Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger Compact 243?

Wondering if anyone here has a compact 243 and their opinion on the rifle. I would be mostly shooting lighter bullets 65-85 grain bullets for predators and varmints. Possible kids deer gun also. The rifles purpose would be Scout/predator/varmint/kids deer rifle and the $hite has hit the fan time to bug out rifle.

Maybe someone has a similar rifle with a short tube and can give some balistics for the lighter weight bullets.

FWIW, I have a Ruger Frontier compact, but it is chambered in the 300 WSM.

Can`t specifically speak for the 243, but as my chrony results have shown using a variety of identical reloads, I`m running 4.2% to 4.5% behind in velocity to the longer 24" 300 WSMs. It breaks down to a 16.4 fps to a 19.5 fps loss for every inch of shorter barrel length.

The Ruger compacts are not only an ideal kids rifle, but they are great for the fully grown hunters too. Ideal for those who wish for less rifle OAL, great handling, while losing only a small percentage in velocity to the longer tubes.

That extra loss will have no killing affect on the deer.

My experience does not exactly match your question but may give you some information.

When my youngest son was ready to start hunting and move up from the youth size 22 rife I took a 77RS in 6mm Rem and built a rifle for him. I ended up cutting the factory barrel to 18.5 inches. I then worked up loads for him to shoot. I found that the slower burning powders gave a whole lot more muzzle flash (no surprise) but also gave much more accuracy, I wanted to find a medium fast powder to cut down on the flash. I was not able to. The loss in velocity from the short barrel was not noticeable by any of the animals it hit. Don't worry about it.

When my son outgrew the rifle I loaned it to a friend of a friend for his son to use until he outgrew it. Since it has been about 15 years now I guess his sons are slow growing.

You might want to consider the Ruger Hawkeye 77 compact in 6.8 SPC.

It has a 16 inch barrel; very low recoil, and lots of loads avaialble comercially in catalogues and on the inet that will kill better than the .243. out to 250 yards and beyond.

The round is being used extensively in hog and deer hunting now with success. Lots of hunting and reloading data also available on the inet.

1B

If I could I'd take it from her. It is a 243, and I love it. The problem is she does too!

Nice buck.

OP, while I like a longer bbl in small bore, my 18.5" Rem600 Mohawk long ago dropped a running 'yote' at around 250-275 no problem w/an 80gr, not unexpected considered a neck shot, but the hit was, given it was the first shot while he was wide open in a field!

I believe the speed in that short bbl was only 2980ish IIRC, but the ballistics will be plenty on varmints for you I'd say even in the compact to most normal ranges, and deer w/in 250 yds maybe 300. On deer, just be sure to use a bullet that will expand at lower speeds i.e. an 85 BTHP Sierra GAMEKING, or a 95 Ballistic Tip....would be my recommendation on deer.

Muzzle blast is the only downside, carryability is great in the compact, and handling. Don't sweat the speed loss too much, if you are not shooting long distances. Odds are if your like me, you will not let the kids shoot as far as you might, to increase odds of good shot placement and they will do fine on deer.

Good luck.

We run a Ruger 223 for our hunter safety kids. Truly a fine rifle that they CAN handle. Probably a great kid's/light frame lady rifle up to about 243. Remembering my younger years when I did not have a burning desire to absorb punishment, a 308 would be a bit much.

Edited after I noticed the post above: One doesn't see these on the rack every day, but we have a Rem 600 in 6mm that my 5'4" wife took away from me. It's her dedicated deer/pronghorn rifle. It has an excellent trigger, and is scary accurate. A buddy of mine started his kids with Mohawks in 308's, and they are not fun to shoot at all, and I'm about 220 lbs.

Yesterday, I watched a parent help about a 12 year old daughter shoulder and fire a 12 guage that she literally did not have the strength to keep pointed down range. She did not really want to participate, but dad insisted. The recoil must have moved her about 10 inches. Why do people do that to their kids? Give them something they can handle now if one can't wait to get them out.

Then again, maybe his goal was to keep her out of the field.

My wife has a Remington Model 7 in 260 with the 18 1/2" barrel and we both love it. Those short barreled rifles are just so darned handy. We do a lot of hunting out of a ground blind, so it really shines in that situation. Can't say the deer have ever noticed the lower velocity. IMO a Ruger Compact would be just the ticket.

I wouldn't worry about the loss of velocity, but I would be concerned about the muzzle blast. When I went shopping for my son's first centerfire rifle, we looked at both the Ruger M77 youth rifles and the Rem 700's. The rem 700 won out simply because I wouldn't put him behind a .243 with a barrel shorter than 20". Even with the 20" barrel the muzzle blast will get your attention.

Whatever route you go, load the 75 gr V-max over a max dose of Varget per Hodgdon's data, I expect you'll be quite happy with the results.

Short barrels are LOUD, and that usually scares a kid off a lot quicker than the actual recoil.

Unless you are able to reload very reduced loads to work with, I would never recommend a short barrel for a kid starting out.

The 243 will be fully adequate for what you listed as the intended targets. It will easily run with a 6.8 to any yardage you're going to want to use it.

Dakota Deer,

Which is exactly why the 6.8 in a 16 inch barrel is more user-friendly for kids and other starter/shooters. All the powder burns away in the barrel -- as it was designed to do -- not wasted in the air past the muzzle as the .243 in a 15 inch barrel will do. And it's easy on the shoulder and capable of making things down range die -- epecaily so as you can load it up to 130 gr. bullets

Asking the . 243 to give the same results with the same user
impact is unrealistic, at best. But then it is fixed in the array of "standard' rounds

1B

We had a Compact .260 and the muzzleblast didn't seem any worse than a 22-in. .270 or a 24-in. .338 or .375 in the field. We use ear pro at the bench or in practice. At game, for me and everyone I know, the blast is always attenuated unless you use a muzzlebrake or ports. Then, you notice it.

The only problem with .260 or 6.8 SPC is that they are not exactly easy to buy at your local store, unless you live near Bass Pro.

Either will kill like a .264 Win Mag or a .270 WSM from a deer or coyote's perspective.

You can get .243 rounds just about everywhere, however.

I say get it or a .223 for your younguns. You'll wind up using it a LOT yourself.

Well, all the powder that is going to burn burns in all modern centerfires within about 4 inches of the chamber, so short barrels have no bearing there.

How many deer have you shot with each? The 243 will spank the 6.8 at full power, and equal it when run to the same velocities. In factory ammo we're only talking the difference between a 100 grain and 110/115 grain. The 6.8 was only developed to be short enough to run in an AR-15 platform, not because it would beat out something like a fast 6. They are both adequate rounds for deer, and as stated the 243 ammo can be purchased at the local gas station, which sometimes comes in handy for a kid.