.243 for elk? d

Originally Posted By: MI VHNTROriginally Posted By: hickerx2
+100
The .243 is marginal for ANY big game with the exception of maybe antelope and southern whitetails.

The 243 works VERY well on the northern whitetails in the UP of Michigan. Put the bullet where it belongs and you've got your deer. It works. BTDT. MI VHNTR

I have shot plenty of big Whitetails with a .243 as previously stated it's all about where you hit them not what you hit them with. I think self control and accuracy trumps being overgunned everytime. I'm not saying a .243 would be the perfect Elk rifle but I wouldn't hesitate to hunt elk with mine if it was my only rifle. That being said I really don't think there is one "does it all perfect caliber" you have to be realistic. How much time do you spend hunting predators/varmints compared to deer/elk? If you can't go with 2 different rifles weigh the plus and minus. Either a bit too heavy for Coyotes or a bit too light for Elk is where you will end up. Although I am personally not a fan have you considered an Encore and several barrels?
 
Originally Posted By: quarterboredIf you can kill one with a bow... you can sure as heck kill one with an 85 TSX. Though, the scruples that apply to a bow shot... ought to be shared with small caliber rifles.

You do know that the arrow will penetrate further and with a larger wound channel then what a 85 gr 243 bullet will? On elk, I'd say the bow & arrow are a lot more effective.
 
What is funny to me is, most of the guys that say a 243 ain't enuff, aren't even from a state that has elk or have never even hunted them, much less killed one...... Even funnier are the ones that think 'energy' or 'knock down' power make up for the ability to shoot.......Colorado has a minimum of 24 caliber required for big game, but THAT is a fairly recent regulation. The previous minimum was a 22 cal with 70 grain bullets. I've killed several bulls with that combo outta a 22-250, and never a cripple or unrecovered animal. In fact, few had to even be tracked..... It comes down to what I said before. Bullet placement......
 
Originally Posted By: huntsman22What is funny to me is, most of the guys that say a 243 ain't enuff, aren't even from a state that has elk or have never even hunted them, much less killed one...... Even funnier are the ones that think 'energy' or 'knock down' power make up for the ability to shoot.......Colorado has a minimum of 24 caliber required for big game, but THAT is a fairly recent regulation. The previous minimum was a 22 cal with 70 grain bullets. I've killed several bulls with that combo outta a 22-250, and never a cripple or unrecovered animal. In fact, few had to even be tracked..... It comes down to what I said before. Bullet placement......

Funnier yet is those who call it marginal for deer sized game, are you kidding me you need a 300 mag to shoot a deer. Couldn't agree more on shot placement being the only true difference maker. Not advocating poaching or anything and although not legal I would venture to say a .22lr has killed plenty of deer, shot placement.
I lived in New Mexico for years and have killed Elk but honestly never with a .243, didn't own one in those days. Only centerfire I had then was a model 70 in .30-06 and it was more than enough, in fact I hunted with an older guy that had killed quite alot of big bulls all with a 30-30
 
We all know that a well placed close shot from a .22lr will kill most animals including grizzly bear. .17 won't do it.
So I will never say a .243 won't kill an elk. I also won't recommend it as an elk caliber especially to a beginner that has to ask if it is enough gun.
.30 calibers are a favorite for elk in most every elk state for a reason. Lots of factors for each hunting/shot situation.
 
My neighbor killed "HER" elk with a 243. If a woman can do it.........

It was one of the largest bulls Ive seen in this area and she did it with one shot.

Im not fond of the 243 but I have killed many elk with the 2506. I prefer a very durable bullet like the partition though.

I have also used the 2506 on buffalo with one shot kills while my buddy used a 6mm rem on the same hunt. Another buddy needed 4 shots from his 45-70 and the buff never even grunted while his friend had to finish it off with a 338win mag.

It all comes down to shot placement. personally, I can shoot my 2506 more accuratly than I can a 300 loudenboomer.
 
Outlawkyote said:
My neighbor killed "HER" elk with a 243. If a woman can do it.........

It was one of the largest bulls Ive seen in this area and she did it with one shot.




It all comes down to shot placement. personally, I can shoot my 2506 more accuratly than I can a 300 loudenboomer.

If you put a muzzle break on that 300,it would be a "EARSPLITENLOUDENBLOMMER"
Click to expand...
 
Killed my first bull elk with a 6mm rem., which is a ballistic twin of the .243. Would I recommend it?? No, there are better choices of calibers out there. Instead of tying to get one rifle for everything, you are a lot better off getting one rifle for varmits and another one for the bigger game.

 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CacheCreekKilled my first bull elk with a 6mm rem., which is a ballistic twin of the .243. Would I recommend it?? No, there are better choices of calibers out there. Instead of tying to get one rifle for everything, you are a lot better off getting one rifle for varmits and another one for the bigger game.


I think that prudence is the appropriate word here.
Yes, the 243 will work, and so will a 22 Hornet, with all of the caveats that are mentioned above. But, there are just better choices...
And, yes, there are Elk in Michigan, and we have an annual Elk hunting season.
If I ever draw, I'll be taking my 7mm Mag. I do have a 244 that shoots 100 and 95 grain Nosler Partitions very well. But, I'd bypass that and go for the 7mm Mag.
 
Quote:What is funny to me is, most of the guys that say a 243 ain't enuff, aren't even from a state that has elk or have never even hunted them, much less killed one......

I suppose this topic has been beaten to death over the years, but the comment above is worth a reply. I live in Wyoming and hunt an area that allows me to kill two elk a year. Through the years I have shot 50+ elk with over half of those being mature branch antlered bulls. The area I hunt is wide open spaces mixed with steep and deep, rugged country, pretty much devoid of trees. Shots across canyon or over a basin are normal.

Picture this...a 350 class 6x6 bull just a couple of dozen steps away from diving off into the coulee from hades with 30 minutes of daylight left. I won't take a head or neck shot (one of the most failed shots going) and I surely don't want to try to break him down in his tracks with a .243 Winchester. Under my typical conditions, a .243 just isn't enough gun.

FWIW, I doubt you could find a guide, outfitter, or game warden in the entire state that would describe a .243 as much better than "marginal".
 
Last edited:
I am in total agreement with Ankeny, based on my experiences hunting elk for the past 6 years I've lived in Colorado.

I spent from dark until 2:30 in the morning tracking a poorly hit big bull for 1.5 mile by GPS this past October...Hit poorly with a 30-06 180 Accubond, quartered away and moving uphill at 250? yards.

The same bullet and a broadside heartshot knocked a 5x3 bull down within 10 feet oh where he stood. The shot was 324 yards downhill and the bullet passed through both ribs.

Both of these elk were shot by my friend who use to own only a 7mm08 rifle, who just got here from being stationed in Germany for 5 years.

Do you really want to drive all the way from PA to CO and chance either shot with a 243? I personally hunt with 7mm Rem Mag or 300 RUM, both braked and both more than adequate but are both very accurate and solid performers on both deer and elk at extended ranges with a 160 or 200 grain bonded bullet that I know where it will go. My buddy is a pretty firm believer in his 30-06 now, but again it takes the right bullet, with the right energy, in the right spot.

There are enough obstacles to overcome hunting the high country than worrying about if your gun is adequate, too heavy, etc...Trust me!
 
Fact is... a perfectly broad side shot on a bull is a rarity in itself. They don't just stand their and let you shoot them like a whitetail getting shot from a treestand. If you think you're going to shoot a bull and drop it in its tracks... with any caliber... you're sorely mistaken. Don't get me wrong... they're not bullet proof... they secumb to a bullet through both lungs the same as any critter. BUT, 9 times out of 10 they run after they're hit... and typically it's into the worst hole on the mountain. If hit poorly... all bets are off... again, regardless of caliber. Bow hunters know and accept this fact... why is it different with a rifle? Would a .243 be my first choice? NO... would I feel undergunned? Not if it's properly loaded.

The "only under ideal circumstances" argument holds no water with me... a questionable shot on a big game animal is just that. Running one from the rear hip into the chest is low percentage... .375 or .270... doesn't matter. When it comes to bull elk, if you can't see both lungs... and shoot both lungs, with only ribs in the way... you hadn't ought to be shooting it. Once you accept that... they're rather easy to kill. Now... hauling them out, that's never an easy task!
 
I know Elk have been killed with .243 and even less, but why would you do it when a larger caliber is available.

I have been crappie fishing with 4 lb test line and caught strippers in excess of 4 pounds. I was lucky, everything went right, drag set, plenty of line spooled etc.

BUT.... if I were planning a stripper fishing trip I dam_ sure would not be fishing with 4 pound test.

Hello...if you have a rain coat and it's raining, put it on.
 
If i had a 243 and shot it alot and a 3006 and shot it okay, but was a better shot and I knew my 243 better I would defintely take the 243 all depends on which caliber I shot and know better. A well placed 243 with todays bullets can produce a Elk just as easy than any other caliber someone is average with.
 
A clip from a RMEF article.

To destroy vital organs, the bullet must penetrate. To penetrate, it must retain enough mass after mushrooming to overcome the pull of tissue slowing it down. When it gets to the vitals, it must be big enough and heavy enough to make a fatal wound and keep going. Whether it stops just under the far hide or pops through is of academic importance, perhaps relevant to the bullet maker, but certainly dependent on shot angle, distance, velocity and what bones and muscles impede the bullet inside. All that matters to you happens before exit.

For this reason, the .24s are not ideal for elk hunting. In open country at moderate ranges with good presentations, strong 6mm bullets can be deadly. But in the catch-as-catch-can of elk hunting in elk cover, they fail. You need never cripple an elk, no matter what cartridge you use, if you limit your shots to those sure to kill. The trouble with the 6mms is that they require you to pass up shots you could easily make with heavier bullets.

On a shelf above me is a little piece of cardboard with a 3/4" cluster of .243 bullet holes. It was fun to shoot that group, fun always to shoot a rifle that funnels bullets to the same spot, spitting them with soft recoil and a thin, almost apologetic report. In contrast, big-bore elk cartridges that thrust their payloads downrange with a boom and the jab of a flying piece of sewer pipe don’t appeal to me. Still, when I can't pick the shot and I must shoot the elk, those delightful, accurate -- and versatile -- 6mms stay in the rack.
 

To those that think they'll pass on a shot I say baloney. The average tag
fill in Montana is 1 every ten years. They are a hard back country hunt for
most who hunt public lands and some years you may never see a shot let
alone take one. Going out with a .243 is a handi cap, plain and simple.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top