JimboHunter1

For foxes and coyote only, I'd opt for the .223. If there's ANY chance that you might be hunting deer with it sometime in the future, I'd get the .243.

take-em

i've decided on getting the 243. because i will be doing some deer hunting in the future
are there any other models that are $250 or lower
thanks for all your help

mrfishy34

um the 223 there is absolutly no kick for me. but that is considering i am prty muscular, and i shoot a mod 870 12 gauge and a 30-06 the 223 feels like a 22 kick but it is as loud as my 06. i would get the 223. i got a 223 not long ago and paid 375 for it used. with scope. i shot a squarill at 55 yrds took its head right off. and shot a rabbit with it. made kinda big hole. i was shootin winchester jhp holopoint 45 grain. they are prty cheap. they are like 11$ for a box of 40. but i think u made the right choice. we have killed many deer with my uncles 223 with in a hundred yards. but if ur goina do some deer hunting the 243 is the right choice. and if ur lookin for a cheap one. the one i can recemend is the NE handi rifle. go to the guns forum and ask for a website. but its a single shot break action. for like 205 i beleive. but dont think u will find a new bolt action for that price. maybe find a used one. hope that helps

Beareater99

i would have to go with the 223 like every one else

wahunterinrok

I'd go with the 223 unless you planned on doing some deer hunting. As far as kick from the 223, the 2 words dont even belong in the same sentence

johnkeltgen

C.mon now folks... ALL guns have a recoil, regarless of size. Even a .22 registers a recoil. I agree that a .223 has very little kick, but it depends largely on the size and make of weapon and the size and make of the person shooting it. For instance, I've got two .30-06s... one of them doesn't hardly have any recoil, feels like shooting a smaller rifle. The other one kicks like a bee-stung mule! Another mistake: I used to own a big bore rifle, a .416 that I bought at an auction for next to nothing, the thing was old and weighed a TON! It kicked about as much as your average .300 Win Mag. Amazingly, I found another .416 pretty cheap. I took both to the range. I fired the one I just bought and I thought my shoulder was going to dislocate! My point is: ALL guns have varying degrees of recoil. Luckily, I'm 6'4" and weigh in around 270#'s so recoil isn't much of an issue. Hell, my pellet gun even has a recoil. Ever shot a Thompson Contender with a .223 barrel? I'm willing to bet it's got a helluva recoil! Some of those "featherweight" guns can be punishing. So, don't discount the .223's recoil. Someday you may find a .223 that surprises the heck out of you!

Gundigest

.223 Hornady has factory loads at 3800 fps with a 40gr v-max, 25 rounds for about $12.00 and Winchester has a 45gr load at 3600 fps, 40 rounds for $11.00. Handloading I can get my .223 up to 4000fps with the Barnes 40gr XLCs and 31gr of H335. The hornadys and the barnes touch holes at 100 yards out of my 700 VLS and the Winchesters shoot about a .5" group at 100 yards. The .223 with the lighter bullets can get speeds close to a 243 or 22-250 with les powder and recoil and cheaper ammo.

Gundigest

In the big scheme of calibers the .223 has no recoil. I have shot a 5 pound contender in .223 and the kick was hardly noticeable. It wouldn't bother a 10 year old. Anyone could shoot a .223 all day long, the only thing that might hurt is your ears, they are loud.

marty1028

i would spend the money and get a 243 make sure its a remington or ruger

Carpmaster

I have shot bith, but would lean more to the 223 IF just for coyotes, foxes, (and of course other varmints). If you were to want to add deer size game, then definitely the .243