mauser06

a book i have says 800ft/lbs....i agree a good placed bullet will do it everytime...my dads friend dropped a doe in her tracks with a 223 and now that is his first choice deer rifle...of course it was a neck shot but a 223 doesnt quite pack a punch....my friend takes deer every year at over 200yds with a 243...you should be alright with a good shot...

.270Shooter

I think one can get too hung up on ballistics tables. And a badly placed shot with a .300 mag. is still a bad shot. However, remember, that 1000 ft./lbs is about what a .44 mag pistol bullet will be carrying for a lot of shots. The difference is, besides a bigger frontal area, that pistol bullet is designed (hopefully) to expand at that velocity, where a rifle bullet from a .270 or .30-06 generating that amount of energy at 500 yards, may no longer expand reliably. Personally, I would pass up those shots because of distance as well as energy.

A .243 is a great deer gun, but would be down to 1000 ft./lbs. with most loads around 300 yards. But, hey, this is about 100 yds. farther than I want to shoot anyway. The good news is, most people shoot well with a .243 because it doesn't pound you.

I think that if you put priority on making a humane shot, 1000 ft./lbs is pretty much minimum and I would prefer double that. I know that a lot of deer are taken with .223's, .22-250's and the like, but I still think it's a bad idea. They are somewhat better modern bullet design, but why use such a borderine caliber?

As for the shoulder shot, I'd want a fairly heavy bullet of good quality (Nosler partition, Barnes X, etc.) if I was going to try to punch through heavy bone on purpose. Just my 2 cents.

txhunter58

Even if you use your friend's figure of 1200 ft pounds, the 243 comes out ok. Remington 100gr corelockts have 1300 ft lbs at 200 yards and almost 1100 ft lbs at 300 yards, so I don't see a problem with that. I have used a 243 quite a bit and have never found it lacking on deer out to 250 yards. Try it, you will like it!

I always try for a double lung shot. It gives you more room for error. Miss forward, you get the shoulder. Miss low and you get the heart. Miss high and you get the spine. Miss back and you get the liver. All but the liver will give you a very quick kill and the liver shot usually results in a fairly quick kill.

Back to the 1000 vs. 1200 ft lbs debate. I would say that 1000 is more than adequate for the whitetails I hunt. A big buck might weigh 170-180 live weight. If I were hunting a 300+ lb northern whitetail or mule deer, I would want the 1200 ft. lbs on board.

rednekhuntr

Deer have been killed with a .22 short, but we all know that It'd be silly to do it. For a humane kill, go with the 1000 lbs rule 'till you know you can shoot the eye out of a running buck. When you can do that, shoot whatever the heck you want 'cause you'll be superman.

You can't eat what you miss!

soarkrebel

I can assure you a 243 will do it. my son killed his second with one sat.
a chest shot and the buck went a total of about 30 yards . we watched him go down .
when i got him skinned down below the shot area i surprised that it had good damage but not excessive. scrambled the lungs.
and he was shooting a 70 gr ballistic tip in the gun. i'm going to start loading a 95 to see how it works.


SOUTH ARKANSAS REBEL

FL-Hunter

.270shooter…. I’m with you 100% about the shot placement. Doesn’t matter how big a bullet you throw at them… doesn’t do any good if you can’t hit them.


Soarkrebel… that’s great! How old is your son?

Most people I have asked have brought up another aspect dealing with pistols. A pistol hunter that I talked with brought the numbers to minimum of 600 to 800 ft/lbs. Of course you’re not shooting at the distance of a rifle either.

Thanks for the valuable info!


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"----Adolph Hitler 1935

BobS

I have shot a 243 all my life. I have killed about 30 deer and lost one. The lost one was due to my error and shot placement. I shot a buck head-on at 90 yds. I think that I hit just off center and broke his shoulder and never entered the chest cavity. About 90% have been one shot kills. I love my Browning LA 243 for running deer out to 125 yds, never have to lead them(I've shot 4 running). I would defininitely use a partition bullet and not Winchesters. Remington Core-Locts work in 100 gr. have made big exit holes for me. Just place the shot well behind the shoulder. As far as range, I am pretty good with accuracy and I have shot two deer over 300(one at 325 and one at 450, way to far). I would keep my shots under 300 and place well and you will be fine. Good luck.

timbercruiser

Shot placement will lose a lot more deer than a couple of hundred pounds of foot pounds of energy.

soarkrebel

flhunter he is twelve. he will shoot about anything if you'll let him. but the 243 has less recoil which makes him shoot better. I hunt with a variety of calibers and had never owned a 243 until this 700 youth. i had shot a 6mm rem for years which is the same bullet just a little faster and have had good results.

SOUTH ARKANSAS REBEL

THE DEER SLAYER

Trust me, a .243 with a 100gr. bullet will work fine. I hate to admit it but I started with a .222 and shot a doe through the lungs and it ran 70 yards. I have upgraded to a 30-30 and now to a 30-06. My advice is to get as big of gun as you can shoot good.