The 243 may be fine in some localities, but

You lost me with that one Brit.

You want to try living in a border county where up until recent years you would be living in a different country every other year. At least we can say that we are truely British.

I don't watch TV much and don't both with the papers so it's possible I spelt the "kings" name wrong but excuse the spelling but I meant Alec Salmon ...................................... you know the one who fancies himself king of Scotland.
 
Brit, Scottish law does not actually specify a calibre, the requirements to be legal for all species of deer are

100 grain bullet weight
2450 ft. per second muzzle velocity [minimum]
1750 ft pounds muzzle energy [minimum]


For Roe deer only
50 grain bullet weight
muzzle energy 2450 ft. per second.
muzzle velocity 1000 ft per second.

No provision for the other small species of deer as they were not present in Scotland though it would appear that we now have Muntjac in the borders,

The leaflet I had with the law on Deer rifles mentioned minimum 0.240" calibre and minimum 100 grain bullet, minimum muzzle energy of 1700ft lbs at a minimum velocity of 2450 FPS for everything but Roe where a .22 calibre with minimum 50 grain bullet weight and minimum energy of now was it 1000 ft lbs or 1100 ft lbs and again minimum velocity of 2450 FPS.

Due to circumstances beyond my control I have not bothered with the recent changes in the requirements.

The way you wrote it can be read to seem that only 50 rain and 100 grain bullets are legal as you missed the Minimum bit out. same could be said for the velocity and energy which of course anyone could see you got transposed in the .22 calibre.
 
I don't watch TV much and don't both with the papers so it's possible I spelt the "kings" name wrong but excuse the spelling but I meant Alec Salmon ...................................... you know the one who fancies himself king of Scotland.

Brit, you mean Idi Amin then, not Alec Salmond...

Cheers
i.
 
In a book I read that was written by Craig Boddington it suggested a minimum of 1000 ftlbs at the point of impact as being desirable for deer size game with 2000ft/lbs for elk sized game. This means that the 243 runs out of oomph at around the 200 yard mark but the 6.5, 270. 308 etc all carry enough energy past 300 yards.

Is this a reasonable rule of thumb to use to assess suitability of a particular cartridge for the job or is the general concensus that such statistical gymnastics are worthless.

Clearly the placement of the projectile on the animal will have the greatest effect on the killing effect of the shot, however It strikes me that we should be able to work out (using the massive amount of practical experience that is here on this forum) whether this 1000ft/lbs guideline seems to hold water. Whilst I dont want to speak for anyone, least of all Muir, it appears that there is a body of opinion that feels that the 243 reaches its limit on deer around the 150-200 yard mark. What do you guys think??:?:
 
given the choice between a 9mm and a Colt New Service in .45 cal the Colt would win every time!
Happy New Year

You don't want a New Service, a S&W 25 would suit you better ;)

.243 Does seem a bit light for larger animals too me. And you can't get too dead. So hit 'em with something hard.

Happy New Year all!

Scrummy
 
Brit, you mean Idi Amin then, not Alec Salmond...

Cheers
i.

So your telling me "king" Alec is really a negro but wears white make up?

Hmmm nope I don't think so. No I meant that little twit that fancies himself the first ruler of a separate Scotland. They could never be independent with the financial support of Westminster they would have to go cap in hand to Brussels.
 
So your telling me "king" Alec is really a negro but wears white make up?

Hmmm nope I don't think so. No I meant that little twit that fancies himself the first ruler of a separate Scotland. They could never be independent with the financial support of Westminster they would have to go cap in hand to Brussels.

No, I meant Idi Amin who was the self-styled "Last King of Scotland"...
 
Slight deviation from the original topic but those that advocate shortening the barrel on a .243win rifle might like to read the article by Bruce Potts in this week's Shooting Times magazine. The figures make interesting reading and suggest that even with reloading and the use of fast powders it isn't really advisable to shorten a .243 barrel by much if you want to remain deer legal.
 
Slight deviation from the original topic but those that advocate shortening the barrel on a .243win rifle might like to read the article by Bruce Potts in this week's Shooting Times magazine. The figures make interesting reading and suggest that even with reloading and the use of fast powders it isn't really advisable to shorten a .243 barrel by much if you want to remain deer legal.

link to article if you have sir?
 
I don't think there is a link yet the magazine has only just come out. It will probably be online next week.
 
No, I meant Idi Amin who was the self-styled "Last King of Scotland"...

I was aware that there was made a film called that but as I have no interest in what a warped negro tyrant had to say or think never bothered with the film.

Ahhh now Mr Potts does love to do this sort of thing. I seem to recall he did a similar test with a .308 some years back. It probably stems from his scientific background.
 
I was aware that there was made a film called that but as I have no interest in what a warped negro tyrant had to say or think never bothered with the film.

Ahhh now Mr Potts does love to do this sort of thing. I seem to recall he did a similar test with a .308 some years back. It probably stems from his scientific background.

I was trying to be funny, which evidently didn't work...
 
Just to get my 2p worth in. That video pretty much sums it up beuatifully at the end. I understand some people's concerns but! There are far to many respectible stalkers, dealers and experts saying there is nothing wrong with the .243...

+1
 
anyone hunting that large game with a mere 6mm bullet should by no means be considered an expert, more a liability and a maverick!
 
Muir, you have voiced something that has run through my mind as my shooting/stalking has developed and, based on my experience, I think you make a very valid point
 
One of the reasons I swapped my .243 for the 7mm 08 was the one or two deer who didnt fall over straight away, the 7mm knocks em down.
 
I have never shot a deer and am a newbie to this sort of thing but why would you choose the MINIMUM caliber required to do a job.I work in the building trade and always go that little bit better than the minimum required as it is a better job.
Hope i don't get flamed:scared:
dave
 
Plonker I'm from an industry which steps in when everything goes wrong so know what you mean and have always tended to go for equipment that has that little bit of margin for error. The .243 is a pleasant calibre to shoot and can be used to good effect by the right person as long as they use it within their capabilities and the limitations of the cartridge. Normally using it within my capabilities I personally wouldn't feel too under gunned using it for anything in this country with the exception of wild boar. However the write up by Bruce Potts in this week's Shooting Times has confirmed to me the limits of this particular cartridge and my personal view that you shouldn't shorten the barrel on a .243 rifle by too much if you want to use it for deer.
 
Back
Top