I love my Savage 99, but I am thinking about a .243 as a back up hunting gun and starting rifle for the kids when they are ready. I like Remingtons and have been thinking of a Model 7. But I hear there are some quality control issues in Ilion. Also have thought of the Savage Classic or Lightweight Hunter. Maybe Weatherby too, but I like my guns made in the US, or at least Europe. Now I had another idea, namely the Kimber 84M. Maybe the Kimber Classic, a little pricier than the others, but this would be heirloom quality. Any thoughts on these guns. How do you like the Kimber Classic. I haven't had a chance to get my paws on one yet for a look see.

I never developed anything other than distaste for the .243, even though that's what I was given for my first rifle by Dad. To me, there's scarcely any noticeable recoil difference between a .243 shooting 100 grain bullets, & a 7mm-08 shooting 120's. I don't feel any real difference 'til I step down to .223 shooting 55-65 grain bullets. Those are just my own prejudices.

As for rifles, see which one feels best to you, or to the kids. If you're concerned about quality, look in the Classifieds here to find a used one from a respected member: they would be able to attest to the rifle's function and/or accuracy.

Good Luck,

FC

another thumbs Down for the .243 Winchester. Ive had 3 over the years and just never could warm up to it

Well, I'll have to give a thumbs up on the 243. I think the Kimber Classic would be a fine choice. If you look at the Winchesters, the featherweight and featherweight compacts are an idea for a little less cash.

Having had a 243, a 260, and a 7mm-08 I found I enjoyed the 243 the least. I also agree about the recoil being close between a 100-105 243 and a 120 260 or 7mm-08.

For me I didn't like that the 243 tops out at barely heavy enough bullets for deer. It works most of the time but it really is kind a minimum caliber.

Either the 260 or 7mm-08 rock. Even with reduced loads to cut recoil more I found them to be more reliable on game. To be clear, the 243 will kill deer. But where I live the 243 causes you to loose a lot more deer because when they run (and they do/will) after being hit it just doesn't leave enough of a blood trail. The woods are really thick here in GA.

I handload and I like the 260 the best. The 7mm-08 is a close 2nd. If I used factory ammo I would likely choose the 7mm-08.

Mark in GA

OH, I forgot to say that I think the 260 is what the 243 (or maybe a 257 on the 308 case) should have been. It is TRULY a dual purpose caliber that is EFFECTIVE at both ends of the spectrum.

Mark in GA

Never thought much of a .243 but, I have a friend that's killed a boat load of deer with his.
My tastes ran to the .250 Savage as a small bore round which started with a EG 99 and ended with a Remington 700 Classic, one of the most accurate rifles I've owned. It's at least in 98% condition and I'm considering selling it to fund another project. PM if interested.
I'm hesitatingly gathering up items to put in the classifieds.

I consistently get the best blood trails with my 6mm shooting 85 grain hpbt's, but will admit there are times when having the 260 or 270 in hand adds a bit of comfort. Not sure why as I have yet to meet anyone who actually lost a deer due to caliber choice.

I personally have lost two does shot with a 243 that I later found (days later) and they both were decent hits. One made it 75-80 yds before going down. The other made it closer to 100. I was shooting a handload with the 105 gr. Speer at about 2800. It worked in the sense that the deer died, but when you can't find them and the meat spoils I can only call it a failure. Both were hit just behnd the sholder. Just no blood trail after the first 10-20 yds.

Never had the same problem with the 260 or 7mm-08. I guess it could still happen, but they have been working fine for years now hunting the same areas where the 243 events occured. I have had other deer run this far, even after a good 30-06 hit, but they had better blood trails.

I guess this is close to JB's too few examples rule, but it sure soured me on the 243. If you loose them with good hits, it doesn't give you any margin for error. I would hate to hand a youngster a 243 for their 1st deer and have this result. I just feel better now having a little more caliber insurance.

Mark in GA

With 80gr TTSX bullets, the 243 is a wonderful deer killer and very light recoil. Probably the very best young persons deer rifle going. No flies on it for us old codgers, either. A Kimber Classic so chambered would be an ideal and absolutely wonderful rifle for ANYONE, but especially a young person. Deadly and a nice looking rifle to be proud of for years. One of my deceased aunts used a 243 every year in Colorado and killed a semi load of monster mule deer bucks with it. A large number of hunters from here at 24hrcf and especailly in TX now use the 223 with TTSX's on deer with great success. A 243 would be more of the same and very deadly with minimal recoil. Bullet selection is only slightly behind bullet placement in importance for quick clean kills. 80-85gr Barnes will git'er done with room to spare.

Dang!! Now I gotta go sell my .243 AI....

If a 243 ain't working it's not cuzz of the headstamp that's for damn sure.

two DEAD deer in 100 yards or less from hwere you hit them.

Sounds to me a hell of a lot more of a "Hunter" failure than a a cartridge failure.

And BTW, use the 7mm-08 with heavily constructed bullets and I GUARANTEE YOU that game will have some game travel just as far hit when through the lungs.

You can always down load a 308, but you can't upload a 243 to bullets heavy enough to feel comfortable black bear hunting or guaranteed exit wound on a north country fat whitetail.

I would go heavier if you want a universal heirloom rifle.

That's some funny [bleep] right there. Yep, it will bounce off a yankee whitetail.

Laughing.

ha anyone noticed the origional post was about rifles and not caliber?
my observations - people that love the 243 come from places with skinny deer or snipe them in front of game feeders in a clearing. People that hate it have fat deer (fat plugs the hole) or really thick stuff to track deer in and prefer big blood trails. Everyone has their opinion and experience.

If I was going to pay the price for a kimber, I would want it in a heavier caliber to be more universal than limiting it to deer.
I have a Remington 700 mtn LSS in 7-08 that could work for you. Browning X-bolts, don't meet your country choice, but they seem to have a stock shape and controls that would work with smaller shooters.

My observation is folks who hate on the .243 for deer are folks who blame rifle cartridges for their own inadequacies as hunters and/or rifleman. North or South.

You mean like this, with an 85gr bullet from a 250AI?




Or this one?




Or these killed with 223's?







Cuzz God knows there ain't no feeders in Alaska and the thickest, wettest [bleep] you've never dreamed of, but how the [bleep] would you know?

Well the OP is titled ".243 Winchester". But as usual people who own a different caliber took it in a complete different direction.

I'm sure glad I bought my .243 before the internet came along, And for what it's worth, every single deer I shot with it just simply died...

We are getting exits on BIG -as in 250-300lb- Wheatfield dwelling Mule deer with the 243 and 80-85gr TSX or TTSX bullets. These pigs have fat inside and out of thier carcasses. Sometimes a couple of inches on both sides of thier meat. This idea that a 243 will not swiftly kill or exit and leave a good blood trail on a large fat deer is hilarious. And, we often have to shoot them at much greater distances than typical whitetail habitiat. Ridiculous ideas being spouted here.

Yep, hunter failure, maybe bullet fail in some cases but NOT cartridge failure.

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.

Actually the other deer (between 3 and 5) I shot with with same 243 load (105 Speer at 2800 MV) and recovered had pass throughs with between 1.5-2" exits. I would say they did expand on our smaller deer and did what I expected.

I guess I'm not geting the bad hunter/tracker problem angle with my events. The deer were hit properly with what should have been fully capable loads. I have only lost one other deer (shot with buckshot) in 26 years of hunting. I think I know how to track just fine.

You guys are missing the point I think. I live in the deep south, where deer season starts early and the weather is still very warm. The upper 80's aren't that unusual. Deer that aren't found very soon after being hit begin to rot. The deer I lost with the 243 were found days after being shot so they were a complete loss. The vultures and smell pretty much lead me to them. I wonder how many of you have actually seen the kind of woods I am talking about?

Anyway, I guess you guys think I suck as a hunter (just because my experience dosen't match yours and even though you likely have never hunted here). I think all of the deer in my freezer over the years say otherwise. In my experience anyone who says they have never lost one is kidding themselves or not very truthful. At least when hunting in my neck of the woods.

I have heard of hunting clubs in GA voting to ban the use of 243's over the number of deer lost. I thought that was complete BS for a long time until loosing some myself. Like I said I can only go on what I have directly experienced. In other areas or with other loads it may be great.

Mark in GA

Check out the new FN Winchester M70 Stainless Featherweight in .243 made here in the US as well.

Tzone - I remember one of our more active posters from Alaska was giving me heck about putting reduced recoil rounds in my savage 99 308 because the rifle sucked and there ergonomics were poor..., but I also wanted to give my Left handed nephew my 99 in 300 savage, however it didn't work well because it has a behind the trigger safety. 300 savage is very pleasant to shoot. I will apologize to Steel head if he wasn't the guy. The Alaska guy was telling me to use a 223 and thats not my preference.
Go up into the deer hunting section, find the post about a "11 year old" getting a nice buck with a AR. The father responded he used a 55-ish grain 223 at 70 yards and had difficulty finding blood and the bullet was found under the skin under on the other side. Its fantastic the kid got the deer, but I prefer to shoot a heavier caliber to get two holes. My preference.
There is no doubt a 243 works fine and I would gift a larger caliber gun to be on the safe performance side. The minnesota DNR recomends bear hunters to use a .27 caliber or larger rifle so it seems like a good starting place for the hunter with only one gun that may want to go after larger game. Non-hanloaders can buy reduced recoil rounds off the shelf if recoil is a issue in the early years.

I've seen the hits where they don't start bleeding out for quite a distance so I'm not doubting your abilities. It happens and not every shot is perfect so two bigger holes help. Of course everyone else is a internet legend.

The origional poster wanted the rifle as a backup or for starting his kid. Maybe the interest in 243 was for a dual purpose varmit rifle too so maybe we all jumped on the praise or disdain of the 243 rather quickly.
No one seems to doubt a larger calibers ability though...

" wonder how many of you have actually seen the kind of woods I am talking about?"

They're probably not much thicker than some of the Northwestern California rain forest I hunted when I lived (existed?) in California. If deer ran more than about 25 yards you stood a good chance of not finding it al all. Our trick was a hot loaded 170 gr. 30-30 bullet in a 30-06. usually a solid chest hit would bring it down like right now. mangles a bit of meat but at least you didn't lose the whole deer. If it was raining or after a rain, the dripping water would wipe out any blood trail very quickly.
On the .243, I didn't get one until about 1974 or 5 and I loaded it with a stiff load using the 100 gr. Hornady which just may have been pre-Interlock. Just can't remember for sure.
Rifle was a Kodiak Mauser sporter than I used mainly foe coyotes. I would take some of the local kids from our church on their first deer hunts with that rifle which was very accurate BTW. The hunting area was on a private ranch I had access too at the time and the terrain was fairly open with little shallow runs where willows grew. Usually we'd sit on top of a haystackin the early AM or late afternoon and wait for the deer to come out. These kids had shot the rifle quite a bit and being country raised kids had done quite a bit of rabbit hunting with their .22's so were decent shots. When deer would show up, I would coach them where to hold and tell them to carefully squeeze the shot when ready. During that time frame when I was taking them hunting, 6 deer were taken. All the deer were properly hit in the general lung/heart area and all were recovered. One deer was a bang/flop DRT kill. The other five ran anywhere from about 25 yards to one that made it over 250 yards before falling. From where we were shooting from, we could follow those running deer until they finally fell but considering the lack of blood trails, if the cover had been very thick, at least half those deer might not have been found. near as I could tell, on the one that ran the 250 yards, the bullet punctured both lungs but apparently only penciled through making a very small hole. Most of the other deer has sufficient damage to at least one lung that they didn't go all that far. Would a different bullet have made any difference? Maybe. I dunno.
Shortly before I moved from Nevada, I gave that .243 to the son of a friend for his first hunt.
Currently I have two rifles chambered to the .243. One, a roughly 1968 isue Winchester M70 is my wife's gun. She absolutely refuses to shoot anything else. Period! She just shoots at the range so the fact that the gun is a bit heavy doesn't bother her. The other is a Ruger #1A that is a part of my small collection of Ruger #1 guns. It's been so long since I even shot that one that I don't remeber what kind of group I got from it. I suppose I ought to pull it out and shoot it some just for the hell of it.
Paul B.

Why is that hard to understand? If the deer were hit properly, they died and did so quickly. Which is why you're getting the 'crappy tracker' comments.

If a deer can be made very dead with a .22lr, a .243 to the good parts will make them very dead, very fast.

The biggest buck I've ever killed was shot with a .30-06 and 150gr core lokts, It left no blood and ran for 100 yds in the thinckest stuff MN has to offer.

When I found the deer it was hit square in the on side shoulder with no exit and the only blood was at the seen where the deer was found. I didn't feel the need to go buy a bigger gun because it didn't exit.

Since then I've shot many with smaller calibers and they're all dead. I'm starting to like the low recoil cartridges like .223, .243, .257 more and more. There isn't a deer that walks that will live with a bullet from any to the boiler room.

I would not start a kid with something larger than a 243 as many have said. When first starting you can load 55 GR. bullets and they should be able to shoot all day long without recoil bothering them. When they start hunting, pick something heavier and go kill [bleep]. For a rifle I would look at a youth 700 so that the stock would fit better, (if starting them young) then get a TI take off or McM. for you and also as they outgrow the youth stock.

My son has killed 2 cow elk with a 243 so they are plenty capable.

Never seen the first problem in killing deer with a 243, and I've killed more than a few with one and have seen quite a few more killed with one (and 6mm Rem). Most were with 100gr Remington Core Lokts and a few with 85gr Sierra HPBT Gamekings.

A .243 has always been a good deer rifle, but from what I've seen, an 85 grain TSX kicks it up a very good notch.

That pretty much covers it.

Perzactly.

Just to clarify. There are no flies on the .243 for deer IMO, I've killed a couple with it and it worked just fine. Heck I just killed a white-tail stone cold dead with a .221 fireball. Its all in what you like, and I just never got much enjoyment out of a .243. For coyotes and fox I like minimum fur damage and for deer I just like bigger chamberings... Needed? No, wanted? Yes.

The point is that failing to find two deer when neither traveled more than 100 yards of where they were first shot is not the fault of rifle or bullet. Not only can you not find a dead deer; you also stumble across the point without realizing it. Better to quit while your ahead, but I hope you don't...

IMO, a light sweet cartrige dovetails best with a light sweet rifle, so adios to the Weatherby(heavy) and the Savage(not sweet).

My current rifles chambered for the .243 are the Remington 600 Mohawk and a tang Ruger RL. A Tikka T3 or a Remington Model 7 would do yeoman service as well. If modern Remingtons scare you, there's always gun shows and Gunbroker.

The Kimber Classic he mentioned is sweet x 10. I hope he goes with that one. Or, a new Winchester Featherweight in 243. Either would be mega excellent.

I like that, and may steal it. Not that I don't like Savages, but "not sweet" is a great descriptor.

BUT, they outshoot everything KImber puts out...for less money....

My buddy's son shot a 197# buck using my .243 loaded with a Barnes 85 grain bullet. The deer ran 50 yards and dropped but it took a couple minutes for it to die. The top of the heart was hit as well as the lungs. The deer died and all but what bothered me was there was no blood trail. As long as a boiler room hit happens it will work without fail but Ive decided to stay with larger calibers as I prefer a blood trail. The areas that I hunt are typically full of brush so even if my aim is true I can suffer a deflection. Loaded up some .358 win's today for my last weekend of rifle season. YMMV

Several yars back I shot a few with the 243 and just couldnt take a liking to it. No blood trail or very little blood trail. Those were with 95 bergers, and they ran a long ways after being drilled. May have to get another one and try the 80 TTSX, but I just cant seem to put down the 7-08 long enough to even shoot a 22lr anymore. If you want two holes and blood and a heirloom, get a marlin or winchester 30-30 and run a flat nose 170 through them with little recoil and muzzle blast. I'd say the 30-30 is the original kids rifle and i bet it still works quite well.

I've put 12 gauge slugs through deer and had them leave no blood trail. Guess I need a bigger gun.

Wow you sure can pass judgment can't you. How many deer have you found in the dark (they were shot at dusk) with no blood trail in very thick cover? I have taken probably 80-100 deer in the last 26 years and only lost three. I would say that's a d*** good record.

Mark in GA

Don't find any in the dark. We use lights.

Considering the evidence from your keyboard, you've made judgement easy and certain. I know you impress yourself, but losing deer that a 10 year old would find does not easily impress others...

Suspecting the cartridge is too blame is beautiful in so many ways.

That sounds like it may be a novel idea it certain locales in GA; he's impressed himself more than once...

Dissing on a long known great deer cartridge with a tremendous history and reputation is not a great way to endear onesself or impress folks.

There was atime, not so long ago, when folks took a ponderous leveraction in 40-65 or some such, with a steel buttplate no less, deer hunting. Some were very slow to accept the 30/30 and later 300 Savage etc. as reliable big game rounds. Times and ammunition change, and largely for the better. Today, 2223's and 243' are not only adequate, they are quite wonderful within thier ranging parameters. Out past 300 or so yards I like an uberfast 25, but I quit using 30 cals on deer a couple of decades ago. Such large bullets and recoil are just no longer needed.

Well duh I assumed you guys had enough sense to know we use lights. Still flashlights and small spot lights in a deep thicket only help so much. Its nice to see we can discuss things on a mature level here. Anyway, this doesn't add anything to the original discussion.

Mark in GA

Actually I don't see anywhere I dissed the 243. I said it didn't work so great for me. If you read back through all I have said on this tread I think you will see where I freely admitted that it may work great for others or in other situations.

In the end this forum is supposed to be about sharing experiences and opinions. I guess differing opinions or experiences are now taboo?

Man you guys are touchy about this. You mentioned leverguns. I have used several including 30-30, 35 Rem, 45-70, 44 Mag, and a 357 Mag. All worked just fine.

Mark in GA

I would totally agree with safari's view on this. I, together with a friend, have used our 243 with complete success on all manner of game and all I would stipulate is to have confidence in your ability (shot placement) as well as using a good bullet. We use either the Barnes Vor-Tx factory loads (80 gr ttsx) or 100 grain factory Winchester Super X or Federal Power shok loads.
Whats great about the 243 is that it doesnt kick the [bleep] out of you!!!

Gus

You left the door ..cracked.

Carrying a flashlight, much less being able to wield a flashlight, is far from a certainty; without pics I remain skeptical of your claim. From the tenor of your previous posts I'll only assume that the most basic of skills reside in your repertoire and being able to tie your shoes isn't among them Se�or Bumpo.

Thickets do add to the dilemma, but I've rarely had an animal run when shot from bayonet range and if they do I know who's fault it is. Again, recovering an animal is not rocket science and when they die within 300 feet of bloodshed it's a dead certainty with me. Of course I possess an unfair advantage in so much as I know what I'm doing.

As to adding to the original discussion, my point is that you have none. As to the question of the ability of .243 cartridges, all in the know readily admit that they slay beasts easily and regularly that are much larger than GA whitetails. Any perceived lack in effectiveness is a derivative of user inadequacies, not innate qualities of the cartridge. Here endeth the lesson.

406, you sound a LOT like Big Stick in that post. INteresting....

More than a lot......

Certainly not intentional on my part, but in my defense MarkinGA is very similar to those that BS hooks again & again & again...

Well 406_SBC at least I know you can't read with comprehension or not very well anyway. If you could you would have noticed in my early post that the blood trail completely stopped after 10-20 yds. That leaves another 80+ yards with zero blood trail, at night, with flashlight, in head high brush. Maybe you could have found them maybe not. I don't know to many people who call a shot at 45-50 yards in low light bayonet range either. Close range for sure, but bayonet range would be a lot closer than that.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about me, my knowledge, and the events under discussion without knowing me and your implied assertion that you know everything and that you pretty much never have deer run is just bunk. I have witnessed many deer shot with very powerful rounds (up to 300 Win Mag) in the lungs, heart, and shoulder and still sometimes they run. Some of them even made it well over than 100 yards. One time a buddy hit one solidly with a 130 270 Win that made it nearly 250 yds. Blood was everywhere, and there was MAJOR damage to the deer's vitals. Still it made a very long run.

My point is that when everything is perfect they still can run sometimes. To say otherwise because you think you know everything or believe you can work magic with a rifle is just foolishness.

Your assertion that the 243 kills animals larger than deer is a fallacy. I never said it wouldn't kill them. A 22 can kill them with the right shot so a 243 clearly can get the job done. Thousands of deer falling to it over the last 50 years proves that. My point all along it that I had a couple instances of no blood trail with a 243. It clearly killed the deer. My experience in some very specific conditions just wasn't great. I will conceed that it could have been a bullet problem.
I just expect and/or desire a decent blood trail and didn't get one in my admittedly small sample. Larger calibers have provided more consistant blood trails for me so I am more confortable with them. That's why we are all free to choose what we like.

We can agree to disagree I guess.

Mark in GA

I do not need to make assumptions; your posts provide enough "facts" to keep the record straight. As for my reading comprehension, most recognize I was using a metaphor, but that obviously passed right by you.

No one is arguing that animals can't run after hit, even with lethal hits. My issue with your entrance into the fray is this, if the deer runs less than 300 feet and doesn't disappear into the quicksand, I promise you that I am going to find him within a fairly short time span with no blood trail at all and the poorest of lights.

Let me say it plainly, neither the cartridge nor the bullet can be accused of failure in the case of your lost deer. The fact that you didn't recover them was incidental to your shooting them with a .243. This fact no doubt pisses you off, but fact it is nonetheless. Your experience has ZERO bearing on the effectiveness of the .243 Winchester on whitetails. Your experience does establish several things though I realize that you'll not admit to what they do establish. Doubtless you disagree with this fact and believe that anyone claiming to be more capable than you requires "magic." Competency appears like "magic" to many, but to those of us that are competent it is viewed as a normal condition derived from hard work and the application of prudence. Of course the imprudent can offer no other retort than "to disagree."

Wanna guess where the 60 th parallel is?

PANAMA!!

Try again.. Should I make it multiple choice?

I started out hunting with a .243 but later migrated up to the various 7mm and .30 magnums. The area I hunt the most is wide open and the wind tends to blow so the extra grains seemed to help. My .243 was my first rifle so it was never in any danger of going anywhere but it also became a safe queen. Fast forward to this year and my 8 year old son is ready to hunt. After adding an additional 25-06 and 7mm-08 to the stable in anticipation of this year (and my wife beginning to hunt as well) I ultimately decided to rig up the old Weatherby .243 for him. The decision was partly based on nostalgia as I thought it fitting to kill his first deer with the same gun I did, but what I'd read about the effectiveness of the Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets out of the .243 sealed the deal.

I rigged up the rifle with a Knoxx Axiom stock for a few reasons: 1.) The Claro Walnut Weatherby stock is way to pretty to hunt with 2.) The Axiom stock has length of pull adjustable from about 11.5-14" with the push of a lever 3.) The Axiom has two built in recoil dampeners that make kick a non-factor in this caliber. The plan came full circle when the Barnes Vor-tx 80 gr. TTSX loads grouped into a nice 5/8" triangle adding the confidence of sub-MOA accuracy to the effectiveness of the TTSX.

On our first hunt of the year no shooter bucks presented themselves for "L" but he did get the chance to take a doe. He squeezed off a shot right behind the shoulder as she quartered away feeding and I honestly don't believe a deer can die any more quickly or humanely. Her head literally bounced off the ground she dropped so hard. I was very thankful it worked out like it did as I don't know how he would have dealt with it if she'd ran off or suffered visably. As it where he did a great job and was very excited and proud yet respectful of the animal he'd taken. It wasn't much of a test for the bullet as she wasn't a big deer nor was the range impressive but seeing what that little pill did as it zipped through her made a believer out of me.

We have another hunt planned for Thanksgiving week and I am now contemplating whether or not I need to bring one of my usual rifles or if I will just use the .243 should an opportunity arise. My 270 WSM with 140 gr. Accubonds has been a death ray and I have a new '06 that needs to be hunted but the newfound vigor of the .243 has me impressed and intrigued as to how it will do on a bigger target further downrange.

nice!!!! is that sitka?

All the deer my wife has shot with her 243 have dropped right quickly. She just uses the old Partition and it leaves a good blood trail, but can't say we've ever had to look for one. We grow some pretty big corn fed deer here in NE too.

I wouldn't be afraid of Remington or the caliber for deer as some are here. That Model 7 CDL is a great looking gun!

270

Pick up a Remington youth model 700 in whatever caliber suits you. Really, just pick a rifle set up for youth use. I'd suggest a 700 as it will likely be easier to find a good aftermarket or take-off stock when your youngest outgrows the youth stock. How the rifle balances is a very big deal as having too much weight forward really makes it tough for the smaller youths. My girls really prefer to shoot my Nylon 66 over all my other .22's, despite the adult size length of pull, because of the low weight on the support hand.
On the Kimber: nice rifles but do you want to cut down the stock for youth use?

That were a funny one, weren't it...

Steel head,
I think the other Alaska person (I think he's from there) that was dissin my savage 99's may have been Bigstick. My apology for confusing you for another poster.
I like the 99 pics! hey have the sex appeal of a classic pin-up girl where your bolt actions may be more like a peirced tattoo covered stripper... (nice to look at, but probably wouldn't take home to mom...)


H

the .243 makes for a whale of a hunting rifle for a guy who travels and takes a rifle with him... it was my "go to" for most of my hunting days...

and it's a great rifle to start new hunters with... they'll be able to shoot it confidently and really get comfortable with it, and it will do anything that needs doing on most game... and that includes any white tail or mule deer out there...

if you want to watch deer fall where they are shot, a fast traveling, fast expanding bullet is the place to start... think .243 and 90 speer spitzer or 85 sierra bthp...
most of the deer shot with these bullets, and there've been a few, fell dead or made one jump and fell. and these bullets exit well, as a rule... if they don't exit, they likely hit bone, and the result will be a deer falling where he was electrocuted shot...

when i started hunting, any loading manuals that listed the .250 savage or the .257 roberts carried them in the section labeled "obsolete cartridges".
and they were are probably two of the best deer cartridges ever designed, but the .243 is what obsoleted them...

To be honest, 25 years ago, when the only .243 cartridges we could find (locally) were in a green box, I hated the round. They were notorious for not exiting, and if the animal didn't DRT, a tough track usually followed. Like others have stated, with a good shot, the animal was usually dead within a short distance, but the point was...I was the one that had to leave whatever I was doing to find it, or worse yet, listen to the story about how they missed, knowing full well they hit the critter but didn't locate it. The first words out of my mouth when they asked to help were "Not a .243 huh?".

Good bullets have really improved the performance of the .243 on game, unfortunately, inept hunters still abound.

Those'd be my choices as well. Or even a used push-feed 70 Fwt.

The .243 and its kissing cousin the 6MM Remington are fine deer rifles.

Between the two of them my uncle and my dad have killed several hundred whitetails near and far with these rounds. Neither one ever had any issues making meat.

Thanks to some nuero-muscular issues I am having that preclude me from toting a heavier rifle I will be using using my .243 Tikka T3 stoked with 95 grain Ballistic Tips.

If the deer will cooperate I have no worries about filling my tags.

Hillbilly: the 243 with 95gr ballistic tips won't work on big game. Wait...

I have lost only one animal, a whitetail. It was shot with a 50cal flintlock running past me at mach 1. There was a good blood trail for the first fifty yards, but I made the rookie mistake of not giving it a half hour to lay down before tracking it. It was dusk when shot, and quite thick bush.

The next day we got a friend;s blood hound to track it and the track led into a fairly large river.

Unpleasant things happen when we hunt. I still feel badly about that buck, but understand that it is not necessarily lack of skill or experience that is the cause. At the time I had been harvesting game for more than 40 years. It has been 50 years now of hunting and that one lost deer still bothers me.

Mark in GA take heart and don;t let the armchair quarterbacks upset you.

Randy

If you have trouble tracking and it is made even tougher by head high grass, why are you taking shots in low light conditions that will lead to trouble finding blood?

I think you are one of the armchair QB's he was talking about.

Stuff happens. Sometimes you just can't find 'em. However...if you later find 'em DEAD within 100 yards...the caliber and bullet were completely up to the task at hand. If you want 'em dead quicker, put the hole somewhere else, instead of trying to put a bigger hole in the same place.

Evidently the Muley and the Pronghorn didn't get the memo on the .243.


Those are two very nice critters. How much did that Muley weigh?

so, are you guyz saying I should not get a 243 for deer?

Thanks. I have no idea what he weighed. He was one of the largest bodied mulies I have taken though. Going to send in his teeth for aging because I believe he is very old. A little over 200yd shot.

He is a big one. It makes my back hurt just thinking about dragging that critter.

Depends if the deer can handle recoil. If so, give him a .300 Mag...if not, the deer Will just have to use better bullets and pick shots more carefully.

No dragging, quartered him up, and packed him out on packframe. No problem...

The 243 = no recoil, flat shooting, and bang-flops on deer. If that doesn't interest you, then don't get a 243.

Mr Gradous sure will be disappointed when I tell him I returned all those fancy parts and pieces. On second thought, I will keep them

And the similar 6mm Remmy with the 100 gr Partition won't work on 30" Paunsagunt mulies. Wait...

NICE buck there! AND really cool rifle/chambering combo. I have used the 6mm Remmy some and have a new one (to me, someone else did the build) in the safe in 6mmAI. Planning to run 85gr Sierra's on yotes and 85gr TSX's on deer or larger game.

Agreed - as w/any round - use proper bullets thru vitals.

Folks, I hear this OVER and OVER and at one time had my doubts that a 243 is 'light'...if you are comparing bullet weights unfired true.

That said, HOW many times 7/08 fans rave on their 120gr death rays on deer. Ironically, I have a recovered (2) 120gr Hornday SP, from a 7BR rifle kills, under 50 yd shot thru shoulder, each deer ran about 60 yds.....bullet....AFTER impact....weighs 58 and 86 gr. One .50 another about .45 diameter expanded.

Now, I have a 150 partition fired stem to stern thru a Mulie from a 270 at 2850mv at 275 yds, AFTER recovery? 88 grains!

708 deer kill, 30 yds, throat to guts...the 140 Sierra BTSP now weighs 89 grains. Hmmmmmmmm, want another...

A 338/06 200 ballistic tip, raking ribs thru shoulder stopping under the hide.......NOW weighs 135 AFTER done.

That last kill, jumped 3 leaps and down, another buck at 200 yds, SAME load, hit in neck/shoulder juncture - DRT.

YET, a smallish buck, broadside at 40 yds, took one THRU both lungs, exiting silver dollar and pumping blood everywhere, YET he ran about 100 yds.......that shocked me BUT it's not uncommon when hitting a small animal w/a relatively tough bullet w/alot of energy, ALOT goes OUT the exit end, as there is not as much resistance/animal mass to completely absorb the POTENTIAL energy transfer from the KINETIC energy that gets wasted on exit.

Folks, we are talking about 3,500 FOOT Lbs of ENERGY at muzzle, and almost as much at that close range, and the deer ran 100 yds......is the 338/06 200 BT load TOO small and light? I think not. In fact, I KNOW not. Sometimes animals just run, IMHO depending on damage done and how much energy is actually transferred staying INSIDE the animal.

BTW, the 338/06 was doing 2910mv w/200s...fwiw.

MY Point, the 243/105 speer? Not bad running 100 yds, but I'd venture if the shooter used a 95 BT or an 80-85 Barnes, EITHER would go from DRT to 60 yds max based on my experience...assuming proper shot placement.

OH, what about a 243 bullet AFTER hit? Click on the link below, see the bullet, 85 XBT before.....and 85 grains AFTER AND DRT Nice Hog at 240 yds......oh, frontal area? .50 same as the 7mm 120s above.

IF an 85 Barnes from a 243 ends up as much as even a 150 Partition that shed it's front half going end to end thru a Mulie, and expands as much frontal area as a 7mm 120, then someone PLEASE tell me the 243 is TOO small, and TOO light.

It is NOT, if used with proper bullets.

95 BTs
80/85 Barnes
90 Swift SSII

and MANY others have proven themselves, but all bets off if hits are marginal.

As always, SHOT placement is Rule #1, THRU Vitals, not just hair/hide.

Now back to the link w/Barnes before and after complete w/pics of the bullet.

This kill TOTALLY changed my opinion of a 243s capabilities, as it drilled onside shoulder, wrecked lungs, broke and drilled OFFSIDE shoulder, and ALMOST exited, at 240 yds.....NOT a whimp round w/a good bullet. Hogs are built stout vs a deer IMO.

95 BTs have killed Elk, Nilgai, and more, and Barnes and Partitions have taken Elk and Bear, and likely Moose.

A 243 is TOO small ONLY if one is not willing to shoot THRU vitals with a capable bullet.

BTW, I have killed deer DRT w/a 357 rifle...lots less energy than a 243.

Scroll down this link for those who have not seen it..

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ger_1_International_Who_has_#Post3091822

Don't care. I use a .243 and can track a deer more than 300 feet.

This is an interesting thread, and I find it a little surprising - although I shouldn't - the 243 discussion gives rise to opinions of political proportions...

I don't have a Kimber Classic in 243, but do have a Montana 84M in 243 (and maybe a few others...grin) and have a fair bit of experience with them.

I like the 243 extremely well and find it very capable on critters from varmints to deer, and I really enjoy the combination of versatility and capability it offers - especially with the mild recoil and handling of a 243 Montana.

I also appreciate the laser flat trajectory.

Like any cartridge that is flat shooting - speed helps it get there.

One of the things about speed is that it can be hard on bullets. Any fast, flat cartridge may demonstrate poor bullet performance with bullets which are not tough enough, and the 243 is no different.

Quality bullets which both penetrate well and expand properly have made the 243 capable of performance which rivals cartridges with much more recoil, and have made it very effective on critters like these...

This buck took an 85 TSX out of a Faux Ti 243 through both shoulders - bullet exited and he ran maybe 70 yards.





The beauty of the 243 is that experienced shooters perform better with less recoil...and less experienced shooters can handle it with far more ease than big recoiling rounds...

Shooters like my daughter on her first big buck...



This one fell to an 80g Hornady GMX - their version of the Barnes TTSX...

She shot this buck at nearly 300 yards - after shooting quite a few does and a spike or two. Again - in behind near shoulder and out through off shoulder and an 80-100 yard run with a good blood trail.

When a cartridge offers this kind of performance in such an easy to shoot package, it helps us shoot better and enjoy it more - and it opens the door to those who can't shoot the boomers as well - especially young and less experienced shooters.

There are lots of good cartridges - the best let us put a quality bullet where it needs to be with consistency -- and the 243 is way up the list in doing that IMHO.

It may have been a little fast for some of the lesser quality bullets of yesterday, but there's not much reason not to love it today.

DJ

well said

you should admit its easier to track deer in the foliage free minnesota woods compared to our friends in georgia thick lush green forest.

It may be easier, but 300 feet is 300 feet and I'm going to recover that deer regardless of the terrain. That's not being an armchair QB, that's a simple fact.

Well, I have to say that I did not think I would start a firestorm just asking about the .243 Winchester. I like the idea of the Winchester Mod 70 Featherweight. I remember looking at one several years ago and it was very nice. I just prefer wood over synthetic and it is very nicely cut and checkered. The idea of a minimal cartridge is appealing. Having been into shooting for about 40+ years, I turned to hunting to get more enjoyment of the outdoors and getting the right shot within that small window of opportunity. Punching paper just does not do it for me. When you learn how to make the shot, it is with no small degree of satisfaction when everything has to come together in a matter of a few seconds. So I'll work with this info and think seriously about putting a .243 in the arsenal.

A model 70 Featherweight in 243 makes for one fine hunting rig. About the perfect match. Don't have one, but would sure like to. Have a good friend that's a WWII vet and when he started deer hunting in the early 60's he bought a Model 88 in 243 and hasn't looked back. Still hunting and to my knowledge has never lost a deer. He's still a crack shot.

Not a bad idea at all...I like it too.
Any time somebody suggests that a .243 or similar cartridge is inadequate for deer, you just have to wonder...WTF???

Ya..ya... Everyone is a legend in their backyard, their mind, and on the internet. "Simple facts" get clouded away from the keyboard and in the real world.

Yes it is. It is pretty rare when I don't hunt in bogs, swamps, and cedar swamps though. Pretty thick. I also bow hunt, when there is a lot of foilage.

I have lost a deer, I'll also admit to that. It was a bad hit on my part, not the fault of the weapon. I'll also admit to that. I'll also admit that we followed it for two days and have many man hours on it.

Here's mine waiting for action on opening day this year.


Just so you can see how nice and open it is, in this neck of the woods, here is a shot from a few minutes after the above is posted. The land is the ONLY thing that is not thick.

Where is the 3rd pic? No tag?

Btw, DJ, nice pic, good thing you had spots on that fawn as to find it

I don't try converting people to a 243, but I believe many shooters need to become aware of just what DJ said, bullet technology has changed the performance envelope of many rounds, even smallish 22 centerfires.

The 120gr 7BR kills where both ran 60 yds, it was THICK, and I had no blood to follow, but as above, if a deer is w/in 100 yds or so which is usually on the outer range of how far they go when lung shot with ANY round, they can be found.

A grid search w/no blood trail, esp. going in the direction they last traveled, and if possible listening to where they fall, and often going into the thickest brush they can choose to run, is how I found mine.

Shy of a CNS hit, many deer can run from 30-100 yds but often not much further when properly hit w/any sane round. Finding with or without a blood trail is a matter of perseverance and patience.

I hit one w/a 140 BT from a 7TCU at 30 yds, using a fireforming load of 2,000 fps....drops of blood here and there, took an hour, but 100 yds later, found my buck.

If I wanted a blood gushing trail, use a 338 Federal, 358 Win, 350 RM, 444 Marlin, or 450, in thick woods. It will ENTER large so you get 2 large holes.

Me, I quit worrying about the fear of no trails, and just make sure I 'shoot em good' and everything else takes care of itself.

Tzone - I hunt similar northern MN country and its not real hard tracking during the fall rifle season even among the thick popple trees. If you don't see blood or hair right away, you just have to follow the disturbed leaves & soil made by a running deer until you see the blood. The brush is still open enough you can do the circle trick too. Early season bow hunting presents more challenge and arrows don't create quite the same wound channel, but your critisms at people we're based on rifle wounds and you need to limit you argument to that.
The thing you're not picking up is other regions where its a wall of green foliage, grass, and kudzoo that its hard to pick up a initial bloodtrail. A larger caliber can help by getting a larger wound channel flowing more blood immediatly if the deer runs off. I think it would be a pain recovering deer in regions where close range buck shot shooting and tracking dogs are common practice. Open your mind up to different settings and stop accusing people of being a poor hunter because it doesn't fall into your experience set.
Respectfully,
Humdinger

EXACTLY, that is what is great about the internet, one day you can bust somebodys balls for losing a deer when you can track a deer through anything, then the next day admit you could not track your own deer. Since he was not found who knows, maybe he only went 250'? I had a real hard time tracking my sons bull this year with no blood, with no blood and the right ground conditions it can be almost impossible to track an animal, I don't care how good you THINK you are.

If you don't find a blood trail, and you hit the animal...keep looking 'til you find the animal. Strip and grid search, concentric circles, whatever it takes. It ain't gonna be pleasant or easy, but you owe it to the animal to recover it. I know it's easer to type this than to do it, but it's what should be done. Sometimes you still may not find 'em, but I think a lot of folks give up too soon. I have no idea how long or hard the gentleman who's catching flak spent looking, so I'm not going to pass any judgement. My opinion is it ain't the caliber that lost the deer in this case, though, as it was dead within 100 yards.

Harder doesn't mean impossible.

Agree, but would add check even if unsure of a hit. On the bull I mentioned above he had no reaction to being hit and we did not find any blood for a long ways.

Not everyone, most especially some of our forums members in GA. Finding a deer within 300 feet is far from legendary--though you're closer to the call than you'd expect. It's something I have/will again entrust to a couple of seven year old boys; accepting nothing less than success on their part. To suggest this is difficult or legendary is priceless. Keep 'em coming.

MarkinGA said he lost two deer shot with a .243 with one traveling 45-50 yards the other 100. He found them later with the help of vultures and such. He stated this as a fact. My rub with him is that not finding these deer reflect on his woodsmanship to such a degree as to entirely discount his opinion on any and all points contributing to hunting. Some guys can't hunt, some can't shoot, some can't read and others cannot do any of these things. Finding a deer in 300 feet is not an Olympic event. How many boobs are going to defend this kind of incompetence? How many are going to listen to his expertise? I will say that those agree that in some places you can't recover a deer that succumbs to death within 300 feet are proving their own prowess...

What's with all this "tracking" talk? You guys using bullets or arrows?

I've read that the .243 'burns barrels' faster than many other cartridges. Not sure why, or the extent to which that is true, however, I did find it a bit off putting.

And where in my post did I defend him/it? You are correct, some can not read.

Original topic seems to have gotten lost. Here is what he was asking.

270

What does your statement "one day you can bust somebodys balls for losing a deer when you can track a deer through anything" mean? Losing a deer in 300 feet only comes from an idiot, an incompetent idiot at that. No ball busting, just reiterating the obvious to any and all in the know. There are too few "in the know"...

In that case, again I say Kimber Classic or Win Featherweight.

I didn't say he was a poor hunter. but if you can't find a deer after 50 yards then another after 100.... He dug his own hole.

When you think about it, how fast can a human run 100 yds? 10-11 seconds? I'd say a deer will cover that in 1/2 the time.

Running 'dead' for 4-5 seconds is about it....assuming they are properly ventilated

Now if your good enough and have the shot, and not long range, a neck/shoulder juncture shot is a great one, any caliber, and drilling both shoulders w/a copper bullet i.e. Barnes, will not leave one worrying about eating lead. Just a thought.

I know George of GA Precision shoots the 243 in his match tactical guns.

His opinion matters to me.

Oh,

and anyone wanting to sell your 243 Montana because the 243 sux and the Montanas are all "junk" PM me with your needs. I think I can help.

Actually for the sake of accuracy, my post said one made it 75-80 yards and the other around 100. When the shots were fired they were around 50 yds away.


Mark in GA

Thanks for the clarification. I misquoted you in one of my posts on the actual distances.

10-4.

Wow, those pics are fantastic, especially the moose! I have a dream of a retirement hunting cabin. Maybe I'll think about MN or Maine. Is Maine warmer?;-)

MN is beautiful state but I don't think I'll retire here. Maine is probably warmer.

MarkinGA,

I know exactly what you are talking about and have tried to explain it to others before. A guy who hunts out west simply cannot fathom the heat and the wet nasty swamps and briars that exist in south Georia (I used to be stationed at Fort Steward and that is one swampy, nasty place).

I used to a use a 25-06 on S.C. whitetails but had 2-3 very hard tracking jobs due to very poor bloodtrails - much more skimpy than the .270, 30-06 and 7mm had left in years past. I don't know why the blood trails were smaller, but they were - sometimes non-existent. I killed 13 deer the year I used the 25-06 but the 2-3 skimpy bloodtrails were enough to cause me to switch at the end of the year. The S.S. deer season starts in August and humidity is very high. Deer have to be found quickly and it's no fun searching in a hot, steamy swamp with mosquitios all over you. I ended up bumping up my caliber to .264 winchester with 140 grain bullets and the probably was definitly solved.

Why use a .243 in your type of conditions when you can get much better performance on game with a 7mm-08 with basically the same recoil?

A hundred yards in south Georia may as well be a mile without any blood to follow.

I know people compare and place blame on headstamps when they don't get DRTs, but remember, it's what HITS the deer and WHERE.

What bullet were you using on the deer in that 25-06?

The BEST blood trails I have seen in hunting videos did not come from bullets. But Broadheads

No matter WHAT You shoot, use a good bullet, thru vitals.

I grew up in the Carolinas and hunted from the mountains to the coast. I know of the thickets/jungles/swamps that are common to the area. 300 feet is child's play. If I have to cover every square foot without the advantage of a blood trail I'll find the deer in under an hour. Not occasionally, but every single time. I'm not saying that every shot deer is recoverable, but if it doesn't travel more than a 100 yards there is only one reason to not recover the deer--you didn't look.

Maybe our deer are different or I'm used to archery but even when our TN deer don't bleed well they still drag feet kick leaves etc.....I don't get not finding them when they only go a couple hundred yards?