.243 Winchester and elk: FIRSTHAND experiences requested.

[Harve Curry]

especially guides who may have had customers shooting the .243.

In ten years of professional elk guiding I haven't seen a hunter bring a 243 to camp. So I cannot anwer the other half of your question about how the 243 does on elk.

 

[snowpro440]

243

i have shot elk at 112 yards and 272 yards with 100 gr softpoints , i took both elk with a heart shot at both distances with my 243 ruger . you can kill them but you need good shot placement. i wouldnt shoot over 300 yards but anything under that it will break the ribs and blow up the heart

 

[Husker1911]

i have shot elk at 112 yards and 272 yards with 100 gr softpoints

But why?

 

[JShirley]

IF folks are expert at elk hunting;
IF folk have been present when elk have been taken or attempted to be taken with .243; or
IF folk have used the .243 in many different hunting situations:

These are all "first hand" and valuable opinions. Hopefully you can see that. If you can't, I suggest "use more gun".

Grumulkin,

The experience of elephant hunters of old and their use of rather small calibers very successfully could mean that if the proper bullets are used and placed properly, a 243 Win. could be very adequate for elk.

This is NOT a conversation you want to have, if you think this is evidence. If by "very adequate" you mean "can kill given enough time and if it's not important to recover your game animal", then you're perfectly correct- about like your assumptions about elephant hunters and small caliber rifles. I strongly suggest you do more research before you attempt to talk about this again.

Let me start you on your way:

Claim: "Frederick Courtney Selous used a 6.5mm with 160 grain round nosed bullets at 2300 fps with great results on elephant."

Fact: Selous' favorite rifle was eventually a Gibbs .450.

Claim: "W.D.M. Bell successfully used the 6.5x54 and 7.5x57mms on elephant."

Facts:

Bell only took head shots;

Sometimes the head shots DID NOT WORK;

Bell eventually moved to the .318 Westley-Richards. (250 grain Soft Nose Bullet or Solid; Muzzle Velocity 2400 ft/sec. )

Quoting H&Hhunter:

...as long as we are talking Bell. Here are a few facts that Bell quoters always fail to mention.

By Bells own admission the first full charge Bell faced from an elephant nearly killed him. His tracker was in fact killed in that incident. And when he faced his second charge in thick cover he did so with a .416 Rigby in his hands. While Bell perfered the 7mm he always carried a .450/400 and later the .416 while following up in thick cover.

John

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

My goal *for you* is to get 5 pages of responses from people who have NO first-hand experience. So I'll add mine - "it'll work in a pinch". You're welcome!

 

[lefteye]

With all due respect to Chuck Dye and other posters, an "inexperienced friend", a ".243", and an "elk" hunt is a bad combination. Like many on here, I've taken several pronghorns and mule deer, as well as coyotes and rabbits, at ranges up to and slightly over 400 yards with a .243 and a variety of handloads. I carried my .270 on my first 3 elk hunts but never fired a shot. I now use a .300 Win Mag for elk (three hunts, two 5 X 5 bulls and, at about 400 yards, one small Bob Marshall black bear). The .300 is a great cartridge, but it isn't necessary for elk. On one of those hunts my buddy took a 6 X 7 with a .270, but his shot placement was poor and we spent hours tracking the bull to get a killing shot. For an inxperienced hunter I would suggest a .270 (the minimum in my opinion), a .280, or a .30-06. These are powerful enough to take elk cleanly, but their recoil is tolerable for even an inexperienced hunter (after a few weekends of shooting). If I can afford the time and money for an elk hunt, I can afford the time and money for an appropriate rifle, scope, ammo and practice. I have never seen a .243 on an elk hunt. An enjoyable elk hunt is too valuable to risk on a .243. No offense meant - sorry for preaching.

 

[mbt2001]

.243 for elk...

It wouldn't be my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. The .243 was invented to be a light deer gun. Not an all around gun.
If I HAD TO, I would take a neck shot.

 

[langenc]

Not many hunters use it but many know how well it wont work.

 

[mbt2001]

Not many hunters use it but many know how well it wont work.

uhhhh

Isn't that like taking a knife to a gun fight? You can do it, but all you will accomplish is finding out that it didn't acheive your aims.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I suspect enough hunters over the years have failed to kill elk cleanly with small calibers for us to say with some confidence the .243 is really too light.

 

[RancidSumo]

My grandpa was a damn good shot with his (now mine) .243. He shot many elk with it. I think it comes down to how well your friend shoots, not the ability of the .243

 

[XDKingslayer]

When fishing, it's considered great sportsmanship to use light lines. It gives the fish a sporting chance to break off and will probably live to perhaps be caught again. Handicapping the fisherman is extremely ethical and even desirable.

Depends on where you fish and what you fish for.

Down here, using light line on certain fish is irresponcible because you're returning an overly tired fish into dolphin and shark infested waters.

Nothing sporting about that...

 

[Shawnee]

I am probably the biggest fan of the .243 but Elk = 7mm/08.

A hunter/rifleman who owns a .243 and a 7mm/08 can take anything that walks in this hemisphere just fine.

 

[Magnum460]

This is my opinion, I wouldn't shoot anything bigger than a whitetail buck with a .243. Just my opinion. Its worth it to go a little bigger with a .25-06 because of ballistics, and you get a little more knock-down power. But still, if you are hunting Bull elk, go with something bigger that a .243. I would rather take the sharper recoil of a 7mm mag or a .300 Win mag than to let one animal walk away wounded and have to suffer. Just my opinion.

 

[azhunter12]

Just get a .308. Problem solved

 

[pete f]

Its not worth the risk.

Can it be done., yup, it can, but should it? probably not.

I saw a smaller bull elk in idaho take 2 243 rounds to the ribs and run a long way. When we got a second chance, the father of the boy said if he does not go down, I will shoot with my rifle. (a .280 with 165 or so partitions) The boy shoots again, the bull is obviously hit, but does not go down, the dad shoots and with in a few seconds its obvious its all over but the dying.... I left them and went back to get the others to help pack out the meat, and when I got back, the boy was disconsolate, he was shooting 100 grain federals, and the first bullet hit leg bone and ribs, and did not enter the chest, the second shot broke a rib, but poked only minor holes into the chest. the third shot, almost dead on from the front, had hit the shoulder bones and broken up. the dads shot was a near perfect heart lung shot.

The ammo was 100 grain fed premium boat tail ammo, which was probably the wrong ammo choice, but it was a good ammo with a good game bullet. The problem when the shot thru nerves, bad luck or what ever hit something more solid than muscle, they did not have the mass to continue on thru the animal.

On that same trip, I saw two .257 roberts shooting 120 grain partitions and a 7.mm-08 with 140 partitions harvest elk with no problems, and in all likelihood, no more recoil. I used a .348 Winchester, because I wanted to use the gun it came in....AND I limited my shot to about 120 yards, AND I was culling. On other trips I have used a .280 and a 7x57 handload.

If your friend is recoil shy, buy some or load some reduced recoil loads, and let him do all his practice with that. then take his rifle and resight it in with full power loads, he will NEVER feel the recoil when he has an animal in his sights.

While you asked for first hand information, I was not the one pulling the trigger on a .243 on Elk, but rather a by stander. I would not use a .243 on elk unless I had NO other option.

 

[jbech123]

History is full of stories of erroneous conclusions based on what the masses thought was correct without any basis on experience or experimentation. The experience of elephant hunters of old and their use of rather small calibers very successfully could mean that if the proper bullets are used and placed properly, a 243 Win. could be very adequate for elk.

True, but also true is that, statistically speaking, large amounts of people believe certain things because they are common sense and based in fact. People in the old days did many things either out of neccessity or due to lack of knowledge at the time. In this day and age, there are plenty of options and there is no reason to hunt elk with a .243. You can pick up a remington adl, stevens 200 and many other good rifles in an appropriate caliber for ~$300. A 243 would likely get the job done at close range with perfect shot placement, but why limit yourself like that? As far as experience and experimentation, maybe your friend is not willing to listen to the heaps of advice about not using a 243 for elk. But I take exception to "experimenting" on a majestic game animal like an elk. These monarchs deserve more respect than to be wounded by some slapdick who wants to experiment with a tool that all the evidence suggests is not appropriate for the harvesting of an 800+ pound animal.

 

[T.R.]

My sister-in-law shot several elk with her 257 Roberts. The animals that toppled over quickly were hit through both lungs. But she shot a young bull (approx 550 lbs) through just one lung shot (due to angle). We chased it for well over a mile before she killed it. Total of 4 shots into the animal. My brother traded for a 7mm-08 and she has not wounded any animals with this rifle. Recoil is about the same.

243 bullet is similar to 257 Roberts in many ways.

TR

 

[22-rimfire]

243 for elk? Funny. I don't highly recommend it for whitetail deer.

Inexperienced hunter with a small caliber that requires careful shot placement. No No Loan him/her your rifle after you get your elk.

 

[falrifles]

243 for elk

I agree with 22 rimfire. I have not had good results with the .243 for deer either. I would only consider the .243 for elk in a survival situation.

Sooner or later you will be presented with a shot that is not ideal, on a lifetime bull elk or large deer and you consider it for one reason or another. Season almost over, only shot presented in several days etc. Better to have a bit more gun.

Its better to have a 30.06 with 180 grain bullets for elk. For deer I prefer 150 grain bullets. Especially fond of the affordable WW 150 grain power point handloaded to factory velocity for whitetails.

WD

 

[jbech123]

A hunter/rifleman who owns a .243 and a 7mm/08 can take anything that walks in this hemisphere just fine.

Or if you wanted 1 gun you could just get a .308 - heavier bullet options for things like Alaska Moose and Brown Bears, even though a 7mm/08 or .308 is certainly less than optimal for Brown Bears. It would do in a pinch though I guess.

 

[flyguyskt]

i agree somewhat but also disagree with most posters... here is what i believe.

a 243 loaded to 3000+fps with a solid 100grn bullet like a nosler partition WILL kill elk all day long. will it nock them off their feet? no, but ive also seen them laugh off a 300 winny hit.

now, when do i think it is IS gun enuff... sub 150 yrd, broadside, standing shot in the hands of someone who know how to shoot and knows their weapon AND understands shot placement.

NOT a good caliber if inexperienced...BUT then again i dont want to put a 375 H&H in the hands of inexperience either.

SO here is the bottom line...make sure the friend knows his weapon AND how to shoot it...200-300 rounds at the range in different shooting positions should do the trick. anything less is just plain irresponsible.

PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE and the 243 winny will get the job done if you dont ask too much of it with less than ideal shots.

i am hunting cow elk this fall and my girlfriend will be carrying her 243. 100grn nos partitions. she knows nothing beyond 100 yards, nothing moving and nothing as far as bad angles... i have full confidence in the fact that she will harvest a nice animal cleanly and humanely.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Nevermind...carry on.

 

[natman]

I personally wouldn't shoot at an elk with a 243 unless I were starving and had no other choice. But allow me to quote a couple of very experienced hunters who DID have firsthand experience with the 243:

Rick Jamison (Shooting Times) has a oft repeated story about a big buck he nailed twice with a 243 that went on to be shot and claimed by other hunters. Page 59 "Rifleman's Handbook":

"I couldn't help feeling that a cartridge with more punch would have anchored the buck sooner."

Jamison is a big fan of the 243 *for varmints*, in fact he considers it the ultimate coyote cartridge.

Finn Aargard (NRA Field Editor)

Aargard wrote an excellent article called "The 243 for Big Game".
Page 101 "Hunting Rifles and Cartridges.

"[If you need a varmint / deer rifle] ..trying to make a varmint cartridge work on big game is going at it the wrong way around. It would be far better to choose a cartridge for the largest game he intended to hunt with it, the develop a load for it that would work on varmints."

"...the 6mms are essentially varmint cartridges. With the right bullets and careful shooting, they can be made to perform fairly satisfactorily on big game up to perhaps 200 lbs liveweight. But why choose a cartridge that is only 'fairly satisfactory' when other cartriges are readily available in rifles that are just as light and have no more kick than those for the 243?"

Bear in mind that these lackluster opinions are about the use of the 243 on deer, not the much larger and tougher elk.

 

[natman]

i agree somewhat but also disagree with most posters... here is what i believe.

a 243 loaded to 3000+fps with a solid 100grn bullet like a nosler partition WILL kill elk all day long. will it nock them off their feet? no, but ive also seen them laugh off a 300 winny hit.

now, when do i think it is IS gun enuff... sub 150 yrd, broadside, standing shot in the hands of someone who know how to shoot and knows their weapon AND understands shot placement.

NOT a good caliber if inexperienced...BUT then again i dont want to put a 375 H&H in the hands of inexperience either.

SO here is the bottom line...make sure the friend knows his weapon AND how to shoot it...200-300 rounds at the range in different shooting positions should do the trick. anything less is just plain irresponsible.

PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE and the 243 winny will get the job done if you dont ask too much of it with less than ideal shots.

i am hunting cow elk this fall and my girlfriend will be carrying her 243. 100grn nos partitions. she knows nothing beyond 100 yards, nothing moving and nothing as far as bad angles... i have full confidence in the fact that she will harvest a nice animal cleanly and humanely.

Your post is an excellent argument against the 243 for elk. When you saw an elk not go down with a 300 Winchester hit, what exactly made you think "243 would be the way to go"?

"if you dont ask too much of it with less than ideal shots." Perhaps your elk hunting experience differs from mine. In my experience you have to hunt hard and long to find a bull at all, much less get a decent shot. Why would you deliberately handicap yourself with a cartridge that demands only ideal shots?

I agree that it is not a good caliber for the inexperienced. The problem is that's usually who supposed to be using it. (My girlfriend / son / daughter, etc can't handle the recoil of a 30-06....). And if the hunter has the experience to use a 243, why don't they just use a 30-06?

I agree that under ideal conditions you can kill an elk with a 243. But "Can Kill" does not equal "Should hunt with".