot more than is 9 pound 280 with a muzzle break, but he will shoot the .308 better every single time because he is not anticipating the discomforting noise and muzzle blast. I have a 7mm-08 Kimber in the gun safe and my boys will not hunt big game until they are proficient with that gun. Yes, I might be able to start them sooner or possibly let them shoot a bigger gun if I added a muzzle break, but I don�t think I would be doing them any favors.
Ted
Flinching is learned at the range, where you're supposed to use hearing protection, eye protection, and you can even wear a recoil pad like the PAST if you like. In the field I rarely even remember hearing my muzzle blast although I'm sure I do.
People even learn to flinch from shooting a bow...and they can learn to not flinch shooting the very same bow with practice.
If you're shooting next to a person with a brake I also recommend long sleeves because they spit burning propellant to the sides too. They are much louder to shoot next to than behind. My wife weighs all of 130 lb. and she can drill holes like no buddy's business with my .300 Mag. with a MagNaPorted barrel so it's possible to learn good shooting habits even with a brake.
Good point.
I didn�t say you can�t shoot well with a break (your wife has most likely shot a lot more then my 10 year old nephew). I am stating that �young� hunters (which I think this thread is about) are often more sensitive to noise and muzzle blast than to slightly more recoil. Like you, I don�t really notice muzzle blast when I am shooting at game, but you and I have shot a lot of centerfire rounds over the years and pretty much know what to expect when we squeeze the trigger. This is all fairly new to young hunters. Also, I think kids are a lot more sensitive to stronger pressure waves and noise then us old farts. I was at the range with my six year old and he had earplugs and headphones on and commented that every time the guy next to me pulled the trigger his body shook and he could feel it in his chest. I asked him if my gun was as loud and he said not even close. The guy was shooting a 7mag with a muzzle brake and I was shooting a 300 wby without a break. Kids can tell the difference even when wearing hearing protection. I just think young ears and muzzle breaks are a bad combination
Just as a side note to this with magnaport.
at one time I had a model 70 300 weatherby rifle 26" barrel. My best hunting partner liked it so well he bought the exact same gun and scope combination. He actually made an X under the front of the stock so we could tell them apart.
He somehow got this wild idea to send it off for magnaport. When it returned we went to the range and shot for a few hours. The only difference we felt between the two identical rifles with the same handloads was the slight pressure on your face from the muzzle blast of the magnaported rifle, and a little more noise. Watching each other shoot we also agreed that the magnaport muzzle jump was a bit less off the bags. Maybe 2" less.
However there was absolutely zero difference in felt recoil. Neither of us could feel even a tiny difference between the two guns. Since this revelation we have both spoken to a number of folks who have had the four port magnaport cut into their barrels and none expressed any reduction in recoil. Muzzle lift was noticed by most, but recoil reduction is non-existant. I think you would need some calibrated test equiment to prove one way or the other. No human shoulder could "feel" enough of a difference.
Magnaport makes a system called "Magnabrake" which is an actual muzzle brake and works wonderful. The "Magna-port" is a waste of time effort and shipping expense. I don't know a single person who has sent them their rifle and had it returned to be happy with the recoil reduction it provided.
JJ,
I agree with your observations on Magnaporting. I have a .454 FA, scope mounted and ported. The only thing the lack of muzzle jump does is redirect all that recoil directly into your wrist and arm! About 20 rounds is all I can tolerate at the range.
I don't know about the recoil reduction from experience. The gun was built with the barrel that was MagNaPorted from day one. I do know that my .300 with the porting and synthetic stock weighs less than my Sako Finbar .30-06 and it has less felt recoil. It might be the design of the stock, although the shapes are pretty identical with the exception of the fore end.
When this barrel gets burned out and my groups get too big I'll go with a real brake. There weren't that many out back when I had the rifle built.
The way I got my kids worked around recoil is a lot of shooting with .22s or air rifles so they learn good skills there. Then move them up to a hunting weight rifle but don't have them shoot so many rounds at a time that they get hammered. Then go back to the .22. It helps to have the same sight system (scopes for us) on both weapons.
My daughter's rifle is a .308. It's a tiny Model 7 that weighs almost nothing and has a very straight stock. It kicks like it has a grudge but she can still make it hit because it fits her and she learned to shoot first.
Realistically you don't need a lot of rounds through your hunting rig to be able to shoot it well enough to hunt, unless you want to snipe at long range but that's not for beginners.
I'll have to agree that the muzzlebrake idea is bad news for anyone's ears... let alone youngins.
I can also vouch for the .243 on elk. I got two in Washington state when I was living in Seattle during my Coast Guard days. 100 grain core lokt or Hornady sp will do the trick. But....as always....pick your shot carefully!
.264, most here are saying the .243 is fine for Elk and many of them have far more experience than I have but I still strongly disagree. Of course the caliber with the right bullet placed perfectly when close up will roll any elk that ever walked. That does not mean a .243 is an Elk caliber! What happens when the range isn't so short, the angle perfect, or you just plain screw the pooch and put that little bullet in the wrong place? It can all happen with bigger calibers as well but you unquestionably have more "slop in the system" with something bigger if things don't go like the textbooks say they shood. I don't know about you, but Mr. Murphy is always looking over my shoulder. I don't always get the perfect angle (read never) or the short shot, and thought I hate to admit it I have made a few shots that were less than perfect. An expert hunter capable of getting very close and putting the bullet precisely where they want it may find the .243 workable but I doubt any kid qualifies. In my opinion low recoil is simply not a sufficient excuse for using a marginal caliber like a .243. Many may disagree, but regardless of the game being hunted, ground hog to elephant, the hunter owes it to the animal to use enough gun to get the job done under the worst circumstances reasonably imaginable or stay home.
I guided elk hunters for awhile, a little over 20 years. I wouldn't go out and buy a .243 for an elk rifle, but I sure would have a lot more confidence in a guy that could shoot a .243 well, than I would in a guy shooting a magnum that he was afraid of. When working as a licensed outfitter my advice to my hunters was that if they weren't already shooting a mag, don't go out and buy one just to hunt elk. Most guys did better with the deer rifles they were acustomed to. IMO a magnum is best used by those looking to increase their range beyond the 300 yds that the '06 based rounds are adequate for. I wouldn't hesitate using my .243 on elk, assuming relatively short ranges, say 150 yds or so, heavy Barnes or partition bullets, and broadside shots. I think of it as a varmint round that, with proper bullets and positive shot placement, can be used for elk.
CoBrad, This has been my experience too.
Worse Case
I watched a 14 year old shoot a broadside cow at 150 yards with a .243. The cow was hit hard right behind the shoulder and still standing. I told the boy to "shoot her again" and his dad said "naw, hit good". The cow proceeded to put itself together and take off with its calf. A few miles of deep snow and mountains later I got the kid another shot and he put one in the neck. While gutting her out I found one lung destroyed and no exit wound. Using a factory 100 grain load. With something that penetrates better it is likely both lungs would have been taken out. Premium bullet or bigger gun.
I grew up with a guy who only used a .243. Neck and head shots inside 100 yards and he never missed or needed another shot. Not what I would advise others to do either.
I do not think you need a massive magnum, just good shot placement with a good bullet. I know one hunter who has killed a dozen elk or more with a 25-06 - including a nice 8x7.
To get a youngster started, I like what a buddy did. He has two Rifles of the same make and model. One in .243 and one in .308 (has muzzlebrake). He let his kid practice at the range and in the prarie dog fields with the .243 using smaller bullet. When elk hunting time rolled around he put the .308 in his hands and said the brake made it shoot like a .243. When a shot was presented, the boy shot and the elk went down. Like any other first time hunter he never even noticed the recoil or the noise.