Originally Posted by
Steve863
I surely would agree with this. I will never understand the people who think a .243 is good for young shooters either. The 7mm-08 would be my choice in this category. If anything a .243 should be shot at deer by only very experienced shooters since there isn't much margin for error in the hands of a novice.
I've never really understood this whole "margin for error" argument as it relates to guys who like to bash the .243 ... Where I hunt, a "big" deer weighs 150 lbs, and they're rarely, if ever shot at distances much beyond 100 yards. I haven't had a problem with poor penetration with my .243, usually getting complete pass-throughs. The only time I didn't have a complete penetration was on a 160 lb buck, shot through both shoulders. The bullet wound up just under the skin after breaking the off-side shoulder. Shot placement/accuracy is of paramount importance. And, particularly with a new shooter, a rifle with 9 ft lbs of recoil energy is more comfortable to practice with than a rifle with 13 ft lbs of recoil energy... The .284 bullet gives you a whole 41/1000ths of an inch additional "margin for error."
I got the 7mm-08, not because I felt it would give me some magical advantage against the local deer herd or because I was dissatisfied with my .243. I got it, simply, because I wanted one. I already had a 7mm Rem. Mag., which, with the MR recoil rounds I use, is a virtual twin of the 7mm-08, (and, with which I took 2 shots at a buck last fall, neither of which gave complete penetration, and that was on an emaciated 90 lb buck...). The recoil of the 7mm Mag. MR rounds is noticeably more than a .243 and, while not too uncomfortable for me, I can imagine that they might not be "fun" for an 11 or 12 year old who is practicing with his first deer rifle. I'd much rather have a kid shooting with his eyes open, picking his shot and hitting his target with a .243, than using something heavier, with more power, but also more recoil, and gut-shooting the deer because of a flinch.
For the positive comments, thanks. I'll try to remember to report back after I've had a chance to take it to the range.
For the guys who took this as an opportunity to bash Remington for how horrible you think they are... Why? It's like if someone posts a pic of the first deer he ever shot, and guys bash him... "why'd you shoot one that was so young" or "why didn't you shoot a doe if it's just for meat" yada yada yada... If you think Remington sucks, fine... Start a thread titled "Remington sucks". Why pee on my little parade? I have yet to have a bad experience with any of the Remingtons I've owned over the last 35 years.