Which Rifle
 

In October, I'll be hunting some private land (16,000 acres) in the south east that holds bucks in the 125 - 135 class with some reaching 140+. Average shot will be 100 yards with the potential for 200 - 300 yard shots very possible.

My question is, if you had a .243 Win and a .300 WSM, which rifle would you choose? Both are model 700s and both are topped with Zeiss 4.5x14x44 scopes. I'm equally proficient with these rifles out to 300 yards. I've killed a bunch of deer with the .300 WSM and a few with the .243 which I just bought last year. I really want to shoot a big buck with the .243, I just don't have much experience with the .243 and big bucks. Will it get the job done or would you stick with the .300 WSM. All the deer I've shot with the .243 have been bang flops with the longest shot being 130 yards.

Which rifle would you bring?:confused0024:

243 is plenty to 400.

+ 1 for your .243

This may sound stupid, but I always bring two or three rifles. I don't choose until I get there. Then I just go on gut feeling.

Either one will do fine.

Kind of like walking up to to the tee box on a par 3 that is 165 yards up hill in high wind??? Bring your 7 and your 6 iron and make the decison there.... I get that

Based on the first three responses, I think I'll take the .243

If I wasnt a great shot I Would prolly go with the 300 but since you can shoot both well then definetly the 243. It will do its part for sure. Ive also had more drop dedders with my 6mm than with my 7mm saum. Never have figured that one out. I might would take both of them along and use the 300 over fields and carry the 243 in thw woods but thats just me.

I'd use the rifle I would feel most comfortable with. If you are looking at harvesting a deer with a rifle that you have yet to take a deer with then it is simply a personal choice. I do have my favorite rifle I hunt with but I always take a second rifle with me just in case there is a problem with the first or if the hunting location requires a different cal. For example, for the most part I use a 7 mm mag (mostly looking cross and or down long tree lines of 300 yard plus) but at times due to sign and or conditions I may go into the ravines where the woods are fairly thick. For this option I will take my 30-30 Marlin. Cal. isn't near as important as good shot placement so just make sure that you have a good comfort level and practice with which ever gun you choose. Proficiency equals success.

I have a theory on this. The mags tend to blow right through deer size game and I don't transfer all their energy to the animal. A standard caliber delivers more energy to the animal as it moves slower and in some cases not completly through the animal.

Every deer I've shot with a 12ga slug or my 44 mag have always dropped on the spot. I've had two deer run 50 yards after being hit with the .300 WSM. Although I use Nosler Accubond, which is more an elk bullet than deer.

I bought the .243 as my primary deer gun. With the 90gr Scirroco's it has the identical trajectory as the 180gr Accubonds I shoot out of my .300 WSM so I never have to think about the different point of impact when I switch rifles.

Use whatever shoots and feels the best. The deer will still be dead.:happy0001:

I would go with the 243 and top it with the best SCOPE you can afford.

You've answered you're own question.

He said that both rifles are topped with Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44mm riflescopes. They don't get much better than that, unless you want to spend several grand.

My recommendation would be toward the .243 Winchester, since it'll likely be smaller and lighter, but if you shoot both equally, either rifle will certainly do the trick to 300 yards and beyond. I'd say that only is you go beyond 400 would the 300 be warranted over the 243. Take the one you like more. You said you want to shoot a bruiser with the .243, so I'd say go for it.

Mike

I dont think id go with the 243 i think id go with something in a 30cal. like a .308 in a 165gr bullet.

He's debating between using his .243 Win and his .300 WSM.

Mike

i use a .243 and its the greatest gun i have ever used. i would go with .243

243:fighting0007:

.243 it is... Thanks everyone

243 is marginal at 300 + yards.

The best all around set up is the Rem 700 .270 Cal 140 gr Accubond.Everything you shoot will go about two feet-two feet straight to the ground.I dont like chasing deer or having to go find them.And with all the new laws that say you cant cross a fence without the landowners permission..why risk the .243-dont get me wrong they are okay for about 200 yards,and a great varmint gun.

Here we go! :bash:

Mike

IBTL!!!!








FYI that means In Before The Lock!!

Okay -I 'll play along..why would the thread be locked ??

You just gonna post that and then haul the mail..Is there something you would like to share as to "why" the thread would be locked..new man on board..go ahead and give me the heads up.

They tend to lock threads when someone gives info that is stupid. Like a .243 is marginal at 300 yards. Or when people reply on a post without reading it and say something stupid like buy a .270 it's the best. The OP had two guns and asked which one you would use if it were you.

I wish people would read the thread and only answer on things they were qualified to answer and not throw out bad advice or solutions that were never part of the question.

Because you said that the .243 is marginal at 300 yards. What typically happens now is that someone will post that it's more than adequate at 300 yards (or 400, 500 whatever). Then it, if it follows normal form, degenerates into a brawling free-for-all over the adequacy of the cartridge at whatever range, compared to this or that, ad nauseam. Eventually names will start getting called, it'll get personal and the mods will lock the thread. You should see some of the brawls that have been fought over whether .224 cal centerfire rifles (pick one, doesn't matter which) are adequate for deer. The electronic version of pools of blood has been spilled over that whole debate. It gets pretty ugly, and this time you might have started it!:s4::rolleyes:

Mike

what the ....is that all about ?? Must be some ongoing drama ya'll have on this board.A 243 is marginal at 300 yards..if you dont agree with that or it confused you -then just say that.But to come at me like that only is making yourself look-well,like your looking for pissing contest.Telling him to look at the .270 as a in between gun of the both that he mentioned is -wrong ?? I guess I dont get it.But thanks for your comments-it made you really stick out for first impression.

Now look what you've done! :lmao:

:throw::poke::action-smiley-099::pcwhack::hit:

Mike

Wow -that all seems pretty petty to me...

I'm popping popcorn, grabbing a beer and getting ready for the show. This is going down hill fast!

Mike

Yeah, except that it really depends on what your definition of "marginal" is. I know guys who think that the 300 Win Mag is "marginal" for deer at 300 yards. It's a load of crap, but that's what they think. I also met a guy who had bought a .416 Rigby to hunt elk because he didn't want to be "undergunned" with his .30-06. Too bad he didn't listen to the gun shop owner that tried to talk him out of it, because he also complained about how much the ammo costs.

People have all sorts of crazy and/or stupid ideas, and other people like nothing more than pointing it out. That's why threads get locked. This one is on its way there right now.

Mike

I guess I am going to let you have this thread-since I have no idea where you two fella's are trying to take it..Happpy hunting & good day.

My point is that what's marginal is very debatable, and it very often gets vigorously debated around here. The problem lies in that fact that people take it personally and it gets nasty. I don't agree with you that the 243 is marginal for deer at 300 yards, but by 400 it's getting pretty tired. You're entitled to your opinion, but the truth is that the deer will die just fine at 300 IF the OP can hit it right. Colorado Luckydog also pointed out that it's not really helpful to suggest to the OP that he use a .270 when he only has, and asked specifically about, the .243 Win and 300 WSM. Why would he go buy a 270 if the 243 is inadequate when he has a 300 WSM? Doesn't make much sense. Do you see where I'm going with this. I'm not trying to start the fight. I'm simply pointing out that I've been here long enough to know that this is how they start.

Mike

It's pretty easy. This was his question......"My question is, if you had a .243 Win and a .300 WSM, which rifle would you choose?

Where in the heck does a .270 fit into the answer?

And to top it off a .243 is not questionable at 300 yards. Show me some info on that. You won't be able to find any.

Welcome to the forum!:poke::party0005:

Allen...I own one centerfire rifle, a Ruger M-77 that I bought new in 1980...I have killed at least 185 deer with it out to a laser ranged 327 yards...In this time I have lost exactly one deer, frankly I believe it was my fault...

My brothers and their sons shoot .270s, .280s, 7mm-08 and a .300 Win Mag...They all lose deer, all have deer run off that I have to help track...

Let me tell you a secret...It ain't the gun, it's the fellow shooting it...

My deer rifle before the .243 was a 22-250, now back then, using the bullets avaliable the 22-250 was marginal, but I still killed a couple of dozen deer with it and lost only one...

Anyone that thinks the .243 is marginal for deer simply hasn't killed many deer with it...

9 out of 10 deer prefer .3006.

I would personally bring the 300.

.243 definately

a .270 is a knats @ss bigger than a .243