Just my opinion but I'd say one group of dedicated .243 shooters are fine shots, surgical maybe.....kind of like the chukar hunters that do well with a 28 ga. These hunters with veternarian's knowledge of anatomy would do well with a .22 Hornet. Then there is a more sizeable group that are not riflemen, know nothing of anatomy, totally unaware of the term "bullet construction", shoot at a road sign to sight in, fire maybe 10 shots a year...with predictable results. All this can be said of any cartridge, but it seems a lot of them select the .243. Which ain't the .243's fault.
You're not wrong. When I've seen the .243 "fail" it's been the wrong bullet chosen, often combined with the wrong shot angle and/or bad weather and tracking conditions. A quartering to or away deer that gets no exit wound and runs off into a pine/briar thicket that is full of existing deer tracks can be hard to find in the dark. An experienced hunter who marks his deer's location before he pulls the trigger and sends a good-penetrating bullet on its way stands a much better chance. If it's not rainy and nasty and you are shooting Partitions, a .243 will generally treat a hunter well if he understands what he's working with.
yet these same people say it's a good choice for women and kids? a 30-06 round placed badly won't magically make the deer recoverable. it's laughable the arguments people make. I've seen several deer killed with a .223 with adequate bullet placement. I've seen poor placement from a 12 ga slug through the front shoulder and the deer ran 2 miles and another 1/2 mile shot through the hind quarter/guts. most damage control folks I know use 204's and 22-250's for a lot of work on critters bigger than deer. making the argument that "I'm not a good shot so I'll use a bigger gun" is dumb at best, irresponsible at worst
Beware of any old man in a profession where one usually dies young.
