Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Anyone shoot a 243 for elk?

That right there is the root of the problem isn't it poco loco? I'm from Texas. I'll admit there have been some real azzwhole city- slickers out trying to hunt from Texas so make is easy on your brain and hate us all .

That 300 RUM in the ass will make sure that 1,000 mile trip is worth it! Rock on, dude. You've killed a chitload of squirrels and you've shot your bow a whole lot. Get some guts!

You must really live a miserable existence. Catch the elk thread on possible bullet failure and you can really find something to rave about. You have won me over with your intellectual acumen. 300s have absolutely no use for elk hunting.

Rancho_Loco



Here all along I thought you didn't like me. I now realize you don't like you.

Offhand I'd say he really has a bad case of hemorrhoids or a bitch of a wife. An impacted tooth would be fixed to allow comfortable mastication.

I think some guy shot elephants exclusively with a 6mm, which is basically a .243
I would shoot an elk at 300yds maybe farther with mine.
I've taken 200# whitetail dead in their tracks at 600yds with some 87gr. hornady bullets.
Elk, go with a heavier bullet, maybe a 95gr and knock it's socks off. I know a man that's killed elk and mule deer at long ranges with a .243.
He was carrying a 7mm and put it down to get his .243 that he shot for years. He saw a mule deer and asked the guide if he could shoot it, the guide laughed and said that gun won't reach that far. Deer was over 400yds, he shot it in the head. The guide wasn't laughing dragging it up the mountain. He done the same with an elk, but not a head shot, but it dropped dead.
Gotta love a .243

I do love my Pre 64 fwt 243. I like what you say about ot and I am going to reread your post after this to let it soak in. I came from a time the 243 was a great deer looser because so many used cheap 100 gr win. soft points which made a little hole going in and no blood- letting exit. I accept that the deer probably didn't go a hundred yards before expiring, but with no blood trail on hard ground in the thick brush country and most 'hunters' lacking confidence in their shooting skills, hunting knowledge, and tracking ability I know why many avoid it. A lot of deer were lost with it years ago, and still are with cheap bullets. Now, with quality bullets (swift sorocco) it is a favorite of mine and with partitions I use the 22-250 and 223 a fair bit for deer. I would not hesitate on elk with it. 10-4 on the hornady bullets also, especially the interlocks. They do well on bull elk out of a .270.

In my opinion after 50 years hunting elk and somewhere around 70 to 80 different elk hunts in 4 different states. I believe that Bob Hagel says it well, the 243 is at best a minimum cartridge suitable for elk. As I posted last week in another subject the energy recommended by many for elk is 1800 ft lbs., the minimum is 1500 ft. lbs. , the 243 barely reaches the mininum recommended at 100 yards. I have dug several .243 caliber bullets out of elk and deer both, one elk had 4 in him and was still on his feet moving when I killed him. With proper animal presentation and good shot placement one can kill an animal with most anything fired down a peice of gavalinized pipe. But as Hagle said our goal is to have enough gun when things go wrong. I believe those whom have developed the 1800, and 1500 ft lbs. guideance also believed the same way. As do I, and why for the last 40 years have been carrying a 300 Win Mag., (and I don't flinch) in case you wonder.

So if we accepted the ftlbs energy stuff. What do you tell the handgun hunter or the archer? Stay home?

10-4 there.

Ftlbs/energy is related to bullets. Volts of kill power is related to lightening, which we don't use in hunting elk, no do we use relative concentrations of different strains of specific bacteria or special concentrations of certain toxic chemical agents(poison). Broadheads are another method we do use and they rely on ...... Well, maybe you get the idea.

I have also read the 1500 ft lbs minimum for elk in a book. However with new bullet technology is that 1500 ft lbs really still the minimum? The barnes/mono and bonded bullets have really changed what a bullet can do. The partitions are awesome bullets too. Add new powders and bullets pushing crazy speeds, smaller calibers can do some amazing things without having the ft lbs to back it up.
For me as long as a bullet has the speed to properly expand and reach its potential, I think it will cleanly kill an animal.

I carry a 7 Rem Mag because I like the extra gun because I know things can happen plus I like the extra muscle. however if I was told here is a 243 set up and ready to kill, I would have no issue shooting deer at 400 yards and elk at 300 yards because that is my comfort zone with that caliber. I am sure it can kill further, but that would be my comfort zone.
For Diane she loves her 243 shoots it well and wanted to use it. I feel bad she lost confidence in it for elk, but I am glad she proved a 130 ballistic tip 270 can DRT a bull elk. Plus she got a new rifle out of it.
but in reality, I find it funny how a 243 gets knocked down as being too small for elk, but if you look at a joke thread on here, there were a lot of people being serious swearing that a 223 was great for elk. give me a break!

Anyways her elk hunt is over, she used the 270, killed her first big game animal, a 243 was not used, and this thread continues. Thanks to everyone that contributed pros and cons on the subject.

Kique

Broadheads kill by cutting.

I am also an archer, but have not killed an elk with a bow yet but several deer. An arrow kills by cutting not by energy, archery hunters typically are very careful about shot placement and distance. The short distance allows for precision. They also loose a trememdous amount of game with bad hits. Pistol shooters for elk are a very small minority but for example if you look at the 375 JDJ the energy produced at a 100 yards is very similar to that of the .243.
There are a lot of excellent shooters here, people that can consistently hit targets at 600 yards and beyond. Not to long ago that was unheard of but with better rifles, better scopes, more efficient bullets and powders its now, with the right training and practice more common. "But" 98% of the hunters in the woods lack those same skills and training. Many should probably not even be in the woods. What is an adequate rifle in the hands of a skilled hunter or shooter, is not in the hands of another. Lastly, what works for 3 or 4 or even 10 times will not necessarly work for 100. Our mission as hunters is to use enought rifle to kill humanely, effeciently and to utilize our game.

Well Elkmen I guess maybe you've identified the real problem with " enought rifle to kill humanely, effeciently". In my 50 someodd years of elk hunting and hunter herding both as a paid professional and just tagging along.. I've seen elk killed with all manner of things from a 22 magnum pistol up to the big boomers. No matter how damn bad the person yanking the trigger try's to make out different it always comes down to the same thing. Bullet placement. All the testosterone oozing out of a belted case the size of a cuban cigar won't make up for a shot in the ass.....
Way back when they used to say the 220 swift could hit anything in the leg and kill it dead....
Now we've got folks telling us that a 300 sumthinnernuther will put a bullet thru an elks ass ,guts, liver, take out the lungs heart from 400 yds away, and that cartridges that were killing elk a long long time before some of these internet experts were even a gleam in their daddy's eyes, are no good....
Funny how things swing from one end to the other.

Another thing that always makes me wonder.... When we see these folks with no experience with the 243, jump up and down and really scare the hell out of their keyboard, and scream at the top of their lungs that a 257 is better, I'ld suggest that those same folks probably haven't used a 257 , nor have they taken the time to look at a ballistics table...
Same with the ones espousing fpe minimums. There are but 2 handgun cartridges that make the fpe requirments, one of those is at the muzzle....
Stretch that down range and it's soon evident that if that internet marksman has the capability to place bullet on target at his 1/4 mile down range vital zone,,, the fpe is borderline....if not below the threshold established.

It's not whether a magnum is too much, but whether a 243, or 270 with 130 BTs, or a 7mm08 with 120 BTs ect is enough. It's already proven to be enough more than once...

The real question is, can you control yourself to not get so excited just seeing and wanting one, that any shot is acceptable... in that case a magnum is preferable.

Has nothing to do with chit going wrong or paper ballistics.

Kent

Then he really wouldn't like the spike I got in 2010. Got it with the .270 and a regular ol' Hornady Interlock. One shot & it was about a 5 hour job getting him off the mountain.

I have zero doubt that a good shot using quality bullets in a 243 win can kill elk within reasonable ranges because Ive seen it done several tines now by a guy in our elk camp with a 257 roberts and the difference is just not that huge between the two cartridges, but that being said I can,t see why anyone would select a 243/6mm caliber rather than at least a 6.5mm-270-30 cal with the heavier projectiles when theres so many better choices.
no mater how you look at it a 6mm is either a gun best left to experts hunting elk who will limit shots to those with precise shot placement or its marginal at best in average hands under normal hunting conditions where you can,t accurately predict ranges, angles or shot placement.
selecting a cartridge having a bit more penetration and energy on impact just seems to me to show a bit more respect for the game.
Ive seen my share of elk hit by guys from my elk camp,(guys that on average are better than average shots) with even common calibers like a 308 win and 270, 30/06 etc and much heavier calibers that have gotten less than ideal shot placement. so to answer the question, yes a 243 will obviously work in skilled hands but Id sure have a great deal more confidence in a 270 with 150 grain bullets or a 30/06 with 180-200 grain bullets


as has been stated before
"you should not select a caliber for elk hunts that works when everything goes right, but one that will still work well when most things don,t go as planed"

.
Who here has identified themself as a user or non-user of the .243 or equivalent? I my self started with an 06 and have killed numerous deer with the Bob. Traded my last one (had since the 70's) just recently for a Marlin 1895 in 45-70. I have killed elk, with the following, 06, 300 Win Mag, 7X57, 338/06, 7mm Mag, 7mm STW, 280 remington. Deer with all of those plus the 22-250 and 308. FPE is a guide and like all guides not perfect. The first to expound on those figures that I am aware of was PO Ackley, in his reloading manual published in the late 50's. It was a pretty good guide then and I believe revelant now. As for those whome flinch when shooting larger calibers I believe my post already address's those hunters when I mentioned cleanly and ethically. Neither is true if you can't shoot your rifle.