I don't consider a hole on the opposite shoulder thats exaclty the same size as the hole coming in is a exit hole. I want EXPANSION and a bigger hole coming out than in. I'm just being figurative not litteral.

I was being figurative not litteral. I don't consider a hole coming out the opposite shoulder that is the same size as the hole going in is a good enough hole...I want EXPANSION and a bigger hole coming out than going in.

I consider it a good deer round inside 200 yards and getting real marginal out to 300. Beyond that I guess it'splenty if your deer is the size of a German Shepard. Lets not confuse "bare minimum" or "marginal" with "good".

I love the .243 it's one of the flattest shooting, best performing cartridges out there but lets not confuse it with being a fantastic deer caliber. It's much too light.

So don't strawman my argument. I never said it can't take deer or it's horrible or anything else. However, the term plenty would infer a surplus of energy or power, of which it has neither.

I'd also make the assertion that if someone can handle the nonexistant recoil of a .243 they should be quite comfortable stepping up to a 25-06 or a 260.

There is very little difference in recoil between a .243 100 gr. and a .260 140 gr. Less than 2 ft/lbs in fact. Likewise with the .25-06 with a 100 gr. bullet.

However, both cartridges produce ~200 ft/lbs more energy at almost every range than the .243.

So I guess if you want to be proud of the bare minimum then be proud.

As an ethical hunter I don't think it's fair to the animal or the sport to use the bare minimum. That doesn't leave much room for error and we all know the average hunter doesn't put every shot in the vitals. This is an invitation for unecessary suffering and follow up shots.