Interesting article on 243, BASC magazine

[seedawood]

Often necessary, especially on the hill.

I suspect 243 was never the best choice in that circumstance, that's why I also (and originally) have a 270. (130gr Hornady non toxic). It is about matching bullets to rifles (we all did it with lead, why not copper?) calibres to quarry and conditions. I haven't noticed a lot of aversion to buying new rifles by people on this site, probably not many who only have one calibre.
An important factor in shooting is confidence, I have lost count of the number of people who have told me "Copper is no good, BASC said so". That attitude is not helpful. Right from the start a ban on lead was inevitable. It is time people got past the wingeing stage and worked out what is best for them. I'm not forcing anybody to use a 243, there are plenty of more fashionable calibres available, I am just pointing out that I have made it work for me, it can be done. I thought at one stage of re-barrelling for 6.5 or 7mm but I don't need to there are (factory) non toxic options in 243 that work for what I need.

 

[Rob-E]

I’ve shot large deer over 200m with factory copper from a 22” barrel. No follow up required. As for accuracy it will happily out shoot my ability and off a bench all rounds will touch.
Find a bullet that works for your rifle. The same factory copper in 308 isn’t as good in my other rifle. So I’ve found something else.
When I get my 7mmPRC I’ll follow the same process.

 

[VSS]

Ah you're one of those are you. In that case you won't like my answer so I won't bother don't want you getting your panties in a twist

I think the panty twisters are the ones who are making such a fuss about the forthcoming loss of lead ammunition.

 

[Donkey Basher]

Why do you need to shoot deer at over 200yards?

Have you ever tried to manage wild fallow populations… if you had, or knew anyone who has then you wouldn’t ask such a daft question! And, before I get accused of being a sniper not a stalker, I have shot fallow in woodland at under 10 yards, so yes I am a stalker!

 

[seedawood]

Have you ever tried to manage wild fallow populations… if you had, or knew anyone who has then you wouldn’t ask such a daft question! And, before I get accused of being a sniper not a stalker, I have shot fallow in woodland at under 10 yards, so yes I am a stalker!

Only for 45 years.

 

[Smellydog]

I suspect 243 was never the best choice in that circumstance, that's why I also (and originally) have a 270. (130gr Hornady non toxic). It is about matching bullets to rifles (we all did it with lead, why not copper?) calibres to quarry and conditions. I haven't noticed a lot of aversion to buying new rifles by people on this site, probably not many who only have one calibre.
An important factor in shooting is confidence, I have lost count of the number of people who have told me "Copper is no good, BASC said so". That attitude is not helpful. Right from the start a ban on lead was inevitable. It is time people got past the wingeing stage and worked out what is best for them. I'm not forcing anybody to use a 243, there are plenty of more fashionable calibres available, I am just pointing out that I have made it work for me, it can be done. I thought at one stage of re-barrelling for 6.5 or 7mm but I don't need to there are (factory) non toxic options in 243 that work for what I need.

You simply asked why would you shoot a deer beyond 200yds. I answered.
I've used 243 on the hill at 200yds and it worked perfectly with lead.
I don't care a hoot about your opinion on what is not a suitable calibre in your eyes and neither do I care for personal choices of others being criticised.
I'm a firm believer in freedom of choice and not peer pressure opinions.

 

[Smellydog]

I think the panty twisters are the ones who are making such a fuss about the forthcoming loss of lead ammunition.

That's possibly because they see it for what it actually is Timothy.
Some of us like to think they can out manoeuvre the established anti shooting/ hunting lobby this time and are quite smug about it but it won't last. Them against us, I say us, some of us are worse than those dedicated to ending our way of life on the inside, will think of something else to infringe us. It's only a matter of time.

While British think they are of the free world they most definitely are not!

 

[Heym SR20]

I have read the article. It us fundamentally wrong in many places.

1) now that in Scotland we have a minimum of 80grains, most 1 in 10” twist rifles will stabilise an 80 ish grain Monolithic bullet very well to give good accuracy to shoot deer.

In Englandshire there is no minimum bullet weight so you can use a 75 grain mono bullet and these are even better in terms of accuracy.

2) the vast majority of 80 grain bullets fly at well over 3,000 fps, so with this additional velocity you end up with more muzzle energy than most 100 grain loads.

3) a short barrel rifle may well not meet muzzle energy requirements with any load whether is a lead bullet or copper bullet. If a copper load doesn’t meet the energy requirements in a rifle, its likely that neither will a lead load.

In like fir like bullet weight most copper loads go faster than a lead bullet so will by laws of physics have greater energy. Most copper bullets with their driving have less friction on the barrel hence higher velocities.

Lets not forget that the 243 is essentially an over bored magnum type cartridge that needs a longer barrel to achieve its full potential of high velocity. It’s never going to work in a short 16” barrel.

If you want a 16” barrel, get a 308. The extra bullet diameter allows more force on the base of the bullet to accelerate it down the barrel to better velocities. And you have a bigger bullet to provide the energy.

4) there are always be questions on penetration and wound channel with a 243, regardless of whether its shooting a lead or a copper bullet, especially on bigger deer. There always has been and always will be. It’s a high velocity cartridge which puts considerable stress on the bullet when it impacts an animal. Many 243 bullets will blow up and fail to penetrate properly if put in the wrong place. However if you use a stoutly constructed bullet such as a partition or a monolithic bullet then many of these issues go away.

However if you are shooting a large lowland Red Stag in the peak of the rut with an 80grain monolithic bullet or an 80 or a 100grain lead bullet you had better be good on shot placement. If you shooting them at 300m plus you will be down to well below 1,000 ft lbs of impact energy.

The findings published in the article were based on tests done a few years ago and don’t represent what is available today.

 

[seedawood]

You simply asked why would you shoot a deer beyond 200yds. I answered.
I've used 243 on the hill at 200yds and it worked perfectly with lead.
I don't care a hoot about your opinion on what is not a suitable calibre in your eyes and neither do I care for personal choices of others being criticised.
I'm a firm believer in freedom of choice and not peer pressure opinions.

What I wrote is not pressuring anybody or criticising personal choices. Just saying what works (in the real world) for me so people if they choose can use that as a basis to make their own informed opinions and approach experimentation with an open mind to find solutions that work in their own circumstances for what WILL become a necessary change in the near future. My personal choice before non toxic became my 'normal' was not to use 243 when I knew I would be dealing with larger deer and longer ranges, non toxic has not changed that. I resorted to 270 as calibre of choice for all species because it works well with non toxic until I found non toxic rounds that work in the 243.
If anybody wants to keep shooting lead until it is not available any more it is up to them. I manage mostly conservation woodlands where it became a requirement early on. I had the advantage of knowing copper works because I had used it in Africa before it became a debate in the UK so I was not pre inclined to failure by misinformation from organisations who should know better. I Personally believe I save money (in meat value) by using copper as I don't throw away as much contaminated meat.

 

[VSS]

That's possibly because they see it for what it actually is Timothy.
Some of us like to think they can out manoeuvre the established anti shooting/ hunting lobby this time and are quite smug about it but it won't last. Them against us, I say us, some of us are worse than those dedicated to ending our way of life on the inside, will think of something else to infringe us. It's only a matter of time.

While British think they are of the free world they most definitely are not!

I think you're conflating two separate issues.
The "anti shooting" lobby may well be piggybacking on the lead issue on this occasion, but in reality the writing has been on the wall for lead for 40 years. The shooting industry can blame nobody but themselves for the fact that they haven't spent the last four decades preparing for the inevitable change. With a bit of forward thinking the current situation could have been preempted, but forward thinking seems to be a trait that's sadly lacking in the fieldsports sector.
As long as we have guns we'll find something to send down the barrel and continue to hunt.
Getting all worked up about lead is distracting us from the real threats that we should be addressing.

 

[Liveonce]

In like fir like bullet weight most copper loads go faster than a lead bullet so will by laws of physics have greater energy. Most copper bullets with their driving have less friction on the barrel hence higher velocities.

Is that true at distance, will it not depend on the ballistic coefficient of the projectiles?

 

[hendrix's rifle]

Yes, I'm interested in deer and habitat welfare and how public perception of "sporting ethics" will impact all of our sport/professions.

Wait till you find out people head shoot too

 

[tonyhall200]

The BASC article makes it clear that the problems are mainly on older rifles with a twist rate of one in ten or over.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

Is that true at distance, will it not depend on the ballistic coefficient of the projectiles?

Yeh he's talking bol****s as per. Its something he always seems to miss. You usually tend to get higher velocity with lead if using the same bullet weight eg 100g lead 100g lead free, the lead will tend to have a tad higher velocity.

Also on the BC, it does have some differences but the biggest issue is velocity for bullet expansion. The 123g in 6.5 being fired out of creedmoor has a maximum range for expansion a little over 200 yards. Anything after that, your bullet isn't expanding. You load up the same bullet weight with say the 123g SST and your sailing all the way out to 600 getting reliable expansion.

 

[NickJ]

@Edinburgh Rifles Ed - be interesting to get your take on it with the latest factory round developments for the calibre

 

[muddy42]

For woodland roe deer stalking, there are lots of shorter/lighter bullets that will stabilize in a 1:10 .243. I bought mine knowing there could be a ban and don't regret it. I developed a flinch as a teenager shooting unmoderated .270s altered to take a telescopic scopes that didn't fit properly. 243 helps me control it as a day-to-day rifle. If I'm going after red deer, I'll use my 308.

 

[seedawood]

Wait till you find out people head shoot too

Gosh! Just imagine 45 years of park culls and I've never come across that before. Lucky I've got all you experts to enlighten me... And the antis.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Yet when I asked the BASC contributor on here about 22" Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire shotguns and their future after a ban on lead the response was dismissive and unconcerned. The same as it has been in respect of the more mainstream .410".

Another unnecessary and untrue comment and ironic that you are asking me questions and getting answers whilst your own organisation is not giving you any answers. Please stop with this tedious BASC bashing.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I don't know whether this is a case of "better late than never" or "too little, too late". I'm inclined to think the latter.
Maybe if BASC hadn't jumped so eagerly onto the anti-lead bandwagon before it had even got rolling, they wouldn't feel obliged to make this kind of token gesture today.

BASC has not jumped on any "anti-lead bandwagon", BASC has opposed lead bans for 40 years, and opposed all the HSE lead ban proposals during the 3 year review, and that review took place because of post-Brexit regulations on chemicals to mirror the same EU regs and review of lead in ammunition and hundreds of other hazardous substances - this has been explained to death on here - or are you saying BASC caused Brexit?

As regards the government decision for 2029, BASC is lobbying ministers, backed by technical reports evidencing that .243 should be classed as a small calibre until truly viable lead-free alternatives are available that can deliver humane kills. BASC is also working closely with the Gun Trade Association, British Shooting Sports Council and others to push for a return to a five year shotgun timeline.

 

[Liveonce]

That's possibly because they see it for what it actually is Timothy.
Some of us like to think they can out manoeuvre the established anti shooting/ hunting lobby this time and are quite smug about it but it won't last. Them against us, I say us, some of us are worse than those dedicated to ending our way of life on the inside, will think of something else to infringe us. It's only a matter of time.

While British think they are of the free world they most definitely are not!

indeed

Join us at the Wild Summit on 11 Sept 2025 at the Bristol Beacon - Wild Justice

We’ll be attending the inaugural Wild Summit on 11 September 2025 – an environmental extravaganza organised by Wildlife & Countryside Link which […]

wildjustice.org.uk