.243 Non-Toxic Factory Ammo: Struggling for 1700 ft-lbs in a 20" Barrel

[Uplander]

Hi, felt I had to come in on this one. The .243 has often struggled to achieve the legal requirements from a 20” barrel. A few years ago, before sound moderators became common manufactures often made rifles with 22-24” barrels. The fashion for 20” barrels only really came in to assist accommodate the additional length moderators create.
Your problem is a very common one and it’s why BASC petitioned the government not to include the .243 on the list of large calibres that will require lead free ammo.
Your combination absolutely will kill deer very effectively but I have to say I’m very disappointed by the ignorance of some of the reply's you’ve had. You may have been granted a .243 but the Police haven’t selected your rifle of choice. It’s your responsibility to comply with the legal requirements. I and many others have given up our .243’s for this very reason. Although possible, a .243 really needs a longer barrel and a faster twist to meet the requirements and maintain reliable accuracy with a range of non lead ammo.
Please stay legal and for those who openly conspire to continue to not meet the legal requirements on an open forum don’t cry when you loose your rifles.

 

[Watermeadow]

20” Barrels generally do struggle to be deer legal with 80gn factory ammo - we’re more aware of it than ever for two reasons:

1. Manufacturers regularly go through trends in barrel lengths (the sako 75 generally had a 22” barrel which is a sweet spot for most cartridges, but the 85’s had 20” barrels usually)

2. Chronographs are now readily available

There isn’t an international rifle brand in the world that considers the uk market with regards to barrel length of .243’s - we’re too small.

For lead free you probably aren't going to find a solution in factory ammo (there are heavier lead free options but you don’t have the twist rate to stabilise it in your 85 as they were all 1:10) - you’ll need to home load 80-90gn lead free bullets.

Lead isn’t banned yet, and Europe seems to be considering a u-turn on lead free, so perhaps just enjoy your rifle then rebarrel it when the time comes to a lead free spec…

Good luck

 

[Dave_45]

Hi, felt I had to come in on this one. The .243 has often struggled to achieve the legal requirements from a 20” barrel. A few years ago, before sound moderators became common manufactures often made rifles with 22-24” barrels. The fashion for 20” barrels only really came in to assist accommodate the additional length moderators create.
Your problem is a very common one and it’s why BASC petitioned the government not to include the .243 on the list of large calibres that will require lead free ammo.
Your combination absolutely will kill deer very effectively but I have to say I’m very disappointed by the ignorance of some of the reply's you’ve had. You may have been granted a .243 but the Police haven’t selected your rifle of choice. It’s your responsibility to comply with the legal requirements. I and many others have given up our .243’s for this very reason. Although possible, a .243 really needs a longer barrel and a faster twist to meet the requirements and maintain reliable accuracy with a range of non lead ammo.
Please stay legal and for those who openly conspire to continue to not meet the legal requirements on an open forum don’t cry when you loose your rifles.

My 8 twist 22.5 inch 243 is 1850ft lbs at the muzzle with a mild load with 80gr Barnes.

I agree with you not to knowingly break the law or claim ignorance as it's just ridiculous.

But the 243 isn't dead by any means in regards to non lead,it just needs a semi custom barrel and home loaded rounds.

 

[Smellydog]

Hi, felt I had to come in on this one. The .243 has often struggled to achieve the legal requirements from a 20” barrel. A few years ago, before sound moderators became common manufactures often made rifles with 22-24” barrels. The fashion for 20” barrels only really came in to assist accommodate the additional length moderators create.
Your problem is a very common one and it’s why BASC petitioned the government not to include the .243 on the list of large calibres that will require lead free ammo.
Your combination absolutely will kill deer very effectively but I have to say I’m very disappointed by the ignorance of some of the reply's you’ve had. You may have been granted a .243 but the Police haven’t selected your rifle of choice. It’s your responsibility to comply with the legal requirements. I and many others have given up our .243’s for this very reason. Although possible, a .243 really needs a longer barrel and a faster twist to meet the requirements and maintain reliable accuracy with a range of non lead ammo.
Please stay legal and for those who openly conspire to continue to not meet the legal requirements on an open forum don’t cry when you loose your rifles.

Pedantic. If you want to be so strict 243 Winchester is not legal at all if you know anything about the wording of the law.
The bore of a 243 Winchester is .237".

If the licencing authority grants a 243 for a requested use on deer and the acquired rifle falls in the UK description of a rifle it is squarely the fault of the law makers if their laws are handicapping the end user.

If one, has anyone even lost their rifle because an authority somewhere flagged up an individuals 243 is not legal or in fact none are for use on deer? If one loses his rifle for the above have you realised that they, the authorities, know it would open a huge can of worms up for them?
And what if an authority refused to sanction an individuals 243 for deer shooting, just replace it with a legal calibre. Not hard is it?

 

[25 Sharps]

Ok, I’m probably overthinking things but I would like to stay the right side of the law if I can especially when police can and will remove licences for seemingly any reason possible.

I have plenty of time to test before we are forced to go non toxic and I just wanted to see what others were using.

The fact that these don’t give me the group id expect means I’d have to keep looking anyway.

I’m fully aware that deer can be dispatched with a much smaller calibre with a well placed shot but that’s not really what my question was about. I’m just trying to stay legal and find a factory load that is accurate for my barrel without spending a fortune going through every option available.

Get a longer barrel or a bigger calibre…..

 

[HonestJohn]

But the 243 isn't dead by any means in regards to non lead,it just needs a semi custom barrel and home loaded rounds.

Which means, it’s dead commercially.

 

[Watermeadow]

Which means, it’s dead commercially.

A couple of the manufacturers such as Sako and Weatherby are now using faster twist rates in their factory standard .243’s - 1:7.5 and 1:8 - but you’re probably right in terms of it being commercially dead in the uk as the 6.5cm has taken over the space .243 used to hold

 

[Leec6.5]

Hi all,

I was in my local RFD the other day discussing non-toxic options for my Sako 85 in .243 (20" barrel, 1:10 twist). The dealer recommended trying the Sako Powerhead Blades.

However, after running a few of these over the chronograph, I’m finding they run well under the UK legal limit of 1700 ft-lbs of muzzle energy required for large deer.

For context on my testing: I deep-cleaned the barrel with BoreTech Carbon C4 and CU+2 before hitting the range, fouled the barrel with 3 rounds, and then logged the data. Even at the maximum recorded velocity, I only managed 2,999 fps with the 80gr Blade, which calculates to just 1,598 ft-lbs. I only fired 5 rounds in total because they weren't making power and the groups weren't looking great either.

Doing some fag packet maths based on factory test barrels (usually 24") versus my actual 20" barrel:

• Lead: With 100gr Sako Gameheads, I usually get around 2,830–2,840 fps (~1,785 ft-lbs). Sako quotes 2,950 fps on the box, meaning I'm losing roughly 28 fps per inch over those 4 inches.
• Copper: The 80gr Blade is advertised at 3,182 fps. At my actual 2,999 fps, I'm losing about 45 fps per inch.

Looking at those losses, it seems like I'm going to struggle to hit the legal 1700 ft-lbs requirement with almost any factory non-toxic option out of a 20" barrel if they all drop velocity this hard.

Any suggestions for other factory loads I should try, or am I just ****ing in the wind here? I’d ideally like to try something in the 85–90gr bracket if possible, but I'd appreciate some pointers to potentially save me some cash!

Thanks in advance.


View attachment 482525

Why are you even worrying about it?

Question is would you want to stand in front of it?

In plane speak in the answer will be most definitely not!, So if you wouldn’t stand in front of it, what makes you think a Deer is going to worry about it?

Well, it goes bang projectile hits Deer there falls over simple as that really you just created a thread over something that is really quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things

 

[wellyboot]

Question is would you want to stand in front of it?

My point exactly, really....

 

[Dave_45]

Which means, it’s dead commercially.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

The EU haven't went through on the centre fire lead ban and they now have a 7 year transition for lead shot.

I suppose it depends on our representative groups lobbying


Or not

 

[Leec6.5]

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

The EU haven't went through on the centre fire lead ban and they now have a 7 year transition for lead shot.

I suppose it depends on our representative groups lobbying


Or not

What representative groups?

 

[Dave_45]

What representative groups?

Exactly

 

[Jo308]

I have been dealing with this challenge for my .243.

It is a Sako L579 action with a Shilen stainless match barrel - 20" from bolt face to muzzle and 1-10 twist. I have had this for over 20 years as my go-to for Roe and Muntjac, although I have shot Sika and Fallow with 95gr Nosler Partition without any issues.
With carefully developed home loads it delivers groups normally under 1 MOA using a variety of bullet types and Vit N160.

Looking ahead to the new laws I bought a box of Hornady 80gr CX and tested a load at the low end of the recommended powder charge (using the XXL software and case volume measured by water).
The results were awful - bullets were spread all over an A4 target paper at 100yds and were obviously hitting the target in all sorts of orientations!
I was then resigned to having to get a new barrel fitted with a 1-8 twist.

However, reading some further info on the web, I followed a recommendation to seat the bullets well into the cases with about 0.2" clearance to the lands instead of my usual 30 thou and use a maximum load.
Tested yesterday and got 2 rounds at 0.4 MOA on the target at 100 yds. Nice round holes showed bullets still stable at that range. MVs on my Athlon chrono were 3140 and 3149, so I'm getting 1761 ft lbs ME.

Next step is to experiment a little with seating depths and check for instability at ranges out to 200 yds (which will cover any stalk I might do on Roe or Muntjac - for longer/bigger I have a T3X .308).
Hopefully the barrel money can be saved towards a new Tikka in a 6.5 chambering!

 

[Leec6.5]

I have been dealing with this challenge for my .243.

It is a Sako L579 action with a Shilen stainless match barrel - 20" from bolt face to muzzle and 1-10 twist. I have had this for over 20 years as my go-to for Roe and Muntjac, although I have shot Sika and Fallow with 95gr Nosler Partition without any issues.
With carefully developed home loads it delivers groups normally under 1 MOA using a variety of bullet types and Vit N160.

Looking ahead to the new laws I bought a box of Hornady 80gr CX and tested a load at the low end of the recommended powder charge (using the XXL software and case volume measured by water).
The results were awful - bullets were spread all over an A4 target paper at 100yds and were obviously hitting the target in all sorts of orientations!
I was then resigned to having to get a new barrel fitted with a 1-8 twist.

However, reading some further info on the web, I followed a recommendation to seat the bullets well into the cases with about 0.2" clearance to the lands instead of my usual 30 thou and use a maximum load.
Tested yesterday and got 2 rounds at 0.4 MOA on the target at 100 yds. Nice round holes showed bullets still stable at that range. MVs on my Athlon chrono were 3140 and 3149, so I'm getting 1761 ft lbs ME.

Next step is to experiment a little with seating depths and check for instability at ranges out to 200 yds (which will cover any stalk I might do on Roe or Muntjac - for longer/bigger I have a T3X .308).
Hopefully the barrel money can be saved towards a new Tikka in a 6.5 chambering!

Your thinking too much

 

[Jo308]

Your thinking too much

How is going from a load giving an unstable bullet to one giving a stable bullet and avoiding spending £1000 on a new barrel "thinking too much"?

 

[Leec6.5]

How is going from a load giving an unstable bullet to one giving a stable bullet and avoiding spending £1000 on a new barrel "thinking too much"?

Ahh i’ve just read your post properly, and I relate back to my earlier post. Why are you worrying about the law?

Nobody is going to come and check the speed of your bullet, and most certainly you wouldn’t want to stand in front of it because it will most certainly do its job so just load them up and shoot them. Stop making hard work out of things.!

Loading copper is as simple as ABC , it’s not witchcraft in the slightest just treat them like any other bullet!

If I had a 243, I’m the type person with that much confidence in loading copper that I would try to do the apparent impossible and load 100gn copper and get it to shoot!

I will say that is confidence I should have, I’ve been loading the bugger long enough!

 

[Jo308]

I agree about the law issue completely - the chances of anybody's loads being tested are vanishingly small. So I expect many 243 owners will continue to shoot lead core bullets for as long as they remain available.
But I want to have a solution up my sleeve just in case at a FAC renewal I am asked why I am keeping a 243 on my ticket or stalking if the factory ammo doesn't work in a 1-10 barrel.
And I enjoy a technical/ballistics challenge - why do longer bullets not stabilise at slow twist rates and what changes might overcome this.

 

[Smellydog]

I agree about the law issue completely - the chances of anybody's loads being tested are vanishingly small. So I expect many 243 owners will continue to shoot lead core bullets for as long as they remain available.
But I want to have a solution up my sleeve just in case at a FAC renewal I am asked why I am keeping a 243 on my ticket or stalking if the factory ammo doesn't work in a 1-10 barrel.
And I enjoy a technical/ballistics challenge - why do longer bullets not stabilise at slow twist rates and what changes might overcome this.

The authorities are not going to ask that because a claim could be made for compensation.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

You will be interested to know that 40% of the lead 100gr ammo we tested failed to make the energy requirement as well….

Fox Classic Hunter 80gr is pushing 3300 from a 22”
Well over the legal requirement


To my knowledge no-one has ever been prosecuted for using ammo that was proven to be under the Deer Act minimum

How would one prove that the round expended was the same as the ones not expended?…..

 

[Jo308]

How would one prove that the round expended was the same as the ones not expended?…..

A very good point. It will not be an offence to have lead core ammo in your possession (AFAIK), only to shoot game with it.