243 still viable?

[User00040]

it will be fine, law in Scotland likely to change to allow sub 100g rounds

Considering the number of people openly running PARD's for deer, it's hardly a contraversial issue...

 

[Tim.243]

Considering the number of people openly running PARD's for deer, it's hardly a contraversial issue...

I use a Drone 10 on my .243 for deer.... (contraversial)

 

[User00033]

The challenge with the 243 has bern its high velocity and failure to penetrate on big deer if you put a bullet in the shoulder.

As a deer stalking round it's always been marginal... I really fail to see the attraction of what is basically a varminting round.

Whenever the subject of the .243 Winchester comes up on this forum, there's always some light entertainment in the form of complete bollocks.

 

[Magnificent 7]

Probably been asked before, so apologies!

Hopefully should hear about my application soon which makes me wonder if a 243 for Roe mainly, maybe CWD and Muntjac on the odd occasion and rare possibility of Fallow is still a realistic choice.
Have no desire to try for reds.

Have looked on Youtube and looked at on line articles and am confused.

Any thoughts given the impending change to non lead projectiles? TIA

243 using yewtree TLR and my pulsar c50 digital scope grouping I’d say would be a lot better if coupled to a normal scope.

 

[JohnSmith]

Whenever the subject of the .243 Winchester comes up on this forum, there's always some light entertainment in the form of complete bollocks.

And I get some light entertainment when these threads question the efficiency of calibers for UK deer… when I’d gladly turn around and use them on a moose.

 

[Siggy]

Do FEO’s really think that? I refuse to believe that they fail to recognise that if your so-called “Beginner” negligently discharges a round or fails to ensure a safe backstop that, all things being equal, the outcome will be of life preserving difference if the projectile is 6mm rather than 6.5mm.

K

I've talked to a beginner who have been steered away from 6.5 creedmoor. The vast majority of first rifles are .243. It might be a self forfiling prophecy that people believe .243 is a starter rifle. I've given up trying to work out what goes on in other peoples minds and certainly FEOs.

 

[Siggy]

Whenever the subject of the .243 Winchester comes up on this forum, there's always some light entertainment in the form of complete bollocks.

Don't disagree with you, half the stuff that comes out of my mouth is complete bollocks! - but, .243 is the smallest deer legal calibre for (all) deer species in the UK, therefore it is by definition, marginal...no deer ever complained of being shot with too much bullet.

 

[Dan Newcombe]

Probably swimming against the tide here, but its only the most popular round because FEO's think its the "safest" rifle for beginners. Basically they want to give out the smallest calibre they can and restrict our choice as much as possible. As a deer stalking round it's always been marginal and should be the reserve of accurate shots who are self disciplined enough not to take chancy shots - certainly not novices.

When for the sake of .5 mm you could be shooting a light recoiling 6.5 delivering considerably more energy with great chance of a humane kill, I really fail to see the attraction of what is basically a varminting round.

There is always going to be a ‘minimum’ round when it comes to the rules for pretty much anything.

If the minimum was changed to 6.5 creedmoor, would you argue that’s underpowered, because it’s the minimum?

 

[Siggy]

There is always going to be a ‘minimum’ round when it comes to the rules for pretty much anything.

If the minimum was changed to 6.5 creedmoor, would you argue that’s underpowered, because it’s the minimum?

Not really because 140 grains carries a lot more momentum than 100 grains...but creedmoor is a bit slow for copper so perhaps...only kidding.

TBH, this thread has prompted me to go back to the research and check. Turns out I was mistaken, bullets bigger than 90 grains are just as effective as anything else, it's when you go below 75 grains you start having problems, so I am rethinking my opinions on .243. Suffice to say, it looks like the minimum was set at an appropriate level in the legislation.

I started off with a .243 and it was a very accurate and effective on muntjac - it just won't consistently pass through fallow - not that I was shooting many then, but may be that gave me a jaded opinion of the round. Still wouldn't recommend it to a newbie. However there's a lovely left handed sako 243 AI just come up on the SD which I am now very tempted by!

 

[Tazz]

243 is very popular in the U.K. because it’s accurate, versatile with a wide range of ammo available in any decent Gunshop I have one and love it, I shoot Munty, CWD, Roe and before I got a 270 a few Fallow. The lead ban does not affect it unless you plan to shoot Reds in Scotland where there is the 100g minimum bullet weight, and I believe the bullet manufacturers will overcome this issue in the medium term.

 

[JohnSmith]

Don't disagree with you, half the stuff that comes out of my mouth is complete bollocks! - but, .243 is the smallest deer legal calibre for (all) deer species in the UK, therefore it is by definition, marginal...no deer ever complained of being shot with too much bullet.

Over here 222 is the smallest caliber that can be used on big game (moose, caribou, bears, etc…), many people use 22-250’s. The UK setting a minimum caliber doesn’t make it marginal, it just means that’s the defined minimum decided by your country.

Remember that 243 is a common white tail/mule deer caliber in North America. It’s a smaller caliber but I wouldn’t call it marginal. I’d say it would be perfectly suited for UK sized deer.

 

[Utectok]

I’d say get a 6.5 or bigger. You say now you won’t be shooting reds but it’s amazingly difficult to say no if the opportunity arises! 6.5x55 or 6.5cm would be my thoughts on a first rifle or .308

 

[Smellydog]

I've only shot several red deer. From ranges of 10yds to 200yds.
30-30 and 243.
All the time I was in Scotland nobody seemed to care about any bullet weight, no one asked

 

[25 Sharps]

Probably swimming against the tide here, but its only the most popular round because FEO's think its the "safest" rifle for beginners. Basically they want to give out the smallest calibre they can and restrict our choice as much as possible. As a deer stalking round it's always been marginal and should be the reserve of accurate shots who are self disciplined enough not to take chancy shots - certainly not novices.

When for the sake of .5 mm you could be shooting a light recoiling 6.5 delivering considerably more energy with great chance of a humane kill, I really fail to see the attraction of what is basically a varminting round.

Flip that argument on its head and the .243 is more than capable of stopping any deer in the uk, what’s 21 thou and a couple of hundred ft-lb?

.243 was designed for shooting deer at longer ranges on the US plains, not just varmints, if you look at the original ad’s.

 

[25 Sharps]

Probably been asked before, so apologies!

Hopefully should hear about my application soon which makes me wonder if a 243 for Roe mainly, maybe CWD and Muntjac on the odd occasion and rare possibility of Fallow is still a realistic choice.
Have no desire to try for reds.

Have looked on Youtube and looked at on line articles and am confused.

Any thoughts given the impending change to non lead projectiles? TIA

My 25-45 shoots roe and munties very dead, it is only just over the 1700 ft-on limit (1740). Your .243 will kill everything you list just fine, the only issue you would have would be the 100 gr weight limit in Scotland but based on your posts that won’t apply.

 

[Tim.243]

There is always going to be a ‘minimum’ round when it comes to the rules for pretty much anything.

If the minimum was changed to 6.5 creedmoor, would you argue that’s underpowered, because it’s the minimum?

Quite, I think the 6.5 owners are descendants of the people spreading Christianity in the New World....

 

[Ade8mm]

.243 was designed for shooting deer at longer ranges on the US plains, not just varmints, if you look at the original ad’s.

Correct.
This was why the 6mm Remington (launched at around the same time as the Winchester .243) didn't take off as well as the .243 as, due to a slower twist, it couldn't handle 100grns.
(or so I understand).
People were using the .243 as much for Deer as for "varmints".
Probably more so - and still do.

 

[Magnificent 7]

Isn’t Edinburgh rifles selling 100 grain copper for the 243 ?

 

[25 Sharps]

Not really because 140 grains carries a lot more momentum than 100 grains...but creedmoor is a bit slow for copper so perhaps...only kidding.

TBH, this thread has prompted me to go back to the research and check. Turns out I was mistaken, bullets bigger than 90 grains are just as effective as anything else, it's when you go below 75 grains you start having problems, so I am rethinking my opinions on .243. Suffice to say, it looks like the minimum was set at an appropriate level in the legislation.

I started off with a .243 and it was a very accurate and effective on muntjac - it just won't consistently pass through fallow - not that I was shooting many then, but may be that gave me a jaded opinion of the round. Still wouldn't recommend it to a newbie. However there's a lovely left handed sako 243 AI just come up on the SD which I am now very tempted by!

How long have you been shooting deer and how many deer and different species have you shot with a .243?

Sounds like you are relying on a lot of secondhand opinion and experience. .243 with a heavier bullet will kill anything in this country if the bullet is out in the right place.

A 105/107 gr .243 bullet will keep up with a .264 140/143 gr bullet in terms of trajectory, why do you think the 6 mm creedmoor is becoming so popular?

Even a 75 gr .243 bullet at 3400 fps will kill everything as well, it will just be more messy than a 100 gr punching through. Bullets below 75 grains are going to be designed to blow up very quickly so have no business being shot at deer in the first place.

Part of the appeal of .243 is it’s good for people who are recoil shy, it is not a punchy calibre by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[308tikka]

Not really because Turns out I was mistaken,

Yup. More research and experience required.

it's when you go below 75 grains you start having problems,

All those deer Ive shot with 50-55gn.... and no problems. What are the limits in NZ, or Eire? People shoot reds with 223 and 22-250 in other jurisdictions. You might be confusing type of bullet with mass.

Suffice to say, it looks like the minimum was set at an appropriate level in the legislation.

Absolutely wrong. And its wrong and contradicting in all three UK jurisdictions. Id rather be shooting deer with a 22-250

- it just won't consistently pass through fallow -

Said no highland keeper ever. Honestly Ive never heard so much rot. Choose a better bullet.