243 legal??

Yes, from the outset the .243 Winchester was offered with a broader spread of bullet weights than was the .244 Remington. Which wasn't. This is a great pity as the .244 Remington (that then would become the 6mm Remington) is IMHO the better balanced cartridge in design. It's just more elegant as it looks more all in proportion than does the .243 Winchester. I have owned both.
 
Yes, from the outset the .243 Winchester was offered with a broader spread of bullet weights than was the .244 Remington. Which wasn't. This is a great pity as the .244 Remington (that then would become the 6mm Remington) is IMHO the better balanced cartridge in design. It's just more elegant as it looks more all in proportion than does the .243 Winchester. I have owned both.
Yes, based on a Mauser case I believe with a pinch more powder room.
If Remington had used a faster twist in 244 rifles the 243 would of never took off. By the time Remington tried to correct their mistake with the 6mm Remington (same chamber faster twist) it was too late!
 
.243 Winchester


Regards

JCS

Thanks for that.

Whether it was intentionally designed for a dual purpose, or it was simply serendipity that it turned out that way, seems to the subject of endless debate. Perhaps, somewhere, in an archive at Winchester, there might be some record of the intended use, development process, and design decisions etc. That may one day be published to settle this. But I doubt it.

I favour the "It was initially offered as a varmint cartridge on the U.S. market, but hunters soon found out that it was perfectly capable to bring down mid-sized ungulates such as the whitetail deer " view in that article.

Here's another, very wordy take on what it's good, and not so good, for. How much of it is authoritative I couldn't possibly know. But might fill in some time reading, if you are running out of better things to do at the moment.


Bottom line is that the OP was enquiring about whether there was yet a 100 grain non toxic bullet available for a standard .243 rifle, that would presumably be required to meet the Scottish regulations for larger deer, and I suppose, if such a thing does exist, the next question would be, how well do they perform ?

To which question, answer there has been none.

My opinion being that, unless Scotland changes its laws, if/when the use of non toxic ammo becomes either mandated, or strongly favoured by those who have studied the pros and cons, or simply required by the landowners or game dealers, then the .243 with none (less) toxic humane 100 grain bullet combination does not yet exist. Whereas I think it gets a lot easier to do by dropping the bullet weight below 100 grains. As is perfectly acceptable elsewhere in the UK.

But ISTM that there are already better tools for the job, here and now, so unless invested in .243 already I'd avoid, going forward. in Scotland. Which would be a shame.

Whereas with a small change in the laws, perhaps an alignment of Scottish and the rest of the UK rules, things could be sorted out straightforwardly. And the nonsense that means that, outwith Scotland, the .243 is the minimum calibre for Roe, could be knocked on the head too. But that's never going to happen any time soon is it ?



I
 
Last edited:
SMELLYDOG there could be a whole thread on Remington cartridges that are better than Winchester's "equivalent" that flopped. 7mm Remington Express of 1957 vs 270 WCF of 1925 and, indeed, .244 Remington v .243 Winchester. OTOH I suppose you could counter with the .22-250 vs the .220 Swift? It's odd that "being first" whilst benefiting the .270 WCF vs the 7mm Express didn't benefit the .220 Swift vs the .22-250. Maybe the time gap was short enough for one but not the other?
 
SMELLYDOG there could be a whole thread on Remington cartridges that are better than Winchester's "equivalent" that flopped. 7mm Remington Express of 1957 vs 270 WCF of 1925 and, indeed, .244 Remington v .243 Winchester. OTOH I suppose you could counter with the .22-250 vs the .220 Swift? It's odd that "being first" whilst benefiting the .270 WCF vs the 7mm Express didn't benefit the .220 Swift vs the .22-250. Maybe the time gap was short enough for one but not the other?
Winchester and Remington battled as rivals in avid advertising campaigns for decades. It produces fans and enemies all at the same time. As in any battle there can only be one Victor but come the next battle the other is the victor and around it goes until the war is lost. Winchester lost the war but Remington is only just hanging on and just like Winchester of old, when Remington is gone to no one will care. So it goes.
 
Whether it was intentionally designed for a dual purpose, or it was simply serendipity that it turned out that way, seems to the subject of endless debate. Perhaps, somewhere, in an archive at Winchester, there might be some record of the intended use, development process, and design decisions etc. That may one day be published to settle this. But I doubt it.

@Sharpie

I covered all this a while back. There’s absolutely zero debate, and you have nothing to doubt. The originator of the cartridge - Warren Page, editor of Field & Stream, champion benchrester and hunter - wrote a book “The Accurate Rifle”. In it he details with absolute clarity how the .243 Winchester evolved, how he pitched it and what Winchester did with it. (And where Remington went wrong.) I posted photos of the relevant sections, and also found some of the original ammunition made at the time of the rifle's launch, in 100gr and 80gr, complete with and categories of game the ammunition was intended for.

There’s another book too from about 1960, the name of which has completely escaped me. That too demonstrates how Winchester basically pinched Page’s ideas. But critically it also shows clearly how Winchester promoted the cartridge as a deer rifle first (whitetail), a varmint rifle second, which was the other way round to Remington’s 6mm. I’ll see if I can find it.

There really is no substitute for research!

I thought it was you that was egging me on at the time, but maybe it was @25 Sharps? Do a search on here for "Warren Page" under my name, you will find it all in glorious technicolor.

Bottom line is that internet forums and a great many magazines are full of misinformation, blatant errors, poor (or no) research and general ignorance. That's not a dig at you, but when guys write long posts with views that are just flat out wrong, those members that know different should speak up to correct them. How else will we ever learn? This is a major problems with forums. And as I have also posted in the past, a whole bunch of the world's supposed authorities writing in magazines haven't got a friggin' clue what they're talking about.
 
Last edited:

“It was initially offered as a varmint cartridge on the U.S. market, but hunters soon found out that it was perfectly capable to bring down mid-sized ungulates such as the whitetail deer − a benchmark performance by which all big game hunting rounds are judged.”

WRONG.

Flat out completely bloody wrong.
 
@Sharpie

I covered all this a while back. There’s absolutely zero debate, and you have nothing to doubt. The originator of the cartridge - Warren Page, editor of Field & Stream, champion benchrester and hunter - wrote a book “The Accurate Rifle”. In it he details with absolute clarity how the .243 Winchester evolved, how he pitched it and what Winchester did with it. (And where Remington went wrong.) I posted photos of the relevant sections, and also found some of the original ammunition made at the time of the rifle's launch, in 100gr and 80gr, complete with and categories of game the ammunition was intended for.

There’s another book too from about 1960, the name of which has completely escaped me. That too demonstrates how Winchester basically pinched Page’s ideas. But critically it also shows clearly how Winchester promoted the cartridge as a deer rifle first (whitetail), a varmint rifle second, which was the other way round to Remington’s 6mm. I’ll see if I can find it.

There really is no substitute for research!

I thought it was you that was egging me on at the time, but maybe it was @25 Sharps? Do a search on here for "Warren Page" under my name, you will find it all in glorious technicolor.

Bottom line is that internet forums and a great many magazines are full of misinformation, blatant errors, poor (or no) research and general ignorance. That's not a dig at you, but when guys write long posts with views that are just flat out wrong, those members that know different should speak up to correct them. How else will we ever learn? This is a major problems with forums. And as I have also posted in the past, a whole bunch of the world's supposed authorities writing in magazines haven't got a friggin' clue what they're talking about.
I remember debating this with you a while back and you showing me the error of my ways so that may be what you are thinking of
 
Bottom line is that internet forums and a great many magazines are full of misinformation, blatant errors, poor (or no) research and general ignorance. That's not a dig at you, but when guys write long posts with views that are just flat out wrong, those members that know different should speak up to correct them. How else will we ever learn? This is a major problems with forums. And as I have also posted in the past, a whole bunch of the world's supposed authorities writing in magazines haven't got a friggin' clue what they're talking about.

Thank you very much for that. I genuinely appreciate the correction, and surprising as it may seem, did try to do some basic research, but failed to discover the source material that you have shown us (again). But everywhere I looked I kept finding the misleading story repeated. I am better educated now.

You are correct, this is the first time we have discussed this together. It must have been the other "sharps" person.

I jumped in and pontificated in response to the OP's question, i.e. is there a way to shoot non toxic 100 grain bullets from a .243. ?

The point of which I think has largely been lost. From my "research", for what it's worth, it seems to be a problem.

I don't know your laws in New Zealand, but I'm guessing that this is not a great concern for you. But it is potentially for those shooting deer in Scotland.

For the rest of us, who aren't legally required to use at least 100 grain bullets for the larger species, it does however raise the question of whether a lighter weight non toxic bullet is going to be suitable, looking forwards, for our larger deer, where 100 grains of lead have been the usual choice, and as shown by your research, are for what Winchester optimised the cartridge.
 
Have a look:


That seems to put the tin lid on things such as the Tikkas and Sakos with 10" twist barrels, as per original Winchester design. So what is the heaviest non toxic hunting bullet that these can shoot, and is it as effective on all deer as the original 100 grain lead designs specified. ? Or will these have to revert to being just a small deer and vermin etc. round ?
 
“It was initially offered as a varmint cartridge on the U.S. market, but hunters soon found out that it was perfectly capable to bring down mid-sized ungulates such as the whitetail deer − a benchmark performance by which all big game hunting rounds are judged.”

WRONG.

Flat out completely bloody wrong.
Have you ever asked yourself why are you such an irritating,opinionated,boring ****. Sorry Malcolm someone had to say it.. yellow card accepted.

f
 
That seems to put the tin lid on things such as the Tikkas and Sakos with 10" twist barrels, as per original Winchester design. So what is the heaviest non toxic hunting bullet that these can shoot, and is it as effective on all deer as the original 100 grain lead designs specified. ? Or will these have to revert to being just a small deer and vermin etc. round ?
80 or 85 grain monolithics SHOULD stabilise i 1-10 twists and give similar penetration/performance as a 100 grain conventional cup and core bullet.
 
80 or 85 grain monolithics SHOULD stabilise i 1-10 twists and give similar penetration/performance as a 100 grain conventional cup and core bullet.
If you can believe the reviews I seem to recall someone in the States has written they “Made the 243 a true big game rifle”. What exactly they meant by that I am not sure.
But if it is the case then you just need The Scottish Government to change the Law. Can’t see it while ever the SNP are in charge.
 
Back
Top