Is having a 223 and 243 Redundent

[rangerruck]

the confidence difference you will feel , when shooting the 243 , is tangible.
a 223 I would have confidence for up to coyotes at distance, and deer up fairly close; with a 243, 400 yd shots on anything up to mulies is very do-able.

 

[Bluehawk]

The .243Win. is a good cartridge the only real flaw that I see with it is the reduced bbl life WRT similar cartridges in its class with a slightly larger bore diameter.

Not sure I understand that statement. :banghead:

 

[Sunray]

"...out to 1200 yds..." Don't be daft. No energy left and a huge hold over. A 100 grain bullet only has 700 to 750 ft/lbs of energy left at 500. The same bullet, sighted in at 200, drops 45" out at 500.
Otherwise, the .243 with suitable bullets will take deer sized game and black bears with no fuss. Bit light for elk, but it'll do that too.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think you have things in perspective. The .243 is not redundant in comparison with the .223. It is in fact a much better caliber for larger varmints up to deer sized game than the .223 which is great for small to mid sized varmints. This is why I advocate looking at choosing calibers/cartridges in a step process where each power increase has a distinct advantage over the previous, but is not excessive for the quarry that you might be hunting. That said, if all I had was a 375 H&H, I would use it for deer hunting until I got something more manageable in the recoil department as the power of the 375 is un-necessary for deer, but is welcomed for grizzly bear. Like everything, it just depends...... for me, I want one of each.... 22LR, 22WMR, 223, 243, 270, 338, and 375.

 

[Maverick223]

Not sure I understand that statement.

Similar cartridges using the same or like case, but larger in caliber and similar in performance afford greater barrel life. Foremost of these would be the .260Rem. When used for hunting purposes this difference is negligible, but for target work, varmint hunting, or multi-purpose service it is a real concern.

 

[Bluehawk]

When used for hunting purposes this difference is negligible, but for target work, varmint hunting, or multi-purpose service it is a real concern.

Why would barrel life be any less than any other cartridge? I've never heard nor read of the .243 or 6mm Rem being hard on barrels.

 

[Maverick223]

Why would barrel life be any less than any other cartridge? I've never heard nor read of the .243 or 6mm Rem being hard on barrels.

It is worse because it is severely overbore: it is small in caliber, high velocity, and a large amount of propellant is used. This contributes heavily to barrel wear (most dramatically in the throat). With some barrels you can partially mitigate this by cutting the barrel and having it rechambered, thus doubling the life (typically can only be performed successfully once because of other wear factors). Other overbore cartridges like the .22-250, .220Swift, .25-06, 6mmRem., et cetera exhibit the same phenomena, but as long as you don't fire round after round as one typically does when target shooting or serious varmint hunting, the difference won't likely be noticeable, and even if you do the barrel won't deconstruct itself after a set number of rounds. It will slowly reduce the accuracy as wear continues.

 

[Bluehawk]

That was true in the early days of the .220 Swift but hardly true today with the newer powders and modern steel barrels such as in the 6mm's, as far as wearing them out quickly. All guns will eventually show a decrease in accuracy if fired enough times. The trick is to not load to maximum velocities. I rarely ever do!!!!

 

[Maverick223]

Most folks don't load it light, or load at all. Why have a .300WM just to load it like a .30-30?

 

[Bluehawk]

I didn't say "light"...I said, "not load to maximum velocities"! There is a big difference between the two!!
Loading 1-2 grains below maximum will go a long way in preserving throat erosion of a rifle.
Can you cite any references that the .243 Win or 6mm Rem rifles suffer the problem of being shot out in the manner you are referring to?

 

[WYcoyote]

I'm thinking the flaw of the .243 being a barrel burner is something I have no problem dealing with.
I'd be amazed if mine didn't out last me, and if it doesn't, I'll just get another one.

 

[Maverick223]

Loading 1-2 grains below maximum will go a long way in preserving throat erosion of a rifle.

No it won't, it will make a difference, but the difference will be negligible. It's late and I don't feel like looking up creditable references nor arguing the point with you, but if you like I am certain a PM to Zak will clear things up.

 

[Bluehawk]

It's late and I don't feel like looking up creditable references nor arguing the point with you, but if you like I am certain a PM to Zak will clear things up.

That's a lazy way out Maverick. You are the one making these claims...back them up. Either you have the facts or you don't!!!!!
What has Zak to do with this??

 

[jmr40]

I think you should do your own research. It is well documented that some calibers wear out barrels faster than others. The 243 is a great round, but they are one of the harder rounds on barrels. You may not shoot one enough to notice, but many people do.

 

[Bluehawk]

I have never found any real proof that shows the .243 Win or the 6mm Rem wears out a barrel any faster than any other high velocity cartridge, especially with todays modern steels and powders, as I mentioned earlier. Hence, I asked Maverick to produce the proof.
This all sounds like the old myth that abounded for years that boat tail bullets wear out a barrel faster.

 

[Maverick223]

What has Zak to do with this?

I consider him to be an expert in the field of competitive practical shooting, and has certainly put many more rounds of both standard and overbore cartridges down range...but alas, why would you believe him either? :banghead:

Hence, I asked Maverick to produce the proof.

Believe what you want, I quite honestly couldn't care less and don't really care to argue the point, if you really believe that a .22LR eats up barrels as fast as a .243Win. so be it, just as long as you don't try to convince others with such misinformed thought.

 

[mdchambe]

So, since I am really considering a 243 now, approximately how many rounds are we talking about before this "barrel wear" could happen? Any certain shooting conditions which, if you believe it happens, make it worse?

Thanks!

 

[Maverick223]

So, since I am really considering a 243 now, approximately how many rounds are we talking about before this "barrel wear" could happen? Any certain shooting conditions which, if you believe it happens, make it worse?

It really depends upon a great number of factors, firstly what your standard for acceptable accuracy is. Other factors include the loading (lighter and faster is worse), barrel steel (most is pretty good today, especially that used for "high-intensity" cartridges like the .243Win.), even the temperature can be a factor (increases pressure and weakens the steel; likely a negligible factor unless you fire the rifle rapidly). I would say the barrel would give you acceptable accuracy for at least 2000rnds, which when used solely for hunting is much more than the average hunter will ever shoot. If you plan to use the rifle for quite a bit of target shooting and/or serious varmint hunting then you may be replacing the barrel after a few years (whereas something like a .308Win should last about twice as long, but what fun is a .308 [ducks and begins running]).

Please note that I am not trying to dissuade you from purchasing it, I would just rather you go into a purchase knowing the facts rather than misinformed and [possibly] dissatisfied later on. Enjoy the new rifle, should you decide to pick it up, and be sure to post photos.

 

[Zak Smith]

.243 is not redundant with a .223. However, it is certainly "closer to" .223 applications than a .308, etc.

Accurate barrel life for .243 is somewhere between 1500 and 3500 rounds depending on the load, the barrel, and one's expectations.

Barrel wear is roughly proportionate to the powder to bore ratio, pressure, dwell time, and bore area.

 

[Onmilo]

I disagree that barrel life of the .243 is between 1500 and 3500 rounds unless the rifles or barrels are substandard.

You will see quicker throat erosion than a rifle chambered in, say, .308, but the barrel itself will still shoot accurately enough for all but the most persnickity target shooter and frankly, most target shooters aren't using .243s

.243 wssm and wsm caliber rifles will burn a barrel out in as few rounds, even quicker.

Besides, with the generous warranty plans offered by most US manufacturers, if the barrel does burn out that quickly, send the rifle back.
Most will rebarrel it for free or a very moderate charge unless they go out of business.

 

[Zak Smith]

"Accurate barrel life ...

I got those numbers as an average from shooters using .243 for practical field shooting competition. A barrel in this application that shoots 1 MOA is usually considered toast.

Expectations differ.

-z

 

[KodiakBeer]

I bought a used .243 in a Denver pawn shop about 1975 - a sporterized Mauser, dating back some years before that. I used that rifle on deer until about 2000, when I passed it on to my son. My son has been using it for the last ten years. It's not used for target shooting, but we are reloaders and put a lot of rounds down range every year. That .243 is a tack driver! The barrel is in the neighborhood of 45 years old, so... I have to question any statements about the .243 wearing out barrels.

If you're a target shooter putting 10,000 rounds a year through it, perhaps. But for normal hunting and shooting, the barrel is going to outlive the owner.

Picture - 2009. A few minutes after the photo, my son neck shot a deer at 225 yards with the 45 year old .243 he's holding.

 

[Zak Smith]

How many rounds have been shot through that barrel and how big are 5-shot groups at 100 yards?

 

[KodiakBeer]

I don't know how many were shot through it before I owned it, but the rifle was in "well-used" but not abused condition. I researched the markings and found it was made by a gunsmith in PA, in the 60's from a 1939 Mauser. If the rifle was in my possession I'd give you his name, but it's now my son's. In the 35 years since I've had it, it's probably averaged over a 100 rounds a year. Less in most years, but there have been periods when I've put perhaps 500 a year through it, back when I was heavily into reloading and target shooting. It went through other heavy shooting periods training first my daughter and later my son.

I think conservatively, it has at least 4000 to 5000 rounds through it over the 35 years it's been in my possession. It will still group under 1 1/2" with 100 grain Noslers. I haven't done any serious group shooting in ten years or so, but back when I was rolling match loads, it would typically group an inch - sometimes better if I was having a good day. This isn't a heavy barreled match rifle, it's a hunting rifle.

The average hunter probably doesn't come anywhere near that number of rounds per year. And the OP is talking about a hunting rifle, not a dedicated match rifle or prairie dog gun. Barrel life on a hunting rifle isn't really a consideration, in my opinion.

 

[Zak Smith]

Let's say the barrel had 500 rounds through it when you got it. If it has averaged 100 rounds a year for 35 years since then, that'd be 4000 rounds total. If it shot "an inch" 10 years ago (ie around 3000 rounds) but it's now at 1.5 MOA, that's well within the criteria I listed- IE, accurate barrel life between 1500-3500 rounds- and your rifle does not provide a counterpoint.

It totally agree that people who only require 1-2 MOA will probably never have to ditch a barrel due to throat wear, and that many people also do not shoot enough to wear out a barrel.

But barrel wear happens and some cartridges wear the throat much faster than other cartridges.