The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

kennyc wrote:

Les wrote:

meles meles wrote:Because, ooman, we're after a Bambi blatter and our FEO suggests a .243 whereas we prefer a 6.5

Play along with the FEO and get a .243, then apply for a 6.5 later. Simples.

or you could ask the FEO exactly how a .243 is safer than a 6.5x55 ?
and thats before asking whether or not the .243 is actually Deer legal in terms of muzzle energy in the shorter barrel lengths prefered by some modern hunters.

Good point- I chrono'd a mate's .243 shooting Privi soft points (100gr). Came in under the min energy.

The deer don't know the difference of a few ftlbs but it might help your argument.

.243 is very popular here in NZ for deer hunting. My wife wanted a deer rifle, but really disliked the recoil on my lightweight .308, so the .243 was just the ticket. She is small-statured, so I bought here a youth model Mossberg. She can shoot it very well. Ammunition is easy to find anywhere, and it has plenty of punch for all but the largest and heaviest animals we get here.

Depends on the ranges you'd be shooting at. Fairly close-in, like 150 meters or shorter, the .243 with 95gr is deadly on whitetails. It shoots flat and fast. But, if you're reaching out further, like 300 or more, and if your quarry is bigger, say 250 lbs-plus, I'd probably move up a bit.

Browning_grrl wrote:Depends on the ranges you'd be shooting at. Fairly close-in, like 150 meters or shorter, the .243 with 95gr is deadly on whitetails. It shoots flat and fast. But, if you're reaching out further, like 300 or more, and if your quarry is bigger, say 250 lbs-plus, I'd probably move up a bit.

we have the added fun of minimum MV and ME to contend with, complicated in Scotland by a requirement for a minimum of 100grn bullets.

kennyc wrote:...... complicated in Scotland by a requirement for a minimum of 100grn bullets.

Seriously??? WTF?? For deer?????? Sometimes when you guys mention stuff like that, I feel like Alice in Wonderland.....

As with all hunting, shot placement is (almost) everything. So long as your bullet has enough down range energy and appropriate construction.

I don't advocate trying to emulate shots such as that shown in the video below (long-range, VLD bullets etc... whole different can of worms) but it shows that a .243Win can do the job so long as you can:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/hY0w1c-gf18[/youtube]
That said, I have shot a fallow buck, high-heart, at around 110yds with a 100gr SP bullet and he didn't even flinch. I thought I'd missed as he ambled slowly toward me, though he seemed a little sluggish. Since the range had closed down I decided to take a second shot in case he was injured. He dropped to a neck shot. At the gralloch, I found the first shot was a perfect placement, destroying the atria of the heart. The bullet hadn't exited.

I since switched to 95gr SST and haven't had any similar experiences but I now favour a larger calibre if I'm hunting larger deer species.

The .243Win is a good (and versatile) clambering but not my first choice for deer. I only got one because, at the time, I had a closed FAC and the land inspection stated: "can use your .308 from high-seats but would need .243 on foot." Go figure!

Gave me an excuse to get a heavy-barrelled .243 which I set-up for "tactical" comps and foxing (plus opportunistic deer since I still use the 95gr SST).

Good overview, which you've probably read, HERE

The .243 also offers lots of potential for future rebarreling.

Every cloud has a silver-lining, as they say.

kennyc wrote: complicated in Scotland by a requirement for a minimum of 100grn bullets.

For deer species other than roe which has a 50 gn minimum bullet weight.

I had to look up Roe deer - never seen one - how much meat can ya get off one? I should think the dressed weight is pretty small. Is it worth the bullet? It sure isn't gonna fill your freezer.

They add up!

Great meat, too!

Browning_grrl wrote:

kennyc wrote:...... complicated in Scotland by a requirement for a minimum of 100grn bullets.

Seriously??? WTF?? For deer?????? Sometimes when you guys mention stuff like that, I feel like Alice in Wonderland.....

Actually, we can blame your neighbours to the south for that. The 'experts' who advised whoever framed the legislation that eventually became the England & Wales Deer Act of 1966 took the not that old at the time .243 Winchester as providing minimum specs and performance, ie .243" / 6mm calibre and Winchester's claimed ballistics. Somehow Scotland managed to do its own thing, there being a separate legal system up there, and make it yet more complicated even if it was a sensible move to allow .22 cal centrefires and lower ME levels on the little roe deer.

The irony is that we now know that Olin Corp / Winchester lied all the way to the bank about their baby's performance, this being an era when nobody outside of ballistic labs had access to chronographs to check velocity claims. Throw in the current move to ever shorter barrel deer rifles in the UK and most factory .243 Win ammo will fail to achieve the legal minima, so FEOs telling people they'll only get a variation for a 243 may well be unwittingly inciting them to commit a criminal offence. Not that many law enforcement officers hang around the woods with chronographs, or even know what a chronograph is.