Try and convince me the 243 is actually useful

[mauser98]

I know that I've helped track two blacktail bucks, which are small deer, that a friend of mine shot with his .243. We didn't get them. After he switched to a .30-96 and 7mm RM it never happened again.

A lot of cape buffalo have died after being shot with the .303 Brit or 7x57. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Choose the right bullet with good velocity and with proper shot placement and you'll have game on the ground in no time.

Same can be said for a 30-06 or 7mm rem mag. Choose a light for caliber varmint or plinking bullet and you'll have flesh wounds occuring with very little penetration, choose a hard 175/200/220gr bullet at lower velocities and you could have very little expansion take place which both can make for a long tracking job or lost animal.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

In the 90’s when big magnums were all the rage, I was looking for a rifle that I could shoot comfortably. The .243 fit the bill for the type of medium distances I would expect to shoot.

After considering my options, it dawned on me, if you shoot a deer in the ass, it doesn’t matter what cartridge you’re using, you just shot a deer in the ass.

So, I shoot them in the heart/lung region at appropriate angles (meaning not in the ass to get there) and have seen every deer shot fall within sight. I use 95 and 100 grain bullets, works great.

I know that I've helped track two blacktail bucks, which are small deer, that a friend of mine shot with his .243. We didn't get them. After he switched to a .30-96 and 7mm RM it never happened again.

A lot of cape buffalo have died after being shot with the .303 Brit or 7x57. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Choose the right bullet with good velocity and with proper shot placement and you'll have game on the ground in no time.

Same can be said for a 30-06 or 7mm rem mag. Choose a light for caliber varmint or plinking bullet and you'll have flesh wounds occuring with very little penetration, choose a hard 175/200/220gr bullet at lower velocities and you could have very little expansion take place which both can make for a long tracking job or lost animal.

Actually, I misstated this when I wrote it.It was two different hunters . They were both using 109 grain bullets ( I asked) but I don't remember the maker or makers. It was enough to convince me I didn't want a .243.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Well Bob Nelson, are you convinced now?

@CBH Australia
NO
Bob

 

[Flbt]

In the 90’s when big magnums were all the rage, I was looking for a rifle that I could shoot comfortably. The .243 fit the bill for the type of medium distances I would expect to shoot.

After considering my options, it dawned on me, if you shoot a deer in the ass, it doesn’t matter what cartridge you’re using, you just shot a deer in the ass.

Well they were not shot in the ass they were shot in the chest and the bullets came out the
Ass.
30-06 220 gr corlock
338 win 300gr sp
45-70 405 gr rem jsp
358w 250gr sp

So they very well could have been shot ass to chest.

And one guy lucky with his first buck a 117gr 25-06 that Cought a artery in the ass and did not make it out of the clover

 

[mauser98]

Actually, I misstated this when I wrote it.It was two different hunters . They were both using 109 grain bullets ( I asked) but I don't remember the maker or makers. It was enough to convince me I didn't want a .243.

Sounds about right in that they were using a rapid expanding target/vld bullet. 105-110 gr class of bullet are usually rapid expanding long range bullets intended for long range. Close range shots will result in erratic bullet behavior.

I've learned early on it's not the chambering but the bullet that ends up being more of an issue. For example. I had a 6.5x55 shooting 140 Sierra game Kings at a modest 2650 fps. Hit a large buck right on the shoulder blade around 40 yards and the buck dropped but got back up, needed a couple more follow ups to finish him. Upon skinning the buck I found lead fragments from the bullet failing to penetrate the blade. Happened again on another buck on a quartering shot, failed to enter the virals. That was enough for me to stop using the bullet. Was the cartridge chosen a poor choice, no. Was the bullet a bad choice? In theory no. Known to be a good bullet but in that case it failed. Perhaps it was a bad batch of bullets, it definitely gave me insight to choose a stouter bullet for closer shots and keep the soft ones for longer ranges as they were intended to be used. Haven't had an issue since changing the bullet.

 

[UpNorthMI]

I think the .243 has it's place, I hunted regularly with one for several decades in the UK, it was a great culling rifle for roe deer in open hill territory (100 grain bullets), I shot quite a few red hinds and calves with the .243 with good effect. My other key use was fox shooting with Sierra's 60gn varmint bullet #1500, this ammunition was super accurate with devastating damage & stopping power .

In my opinion the .243 lacks in stopping / knock down power for woodland deer (fallow, white tail) and larger deer (red stag). As with anything bullet placement matters, but in general I feel a lot more comfortable with a larger caliber (7mm, .30 caliber etc). My .243 has not seen a lot of action in recent years as I've moved to .223 for foxes, roe, muntjac and Chinese water deer in the UK.

 

[colorado]

In the 90’s when big magnums were all the rage, I was looking for a rifle that I could shoot comfortably. The .243 fit the bill for the type of medium distances I would expect to shoot.

After considering my options, it dawned on me, if you shoot a deer in the ass, it doesn’t matter what cartridge you’re using, you just shot a deer in the ass.

So, I shoot them in the heart/lung region at appropriate angles (meaning not in the ass to get there) and have seen every deer shot fall within sight. I use 95 and 100 grain bullets, works great.

I almost bought a BDL in 7mm Rem Mag in 1968. It was all the rage, but it was longer and heavier than the BDL in 270 Win. I never felt undergunned with my 270 on elk or bears. Of course after shooting my brown bear in Alaska in 2011 with my 375 H&H at 13 yards I was thinking I should've brought my 500 Jeffery. Not as immortal now as I was at 19 in Montana.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

In the 90’s when big magnums were all the rage, I was looking for a rifle that I could shoot comfortably. The .243 fit the bill for the type of medium distances I would expect to shoot.

After considering my options, it dawned on me, if you shoot a deer in the ass, it doesn’t matter what cartridge you’re using, you just shot a deer in the ass.

So, I shoot them in the heart/lung region at appropriate angles (meaning not in the ass to get there) and have seen every deer shot fall within sight. I use 95 and 100 grain bullets, works great.

There is a YouTube channel called Mason Outdoors, if I recall correctly. His thing is shooting various calibers and ammo into ballistic gel at 100y and filming the affect, penetration depth, wound channels, expansion and weight retention. While ballistic gel is not flesh it is a decent relative comparison of which bullets hold together, and which expand and penetrate best. Below is a description from memory that may not be 100% but gives the gist of the story. If you want the whole story go look up the videos.

On one of his more educational videos, he compared 243, 308 and 30-06 and in another 7mm mag and 300WM all with the Federal Fusion bonded ammo. These are known to expand to about 2.5x but not necessarily penetrate the most. What struck me was that the itty bitty 243 penetrated within an inch of the other two and all of them penetrated about 24" more or less. From then on, my view of the 243 changed. If you want to use it to shoot larger game instead of gophers, choosing a quality bonded or copper bullet like the Fusion or the Barnes TSX will greatly improve penetration and terminal effects.

The same channel showed the Federal Fusion 180g in 308 to only penetrate about 24" as well. That sound like not enough for big game but when I used that ammo on African PG, every shot was a pass-thru and every shot resulted in a one-shot kill. Even with a 202y shot on a Gemsbok. I was more than impressed with it. As for 243, I consider it OK for deer and Pronghorn but a bit light for larger game. Most rifles in 243 lack enough twist to stabilize bullets above 100g. My Sako loves the 75-80g range but shoots the other OK.

 

[tward1604]

The only animal that didn't drop on the spot when shot with my 243 was a coyote shot somewhere just over a couple hundred yards with an 80 grain Barnes TTSX. He started spinning in circles and a quick follow-up put him down.

I don't know how many pigs and deer here in Texas I've killed with it but its a fair amount. At one point in 2012 or 2013 all I could find was Hornady reduced recoil ammo (no time to reload while I was active duty). Flew back home for leave and went out on a hunt with my dad. He shot a doe and a couple pigs that weekend. Went on for weeks about how hot the loads were and how they just dropped everything before I finally let him know they were 87 grain reduced recoil loads.

 

[tward1604]

I do wish Sierra would bring back the old 105 grain round nose bullets.

 

[CBH Australia]

Bob,
I got to wondering why it is only the .243 that you are hating on.
I think back to when I was younger and much funner but broke. I was shooting at a young age and reading about guns and dreaming of hunting everything and what guns might be useful. Somewhere in there I think I had a desire to have a Take Down bolt action Classic looking hunting rifle and I also thought I wanted a REM 700 Sendero .300wm

Now I owned a .22 and always thought a .22mag was close so the next step was a .222 (yes I’m that old or from that era) The logic was based if you could only have have a small selection based on budget etc.

As we know the .223 is popular now and is often used outside its size as an all rounder come hunting rifle and has possibly been used on every game animals the country offers even if it’s not suitable or permitted.

So nowadays I think a .22mag or .17hmr would be nice to have if I got out enough to use it but if I’m spotlighting I’m probably just using a .223 because I have it.

As things progressed I got a .22-250 at a good price and make use of it. Now it is a bit bigger than the .223 but still a .22 calibre. Not as big as a .243 case for capacity and just .019 thousandth’s of an inch in diameter smaller than a .243 cal. Well, maybe the .22-250 should be thrown in the “Neither Fish nor Foul” category too.

So a .243 is only 14 thousandths smaller than a .257 cal so what’s the big turnaround? A 6mm or n a bigger case could be fast and flat and still run on the heavy end of it’s spectrum it should be effective.

Why split the difference between .243 and .257 when the .264 (6.5) exists? Different countries etc I know but it’s splitting hairs if we go it’s 7 thousandths bigger and we all know a Creedmoor is so much better.

I’m sure there are Wildcats and lesser known factory rounds out there running various calibres but if the .25-06 is good a 6.5 projectile in a -06 case is probably better and has more projectile variants more readily available.

If the evolution of cartridge design were to start over would we need so many calibre options? The .14, .17, .20 were all done and the .17rem did one thing well and .177 slug guns are great trainers.

Many years ago I formed an opinion that the 7mm-08 would be versatile for Australia. In part based on it being a short action round that exceeds the .270” diameter requirement for some hunting requirements.

Probably 25 years later I had one but not in a true short action or hunting rifle. This was after owning several .308 rifles for hunting trading each one along except the last.

I like the 7mm cartridges but think the 7mm Backcountry is another that I don’t need but it is designed with around a optimising the cartridge in short actions and short barrels. Like the Winchester Short magnum chambering I’m not going down that path.

I think we have plenty of of coverage from small cartridges to large coverings many types of shooting.

Is there any reason to hate on the .243 if the .22-250 is a little lighter? The .22-250 probably excels as a Varmint cartridge but my mate always preferred the .220swift . The .243 is probably on the fulcrum where it could be a varmint cartridge or a hunting cartridge for small game.

I have a 6BR for target shooting that the gunsmith likened to a .243. With several 6mm cartridges now popular in the target shooting area like 6br, 6BRA, 6 GT 6BRX I expect there are some difference in performance but still similar based on personal preference and people driving innovation. Loaded like a .243 they probably perform like the .243

Is the .22-250 useless? I think not. Is is necessary in my line up? Maybe not but it has been set up the way I want it and I can use it spotlighting, Varminting or on the range.

Is the .243 useless? No, not the one we have in the rifle it’s chambered in the wife can use it in a variety of of ways and I expect it will drop Fallow with a good shot and the .243 should be hell on goats. I shot more goats with the .222 than I have with all the rifles I have owned since .

 

[cwickgo9]

I have an old model 88, lever action, magazine fed .243. My father got it for my mother who never shot it. Both my sons have dispatched good sized deer with it. I've found it to do well with 90 gr, softpoint, core-lokt bullets. Flat shooting and carrying enough energy for even the largest Texas deer at 200 yards. I think it makes an excellent first hunter rifle as opposed to say a 30-30 for accuracy and recoil.

 

[AustinM]

The 243 Winchester is absolutely magical at causing the craziest things to happen! I still remember recieveing a single shot Rossi in 243 and was hopeful to use it during deer season.
I got setup in the stand and was excited to use my new rifle and had it sighted in with ballistics silvertips. A nice little 5 point buck stepped out and I decided he looked good enough to take, seeing as I was still in my youth. So I set my sights on him and take the shot.
The most miraculous thing occurred for that deer that to this day, I have never seen since. The buck did a backflip the moment I pulled the trigger, landed on it's back, got up...leaving a spot where his horns dug into the ground...looks up at me, snorts, and hightails it out of there.
Once I picked my jaw up off the floor. I calmly got out of the stand and headed home. Where I took pictures of the gun and ammo, placing it for sale on the marketplace. To this day I have a disdain for that round and apparently that deer refused to die by it. So, if the wildlife refuse to perish by it, it may not be all that its cracked up to be!

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Bob,
I got to wondering why it is only the .243 that you are hating on.
I think back to when I was younger and much funner but broke. I was shooting at a young age and reading about guns and dreaming of hunting everything and what guns might be useful. Somewhere in there I think I had a desire to have a Take Down bolt action Classic looking hunting rifle and I also thought I wanted a REM 700 Sendero .300wm

Now I owned a .22 and always thought a .22mag was close so the next step was a .222 (yes I’m that old or from that era) The logic was based if you could only have have a small selection based on budget etc.

As we know the .223 is popular now and is often used outside its size as an all rounder come hunting rifle and has possibly been used on every game animals the country offers even if it’s not suitable or permitted.

So nowadays I think a .22mag or .17hmr would be nice to have if I got out enough to use it but if I’m spotlighting I’m probably just using a .223 because I have it.

As things progressed I got a .22-250 at a good price and make use of it. Now it is a bit bigger than the .223 but still a .22 calibre. Not as big as a .243 case for capacity and just .019 thousandth’s of an inch in diameter smaller than a .243 cal. Well, maybe the .22-250 should be thrown in the “Neither Fish nor Foul” category too.

So a .243 is only 14 thousandths smaller than a .257 cal so what’s the big turnaround? A 6mm or n a bigger case could be fast and flat and still run on the heavy end of it’s spectrum it should be effective.

Why split the difference between .243 and .257 when the .264 (6.5) exists? Different countries etc I know but it’s splitting hairs if we go it’s 7 thousandths bigger and we all know a Creedmoor is so much better.

I’m sure there are Wildcats and lesser known factory rounds out there running various calibres but if the .25-06 is good a 6.5 projectile in a -06 case is probably better and has more projectile variants more readily available.

If the evolution of cartridge design were to start over would we need so many calibre options? The .14, .17, .20 were all done and the .17rem did one thing well and .177 slug guns are great trainers.

Many years ago I formed an opinion that the 7mm-08 would be versatile for Australia. In part based on it being a short action round that exceeds the .270” diameter requirement for some hunting requirements.

Probably 25 years later I had one but not in a true short action or hunting rifle. This was after owning several .308 rifles for hunting trading each one along except the last.

I like the 7mm cartridges but think the 7mm Backcountry is another that I don’t need but it is designed with around a optimising the cartridge in short actions and short barrels. Like the Winchester Short magnum chambering I’m not going down that path.

I think we have plenty of of coverage from small cartridges to large coverings many types of shooting.

Is there any reason to hate on the .243 if the .22-250 is a little lighter? The .22-250 probably excels as a Varmint cartridge but my mate always preferred the .220swift . The .243 is probably on the fulcrum where it could be a varmint cartridge or a hunting cartridge for small game.

I have a 6BR for target shooting that the gunsmith likened to a .243. With several 6mm cartridges now popular in the target shooting area like 6br, 6BRA, 6 GT 6BRX I expect there are some difference in performance but still similar based on personal preference and people driving innovation. Loaded like a .243 they probably perform like the .243

Is the .22-250 useless? I think not. Is is necessary in my line up? Maybe not but it has been set up the way I want it and I can use it spotlighting, Varminting or on the range.

Is the .243 useless? No, not the one we have in the rifle it’s chambered in the wife can use it in a variety of of ways and I expect it will drop Fallow with a good shot and the .243 should be hell on goats. I shot more goats with the .222 than I have with all the rifles I have owned since .

@CBH Australia
Chris I had a REM 788 years ago in 22-250 that accounted for a truck load of pigs using a 70 speer semi spitzer. That used to drop them like a bag of spuds.
You make some good points BUT even Nathan Foster says the 25s kill out of all proportion to their size for some strange reason.
Sorry still not convinced the 243 is any good for me so I will stay with my 25s
Bob