James B

An Indian girl killed a very large grizzly with a 22 long rimfire. That don't make the 22 RF a grizzly gun. An elk killed at 500 yards does not make the 243 an elk gun and such shots are irresponsable as hell. Your idea that velocity is the only thing you need to make a clean kill is disproven BUNK. Go ahead and live in your bubble, I have no more to say on this subject.[:'(]

zrexpilot

ORIGINAL: James B

An Indian girl killed a very large grizzly with a 22 long rimfire. That don't make the 22 RF a grizzly gun. No butthat does make her a better hunter than you. and proves it dont take much to kill An elk killed at 500 yards does not make the 243 an elk gun Then what does, killing a rhino at 500yds. Will that gun then be adequate for elk. and such shots are irresponsable as hell. Only if the one making it has not practiced at those distances.Your idea that velocity is the only thing you need to make a clean kill is disproven BUNK. It is at 500 yds, a 45-70 is not a long range gun, a .243 is, It was designed for antelope at extreme ranges, so was the 25-06, and eventually the 6mm rem. Go ahead and live in your bubble, I have no more to say on this subject.[:'(] The voices in my head dont like you.


( notice the smiley winks)

Doe Dumper

Hehehe nothing like a 243 to get things cookin on here.

Roskoe

James B. - I was not advocating the use of a 6MM rifle for general purpose elk hunting - even at medium distances. I think those guns begin with the .270 calibers - and only then with premium bullets. Having seen about 10 elk killed with various .243's and 6MM, I would describe their performance as "marginal". Requires very precise bullet placement - no shoulders or angling shots - broadside through the lungs or high in the neck. But I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as "irresponsible"

James B

To each his own. I have seen to many hunters try to hit an animal even at 300 tards to condone shots that long with such a light bullets. The only good thing is that most hunters couldn't come close enough to an animal at 500 yards to even hit it and wound it. I have seen a lot of first time steel shilouette shooters who can't come within 50 yards of hitting the 500 meter Ram which has a body about the size of a deer. I am all for 500 yard shots at targets but not at game animals. The 243 will seldom knock down the Ram at 500 meters. Just not enough bullet weight. A lot of guys tried their 243's including me.

zrexpilot

ORIGINAL: James B

To each his own. I have seen to many hunters try to hit an animal even at 300 tards to condone shots that long with such a light bullets. Like I said before I think it's silly for you to think 115 gr of lead is ok but not 100 gr. The only good thing is that most hunters couldn't come close enough to an animal at 500 yards to even hit it and wound it. I have seen a lot of first time steel shilouette shooters who can't come within 50 yards of hitting the 500 meter Ram which has a body about the size of a deer. I am all for 500 yard shots at targets but not at game animals. I agree,95% of us should not be shooting at game at 500 yds. The 243 will seldom knock down the Ram at 500 meters. It will if it's a live ram, and you hit it where it counts.Just not enough bullet weight. A lot of guys tried their 243's including me.
It's just silly for you to say the .243 would be limited to 200 yds, it's not a 30-30 that falls off the scale after 200 yds, it is one of the most flattest shooting cartridges available, retaining it's path and velocity for a long long way. It has the SD and BC needed for long shots too. It is a long range caliber, for deer and antelope and anything smaller.

texasbowhunter093

Remington round.. not sure of the weight.
My dad shot a mule deer(18 pt) at 280 yards, dropped it.
.243