Is .243 big enough???

[JMS906]

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.

Simple. It's perfectly capable of killing them and entirely suitable for use on them. It's not a marginal cartridge, it's not a .22LR (which could under very limited circumstances kill red deer). Let's not kid ourselves, red deer are not armour plated, they are not particularly tough game to kill. They are simply light skinned medium sized game. With appropriate bullets, the 243 is well up to the job, that's what it was designed to do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Provided you use enough gun (and the 243 is enough gun), if you put the bullet in the right place, calibre doesn't matter. And if you put the bullet in the wrong place, calibre doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks a .308 sized bullet in the wrong place will anchor a deer when a 243 bullet in the same place won't, is deluding himself and lacks experience. I've personally lost a roe shot slightly too low (just beneath the heart) with a 180gr bullet from a .30-06 at a mere 75 yards. We eventually tracked it with my dog. Would it have made any difference if I'd used a larger gun? No. I shot a running warthog through the guts. I also then hit it above the hips, as it ran, producing a wound about 2" wide, 8-10" long and 2" deep. That didn't anchor it either. It ran 2km before lying down. The trackers were astonishing. I was using a 270gr bullet from a .375H&H. If I'd used a larger calibre gun would it have altered the outcome, would it have anchored the warthog? No it wouldn't

Final point. Do you not think that if the 243 was unsuitable for use on red deer, the BASC, the Deer Society, the Red Deer Commision et al would be calling for it to be banned? Well, just a moment there. The law was changed just recently and guess what, the 243 remains legal for red deer. There's a good reason for that. The fact is, regardless what opponents may think, the 243 is perfectly suitable for use on red deer. Personally, although I have several 243 rifles, I choose to use a 7-08 or a .30-06 on stags. For hinds, I tend to use one of the 243s.

Really, it's time this debate was put to bed and left there.

-JMS

 

[tackb]

Simple. It's perfectly capable of killing them and entirely suitable for use on them. It's not a marginal cartridge, it's not a .22LR (which could under very limited circumstances kill red deer). Let's not kid ourselves, red deer are not armour plated, they are not particularly tough game to kill. They are simply light skinned medium sized game. With appropriate bullets, the 243 is well up to the job, that's what it was designed to do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Provided you use enough gun (and the 243 is enough gun), if you put the bullet in the right place, calibre doesn't matter. And if you put the bullet in the wrong place, calibre doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks a .308 sized bullet in the wrong place will anchor a deer when a 243 bullet in the same place won't, is deluding himself and lacks experience. I've personally lost a roe shot slightly too low (just beneath the heart) with a 180gr bullet from a .30-06 at a mere 75 yards. We eventually tracked it with my dog. Would it have made any difference if I'd used a larger gun? No. I shot a running warthog through the guts. I also then hit it above the hips, as it ran, producing a wound about 2" wide, 8-10" long and 2" deep. That didn't anchor it either. It ran 2km before lying down. The trackers were astonishing. I was using a 270gr bullet from a .375H&H. If I'd used a larger calibre gun would it have altered the outcome, would it have anchored the warthog? No it wouldn't

Final point. Do you not think that if the 243 was unsuitable for use on red deer, the BASC, the Deer Society, the Red Deer Commision et al would be calling for it to be banned? Well, just a moment there. The law was changed just recently and guess what, the 243 remains legal for red deer. There's a good reason for that. The fact is, regardless what opponents may think, the 243 is perfectly suitable for use on red deer. Personally, although I have several 243 rifles, I choose to use a 7-08 or a .30-06 on stags. For hinds, I tend to use one of the 243s.

Really, it's time this debate was put to bed and left there.

-JMS

and a magnificent bite right there!

frankly I think the 243 is fine , as are many other calibres PROVIDING you put the projectile in the right place.

as a side note, who are you to tell us this debate should be shut down and left there? surely this forums a place for debate as long as it stays civil?

if you don't like it don't contribute?

 

[berg]

I think theres a few people on this debate trying to justifie there large calliber rifles from a book or the internet and spilling a load off sh+t and probalby not shot that manny deer and never even used a 243.to any effect .I totally agree with JMS()^

 

[tackb]

I think theres a few people on this debate trying to justifie there large calliber rifles from a book or the internet and spilling a load off sh+t and probalby not shot that manny deer and never even used a 243.to any effect .I totally agree with JMS()^

who's that then? I've shot hundreds of deer , all species (except CWD) with a 243 and a 308 (and other calibres for that matter) currently using a 260rem which I think I will stick with now (probably!)

 

[berg]

never mention any names,theres 244 post on here. but may of hit a nerve as your the only one to shout it not me

 

[tackb]

never mention any names,theres 244 post on here. but may of hit a nerve as your the only one to shout it not me

THIS IS SHOUTING ! none of that in my reply's i'm pretty sure ? no need to shout when all i'm doing is winding people up on a pointless thread ! I've got to go to London now (boo!) but i'll be back later for some more sport !


i'll leave you all with this , I only used amax and head shot at long range with my 243!

 

[Dagben77]

THIS IS SHOUTING ! none of that in my reply's i'm pretty sure ? no need to shout when all i'm doing is winding people up on a pointless thread ! I've got to go to London now (boo!) but i'll be back later for some more sport !


i'll leave you all with this , I only used amax and head shot at long range with my 243!

POINTLESS THREAD!!!!! Thanks!







2 Can play that game.

 

[Offroad Gary]

who's that then? I've shot hundreds of deer , all species (except CWD) with a 243 and a 308 (and other calibres for that matter) currently using a 260rem which I think I will stick with now (probably!)

Why didnt you shoot the chinks, were they to
difficult to stalk?

 

[berg]

THIS IS SHOUTING ! none of that in my reply's i'm pretty sure ? no need to shout when all i'm doing is winding people up on a pointless thread ! I've got to go to London now (boo!) but i'll be back later for some more sport !


i'll leave you all with this , I only used amax and head shot at long range with my 243!

Thats what we like to here on her something all the nerds can get stuck into like Best practice and min NRG muzzle velocity and bullet co what ever.WHOS THAT IVE SHOT HUNDREDS OF DEER.

 

[berg]

POINTLESS THREAD!!!!! Thanks!







2 Can play that game.

AS you can see theres no point asking is a 243 big enough on here. every one has there own opinion ,the oniy person that knows weather your rifle is big enough is you .if you want to grt a bigger rifle then go ahead ask the Q what calibre should i get and six month later you be none the wiser :!:

 

[Paul at Fechan]

this is incredible and some people just can't read or appreciate what is being said....

We are all saying .243 kills big deer fine...

... but it just doesn't always do that quickly on the larger species with good if not perfect chest shots and that's the point we are making. Look at the graph again and this time objectively try and work out the massive drop in energy as the size of deer increases. The bigger the thump and damage through the vitals then the quicker a deer bleeds out and is incapacitated by shock - anoxia (deprivation of brain oxygen) causing death.

Apart from the experience of those that actually shoot a lot of red deer and sika, the graph below is all the justification one would need to use a larger calibre on larger deer. After all a .223 on roe is far more powerful than a .243 on fallow never mind reds...

 

[JAYB]

Any chance that the original question could be stuck to in a civil manner. If your only intention is to join in the thread to wind others up then please don't bother, if you do not agree with something then say you don't agree don't dismiss it as rubbish, if you are incapable of getting your point across without being rude or aggressive, then I shall become rude and aggressive and take the appropriate action.

John

 

[nun_hunter]

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.

I agree completely but surely the extra energy from a high velocity round does increase the amount of damage caused above and beyond just the calibre sized hole it creates?

 

[bewsher500]

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" into 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?

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

I'll do it!
I don't propose to do it by theorising and applying linear and simplified physics of monoblock materials to the process but by first hand witnessed examples.

Fox head shot with a .22cb long at 20 feet - no entry wound. stone dead on spot (are you telling me the energy of the bullet "heated it up" and it died from heat exhaustion?)
post mortem exam indicates massive sub-dural haematoma

Deer - numerous neck shots - spine not hit, bullet went above spine and produced no significant blood loss, dead where they stood. again if the force/energy/shock of the bullet didn't kill them what did?

Its up to the physicists to prove it doesn't exist...or maybe propose an answer to how it happens instead of taking the perhaps misguided term of "hydrostatic shock" and discounting it

Everyone who has ever watched CSI knows about "Blunt Trauma".
Hit the CNS (not just the brain but anywhere from C1- T4) with enough force/energy/shock and things die....without blood loss.
You do not need to break the neck or sever the spinal cord on a neck shot to kill.

ever studied aerodynamics.....Bumblebees can't fly you know! or at least the physics says they can't!

 

[berg]

I'll do it!
I don't propose to do it by theorising and applying linear and simplified physics of monoblock materials to the process but by first hand witnessed examples.

Fox head shot with a .22cb long at 20 feet - no entry wound. stone dead on spot (are you telling me the energy of the bullet "heated it up" and it died from heat exhaustion?)
post mortem exam indicates massive sub-dural haematoma

Deer - numerous neck shots - spine not hit, bullet went above spine and produced no significant blood loss, dead where they stood. again if the force/energy/shock of the bullet didn't kill them what did?

Its up to the physicists to prove it doesn't exist...or maybe propose an answer to how it happens instead of taking the perhaps misguided term of "hydrostatic shock" and discounting it

Everyone who has ever watched CSI knows about "Blunt Trauma".
Hit the CNS (not just the brain but anywhere from C1- T4) with enough force/energy/shock and things die....without blood loss.
You do not need to break the neck or sever the spinal cord on a neck shot to kill.

ever studied aerodynamics.....Bumblebees can't fly you know! or at least the physics says they can't!

often wonder that when neck shots animals that have droped dead and there is no real signs of massive damage just big flesh wounds. spine not broken .I wondered if when struck by such a force it would be like getting kocked out a bit like a short circuit ,stoping the electrical pulse from the brain ????

 

[Dagben77]

There is plenty of evidence to substantiate the 'theory' of hydrostatic shock (or hydraulic shock). There have been various tests carried out on live subjects which all (the one's I have read anyway) conclude that it is a genuine phenomena.

I personally believe that most of the foxes I shoot die instantly due to this. 40 grain V-Max flying at over 3600 fps, dumps all of its energy (rarely do they exit), causing the afore mentioned trauma. Lights out!

 

[Paul at Fechan]

if you shoot a bullet into water near fish the fish are stunned although the bullet does not hit them... same principal when the shock wave of the bullets path overlaps the nervous system of the animal. Bit like getting a dead arm when someone punches you at school, the pressure of the impact or pressure wave incapacitates

 

[Sabian223]

New thread - is a 243 big enough for fish?

 

[berg]

what fish and were are you shooting them

 

[Paul at Fechan]

ok ok fair enough... this is funny though