Another data point for the .243 Win on deer debate
 

Over the years, I've read multiple debates regarding the use of a .243 win on deer and similar sized game. I bought my son a single shot .243 for his first rifle. After seeing him take a deer with it, I was sold on its take down power and bought a Rem 700 mountain rifle in .243 for myself as a coyote / deer rifle. It has quickly become my go to deer rifle and I've taken several deer with it never exceeding 150 yards and have never had to track. This past season, I harvested a buck with it at 280 yards (rangefinder confirmed) using 100gr Remington corelockts. This experience has removed all doubt for me. The 243 is a great deer rifle. I'll leave the .300 WSM for Elk / Mulies out West.

Here we go again

If you can shoot a 243 is more than enough for any deer in America. If you can't shoot a 375 H&H magnum won't improve your shots to kill ratio one bit.

Yep, the .243 will get it done. Nice buck there too.
-Jake

Beautiful buck :)

I'm a new hunter and new to firearms in general. This was my first hunting season, but before I hunted, I shot several different rifles. I was most comfortable with the .243. Quite honestly, I'm a small gal and the larger rifles intimidated me a bit. I shot them all, but I felt the most confident with the .243. I went to the range several times over the summer, and I certainly don't mean to toot my own horn, but I had consistent and accurate shots in various positions and distances.

I harvested my very first deer (a doe fawn :) ) this fall with the .243 at 225yards (according to the range finder). It was a heart and lung shot, she jumped in the air, ran about 15 yards and laid down.

As I've said before (I'll bet some are tired of hearing it)...I bought a Ruger Model 77 in .243 in 1980 it has been the only centerfire rifle I have owned since then...With it I have killed in excess of 300 deer, 6 bears and a slew of varmints...It works...

I also have 2 brothers who have been through several calibers over the same time period...They use to give me heck about using a .243...Haven't heard a thing in over a decade... :)

The .243 is more than sufficient for antelope and deer sized game on down through varmints. Just don't start arguing that it's also an elk cartridge like some are in a thread that's had over 130 posts on another site I visit!

I have nothing against a .243 as long as its a Rem 700, right Topgun.

LOL---I'll take the Sako or Mauser every day and you know that!!!

if u guys think this is annoying when i buoght my 243 i asked if i got a great buy and it ended up on a five page thread on weather walmart is a good place to buy guns and i never got a good answer

I'm sure .243 is sufficient. I'm extremely sure .30-06 is sufficient. I use .30-06.

The .243 is........100% sufficient for deer. And yes Stonewall.... so is the OL' 06!

Yep, I'm a "tweener" and also shoot deer and antelope with my Ruger 25-06 along with my pre 64 Model 70 Win 30-06 and Sako 243!!!

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.

And what is wrong with having 15 different calibers that will kill a deer? I always liked the whole "The more the merrier" attitude personally. :biggrin: You dont want them rifles getting lonely.:s1:

That's right! It you don't have enough that they're touching in your safe(s) you need to add to the collection, LOL!!!

i could help make some more room by taking some of them off you hands LOL!!!!!:happy0001:

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.:s2:

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?

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.

Prairie,

Topgun is one of the best youth mentors I know.

Although some don't care too much for Chuck Hawks on Huntingnet.com; I think you'll find this link insightful, in terms of your question.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/gun_game.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/cxp.htm


BTW - A11en, I think you'll find it supports your OP as well.

Thanks for the compliment! I think that first link will help explain things to Prairie.

243 is a great all round bullet but just as 3006 said even though it will kill an elk with a well placed shot you wouldn't want to make it you're go to round.