Hey, nny243, I suspect you have a somewhat personal interest in this fine cartridge, so don't you mind if I pick on you! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Seriously, just for the sake of a good debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This topic comes up at least once a year.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

That is because it's a topic worth some discussion, as witnessed by the many contrasting opinions in this thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The 243 is a fast, flat, accurate caliber,<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

No argument whatsoever here.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>more than big enough for whitetail of any size. If you can't hit the vitals of a deer, no gun will be big enough. Any deer taking a .243 slug through the lungs is dead, period. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

That's where we start disagreeing. Sure, a deer taking ANY bullet through the lungs is dead, period. Even a .22LR through the lungs will kill. But first, a bullet has to GET there, from angles that you sometimes can't control ~ and that's when I want more sectional density.

Let me put it another way. If I had a deer standing broadside, I wouldn't hesitate taking him with a .243, as you correctly suggest. But I wouldn't do so if the deer was presenting me with a tougher shot such as a going-away shot ~ not with a .243! This is when a cartridge throwing a heavier bullet has its place, and that is (I suspect) why some of us consider the .243 somewhat short of a 100% ideal cartridge for deer.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The 30-06 is a fine caliber but it has it's own disadvantages, such as a tremendous kick.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I never really thought of the '06 as possessing a &quot;tremendous kick&quot;. Actually, given the fact that most .243 rifles have a lighter, shorter action than those chambered for 30-06, the recoil difference between them is probably not any more than 10ft/lbs. This is not exactly enough to warrant the title of &quot;tremendous&quot; to the '06!

(But then again, recoil is personal. I absolutely abhor the feel of a 7mm Magnum, while I don't mind the long, slow shove of a .375.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If anyone prefers something other than the 243 that's fine. But to say it's too small is simply incorrect. People take Mule deer with 243's all the time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I don't think anyone is saying that the .243 is too small for deer. Also, no one disputes that it can take mule deer. It has, it does and it will. And, as you correctly point out, it has the tremendous advantage of being VERY shootable.

However, it may not offer the penetration necessary for reaching any deer's vitals irrespective of the angle. I doubt that you yourself would choose to take a &quot;texas brain shot&quot; at a large deer with a .243 hoping to reach his vitals.

Again, just for the sake of a good debate. For the record, I like the .243 and I think it's a splendid cartridge.

Edited by - .333 Nitro Express on 12/27/2002 21:17:27