Another data point for the .243 Win on deer debate
01-26-2012, 04:52 AM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,926
Hunters survive . . .
on small differences. Haven't heard any scientist exclaim the vast difference between a .243 width and a .30 width. And if a hunter finds success, it's not necessary for others to follow his lead. There are over 15 calibers, that hunters have found successful over the years.
Now what I would object to, is personally having at least 15 calibers for deer hunting.
Now what I would object to, is personally having at least 15 calibers for deer hunting.
You dont want them rifles getting lonely.
01-27-2012, 10:58 AM
#18
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/W WI.
Posts: 814
As the old saying goe "a snub nose .38 kills just as dead as a cannon". A well placed shot is more important than cal. I do love my .243, well, I love em all. Lets see, 30.30, 45/70, .243, .270, .44, yes, (even the old .44). I should be able to take just about any N/A big game animal.
Its all in what you like and can afford, thats what matters.
Its all in what you like and can afford, thats what matters.
01-28-2012, 06:54 AM
#19
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 36
I have a question...and please excuse my ignorance if it's a ridiculous question, I'm very new to firearms and hunting 
Would a larger round/more powerful rifle not ruin more meat on a harvested animal? On a well placed vitals shot, you're not really aiming at the valuable meat areas anyways so it wouldn't necessarily matter how big the hole is. But if you can make a well-placed vitals shot, you wouldn't need a larger caliber to get the job done anyways. So in theory (perhaps not so much in practical real life use), wouldn't a hunter want to use the smallest caliber that s/he is confident with to make a clean kill shot?
It just seems like a "less is more" situation. There is absolutely no question that a .243 can kill a deer, and it could potentially result in a less-damaged carcass than a larger round. Is that not more preferable if the hunter is confident in making a good shot?
Would a larger round/more powerful rifle not ruin more meat on a harvested animal? On a well placed vitals shot, you're not really aiming at the valuable meat areas anyways so it wouldn't necessarily matter how big the hole is. But if you can make a well-placed vitals shot, you wouldn't need a larger caliber to get the job done anyways. So in theory (perhaps not so much in practical real life use), wouldn't a hunter want to use the smallest caliber that s/he is confident with to make a clean kill shot?
It just seems like a "less is more" situation. There is absolutely no question that a .243 can kill a deer, and it could potentially result in a less-damaged carcass than a larger round. Is that not more preferable if the hunter is confident in making a good shot?
01-28-2012, 02:37 PM
#20
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Just putting a bullet of any old caliber in the vitals doesn't mean that the animal will die quickly and hopefully all ethical hunters want to kill any animal as quickly and humanely as possible. That is where ft./lbs. of energy come into play. A bullet basically kills an animal by hydrostatic shock to the system as well as by secondary blood loss, whereas an arrow kills by loss of blood unless a poor shot hits the spine. The .243 and smaller calibers were designed for smaller game like deer, antelope, coyotes, etc. because they do not produce enough energy to quickly kill a bigger animal like an elk most of the time. That, in turn, can allow an animal like that to cover a lot of ground and be lost because of a poor or no blood trail to follow. Also, if you must shoot a large animal with that caliber for lack of any other gun available it should be with a heavy for caliber bonded bullet and you should wait for a broadside or slightly quartering away shot so that the bullet does not have to travel thorugh any more flesh/bone than necessary to reach the vital heart/lung area. A larger bullet like that from a .270 or 30-06 through the chest cavity will result in very little lost meat because there is not much there to begin with. It is best not to try and use the smallest caliber that may do the job, but to use as big a caliber as you can shoot properly to up your chance for a quick kill. With the stock designs and recoil pads available today, as well as the reduced recoil loads for the bigger calibers, there is really no reason to use a .243 on elk size game IMHO! I've been hunting since 1953, mentor youth hunters as much as possible, and with the equipment available today there is no need to use a small caliber for a large, tough animal like an elk.
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 01-28-2012 at 02:47 PM.