HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - 243 vs 270
Thread: 243 vs 270
View Single Post
Old 11-21-2007 | 01:27 PM
  #10  
Rammer's Avatar
Rammer
Nontypical Buck
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
From: South Dakota
Default RE: 243 vs 270

The 243 will be a dandy backup gun for the 223 and 30-06. I wouldn't hesitate taking big game (bigger than deer) with my 243. I use my 243 as a backup to my 7mm Rem mag. I actually use my 243s for all my varmint shooting. I have +/- 3500 rounds thru the tube in my Tikka and its still shooting good. These are all hot handloads too I might add.

I'm a Leupold/Nikon guy myself. I have a few Leupold VX-IIs, a few Vari-Xs, a Mark 4 tactical, and a few others. For Nikons the Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 is one of the best buys in optics in my opinion. It is just as bright in low light as the Leupold VXIIs, and its better than my Zeiss Conquest in low light. The one thing I don't care for with the Nikon is the adjustments, they aren't 1/4" as stated. Then again I have one of the first ones to come out, and I have officially beat that thing to hell an back, but it keeps going.

I have a buddy that bought the Ballistic Plex Burris you speak of, only I have no experience with it yet, and he hasn't even fired the AR15 he has it mounted on. As for illuminated reticles, I also have no experience. I see them as one more thing to fail in the field, so I avoid them.
Rammer is offline  
Reply