1,629 ft./lbs.

[Rich_Lather]

I'm with Matt304 on the steel plate thing. If you doubt that just search youtube for .50 cal ricochet.

The kinetic energy of a bullet is .5* M*V^2, where M is mass, V is velocity. V does matter more, but if you have too much V and not enough M, an increasing portion of the kinetic energy will be imparted to your target's background. Of course, many more factors play into the deceleration of the projectile.

 

[TauZero]

At gunshows around here, there's a vendor that sells steel plates and mounting systems.

They have several plates on display that have been shot with all kinds of bullets to show how well they work. But they have one plate with the non-penetrating impact of a .50 caliber bullet right next to a perfect hole by a .220 swift.

The physics of two colliding objects at high speed is complex. It has to do with mass, velocity, bullet shape, bullet construction, bullet and target materials, angles of impact, and something i'm sure i haven't thought of. Too many variables for my little monkey brain to assimilate.

I also have a leaf spring that no bullet has ever penetrated. Go figure.

 

[MCMXI]

This is my understanding of the situation ....

Impulse is the rate of change of momentum of a moving object. The momentum of a 168 grain .308 bullet moving at 2500 fps is 1.86 lbf-ft/sec whereas the momentum of a 100 grain .243 bullet moving at 2700 fps (the OPs velocity based on 1,629 lbf-ft) is 1.198 lbf-ft/sec. The kinetic energy of the .308 bullet is about 2330 lbf-ft compared to the .243's 1,630 lbf-ft. The force on the recipient of the bullet is ...

F = (-mv)/t where m is the mass of the bullet, v is the velocity of the bullet when it hits the target and t is the time it takes for the bullet to reach its final velocity (ideally zero if the bullet stays in the target resulting in maximum energy transfer).

As t decreases > F increases, as m increases > F increases, as V increases > F increases. This is why you want as heavy a bullet as possible, moving as fast as possible with the ability to stop in the target as quickly as possible if your intent is to transfer as much energy as possible to the target. This is why many of the big handgun caliber bullets weighing around 350 grains with large meplats are so effective. They're moving around 1200 fps, have a lot of mass and stop quickly when they hit the target. Will they pass through 1/2" steel plate ... probably not.

Consider how much energy is being transferred to a steel plate by a .243 bullet that passes through it compared to a .50 caliber bullet that leaves a huge dent in the plate but doesn't pass through it .... there's no comparison. The ability of a bullet to pass through a steel plate has little to do with its effectiveness as a hunting round. I'm not surprised that a 100 grain .243 bullet moving at 2700 fps passed through a 1/2" steel plate. That bullet is able to exert 39,000 lbf for 0.5 inches well above the force required to pass the yield strength of mild steel, and the bullet causes the steel to yield (plastic deformation) rather than shear like say punching a nice neat plug out of a plate.

 

[goon]

Yep, but it's still kinda cool.
And I think Shawnee's point in a round-about way is that the .243 is generally enough gun for a lot of hunting situations - a valid point.

He does seem to have a real affection for the .243.
I say if that's what works for you, more power to ya'.

 

[Shawnee]

Hi Goon...


Actually you're real close, Goon. (in a round about way)

My "point" (simple statement really) is not about the .243 or any other specific caliber - but rather about a level of power that is optimum (in a round about way) for hunters who use their centerfires for creatures below the "Elk Class"). Don't let the hecklers and crybabies mislead you - I mentioned the .243 simply because that happened to be the rifle I did the shooting with.

To better illustrate the power level point, ....

.243 & 6mm at 100yds. (100-grainers) 1629 ft/lbs
.250 Savage at 100yds (100-grainers) 1500 ft/lbs
.257 Roberts at 100yds (100-grainers) 1653 ft/lbs
.25/06 at 100yds. (117-grainers) 1726 ft/bs
6.5 Swede at 100 yds. (129-grainers) 1642 ft/lbs
30/30 at 100yds. (150-grainers) 1348 ft/lbs

Now the above numbers are simply at quoted factory ammo velocities because most hunters by far depend on factory ammo. And I chose bullets that are "deer-design/weight". The point to notice about that group of Super-Splendid deer/varmint rifles is the energy level.

But, as others have already opined on this thread - and correctly methinks - a better criteria is the velocity. And that approach still falls in synch with the above.

A cartridge firing a properly constructed bullet of from 85grs. to 100grs. at a muzzle velocity of from 2900fps to 3300fps. is as close to Ideal as it gets for anything in this country up to but not including Elk. It also illustrates the happy fact that - once above the 100gr bullet size ( +/- a wee bit ) - the velocity can be reduced to the 2400fps - 2800fps range and the hunter will still have a GREAT deer cartridge, withOUT having to accept a 60%-80% increase in recoil and a large increase in muzzle blast.

 

[elmerfudd]

I don't think too many people here are going to deny that the .243 is adequate for deer. But I also doubt very many people here find the recoil and blast of a 30 caliber cartridge like the .308 or 30-06 excessive. Over the last 2 days, I fired well over 200 rounds from various 30 caliber rifles, (.308, 30-06, 7.5 Swiss and 7.62x54R). and I'm not hurt or bruised up at all, so why would I opt for a less powerful rifle shooting less available cartridges?

The real problem as I see it is with hunters who don't spend the time at the range to develop any skill with their weapons. Since it's September, there were a number of people at the range sighting in their deer rifles while I was there. About half of them fired less than a box of rounds and typically had groups of about 8" fired from a bench using sandbags. Once the bullets were hitting in the black, they'd usually announce, "well, that's good enough," or "I'm pretty happy with that," and pack up their rifles and leave. Those folks probably would be better served by a .243 than a .300 Winmag, (which seemed to be more popular than the 30-06), but a lighter recoiling cartridge still won't make up for their lack of practice.

 

[Shawnee]

Hi Elmer...

My statement is not about the .243 or any other specific caliber.

It is about: "Why accept excess recoil and blast when a hunter has absolutely no need to?"

The 250 Savage is at about 11ft/lbs. of recoil - the '06 is at about 20ft/lbs.

Cutting the negative quality (recoil and blast) in half and still having plenty of power simply makes great sense.

I agree with you on the deficient skill/attitude of many "hunters" and on the fact that neither a .243 or a '06 or a .416 is going to make a skilled, responsible hunter out of a slob. But will say with confidence that minimizing recoil and blast while remaining at a perfectly good level of lethality is a very good approach - especially for folks who won't shoot 100 centerfire shots a year.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Goodness.


I find everything that Shawnee says is perfectly reasonable as long as he refrains from making up silly names and simply calls it the '06.


How refreshing!

 

[MCgunner]

Never bought a .243, never wanted one. I didn't figure it was as good as the .257 Roberts I already had. When I got other calibers, I scaled up to 7 mag and .308 for big mulies and elk out west. I had a good whitetail gun, already. The .257 has sorta been sidelined by my .308, though. It's an awesome whitetail/hog gun and I like the caliber better. It does little meat damage, is easy to shoot, is very accurate, gives great penetration and expansion. I mean, what's not to like about it? No one caliber is really any better than some other just because you say so. I do agree that no one needs LESS than a .243 on deer. If you can't handle the recoil of a .243, you either need to grow up a little or go on a serious high carb diet and some intensive training because, best words for it, you're a wimp. ROFL! I think 90 percent of the guys wanting to shoot .22s on deer are the young tacticool crowd wanting to find something useful to use their ARs for until the end of the world scenario they've been praying for actually happens.

 

[Shawnee]

LOLOLOL

Hi I-boy... when the '06 fans leave out the reams of standard '06 BS or quit acting like praising one caliber is automatically a condemnation of their pet caliber - I find them very refreshing too. It's only when they start spreading their inane Caca del Toro that I slap leather.

 

[NASCAR_MAN]

Can I ask what the hate is for the .30-06? Every thread you post in at some point or another has a sarcastic remark about the .30 calibers and more specifically the 06. I can see having a more suitable round for your shooting. The 30-06 isn't for every application. Still it has a long history that people enjoy and is a round people enjoy using. What is wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with the 30-06: it is a great caliber, and certainly more versatile for medium and larger game than the 243. In fact, if I had to use just one gun on this continent for deer on up to bear, it would probably be the 30-06.

However, there is a story - a myth, or two - about the 243 that is bizzare and entertaining and that I think you should know about. When I learned to Deer hunt about 35 years ago - in the piney woods of Texas - the 243 was considered to be a good beginner's gun by most "old timers" because of it's light recoil, but certainly not a weapon you would want to use if you had experience. Why? Because - amongst many - the 243 had the reputation of an Ax Murderer - a 3100 ft/sec chainsaw that left exit holes bigger than a man's fist and and a "Butcher" that could ruin meat on the order of 10lbs/shot! So...they were o.k.. for girls...because they didn't kick hard....but real men didn't need anything that deadly.

Now...how did this come to be....this stupid myth? Well, I think it was because of what I saw at the time I was chasing deer for a lot of "Old Timers" that were using 30 Cals and 8mms. Often their deer failed to go down after running just a few yards because if they put an imperfect heart/lung shot on it, then the FMJ, or poorly-designed expanders - they were using just didn't cause the damage that was needed. I know it was the case with my uncles, and when they switched to the .243 (and it's better ammo) the deer fell a lot faster.

Of course, that experience has nothing to do with the ultimate effectiveness of a 30-06, or bigger rifle, on deer - just a poor bullet selection. Many of the "Old Timers" were using ammo they bought eons ago, and it never occurred to them that the 243's effectiveness was related to the more modern ammo - and not the magic killing powers of the 243.

After I was in my early 20's, I gave up deer hunting for over 20 years.

Fast forward 20 years (closer to 25)...and I decide to get back into deer hunting. I am looking for a rifle that's inexpensive to shoot (relatively cheap ammo) so I can practice more and become a better shot. I expected that a .308 would be the ticket, but after checking prices at the local gun shop, I find that 243 ammo is even cheaper. So I choose to buy a 243.

I am no rifle expert, but I do know that a 243 and above will do the job. I go out on the internet and search a good make of rifle based on reviews....and this is where things got bizzare to me...once again. It appears that in the 25-or-so years I was away, the 243's reputation as an "Ax Murderer" and "Butcher" had been revised. It now appears that the 243 has been relegated to the class of "Might not penetrate far enough" - and other such anecdotes. Furthermore, I am seeing a lot of guys swearing by the likes of special-loaded 7mm Rem Mags and 300 Win Mags - because these offer "enough power". Likewise, I see hunters worried about "Penetration" and so using to the likes of "Nosler Partitions" and other such bullets - for White Tail Deer! Crap....was this Internet delusion...or was had the conception "must have bigger gun" gone further than that? Well...when I visited the local hunt club to which my cousin belonged, sure enough - the 243 was considered marginal: o.k. for girls, but didn't do enough damage for real men!

In the course of 25 years, I saw the 243's image change from "Ax Murderer" to "Barely Adequate". I saw men worried that their 308, 7mm, 30-06 and 300 Win Mag wouldn't "Penetrate" a deer hide adequatley to do enough damage. I saw a lot of anecdotal stupidity repeated so much that it had become considered fact. How can you talk Riflery with such people? Generally, haven't hunters learned anything in the past 30 years?

NASCAR

 

[elmerfudd]

For a reasonably skilled shooter firing a limited number of shots, I would argue that the recoil and blast of a .308 or 30-06 is a non issue. No, they're not what you'd want for shooting prairie dogs, but I wouldn't find myself at any disadvantage with one for deer hunting. I was shooting just under 2 MOA @ 100 yards with my K31 and iron sights two days ago. That's about as good as my 40 year old eyes can do. A scope would have tightened up those groups a little, but I seriously doubt that a lighter recoiling rifle would have.

I think that a large number of us here are in the same boat. We already have rifles like the .308 and 30-06. We know how to shoot them reasonably well. The ammunition is available almost everywhere. They are more powerful than a cartridge like the .243 or .250 Savage and all else being equal will tend to take down a deer a little more quickly and reliably than their smaller counterparts. So while the .243 may be a fantastic cartridge, we just don't see where it's a significant improvement over the guns we already have.

Maybe a new shooter might do better with a .243, but I'll bet they'd also become a pretty good shot with a Mosin Nagant and a case of surplus ammo.

 

[Art Eatman]

My little Sako .243 carbine totals out around seven pounds. 3/4 MOA all day long, if I do my part. I've tagged 20+ bucks with it, and did a bunch of culling which I never counted in the numbers. I put that rig together when my billfold fattened up as an adult.

But as a teenager of sixteen years, I went with what my father and uncle did. Uncle Joe was an armorer for the National Guard when he was in high school, around 1923. Went on to become a machinist and gunsmith. Post WW II, he and my father bought a good bit of DCM stuff.

In 1950 I became the proud owner of a 1917 Enfield. My uncle's comment was, "When I was your age, if anything jumped up within 300 yards, it belonged to me."

So I odd-jobbed for enough money for an old Lyman 310 tong tool and a good-used Pacific scale. Hornady 110-grain spire points and DuPont 3031 and I was in the anti-jackrabbit bidness. This was during the seven-year drouth of the 1950s in Texas, and A&M had claimed that seven jackrabbits ate as much grass as one cow. Guess what a ranch kid will do?

As far as deer hunting, many witnesses spoke of watching my father kill bucks with his '06 at 400 and 500 yards, calling the shots. One-shot kills. I took it as gospel that I was supposed to be able to do the same. I didn't know that it was all that big a deal. Still don't.

Now, I'm not shabby at playing Sneaky-snake. It's a lot of fun to ease along and kick Bucky out of bed. Look him over, and if you like him, kill him. The last mule deer buck I killed, up in the Davis Mountains, he didn't have a clue that he had a problem until I broke his neck at some 25, maybe 30 yards. Sort of ashamed to have used a rifle, but I didn't have a pistol with me. He ate real good, though.

So, up close and personal, inside of a couple of hundred yards, it doesn't really matter what you use to hit him in the white spot. Anywhere from .222 to .257 will work just fine. He won't travel any at all. The fun's then over and the work begins.

Trouble is, where I've done 95% of my hunting since 1972, I never know if the one shot I might get in the allowed sixteen days will be up close or way out yonder. So, it's real simple: I rig for BEING ABLE to kill my buck at 500 yards if need be. And that ain't my .243.

 

[Shawnee]

The "sighting in" gig I did was this. The shooter could pay me $15, hand me their rifle and 1 box of ammo - and they would get back their rifle sighted in correctly and part of their box of ammo. That eliminated the common situation of shooters going through a box (or more) of ammo and still having a rifle they weren't sure was sighted in well.... and that's why there was always a line of shooters waiting behind my shooting bench.

By far the four most common reasons shooters had sighting in problems, in order, were...

1. They were flinching (very, very common with '06s or .308s).

2. Being mostly infrequent shooters they had little or no knowledge of good bench technique.

3. Scope mounting errors (I kept a complete set of scope mounting tools at the bench).

4. The salesgirl at Wallmart sold them a set of those :banghead: "See-Thru" scope rings.

 

[Tarvis]

Shawnee, if you had your way, 30+ caliber rifles would be banned and later destroyed amidst signs depicting strange euphemisms and exaggerated smiley drawings.

They were flinching (very, very common with '06s or .308s).

No, common among inexperienced shooters.

 

[Shawnee]

Hi Art...


Using Hornady factory ammo stats - the '06 with 150-grainers has an energy level at 500yds. equal to a 30/30 at about 160yds. - perfectly viable.
At the same 500yds. - the .243 100-grainer has an energy level matching the 30/30 at about 130yds., and is traveling a couple hundred fps. than the '06 150-grainer. - still viable.

Hi Tarvis...

The "destroy the '06 " snot is your speech, not mine, so accept your responsibility for it and don't try to pass it off on me.

Your point about "inexperienced shooters" is correct. My point about the fact that there are legions and legions of "inexperienced shooters" taking to the deer fields every year is also correct.... and much of the basis for my praising calibers like the .243, the 6mm, the .250 Savage, the Roberts, the Swede and the 30/30. They aren't going to practice but they are going to go hunting - this year, next year, and every year until we're both in The Happy Hunting Grounds. That's just how it is.

 

[elmerfudd]

They aren't going to practice but they are going to go hunting - this year, next year, and every year until we're both in The Happy Hunting Grounds. That's just how it is.

There's the problem. As long as they're not going to practice they're going to be incompetent regardless of what rifle they're carrying. Shooting well requires practice and that's true even if you're shooting rimfires.

Choosing rifles based on what lazy, novice shooters will do better with doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're choosing a rifle for a lazy, novice shooter.

For the rest of us, if the rifle can do the job, we can shoot it accurately and we happen to like the rifle, then it's the right rifle for us. For me, that rifle would be a bolt action .308 or something similar. For you it might be a .243 and for someone else it might be a .375 H&H or an M1A.

 

[Art Eatman]

It helps to keep in mind that most folks who post about their shooting on Internet sites are far more serious than those occasional shooters that Shawnee is talking about.

Look how many threads we've had where somebody commented about going to a range and watching the Big Boomer crowd flinch and shoot patterns instead of groups.

I dunno. When ignorance meets hype, there's no telling what some fella will buy as a "necessity".

 

[Shawnee]

Hi "Nascar Man"...

While we're "myth-busting", I'll offer this...

It's pretty common to hear (not just here on THR) people from the western U.S. (or tier states and Canada) say cartridges like the .243 and .257 Roberts are fine for smaller deer but they need (or prefer) to use larger calibers because their Mulies or their Whitetails are so much bigger. If they had ever hunted around here they would not make those statements because they would quickly learn just how large Midwestern deer, and especially Ohio deer, get. To explain why our deer are so large I'll post a thread about Ohio deer range/cycles on the Hunting thread. But suffice it to say that we have plenty of monsters. In fact, believe it or not, in the Fall of 1979 I read of a woman who hit a huge buck with her car near Cincinnati. It was so large the Sheriff's folks carted it (ungutted) to a nearby scales and reported it to the newspaper as weighing 424 lbs. Obviously that isn't the "norm" here, but Whitetails well over 300lbs. on the hoof are not too uncommon.
I've seen very large Mulies in Colorado, Wyoming and S. Dakota but none that would shade many of our Buckeye Whitetails - and that is not "regional schmaltz" talking.

 

[NASCAR_MAN]

Hi Shawnee!

Yeah, I understand the Deer get a lot bigger up north...and I've seen it while living in the North East. Where I hunt...if we shoot one that's 140lbs it's a Big 'Un - Uncommonly Huge (I've never seen one...just heard about them). Most shots are way less than 250 Yards....the vast majority less than 85 yards. I feel confident to 200 yards - although I've never shot at anything near that far.

Good to know that the 243 can handle the larger white tails.

Thanks.

Nascar

 

[Shawnee]

Deer Range and Health and Size

Am posting this solely to generate discussion of the stated topics. Anyone who cannot read without getting their regional ego offended please stop here.

Here in Ohio the deer in much of the state live in what is essentially a year-round smorgasboard.

Though we sometimes have spells of really nasty winter weather - our winters often see few days, if any, with temps below 5 degrees or so.

The terrain is a mix of expansive grain and hay croplands and lots of mast-bearing trees (primarily Oaks and Beech). What this amounts to is that -even in the lean times of winter - the bucks and pregnant does have winter crops and mast readily available in substantial quantity and not very much inclement weather to put up with.

Spring - in varying degrees of "Springiness" gets under way in March and the does go into the fawning season well-fed with early beans and hay and eagerly meeting the tender emerging warm-season crops and vegetation.

By the time the fawns are big enough to start weaning, the soy bean plants have their succulant tops right at about "fawn height" and that will last until Aug/Sept. - just in time for the trees to start carpeting the place with protein and fat-rich nuts. That diet continues until Oct/Nov. when the beans have dried enough that the pods are simply deer-treats-on-a-stick and the corn has been taken off leaving a lot of "waste" in the fields.

The remnant corn, beans, and nuts carries them into the winter wheat and oats entree of Jan/Feb which will hold them very well until the whole buffet starts all over again in March/April.

In other Midwestern states - eg. Indiana and Illinois - the crop farming is much more "road-to-road" over much of the state and thus the mast element of the food cycle is lessened in many places there. But the deer also have somewhat easier access to the nutritious diets provided by the good farmers of those states.

This type of range contrasts with other ranges in the obvious way of what plants/crops are available - but the most important contrast is the timing here that allows the deer a plentiful and highly nutritious diet all year round.
And that is one of the very biggest factors in the exceptional size and health of our deer, including the commonplace birth and survival of triplet fawns.

With all that "Buckeye info" on the board - I now invite anyone to respond with similar info about their favorite deer hunting area. Not in competition - but because it seems to me that many deer hunters would enjoy and maybe benefit from hearing such info about different parts of the country.

Have at it, Lads !



Oooops, sorry 'bout that. Meant to put it on the HUNTING board. Have moved it there. Mods can delete this if they want.

 

[elmerfudd]

Here in Western Washington we have blacktail deer. They normally run between 100 and 200 lbs. We also have black bears, cougar and elk. The climate is very mild. In the lowlands temperatures rarely dip below 20 and we get very little snow. Up in the mountains it's a different story. It also rains on occasion and the forests tend to be very thick with large areas that are practically impenetrable. The trees are about 70% firs and maybe 25% alders and maples and 5% cedars. We've got an abundance of deer, bear and cougar, (not quite as many elk), so there doesn't seem to be any shortage of food.

Shots tend to be very close. Unless you're hunting the clear cuts you're unlikely to get a shot over 100 yards. Clear cuts can be huge and present some long shots, but the best clear cuts for hunting are the ones that have had a few years to grow back and in those there is a lot of cover for deer to hide. After about 10 years or so the clear cuts aren't clear anymore and in fact they have usually become too dense and scraggly to pass through without using a lot of energy and making a lot of noise.

 

[benzy2]

It was good read anyways. Too bad we have to shoot them with slugs, charcoal, or the truly inhumane arrow here in Ohio.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Upon inspection I found that all five shots had passed through the half-inch thick steel plate from 100 yds. as if it had been soft butter (or margarine).

Sounds like mild steel to me... pretty much any centerfire rifle will do it.

Try some high carbon, cold pressed stuff and see if you get the same results.

 

[Shawnee]

Hi Benzy...

In Ohio we can also use "a straight-walled" cartridge handgun of .357 magnum or greater.." - which is why I use a .44 magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk during the regular Ohio gun season. Works like a charm.
I use the same gun for about a third of the shooting I do on Ag. damage permits too even though any caliber can be used for that.

The goofy part is we can use a .357 handgun for deer during the regular season but can't use a .357 rifle.... Another fine example of bureaucratic "intelligence" combined with anti-gunner-ism.