243 on Mule deer too light?

[.308 Norma]

What is the lower caliber limit for poor shot placement?

It's the same as the upper caliber limit for poor shot placement.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

It's the same as the upper caliber limit for poor shot placement.

I suppose, if you were hunting with a 50 BMG, hitting a rock several feet from the deer might be better than a broadside double lung shot.

 

[Kingcreek]

I know a rancher that takes an elk every year with a .243

 

[Charlie Martinez]

After using the 243 for many years mainly on deer I can assure you that the 100 grain bullet is deadly if you hit the lung/heart, neck or brain areas. The 243 is not a cartridge you should rely on to "break down" larger animals by shooting the shoulders.

 

[d2wing]

I have shot a good number of whitetails with a variety of .243 rifles. My son shot a huge Minnesota 12 point buck with one. With quality deer ammo and proper placement, you should be good. Mulies are thicker built but with your choice of ammo you should be good. I bought another .243 3 years ago as a back-up rifle but ended up putting a youth stock on it for my grandson. He is making one shot kills with it with 100 gr. Core-lokts. Killed 2 whitetails and a coyote in 2 seasons.

 

[Hokkmike]

Anyone here think using a 243 with 100grn partitions is to light for mule deer at shots no further than 300 yrds?

My first inclination was to say, "Yes, too small" but after watching the replay on the High Road video I have changed my call to, "It will work just fine!". When I first started hunting I used a .243 because I wanted a groundhog-deer combo gun. My friends said that it was OK for the former and a little light for the latter. I switched up to a 6.4x55 and everybody was happy. But I love the .243.

 

[adcoch1]

What is the lower caliber limit for poor shot placement?

40mm... On deer.

I used to be against the 243 before I knew anything, thought it was too much case for the bullet, why not use a 308, etc. Then a friend's dad came home from Alaska with a massive brown bear, taken with a 243. I decided I needed to learn something about rifle cartridges. Now after research I think 243 is a pretty nice deer cartridge. Haven't owned one yet, but it'll happen eventually.

 

[MacAR]

The 243 is not a cartridge you should rely on to "break down" larger animals by shooting the shoulders.

Exactly correct. If you want a bone-breaking cartridge, get an '06. Otherwise, the .243 is an excellent choice up to elk-sized game. As I said earlier, I really like mine. The only negative quality that I can find with the .243 is that it isn't very good in brush. Again, an '06 or 30-30 is much better for that type of work.

Mac

 

[Buzznrose]

It depends…..are you trying to use it as an excuse to your better half that you really need another rifle? In that case, well, maybe…LOL!

Otherwise, it should work fine.

 

[wbm]

Great shot....one of many 243 vs elk videos.

 

[stringnut]

Never hunted mule deer , but we have taken a pile of white tails with 100 gr 25 caliber bullets. These are just cup and core bullets at 2800 (250 Savage) or 2950 (257 Rob). Some of the deer were 250 lbs plus out to about 150 yards. Never had an issue. Pass through on broadside shots every time, 50% pass through if a shoulder was hit , and under the hide on steep quartering angles. All recovered bullets weighed about 60 grains. All the deer were very dead.

The 100 grain partition from a 243 , or 6 mm, will do as good , or better, in all ways. A bit faster, tougher bullet that still expands well, and a little better sectional density.

 

[FL-NC]

300 and in with proper shot placement.

 

[jmr40]

When the 243 was introduced, it was envisioned as a dual-purpose varmint and deer round. But as ammo has improved it is probably borderline too much for varmints, ideal for deer, but borderline for elk size game. If I never hunted game larger than deer, whitetail or mule deer, I'd seriously consider a 243.

But where I hunt deer and black bear seasons run together for the most part. It would be fine on average bear, but they can get pretty big. The state record here is around 600 lbs. I feel better with a little more gun. Just in case.

 

[horsey300]

Anyone here think using a 243 with 100grn partitions is to light for mule deer at shots no further than 300 yrds?

Having taken multiple mulies with the .243, I'll say no, we use 95 gr sst, btip, and 100 gr prohunters, also have a few other loads that are yet to be tested, we also don't track them, now to really get people's goat, the boy has a .22-250
Eta, in the rifle you list, I'd dearly suggest the prohunters, or the 95 sst, that twist rate won't favor anything too wild but those two flat bases will do dandy!

 

[CraigC]

Not in this lifetime. I've seen 100gr pills fail on the ribcage of 80lb does. Might work just fine with good bullets when everything is ideal and you're super careful with shot placement but I want a better contingency when things are not perfect. I don't believe in massive belted magnums for deer but I don't believe in the race to the bottom either.

 

[someguy2800]

Depends on the terrain. I have killed a couple deer with 243, witnesses a dozen or so more, and killed a small truck load with a 25/06. Killing isn’t the issue. Anything from a 22 hornet and up will kill deer just as dead but I’ve never been impressed with the blood trails from small calibers. That’s probably not an issue if you are shooting across a been field or open prairie or mountain meadow where you can probably watch the deer after the shot but it’s a big issue if you hunt in dense underbrush or chest tall slough grass where the deer disappear in 10 feet and you have to blood trail them. I’m firmly in the “I’ve never killed something too dead” camp. My go to’s now are a 444 marlin and a 358 yeti. I’m replacing the 358 yeti with a 45 raptor because every time I try something with a bigger bore I get better and better results. My hunting is generally under 150 yards and dense brush. If I were going to hunt deer in open spaces like Wyoming I would probably take my 25-06 and would likey be very happy with it. I would agree with varminterror that a 243 would be close to ideal for sub 300 yard hunting with the presumption that your hunting open spaces, but in my experience it’s not optimal where tracking is likely.

 

[lightman]

I'm not an expert on Mule Deer having killed only one. But I would think the 243 with a Partition would work fine. As always, shot placement is important.

 

[silicosys4]

I wouldn't use it, but I'm a blasphemer in that I've never been a fan of the .243 either...It just gives too much up to other cartridges. It's one of those cartridge compromises from a time when having one do-all gun was the thing. Its really too much for most varmints but also not ideal imo for anything over small deer and antelope.
It has worked, it will work, and it is not a bad choice within its capabilities....

That being said, I prefer being limited by my shooting capability rather than my cartridge, and while I'm comfortable taking shots at game animals out to 350yards, maybe a bit further, I want my rifle and cartridge to still be well within its envelope of effective velocity and energy at that range and not nipping at the edges.

the .243 is just too marginal at ranges i'm comfortable shooting. I'd rather drive a heavier bullet the same speed and have an excess of margin at any range that I am comfortable shooting.

The further you are shooting the less precision is inherently possible, the less precision, the more capable your cartridge needs to be in order to account for variables like that step forward or to the side that could turn a perfect boiler room shot into a marginal shot requiring that extra penetration and energy.

 

[md7]

I think you’re in fine shape, OP. Do your part, and I’m pretty confident it’ll do it’s part.

 

[BreechFace]

Let you know when my kids put a few deer in the freezer next year with their 243Win

 

[LoonWulf]

Watched my wife tumble a couple 800lb feral cows with 100gr SPHs.
Heart shot both of them, one broad side, one quartering away.

I prefer larger rounds in general, but the .243 can get the job done on anything ive seen taken here.

 

[dranrab]

That being said, I prefer being limited by my shooting capability rather than my cartridge, and while I'm comfortable taking shots at game animals out to 350yards, maybe a bit further, I want my rifle and cartridge to still be well within its envelope of effective velocity and energy at that range and not nipping at the edges.

the .243 is just too marginal at ranges i'm comfortable shooting. I'd rather drive a heavier bullet the same speed and have an excess of margin at any range that I am comfortable shooting.

.

The 243 with a 90 grain Ballistic tip or Accubond will be traveling at about 1900 FPS at 500 yards. It will smash bone, penetrate deeply and cause catrastrophic vital tissue damage at that range/velocity, and there is nothing marginal about it. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference examining tissue hit by a 243 at those ranges and a 7mm-08 at those ranges. I'd venture a somewhat scientific guess that the majority of shooters would be better served by a 243 at those distances than a 30-06 or a 270. It's no secret that shooters shoot lighter recoiling rounds more accurately that heavier recoiling ones.

 

[dranrab]

Let you know when my kids put a few deer in the freezer next year with their 243Win

Post pictures of the vital tissue damage and ask our readers to see if they can guess what chambering did the damage.

 

[Frostbite]

I prefer more magnification than 4x to achieve perfect shot placement at 300 yards.

 

[CraigC]

The 243.....will smash bone, penetrate deeply and cause catrastrophic vital tissue damage at that range/velocity, and there is nothing marginal about it.

If my eyebrow goes up any further it's gonna be behind my ear. A 90gr bullet isn't gonna "smash" anything but a prairie dog.