JBPrecision
New member
bigwheeler, you think i need some reality? What was the point exactly of your post. Oh wait, I'm from Pa so I must not know what an elk looks like or how to kill one right
.243 for elk? d
- Thread starter d_myers57
- Start date
bigwheeler
New member
Never said that. But I am saying to encourage some one to go on an expensive trip with a 243 for elk just isn't right. They are not comparable
to a deer in any way. That is the point. And diameter does account for some
thing as well. A bigger bullet expands a lot more. That deer in the photo was
shot with a 243 100 grain partition @ 75 yards and went 80 yards before running headlong into a 4 inch pine.
And what does shooting an animal in the chest have to do with it?
And I quit shooting partitions because of too much damage.
to a deer in any way. That is the point. And diameter does account for some
thing as well. A bigger bullet expands a lot more. That deer in the photo was
shot with a 243 100 grain partition @ 75 yards and went 80 yards before running headlong into a 4 inch pine.
And what does shooting an animal in the chest have to do with it?
And I quit shooting partitions because of too much damage.
Last edited:
JBPrecision
New member
I never compaired an elk to a deer. If you shoot a big game animal in the chest 9 times out of 10 it will run no matter what caliber it is. As far as the partition, I think they are one of the worst expanding bullets ever designed. A 105 Berger bullet will leave a 4-6" wound channel. I hate animals running after they are shot, thats why I take high shoulder shots. I'm not trying to encourage anyone to do anything. I just get tired of listening to people on these sights that have no idea what a cartridge is capable of with the right bullet. (not intended to anyone specific) They've had it drilled in their heads for their whole life that bigger is better when it actually has a whole lot more to do with the bullet performance than cartridge size. If all you have is a 243 by all means practice and become efficeint with it, shoot the right bullet, and it will do the job. I hate to mention this name but talk to John Burns (Greybull Precision owner, former host of The Best of the West), he'll tell you what a 243 can do from experience. He is arrogant but very intelligent and has probably killed more elk at long range than all of us.
Last edited:
sandhillshunter
New member
Not sure how anyone can compare the effectiveness of the 243 vs bow/arrow on game bigger then deer? All anyone would have to do is look at some harvest reports on elk, moose, black bear, and brown bear to see how efficient a bow and arrow can be. How many of those animals fall to hunters using a 243? Not many! How many guides would even take a person wanting to use a 243 to harvest one of those animals? Again, not many! How many brown bear does the 243 kill annually? While I don't know, I bet ZERO would be a good guess. You really need to find a better way to make your argument for the 243, as comparing it to a bow & arrow is weak.
While I don't like the 243 for elk, that doesn't mean I'm not a 243 fan, cause I am. I think it's one [beeep] of a deer cartridge. I have not always held that belief, but after some on here persuaded me to give it a try, I'm a believer now! I'm also not someone that thinks magnums are the only way to go for elk. While I do use a 338 sometimes, my favorite elk gun is a 280. If someone wants to use a 243 for elk, that's their choice. All I know is, during elk season you won't find one in my hands.
While I don't like the 243 for elk, that doesn't mean I'm not a 243 fan, cause I am. I think it's one [beeep] of a deer cartridge. I have not always held that belief, but after some on here persuaded me to give it a try, I'm a believer now! I'm also not someone that thinks magnums are the only way to go for elk. While I do use a 338 sometimes, my favorite elk gun is a 280. If someone wants to use a 243 for elk, that's their choice. All I know is, during elk season you won't find one in my hands.
quarterbored
New member
If bow scruples were adhered to (stricktly double lung shots inside of 40 yards)... I'd fair to venture the .243 could handle itself pretty well... particualarly on non-dangerous game.
The argument is quite valid... an arrow puts a hole through both lungs... the critter runs 30-60 yards... and dies. Stoke a good bullet in the .243 and the same exact thing happens... guaranteed. Problem is... most folks who chase elk with a rifle aren't going to use a "bowhunting" mentality... they want to "knock the bull down" or expect caliber to make up for poor shot placement... and this just doesn't happen.
Let's ask this question. Assuming a propper bullet is used (TSX or the like)... which travels further, a bull shot through both lungs with a .243... or one shot in the paunch by a .300 Loudenboomer?
The argument is quite valid... an arrow puts a hole through both lungs... the critter runs 30-60 yards... and dies. Stoke a good bullet in the .243 and the same exact thing happens... guaranteed. Problem is... most folks who chase elk with a rifle aren't going to use a "bowhunting" mentality... they want to "knock the bull down" or expect caliber to make up for poor shot placement... and this just doesn't happen.
Let's ask this question. Assuming a propper bullet is used (TSX or the like)... which travels further, a bull shot through both lungs with a .243... or one shot in the paunch by a .300 Loudenboomer?
Last edited:
slugger
New member
Originally Posted By: DFullerIsn't there a rule in CO that it must be .30 cal or larger for Elk? Maybe thats AK, Just wonder if that goes for more elk bearing states too.
Bet that .243 shot placement goes out of the window when a grizzly pops up! They share that same habitat.
Nope, for "big game", which means: Antelope, Deer, Bear, Elk, Moose the minimum caliber is .243.
Bet that .243 shot placement goes out of the window when a grizzly pops up! They share that same habitat.
Nope, for "big game", which means: Antelope, Deer, Bear, Elk, Moose the minimum caliber is .243.
It sounds like people are comparing 243 coyote loads to elk loads. With todays bullets they are made for elk hunting just read the box. Also sounds like people are trying to compare 243 to a magnum. Question was is it okay for elk hunting and the answer is minimal or yes. Fact is it is minimal for elk so it must be effective and people shooting elk with 5 rounds or more needs target practice or pick a better bullet suited for the job.
sandhillshunter
New member
quarterbored, I see where you are coming from now.
Last edited:
claimbuster
New member
After reading all of this thread, it is having the same affect on me as two tall glasses of prune juice.
However, when it comes to any large game animal, I am a believer in one using the largest caliber that he/she can shoot accurately.
For me, if a cartridge has a belt, forget it, I can't shoot it. I just don't do well with big recoil. A gut shot with a 300 Loudenboomer won't get the job done, so I don't try. Therefore, I tend to stay more in the mid-range like 270, 280 or '06. I even find I don't shoot 180gr. bullets in my M70 Featherweight '06 as good as I should. I'm doing well with my new 280.
Like others have said, in the ideal world, a 243 may be adequate; however, I rarely hunt in ideal conditions or have ideal shots presented to me.
However, when it comes to any large game animal, I am a believer in one using the largest caliber that he/she can shoot accurately.
For me, if a cartridge has a belt, forget it, I can't shoot it. I just don't do well with big recoil. A gut shot with a 300 Loudenboomer won't get the job done, so I don't try. Therefore, I tend to stay more in the mid-range like 270, 280 or '06. I even find I don't shoot 180gr. bullets in my M70 Featherweight '06 as good as I should. I'm doing well with my new 280.
Like others have said, in the ideal world, a 243 may be adequate; however, I rarely hunt in ideal conditions or have ideal shots presented to me.
Urimaginaryfrnd
New member
Just because something can be done does not mean its a good idea. large heavy bullets at lower speed tend to penetrate deeper than small very fast bullets. The small fast ones tend to fragment and fail to penetrate adequately. Good bullet design is more important with smaller calibers. Nosler Partition or Barnes TSX bullets seem to work well retaining bullet weight therefore better penetration.
The problem is that when you send the guy out who only owns one rifle that he just bought he really does not have a complete sense of the perfornmance difference in ammo available and is more likely to pick the cheapest box from Walmart than the premium expensive high performance loads. YES -Shot placement is critical but in hunting under adverse conditions people often do not achieve perfect shot placement so starting with the bare minimum is not really ideal when a more powerful rifle is probably the same purchase price and truely a better choice. As for the energy doesnt kill crowd somebody please show me a kill made where no energy was used. As for bows my Matthews shoots 315 ft per sec but that 469 grain arrow cuts an inch and half hole all the way through -- heavy projectile + low speed = penetration. Lots of elk have been taken with a 30-30 which is not ideal either but there again we are talking about a 170 gr bullet and the weight of the bullet aids depth of penetration. Any time bullet design is made to expand that cost you depth of penetration. Any time you start with a light weigh bullet you gain speed but you typically sacrifice penetration. There is some validity to the argument better a light caliber rifle that one shoots well than a heavy caliber that one shoots poorly but since Tikka T3 guns in all calibers dont leave the factory unless they put 3 in less than one inch it just blows the idea that only the light calibers are capable of accuracy. If you cant shoot well go practice.
http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx
The problem is that when you send the guy out who only owns one rifle that he just bought he really does not have a complete sense of the perfornmance difference in ammo available and is more likely to pick the cheapest box from Walmart than the premium expensive high performance loads. YES -Shot placement is critical but in hunting under adverse conditions people often do not achieve perfect shot placement so starting with the bare minimum is not really ideal when a more powerful rifle is probably the same purchase price and truely a better choice. As for the energy doesnt kill crowd somebody please show me a kill made where no energy was used. As for bows my Matthews shoots 315 ft per sec but that 469 grain arrow cuts an inch and half hole all the way through -- heavy projectile + low speed = penetration. Lots of elk have been taken with a 30-30 which is not ideal either but there again we are talking about a 170 gr bullet and the weight of the bullet aids depth of penetration. Any time bullet design is made to expand that cost you depth of penetration. Any time you start with a light weigh bullet you gain speed but you typically sacrifice penetration. There is some validity to the argument better a light caliber rifle that one shoots well than a heavy caliber that one shoots poorly but since Tikka T3 guns in all calibers dont leave the factory unless they put 3 in less than one inch it just blows the idea that only the light calibers are capable of accuracy. If you cant shoot well go practice.
http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx
Originally Posted By: claimbuster
Like others have said, in the ideal world, a 243 may be adequate; however, I rarely hunt in ideal conditions or have ideal shots presented to me.
Good point.
I liken this to hunting deer with a 22 center fire. I won't say for a second that a deer can't be taken with a 22, as a matter of fact, I would say that they can do a good job of it provided your able to pick your shots.
Its not legal here, but if it were, I might even hunt deer with a 22 center fire. Mine has no recoil, shoots bug holes, and I have lots of practice with it. And the most important thing is, there are lots of deer, and I can hunt more or less every day and pick my shots.
Its the same with elk and the 243 so far as I'm concerned. If you have the time, and the animal numbers to wait until a good shot presents it self, then sure the 243 can be your rifle. But if your like me, and no elk live close to you, and hunting them is either a rare thing or an expensive thing, then the 243 is not the gun for you.
I'm still of the feeling that you'll have to pass on shots with the 243 that are makable with another larger cal.
Like others have said, in the ideal world, a 243 may be adequate; however, I rarely hunt in ideal conditions or have ideal shots presented to me.
Good point.
I liken this to hunting deer with a 22 center fire. I won't say for a second that a deer can't be taken with a 22, as a matter of fact, I would say that they can do a good job of it provided your able to pick your shots.
Its not legal here, but if it were, I might even hunt deer with a 22 center fire. Mine has no recoil, shoots bug holes, and I have lots of practice with it. And the most important thing is, there are lots of deer, and I can hunt more or less every day and pick my shots.
Its the same with elk and the 243 so far as I'm concerned. If you have the time, and the animal numbers to wait until a good shot presents it self, then sure the 243 can be your rifle. But if your like me, and no elk live close to you, and hunting them is either a rare thing or an expensive thing, then the 243 is not the gun for you.
I'm still of the feeling that you'll have to pass on shots with the 243 that are makable with another larger cal.
CacheCreek
New member
+ 1 claimbuster
As I mentioned, I killed my first bull elk with a 6mm Rem. 30 years ago and have killed an elk nearly every year since then. The majority of my elk were taken with a 7 mag and thinking back, I'm guessing over half of them required more than one hit to put them down. A number of my shots were also taken offhand because that was the only shot presented to me.
The reality of elk hunting on a general hunt on public land in the west, is that unless you have a fondness for vegan cuisine, you about have to take any shot that's presented. Papers, charts, and graphs aside, hunting elk with a .243 is a handicap.....as most of the experienced elk hunters on this thread have already pointed out.
Perfect shots are hard to make in imperfect conditions.
As I mentioned, I killed my first bull elk with a 6mm Rem. 30 years ago and have killed an elk nearly every year since then. The majority of my elk were taken with a 7 mag and thinking back, I'm guessing over half of them required more than one hit to put them down. A number of my shots were also taken offhand because that was the only shot presented to me.
The reality of elk hunting on a general hunt on public land in the west, is that unless you have a fondness for vegan cuisine, you about have to take any shot that's presented. Papers, charts, and graphs aside, hunting elk with a .243 is a handicap.....as most of the experienced elk hunters on this thread have already pointed out.
Perfect shots are hard to make in imperfect conditions.
redeyeddawg
New member
Originally Posted By: galootWould not think of taking one elk hunting, but dropped my first northern deer with the new 243 a couple weeks ago. Moving along when I shot. Might of gone 20 yds after. Missing both lungs when I field dressed it. Serria 85 gr. bthp worked.
Same load as I use on whitetails and it is absolute death on 'em. For elk I'd definitely use more gun.
Same load as I use on whitetails and it is absolute death on 'em. For elk I'd definitely use more gun.
Omnivore
New member
Since his choices are 243 for everything or a 22-250 for yotes and something else for what ever. I'd get the 22-250.
The other way to look at it is he could get something like a 7mm rem mag, and shoot anything, at any reasonable range. Then go into specifics with smaller rifles down the line.
The other way to look at it is he could get something like a 7mm rem mag, and shoot anything, at any reasonable range. Then go into specifics with smaller rifles down the line.
I have known a few elk guides from Montana that carried 243's while guiding and that is what they used. They also have alot more experience with getting close enough to where a .243 would be deadly on elk. If all i had was a .243 i would use that, but if i had the money to go on an elk hunt and planned on doing it more than once i would invest in a larger caliber, not for the fact that a .243 would not do the job but so i would not be restricted. It would be very heart breaking to have to pass on a great bull beacuse he was out of range and it was not ethical to take the shot when a larger cal. would do the job. Kind of like carring a 22 lr when you need a .243
quarterbored
New member
If everyone shot elk with a .243... we'd be a lot better hunters.