.243 on Elk? - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion >

.243 on Elk?


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-22-2011, 03:23 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
king1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cheyenne,Wyoming
Posts: 100
Default

There's a guy in a town near here (podunk Wyoming) that kept having a bull moose come into his yard and destroy his landscaping. With the desire to shoo the moose along, he used a BB gun (not even a pellet gun) and shot the moose in the ass. He nailed it in a major artery and killed it. With a BB gun. Can a 243 take out an elk? Or a Moose? A bear? You better believe it. But I don't believe that ethically, you should. All it takes for the average hunter to botch a shot and wound an animal is a twig, or a blade of grass, misjudged distance, or a change in terrain. I don't even feel terribly confidant with my 270 on elk, and I've taken two elk with it.

To the OP:
If all you have and can afford is a 243, and you feel comfortable with it, then use it. Just make sure you practice as much as possible, then practice some more. If you have the choice, get something bigger. My recommendation: a 30-06. It's been used on all major game in America.
king1138 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 03:58 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by king1138 View Post
There's a guy in a town near here (podunk Wyoming) that kept having a bull moose come into his yard and destroy his landscaping. With the desire to shoo the moose along, he used a BB gun (not even a pellet gun) and shot the moose in the ass. He nailed it in a major artery and killed it. With a BB gun. Can a 243 take out an elk? Or a Moose? A bear? You better believe it. But I don't believe that ethically, you should. All it takes for the average hunter to botch a shot and wound an animal is a twig, or a blade of grass, misjudged distance, or a change in terrain. I don't even feel terribly confidant with my 270 on elk, and I've taken two elk with it.

To the OP:
If all you have and can afford is a 243, and you feel comfortable with it, then use it. Just make sure you practice as much as possible, then practice some more. If you have the choice, get something bigger. My recommendation: a 30-06. It's been used on all major game in America.

I am the OP, so I thought I would respond. I have more than one gun. I have no plans of ever hunting elk, moose, or bear; but if I did, I certainly would use one of my larger calibers. The 6mm Rem. is my favorite rifle caliber, and here in central Florida, it does a great job on crows, hogs and deer. However, I target shoot with it more than I hunt with it.
On the flip side, I believe that too many just average hunters use rifles that are too large for them to handle (i.e. the big belted magnums) and most of them don't shoot enough to get comfortable with them. As a result, they are more prone to wound an animal than kill it cleanly. A gut shot animal is a gut shot animal whether it is shot with a .243 or a .338. It seems these guys think that if they hit it anywhere they are fine because of the large cartridge.They would be much better off with a 30-06, 308, 7x57, 270 and the like.
cottontop
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 04:03 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
king1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cheyenne,Wyoming
Posts: 100
Default

I agree. I don't think magnums have much need in most hunting environments. Where I hunt, I'd be lucky to get a shot over 200 yards. At that range, a magnum will rip up too much meat, and your shoulder.
king1138 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 10:27 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skeniger2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 140
Default

I'm with that any caliber is great but you got be use to the gun and shoot more than once a year
skeniger2002 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 03:15 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prairie Dog Country
Posts: 125
Liked 13 Times on 11 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

I have shot elk with a 270 Win, 308 Norma Mag, and 340 Weatherby Mag. When going elk hunting I dont know if the shot will be at 50 or 400 yards so I like to be a bit over guned than under so my last elk were shot with the 340. If you can hit them in the lungs with a 243 you should be able to hit them in the lungs with 30 or 340 Mag.
tuck2 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 10:47 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nowhere,that other state
Posts: 944
Liked 319 Times on 197 Posts
Likes Given: 399

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wambli View Post
You are looking for a fight whrere there is none. A .243 as well as a .22 LR is perfectly capable of killing just about any beast on this planet in the hands of the right shooter/hunter. The problem is that 99.999% of shooters/hunters are not capable of these shots and these videos convince the idiots in the crowd that watch them (without any real knowledge to back up the deed) that THEY are capable of the same. That is my ONLY point. Carry on...
Not looking for a fight. Just pointing out that people's assumption that a 243 can't kill an elk is false. You are the only one looking for a fight from what I can see. Any one can make that shot if they put in the time and effort to learn.

Shot placement is key in any shot.

I would use my ar in 223 on deer if my state let me and not feel under gunned with a 60 gr nosler partition. Because I know my rifle like I know my gun. I spend lots of time behind the trigger.

Last edited by gunnut07; 12-23-2011 at 10:53 AM.
gunnut07 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 12:17 PM   #27
FAA licensed bugsmasher
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ScottA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Davenport,IA
Posts: 7,140
Liked 2477 Times on 1328 Posts
Likes Given: 879

Default

Let's all play nice here.
__________________
Scott

Quote:
If you're not representing Jesus in a way that makes people want to hang out with you, you're doing it wrong.
Quote:
Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors. -Plato
Join the NRA
ScottA is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 04:55 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You have all probably heard the saying, "Beware the man who owns only one gun." For what it's worth, I was talking to one of my close friends last night about this very thread. He knows guns as he is a retired gun shop owner who ran a gun shop for 25 years. He told me about a guide he met in Wyoming who owned only a Savage Model 99 in .250-3000 Savage. He hunted elk with it and had many sets of antlers laying around from all of his years of elk hunting, all killed w/ his .250. I would not consider the .250 as an elk cartridge, at least not for the average hunter. This guide would never take a long shot, nor an obstructed shot, and he knew his rifle well and could pick a fly off a wall at 100 yards. My point?, a rifle that is basically unsuitable for the game sought could possibly be used, but only by the person who knows exactly what he or she is doing.
cottontop
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 05:37 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nowhere,that other state
Posts: 944
Liked 319 Times on 197 Posts
Likes Given: 399

Default

Ethics are different for everyone. Some may not think it is ethical to shoot varmints and not eat them. Some think it is unethical to kill an elk with anything less than a 338 win mag.

Your ethics are not my ethics nor are they anyone else. Some stated that the 243 is not nearly enough gun for elk. I posted video proof that it is. If you use the right equipment and know your rifle.

I myself think it is unethical to only shoot your rifle a few times a year while hunting and sighting in. I think you should be able to pick it up gauge the distance and make the shot every time you pull the bang switch. It is unethical to take a shot you know to be out of your range, it is also unethical to me to hunt with a bow and arrow.

A bow and arrow doesn't have nearly the energy or range of a 243 but if someone kills an elk with a bow and arrow you would hoist them up on your shoulders and carry them around like a god. I spend hours upon hours on the range shooting with my rifles. Off the bench laying on the ground sitting kneeling standing supported and unsupported all the time making myself better. I think it is unethical that you hunt if you do not do that either. The ethics go both ways. If you know your equipment your range and your skills and know you can make the shot take it. If you don't know then pass it up.

Here is a 6mm taking a deer at 890 yards.
http://richardscustomrifles.com/NOV182006%20DEER.wmv
gunnut07 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 06:01 PM   #30
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 7,298
Liked 2884 Times on 1582 Posts
Likes Given: 810

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnut07 View Post
Ethics are different for everyone. Some may not think it is ethical to shoot varmints and not eat them. Some think it is unethical to kill an elk with anything less than a 338 win mag.

Your ethics are not my ethics nor are they anyone else. Some stated that the 243 is not nearly enough gun for elk. I posted video proof that it is. If you use the right equipment and know your rifle.

I myself think it is unethical to only shoot your rifle a few times a year while hunting and sighting in. I think you should be able to pick it up gauge the distance and make the shot every time you pull the bang switch. It is unethical to take a shot you know to be out of your range, it is also unethical to me to hunt with a bow and arrow.

A bow and arrow doesn't have nearly the energy or range of a 243 but if someone kills an elk with a bow and arrow you would hoist them up on your shoulders and carry them around like a god. I spend hours upon hours on the range shooting with my rifles. Off the bench laying on the ground sitting kneeling standing supported and unsupported all the time making myself better. I think it is unethical that you hunt if you do not do that either. The ethics go both ways. If you know your equipment your range and your skills and know you can make the shot take it. If you don't know then pass it up.

Here is a 6mm taking a deer at 890 yards.
http://richardscustomrifles.com/NOV182006%20DEER.wmv
You are right. It would be unethical for you to hunt with a bow. However dont go saying that a bow in the hands of someone who trains as you do is unethical. An arrow does not work the same way as a rifle and are not shot at rifle ranges. I would not hesitate to take a shot at an elk at 25 yards with a bow and I believe it is much more ethical than shooting a deer at almost 900 yards. I had an archery target in my back yard and shot several times a week. I would do the walk through targets at the range on weekends. 50 yards is a long shot. You would have to learn to hunt to shoot a bow. I dont call shooting a deer at extreme range hunting. By the way, the longest shot I have ever taken on a game animal was an elk at 70 yards with my 270.
__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes




Newest Threads