Is .243 big enough???

[Crosshair243]

just remember that our armed forces use a 223 to shoot at humans, when we use to use 308/7.62! maybe theres and argument to start there?

I nearly mentioned that myself but then didn't for a few reasons (I have no military background other than the in-laws)
1. Generally, the 5.56 stuff is used in their automatic style weapons for close combat or largely inaccurate suppressing fire. The 'one shot one kill' type rifles are often 7.62 or bigger.
2. It enables them to carry more ammo for a given weight- bit like using a 28g for walked up shooting and a 32" 12g in the pigeon hide I guess
3. 5.56 does not kill humans reliably with one shot which is what we stalkers are striving for. Doped up insurgents in Iraq often required 'many' shots to put them down with 5.56 rounds. (Source- "American Sniper")
4. Despite the now seemingly common practice of using explosive .50cal rounds to blow several people up at once, the hague convention I think banned the use of 'explosive' projectiles under a certain weight (ie non artillery) so therefore terminal energy is pretty irrelevant- you're trying to make a hole through them rather than drop them dead.
Although I can't find a source off hand, I'm sure I've read that there's more to it than that anyway in as much as a wounded soldier is actually a bigger drain on the enemy than a dead one by tying up men and medics for extraction.

Maybe an interesting new thread??

 

[Scipio Africanus]

i've an old Tikka M55 with which over the years I've had no trouble shooting all the larger UK species. (Still shoots 1 MOA after many,many hundreds of rounds).
You can also load 105 gn bullets, but 40gns N160/H4831 & 100 gn SPBT have always worked well. I really like .243....little recoil impulse also.

(But I also like my 22-250 & 3006!)

As another contributor has remarked, many views, little real help. So go for something a little different & tell us all about it!

 

[Paul at Fechan]

I think you will find that its the guests bad shooting not the rifle ,there has been so much trouble over guests shooting are way, fallow having legs blown off, farmers having to go and shoot badly shot deer not saying all paid shoots are like that but just the fact they are paying means they probably don't shoot that much and when faced with the buck off a life time they cant take a good shot buck fever I think they call it .I was just told the other day by a friend that some one had gone on a red stag cull on a estate in suffolk he turn up with a silly big cal so they ask him to do a shooting test at 100yrd his best group was 6inch and so he was told he would have to use a estate rifle or not shoot at all it turn s out he got a 243 but they still made him take the test again, he still could not put a good group in when the guide watch him closely they saw that he was flinching as he pulled the trigger it took quite a few shoots before they were happy for him to go out ,so having a big rifle is fine but if you cant shoot it because you are scared off it there's no point in having it at all .much more likely that someone like that is going to wound a animal then kill it ,he probably got on just fine with the 243 and is wondering why he brought a cannon he cant shoot??

err no the deer I mentioned were all shot fine, when a red stays on it's feet for a minute with a forward middle chest shot turned rump on heading off to cover there's a horrible ashamed feeling you get that sends a message home. When you find a sika 120 yards into the trees with a bullet an inch above the heart you can only shake your head and wish you'd shot it with more afterwards. This is simple, more diameter, weight and energy kills deer quicker. In my experience of comparing calibres across the deer the calibre is actually irrelevant, it's the energy of that calibre relative to the animals size. If you start hitting them with 15+ ft-lb per live weight lb of energy well in the chest the damage caused with normal hunting ammo of any calibre puts are deer on the ground in under 10 seconds.

Heart shot is heart shot sure but there's still all the oxygenated blood in all the muscles and brain and it's the collapse of blood pressure from damage caused internally from the bullet and then anoxia (deprivation of brain oxygen) that incapacitates and kills the animal. Chest shot deer mostly run, that's just a fact of stalking when 3 or more legs are intact but it's how quickly they are on the floor that's important. Think about it this way to exaggerate the point, if a.22 rimfire bullet is shot into the chest of a fallow deer and makes it in through both lungs but missing the heart the deer will have to drown in it's own blood to die taking at least several minutes. Now put a 50 calibre in the same place and it's seconds because of the massive blood loss and shock through the shear amount of internal damage caused.

I'll repeat the point that .243 kills deer fine... but the likes of red deer are ten times bigger that muntjac, six times bigger than roe and twice a fallow. Try an appreciate what I'm saying at least.

 

[berg]

err no the deer I mentioned were all shot fine, when a red stays on it's feet for a minute with a forward middle chest shot turned rump on heading off to cover there's a horrible ashamed feeling you get that sends a message home. When you find a sika 120 yards into the trees with a bullet an inch above the heart you can only shake your head and wish you'd shot it with more afterwards. This is simple, more diameter, weight and energy kills deer quicker. In my experience of comparing calibres across the deer the calibre is actually irrelevant, it's the energy of that calibre relative to the animals size. If you start hitting them with 15+ ft-lb per live weight lb of energy well in the chest the damage caused with normal hunting ammo of any calibre puts are deer on the ground in under 10 seconds.

Heart shot is heart shot sure but there's still all the oxygenated blood in all the muscles and brain and it's the collapse of blood pressure from damage caused internally from the bullet and then anoxia (deprivation of brain oxygen) that incapacitates and kills the animal. Chest shot deer mostly run, that's just a fact of stalking when 3 or more legs are intact but it's how quickly they are on the floor that's important. Think about it this way to exaggerate the point, if a.22 rimfire bullet is shot into the chest of a fallow deer and makes it in through both lungs but missing the heart the deer will have to drown in it's own blood to die taking at least several minutes. Now put a 50 calibre in the same place and it's seconds because of the massive blood loss and shock through the shear amount of internal damage caused.

I'll repeat the point that .243 kills deer fine... but the likes of red deer are ten times bigger that muntjac, six times bigger than roe and twice a fallow. Try an appreciate what I'm saying at least.

No I do agree with that and like i said if i am going out for the biger deer then i would take my 308 with out a dout .But like last night i went out after munties and roe bucks so the 243 was the weapon of choice , had i seen a fallow buck i wouldn't of given it a second thort and took the shot if safe to do so .

 

[nun_hunter]

err no the deer I mentioned were all shot fine, when a red stays on it's feet for a minute with a forward middle chest shot turned rump on heading off to cover there's a horrible ashamed feeling you get that sends a message home. When you find a sika 120 yards into the trees with a bullet an inch above the heart you can only shake your head and wish you'd shot it with more afterwards. This is simple, more diameter, weight and energy kills deer quicker. In my experience of comparing calibres across the deer the calibre is actually irrelevant, it's the energy of that calibre relative to the animals size. If you start hitting them with 15+ ft-lb per live weight lb of energy well in the chest the damage caused with normal hunting ammo of any calibre puts are deer on the ground in under 10 seconds.

Heart shot is heart shot sure but there's still all the oxygenated blood in all the muscles and brain and it's the collapse of blood pressure from damage caused internally from the bullet and then anoxia (deprivation of brain oxygen) that incapacitates and kills the animal. Chest shot deer mostly run, that's just a fact of stalking when 3 or more legs are intact but it's how quickly they are on the floor that's important. Think about it this way to exaggerate the point, if a.22 rimfire bullet is shot into the chest of a fallow deer and makes it in through both lungs but missing the heart the deer will have to drown in it's own blood to die taking at least several minutes. Now put a 50 calibre in the same place and it's seconds because of the massive blood loss and shock through the shear amount of internal damage caused.

I'll repeat the point that .243 kills deer fine... but the likes of red deer are ten times bigger that muntjac, six times bigger than roe and twice a fallow. Try an appreciate what I'm saying at least.

Not knowing an awful lot about ballistics I'm not sure if what I'm asking makes a lot of sense but here goes?

Surely it is the amount of energy that the round expels inside the animal that is important? For example a .243 generating 1800ft/lbs that hits a deer in the chest and does not exit because the round expands, breaks up etc leaves all its energy in the chest where as a bigger round generating say 3000ft/lbs that exits will carry a large portion of its energy out the deer say 1500ft/lbs thereby dumping less energy into the animal?

I know the numbers I suggested are literally just plucked from my head but its the principle I'm trying to understand. You could shoot a deer with a .308 FMJ but would it cause as much damage as say an .80 grain ballistic tip from a .243? Is bullet construction and design and how it imparts its energy not more important than bullet size?

Someone may be able to answer this but have any of the bullet manufacturers (or more inquisitive members) chrono'd rounds exiting ballistic gel (or a lump of meat/carcass etc) to see how much energy is imparted and how much is carried out with the round as it exits?

The reason I thought of this is reading a thread a while ago about the HMR and people saying the 20 grain hollow point zipped through rabbits and even foxes leaving them to run on whilst the 17 grain drops them on the spot even though the 17 grain has less energy but deploys it more effectively?

 

[tackb]

Not knowing an awful lot about ballistics I'm not sure if what I'm asking makes a lot of sense but here goes?

Surely it is the amount of energy that the round expels inside the animal that is important? For example a .243 generating 1800ft/lbs that hits a deer in the chest and does not exit because the round expands, breaks up etc leaves all its energy in the chest where as a bigger round generating say 3000ft/lbs that exits will carry a large portion of its energy out the deer say 1500ft/lbs thereby dumping less energy into the animal?

I know the numbers I suggested are literally just plucked from my head but its the principle I'm trying to understand. You could shoot a deer with a .308 FMJ but would it cause as much damage as say an .80 grain ballistic tip from a .243? Is bullet construction and design and how it imparts its energy not more important than bullet size?

Someone may be able to answer this but have any of the bullet manufacturers (or more inquisitive members) chrono'd rounds exiting ballistic gel (or a lump of meat/carcass etc) to see how much energy is imparted and how much is carried out with the round as it exits?

The reason I thought of this is reading a thread a while ago about the HMR and people saying the 20 grain hollow point zipped through rabbits and even foxes leaving them to run on whilst the 17 grain drops them on the spot even though the 17 grain has less energy but deploys it more effectively?

yes , bullet design and construction plays a large part , personally I like a good sized exit wound . the 243 or any other calibre for that matter with the wrong bullet construction is inappropriate but if I was using vmax on deer for example i'd rather the 110g 308 version over the 58g 243 version , do you see the my point? neither is appropriate in my opinion unless you exclusively take head shots and leave any shot your not 100% confident in.

 

[bewsher500]

Surely it is the amount of energy that the round expels inside the animal that is important? For example a .243 generating 1800ft/lbs that hits a deer in the chest and does not exit because the round expands, breaks up etc leaves all its energy in the chest where as a bigger round generating say 3000ft/lbs that exits will carry a large portion of its energy out the deer say 1500ft/lbs thereby dumping less energy into the animal?

Its actually very sensible question

Exit velocities and energies of expanding non frangible bullets are actually much less than you imagine when using controlled and stable media like ballistic gel, well designed ones dumping anywhere from 70-95% of there energy
Obviously no two wound tracts through a deer are the same so field results will vary widely
this study was a comparison of energy dumped by various differently constructed bullets but you get the idea

take a Barnes TTSX for example dumping 92% of its energy.
bullet for bullet, more energy in, more damage

http://www.huntingwithnonlead.org/PDFs_Main/velocitydata_chart.pdf


One question not asked is around cartridge vs calibre
.243 is a calibre
.243 Win is a cartridge

you put a 70-90gr .243/6mm calibre Solid copper TTSX bullet through a 6x7STW, 6x284, 240 Weatherby or a 6-06 at 3800-4000fps and its a different kettle of fish.
Hand of God territory

try this: ferguson hot tamale .257-7mm stw rifle | ferguson custom rifles (100g .257 at 4000fps)
and read P.O Ackley's "Handbook" to learn why 4000fps changes the bullet's effectiveness

 

[nun_hunter]

Cheers for the links Bewsher, quite interesting reading. That Hot Tamale looks very impressive and they claim it can cope with the biggest game in America and Canada as well as plains game in Africa.

Definitely goes to show that size isn't everything and that the cartridge plays more of a part than most people would think.

 

[bewsher500]

Cheers for the links Bewsher, quite interesting reading. That Hot Tamale looks very impressive and they claim it can cope with the biggest game in America and Canada as well as plains game in Africa.

Definitely goes to show that size isn't everything and that the cartridge plays more of a part than most people would think.

well yes and no
in this case the bullet is doing 25-06 muzzle velocity at 300yds!!
you could shoot them with a .17HMR if you get it going fast enough!

 

[tackb]

well yes and no
in this case the bullet is doing 25-06 muzzle velocity at 300yds!!
you could shoot them with a .17HMR if you get it going fast enough!

and you could get the bullet to hold together on impact..............

 

[bewsher500]

and you could get the bullet to hold together on impact..............

or even flight!
solids are the answer

 

[welshwarrior]

carry more ammo for the same weight... nothing to do with lethality

It's got a lot to do with lethality if your shot and killed that's one less enemy. If your shot and wounded that your plus the 4 men to carry you out of the equation, if your just left screaming in pain it has an even worse effect on your sides moral.

On the introduction of the SA80 marksmanship scores improved across the Army over the SLR.

So more ammo to the same weight the soldiers are better shots 1 rounds is more likely to remove more enemy from the equation one way or the other. What was not to like on paper.

 

[tackb]

Well if I was ever to be in a combat situation with my life on the line (heaven forbid) I'd want people I shot to stay down and not shoot at me anymore !

 

[tackb]

or even flight!
solids are the answer

Or a traditional lead and copper bullet that expands at 'normal' velocities?

 

[JMS906]

It's got a lot to do with lethality if your shot and killed that's one less enemy. If your shot and wounded that your plus the 4 men to carry you out of the equation, if your just left screaming in pain it has an even worse effect on your sides moral.

On the introduction of the SA80 marksmanship scores improved across the Army over the SLR.

So more ammo to the same weight the soldiers are better shots 1 rounds is more likely to remove more enemy from the equation one way or the other. What was not to like on paper.

That's fine and dandy in theory (though it isn't current doctinre). My nephew is in the infantry (the Rifles) and he's seen rather a lot of action. In one four-hour battle out in the sticks in the dust bowl, his company (maybe it was just his platoon, I haven't checked) fired over 20,000 rounds of ammunition. How many Taliban do you think they killed? Somewhere between 10 and 20. The thing is, they don't fire single aimed shots and often they aren't even aimed shots.

Anyway, this is miles away from stalking or even the merits of the 243 Win.

-JMS

 

[JMS906]

Not knowing an awful lot about ballistics I'm not sure if what I'm asking makes a lot of sense but here goes?

Surely it is the amount of energy that the round expels inside the animal that is important?

No it isn't. That's a widely held belief, but it's a fallacy. Bullets kill by destroying tissue, i.e. puncturing the heart or severing arteries or the lungs or the CNS. In teh case of the heart or arteries, the animal dies from loss of blood to the brain. If it's a lung only shot, then the lungs collapse (due to entry of air into the thoracic cavity) and the animal dies. That's why you want two wounds, one to let air in and the other to let blood out.

Talk of "dumping energy" inot an animal is rubbish. What does the kinetic energy from the bullet get converted to? Heat, that's what. Talk of "hydrostatic shock" is also rubbish. The inclusion of the word "static" implies a stable state, i.e. not dynamic. Surely the correct term would be hydrodynamic shock?

What can happen is that the temporary cavity created by the bullet is larger than the thoracic cavity (i.e. the chest) and damage ensues. In the case of a body shot to a rabbit with, say, a 243, the temporary cavity is larger than the maximum size to which it's hide can expand, and it explodes. Or, if the temporary cavity involves tissue that cannot stretch (e.g. liver) then it is damaged by the temporary cavity. Lungs are designed to expand and contract which is why they exhibit less damage from a direct hit compared the the liver.

I invite anyone who truly believes in the energy dumping theory or hydrostatic stock to come along to this workshop and explain before the assembled world experts how these phenomenon work. I for one promise to listen intently.
http://www.irm.unibe.ch/unibe/medizin/irm/content/e7670/e53431/IntSwissWound-Ballisticsworkshop_ger.pdf

-JMS

 

[welshwarrior]

That's fine and dandy in theory (though it isn't current doctinre). My nephew is in the infantry (the Rifles) and he's seen rather a lot of action. In one four-hour battle out in the sticks in the dust bowl, his company (maybe it was just his platoon, I haven't checked) fired over 20,000 rounds of ammunition. How many Taliban do you think they killed? Somewhere between 10 and 20. The thing is, they don't fire single aimed shots and often they aren't even aimed shots.

Anyway, this is miles away from stalking or even the merits of the 243 Win.

-JMS

Quite agree after 14 years in the infantry!!! That's why we keep GPMG and kept asking for The LRR or similar in 7.62.

On the original topic just buying a 243 as it's a good fox round, can if I must shoot long range vermin (iI'd rather not) and is deer legal, I'm sure I'll be more than happy to shoot most deer with it confidently (haven't shot many uk red deer). For me as well it uses less powder and therefore is easier to moderate than say 270 etc.

it will replace a 204 and 308 that where both not getting the use they needed, I'll tell you in a year if I regret it.

 

[nun_hunter]

No it isn't. That's a widely held belief, but it's a fallacy. Bullets kill by destroying tissue, i.e. puncturing the heart or severing arteries or the lungs or the CNS. In teh case of the heart or arteries, the animal dies from loss of blood to the brain. If it's a lung only shot, then the lungs collapse (due to entry of air into the thoracic cavity) and the animal dies. That's why you want two wounds, one to let air in and the other to let blood out.

Talk of "dumping energy" inot an animal is rubbish. What does the kinetic energy from the bullet get converted to? Heat, that's what. Talk of "hydrostatic shock" is also rubbish. The inclusion of the word "static" implies a stable state, i.e. not dynamic. Surely the correct term would be hydrodynamic shock?

What can happen is that the temporary cavity created by the bullet is larger than the thoracic cavity (i.e. the chest) and damage ensues. In the case of a body shot to a rabbit with, say, a 243, the temporary cavity is larger than the maximum size to which it's hide can expand, and it explodes. Or, if the temporary cavity involves tissue that cannot stretch (e.g. liver) then it is damaged by the temporary cavity. Lungs are designed to expand and contract which is why they exhibit less damage from a direct hit compared the the liver.

I invite anyone who truly believes in the energy dumping theory or hydrostatic stock to come along to this workshop and explain before the assembled world experts how these phenomenon work. I for one promise to listen intently.
http://www.irm.unibe.ch/unibe/mediz...3431/IntSwissWound-Ballisticsworkshop_ger.pdf

-JMS

Surely by your rationale a compound bow shooting a large broadhead (somewhere in the sub 300ft/lbs region) or a .50cal air rifle (250-300ft/lbs) would be just as effective or more so than say a .308 as they would create larger permanent wound channels and thus better/quicker blood loss?

 

[Taff]

Surely by your rationale a compound bow shooting a large broadhead (somewhere in the sub 300ft/lbs region) or a .50cal air rifle (250-300ft/lbs) would be just as effective or more so than say a .308 as they would create larger permanent wound channels and thus better/quicker blood loss?

There is no doubt a broad head arrow in the right place from the right distance is as effective, roar expanding heads create a 2 inch blood channel, but you will always have a runner.

 

[tackb]

dangerous game hunters tend not to use a 'just ok' calibre because they need a quick kill/incapacitation and to achieve that they up the ft/lbs per game weight.


run it by me again why a 243 is ok for our largest deer species and I know they are not classed as dangerous but they deserve a clean kill.