If I was to do an AR10 in 243 it would have the M&P10 or DPMS GII receivers (for reduced weight and compactness) and a minimum 22" barrel exactly like the Bushy Vmatch. straight, small and fluted. I think I would prefer 22.5"-23". It would have a 1-9 twist to be sure and stabilize the longer 90-105 gr. 24 cal bullets. I would primarily shoot 87 gr. Vmax and 100 gr. Sierra bullets, possibly some Scirocco or Accubonds. I'd put a Geissele SSA-E trigger on there as well as a variable 14 or 15 power scope.
AR10 in 243 Win....why so few?
- Thread starter NoHillForAHighStepper
- Start date
- Status
I'd go 1 in 8 just in case you want to shoot the 105 Berger or 107 SMK, it would still be great with the 87 vmax. And the Geissele is a great trigger I'd save the $$$ and put a Larue MBT in it, I have both.
It's a 6 Creed, but close to your specs.
shootbrownelk
Member
If I stacked up all the deer and antelope I've killed with a .243, you couldn't see over the top.
No, but I could make a bunch of really good jerky.
to quote my 15 yr. old, Dude, perfect!
My two cents, I'd want something more powerful than a 243 in a AR10 platform. That's a lot of weight to haul around for something that's real close to something like 6.5 Grendel that you can get in an AR15 platform. Honestly for the kind of hunting I do which entails a lot of hiking and mountains, an AR10 isn't ideal. I guess for stand hunting it could be a good option. Again, though, I'd rather step up to a cartridge with a lot more juice than a 243 if I'm going to go to that size rifle.
Yep even my 16" 308 got a little heavy stalking and that was flat ground. For that kind of hunting I would definitely suggest a AR15 in 6.5 G, 6.8 spc or IMHO the 6 ARC with the 103 ELD X could make a sweet stalking gun.
That's the beauty and the beast of black rifle disease you can tailor one for about anything and everything.
MachIVshooter
Member
That's the reason.
.308 does pretty good in shorter barrels, and 16"-20" tubes probably comprise over 95% of .308 size AR configurations.
All the advantages of the high velocity small bores are lost when you start getting shorter than 22".
For the varmint shooter who does most work prone or benched and isn't walking about, a 24" .243 AR that weighs 12+ pounds might be a good option. But that market segment is only just large enough to justify the existence of some barrels and the occasional offering of an upper or rifle that is otherwise identical to its .308 counterpart.
Charlie Martinez
Member
I have had lots of success with the 243 so I am a fan of this cartridge. Personally I am not a huge fan of the 5.56 (don't have a good reason, it's just the way it is) and a AR in 243 sounds like a winner to me. I recently had this very same discussion with a friend who knows quite a bit about firearms. What he said made a lot of sense to me so I'll pass it on.
He said that the 5.56 replaced the 7.62 to reduce overall weight and recoil & to increase number of rounds a soldier could efficiently carry in the field. The 243 definitely reduces recoil over the 308 but the weight of the weapon itself would remain nearly the same & since the 243 is a necked down 308, the bulk of the ammo was also nearly the same & the number of rounds a soldier could carry would not be increased significantly.
He added that during the Vietnam War the favorite captured weapon of the Vietcong was the M-1 carbine because the weapon is very light, proven performer & because for close quarters jungle guerrilla warfare the little 30 carbine round was effective enough. If that is true (& it sounds reasonable to me) accuracy & effectiveness at extreme distances was not a critical factor when the 5.56 was implemented by our military for the Vietnam War so any improvement in ballistics a larger cartridge like the 243 offered was insignificant at the time.
I presume that the 5.56 is probably too light to be as effective in open desert or mountainous terrain and perhaps the more powerful 243 would be a better choice in those areas. However if my friend's evaluation is correct and reduced recoil is really all the 243 offers over the 308, based on comparison of ballistics alone I would think that the 308 remains a better choice.
He said that the 5.56 replaced the 7.62 to reduce overall weight and recoil & to increase number of rounds a soldier could efficiently carry in the field. The 243 definitely reduces recoil over the 308 but the weight of the weapon itself would remain nearly the same & since the 243 is a necked down 308, the bulk of the ammo was also nearly the same & the number of rounds a soldier could carry would not be increased significantly.
He added that during the Vietnam War the favorite captured weapon of the Vietcong was the M-1 carbine because the weapon is very light, proven performer & because for close quarters jungle guerrilla warfare the little 30 carbine round was effective enough. If that is true (& it sounds reasonable to me) accuracy & effectiveness at extreme distances was not a critical factor when the 5.56 was implemented by our military for the Vietnam War so any improvement in ballistics a larger cartridge like the 243 offered was insignificant at the time.
I presume that the 5.56 is probably too light to be as effective in open desert or mountainous terrain and perhaps the more powerful 243 would be a better choice in those areas. However if my friend's evaluation is correct and reduced recoil is really all the 243 offers over the 308, based on comparison of ballistics alone I would think that the 308 remains a better choice.
sarduy
Member
Because 308 and 6.5 Creedmoor are better
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
CapnMac
Member
As a simple guess, the proportion matches that of .243 on other rifle actions.
There are just that many calibers and option out there, that no one is "the" one.
There are just that many calibers and option out there, that no one is "the" one.
I'm not so sure about that, I'm very happy with the performance of my 20" 6 Creed shooting my AR next to my buddies 27" 308 shows plenty of advantage , wouldn't want it any shorter though.
Really like the 20" H bar contour better than the 24" bull.
But then I'm a oddball that built a 20" 1 in 7.7 twist Valkyrie readily knowing I was giving up 88 n 90gr bullets.
Last edited:
Aletheia
Member
I think it is absurd to argue that a .243Win is not enough for mule deer.
MachIVshooter
Member
"Advantage" for what, though?
A 27" .308 is squeezing every last drop out of the round's potential, easily hitting 24" .30-06 velocities with heavier, high B.C. bullets (assuming he's able to use those)
Cutting a .243 or 6 CM to 20" is giving up better than 100 FPS from a 24" gun, and the bullets do not have the mass no matter which way you slice it.
For punching paper, meh, either one will do fine. The smaller cross section of the 6mm bullet probably makes wind drift about a wash with the heavier but larger profile .30 cal pill. Beyond that, drop can be accounted for.
Game gettin'? I'd take a 16" .308 over a 20" .243 every time.
I'm a big fan of shorter barrels whenever possible, but there's a reason my .25-06 is still 24" and I just deal with the extra 7.5" the can adds. .243/6 CM aren't much less overbore, have a powder charge to bore area ratio very close to .300 win mag. They're a little more efficient, but not much. The ratio for .308 is much lower, as is 5.56 (roughly the same as .308, around 600 grs. per sq. in, while .243/6 CM and .300 WM are around 1,000, and the .25-06 ~1,100). As a general rule, the lower that ratio, the less barrel is needed to achieve most of the velocity potential. .45 ACP ratio is about 40-50 grs per sq. in. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the ridiculously overbore rounds like 7mm RUM and .30-378 Weatherby, pushing 1,500 grs. per sq. in.
cdb1
Member
Which is why the OP dropped out of this thread a long time ago IMO.
Howland937
Member
I watched a guy and his adult son spend around $1700 each on HM Defense AR's in .243. They were special order through my friends shop, and I happened to be there when they came to pick them up. They bought them strictly for coyote hunting and were thrilled with them and said they weren't worried about the weight.
I'd say one thing that doesn't help the 243's popularity in the AR platform is short barrel performance,as has already been mentioned.An AR10 in 308 made a decision for me when I was frustrated with my Remington Model 7 in 243.With the 18 1/2 barrel on the 7,I had to run it hard to break 2500 FPS (chronographed) with 100 grain bullets,and the 16 inch 308 barrel would go faster than that with 178 grain bullets.I killed half a dozen or so deer with the M7,and it did ok,but I have rifles that do better.I changed the barrel for a 308 and that 7 will now run 150 grain bullets at over 2800 FPS.The big tradeoff is recoil.The longish receiver of the AR-10 makes for a pretty bulky package if it has a barrel long enough to make the 243 do what it's supposed to do.I found a new home for the AR-10 I had because I couldn't get along well with a rifle that weighed over 13 pounds with a loaded magazine in it.As for the 243 not being capable of killing deer,a 100 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 3,000 FPS is plenty for deer,and one well constructed and put where it belongs will take even larger game.Overbore rounds need inches of barrel to do their job,otherwise they make noise and a fireball for muzzle flash.I've owned more than half a dozen 243's over the years,all of them bolt guns,and the best thing I can say about any of them is they made me appreciate my 25-06 even more.In my opinion,the 243's a little on the light side for deer and a little on the heavy side for varmints.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,907
Shooting specialty pistols in several “high velocity small bores” - including 243win - for many years, I can tell you, this isn’t a thing.
WestKentucky
Member
.243 is about as common as the 7-08 that I want for mine. I see listings for .243 barrels but I never see 7-08 anymore. There was a time where it wasn’t completely unheard of, but those times seem to be gone.
MachIVshooter
Member
But it is. You cut a .22-250 down to 16", its only got about 50 FPS over .223 in the same length barrel, just with a larger fireball. I love my .25-06 for the speed demon it is, but at 18-20" barrel length, the .257 Bob would do just as much.
Overbore rounds need inches of barrel. Doesn't mean they're not still fast out of shorter barrels, just that they barely outperform smaller, more efficient cartridges, if at all.
It's funny you seam to recognize that the larger case in the shorter barrel does the same thing and seam to recognize the advantage of a shorter barrel, you even seam to grasp the use of a smaller lighter bullet for some purpose. But then turn around and say well none of that really exists because and I quote "drop can be accounted for"
Way to be totally dismissive of THE ADVANTAGE.
but I gotta ask why have a 25-06 if you can just account for drop?
X-caliber.net can spin you one up. They're not terribly expensive for a custom and my 243 barrel I got from them was excellent.
An 18" SPRish 7mm-08 build would be sweet
I think what hurts the .243 in an AR platform is it needing to go AR10.
A regular AR15 is kinda funky IMHO, actually don't like them to hunt with.
Prefer a non ext mag sporting rifle for feel and different carry.
If one wanted to hunt deer without needing long range, and they wanted an AR.....
proly AR15 in 6.5 Grendel.
A regular AR15 is kinda funky IMHO, actually don't like them to hunt with.
Prefer a non ext mag sporting rifle for feel and different carry.
If one wanted to hunt deer without needing long range, and they wanted an AR.....
proly AR15 in 6.5 Grendel.
Guys that are mil pattern rifle fans, a .243 FAL or M1A offers something different and allows them to run standard factory ammo on varmints.
Yeah, I know guys that bought rifles like that just to mess w chucks and yotes.
If that's their fun, so be it.
Yeah, I know guys that bought rifles like that just to mess w chucks and yotes.
If that's their fun, so be it.
- Status
Similar threads
