Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles .243 Winchester

No that it's settled the .243 is no good for Deer then maybe you could pick up a used Kimber cheap.

I like the Rem. Model 7 as a good youth and woods rifle.

I am willing to bet that the .243 is second after the 30-30 in all time numbers of deer killed for a cartridge. If not for sure in the top five.

Pick the rifle in anything from .243 to 8x57mm and you will be set, especially if you hand load.

Ah... steel head... You are an avid reloader and avid shooter that wants to test the limits. I also think you are the guy that pissed on me for wanting to give my young nephew a savage 99 in 300 savage because "you don't like them" and that was your only justification.

My preference is to give a young hunter a larger rifle and let them work down to the small calibers if they get the bug to be a rifle looney and they develope the shooting & hunting skills you have. I wouldn't spend a $1000 on a heirloom gun in a smaller caliber in case the inheritor doesn't like it and it would sit in the safe.

Just my opinion... like yours.

What was your first deer rifle chambered in?

Guys, I don't think the smart aleck comments really add to the discussion. In my case I DID NOT say the 243 won't kill deer, it clearly does. What I did say was that in my experience it doesn't leave blood trails that allow reasonable tracking in my area. In the areas where I typically hunt in the deep south it is very thick with head high brush. You can walk right past something the size of a deer and not see it sometimes. In my entire life of hunting (roughly 26 years) the ONLY deer I have ever lost were in the same season and were both shot with a 243. Both shots were under 50 yards. Maybe the Speer Hot-Cors failed (I didn't recover them), but they have always working in other calibers. Certainly when muzzle velocities were kept to 2800 or less. I did recover deer shot with the 243 as well, but after the two losses in one season I traded up.

If I were hunting more open ground, certainly out west, I would have less reservations about using a 243. Maybe using premium bullets takes the 243 to another level. I will say this for sure, my 260 with Speer 120's or Hornady 129's puts them down effectively.

I think the original poster was talking about a light low recoil rifle to cover all the bases. For me at least thats a 260.

Mark in GA

Maybe you have really hit on one of the key differences. You mention that you are getting great results with premium bullets and hitting the deer at longer ranges. My experiences had the deer hit at very close range w/ standard bullets.

Just speculating now, but maybe the smaller caliber isn't up to the task at close range unless premiums are used?

Mark in GA

I think deer get smaller, tougher, and more bullet proof the farther south you go.

With how little they add to the cost of a hunt, why wouldn't one use the best bullet available? ESPECIALLY if in so doing we can reduce the recoil quotient in a rifle for a youngster or, ourselves. Going to a larger heavier recoiling caliber in order to save a few pennies per bullet is a false economy and poorly defined or poorly set priorities.

Why drive to the mountains in yesteryears best, such as a Model A pickup, and handicap ourselves and others with us when there are so many far better vehicles out there?

Yes, it is the premium bullets that have made the fast 22's into good deer killers and the 243 etc. into GREAT deer killers when a generation ago such was not as much the case. Things have changed, much for the better. If we are always on thelookout for better rifles, scopes, trucks, binoculars, clothing etc. why do so many want to stay stuck in the past with bullets that require more weight and caliber to them to do a certain job? With the cost being high to do so in the coin of recoil and such?

A 105g Speer Hot core IS a premium bullet in terms of construction.

The reason why it "failed" on your lung shot does in terms of distance traveled, is that it made a drill press style wound cavity , A 6mm hole in and maybe a .375 cal hole going out.

If you'd used a bullet that would have truly EXPANDED on those tiny deer you were shooting (pick ANY cup and core soft point from 80 to 100 grains) your deer would have likely dropped a lot faster due to the much greater increase in lung tissue damage..

And guess what? THAT applies to just about any caliber suitable for deer when lung shooting them.

Have to disagree on that one Jim. the Speer hot cores are no harder than any other cup and core lead and gilding metal jacketed bullet. They might keep thier cores a little better, but my tests and game shooting with them did not prove that out either. I do have to say, though, that the 100-105 bullets from a 243 were and are reliable deer killers for many decades. Still looks and smells like a hunter/tracker problem to me. Definately NOT a cartridge problem.

Lots of Eastern Wa locals use the 243 on Elk, for crying out loud, with no problems. One rancher I know shoots his elk every year with a 222.

Remington sells reduced recoil ammo for 3006, 270, 308 and 7mm08 for us non-handloading types. That lets you have the low recoil to start with and a bigger gun to grow into if you wanted a choice other than 243. Using standard calibers lets the young hunter shoot more if ammo cost and availability is a concern.

Sounds to me your tracking skills suck.....
75-80 yds other closer to 100???? For real......are you ray Charles by any chance?

Markin, you should have walked away from this thread when you had the chance,

in 26 tears of hunting you lost 2 deer(within 100 yds) and thats the .243's fault?

If your hunting in that thick of cover why not use a much bigger gun/bullet? 12 ga. rifled sabot for instance?

And both deer died but you couldn't find them? But then you did find them?

A 100 grain bullet in a .243 is no good, but a 120 grain from a 260 works? A 140 must split them in half!

And a premiumn bullet has litle to do with it on whitetails,The .243 was killing deer for decades before fancy bullets..

I understand things happen out there, but come on...

Bwahahaha...

+1000 on that.

I'll give a thumbs up on the .243.

I bought a used Win. M70 xtr featherweight (push feed) with a nice walnut stock, on GB and it is great to carry in the woods. It quickly became my favorite rifle this year to carry. I'll be hauling it around next year too.

They are a good bit cheaper than the classic version and just as well built.

I would never use anything bigger if shots didn't exceed 300 yards.

Pretty sure Steelhead has a .300 sav and quite possibly in a 99.

I'm quite certain it's more foolish to give a young shooter a rifle in a larger caliber instead of a smaller one. It sure seems to me women and kids have no problem killing big buck, even in the great state of MN with .223 and .243's.

I watched my pard's wife kill a very heavy MN 8pt with a .243 and it left a blood trail Ray Charles could follow, all 25 yards of it. She was using Winchester gray box 100gr bullets.

I would say the 3006 ranks second to the 3030 and not the 243. Probably right on the top 5 though because 243 falls into the standard "on sale" ammunition of 3030, 243, 308, 270, and 3006.

My first bolt action centerfire when I moved to SD was a .243, took quite a few deer with that rifle (still have it). Experienced the same thing, about blood trails but I also never had any go that far. Mind you, those were just 100g core-locks or the like.

This past year I picked up a Remington Gander Special (faux ti) in .243. Haven't shot it yet though, but proud to own it and hopefully one of these days it'll get bloodied.

An 85gr TSX will do this all day long...

I'm using a 243 loaded with the 80 TTSX and Ingwe's official stout load of 4064. I'm not worried about drilling a big buck through the shoulders.