.243 or .270?

[30-06 lover]

Rem's 710 comes with the barrel hydraulically pressed into the action, so once the barrel is shot out, the entire gun is garbage because you can't get a replacement barrel. The gun is just cheap no matter how you look at it.
-Mike

 

[steelhead]

The Stevens is basically a Savage without the Accutrigger. You can easily replace the Stevens trigger with an excellent aftermarket for around $60. Plus barrel swaps, on the Savage/Stevens, are a piece of cake and you can turn your .243 into a .308, 7mm-08, 338-08, etc., if you want to later on. You can usually pick up a Savage factory, take off, barrel for $50. I don't recall if it was Sportmansguide, Bass Pro or Wally World but one of them frequently has the Stevens 200 priced, on sale, for $199.

 

[dfaugh]

handled the 710 and aside from being a bit light it didn't feel cheap. Just how "bad" is it, I am looking for a decent rifle and for 335 I get the rifle and the scope from the rem at my local stop. Reasonable accuracy to me is fine, if the thing wont put five bullets through a quarter sized hole at several hundred yards I'm not going to be disapointed.

With most 710s you'll be lucky to shoot a quarter sized group at 50 yards. The scopes they put on there are junk (and I am of the "cheap scope school", don't wanna spend more for a scope than I did for the rifle.)

For about $100-150 more you can get a Savage w/ Accutrigger, which is in an entirely different league than the 710.

If you DO buy a 710, and later want to sell it, you'll be lucky to find someone who will even want it...Whereas if you go with a "quality" rifle, you'll be able to get much more for it. So, buying the 710 is a "false economy"...

The 710s were made for the guy that goes out once a year deer hunting, which may be OK for some people. But if you wnat a quality gun, that'll last, and hold its value, take a step up to a better gun.

Edited to add: I'm a big fan of the .270, but the recoil in a gun of reasonable weight, like you'd wanna carry though the fields all day, will be SIGNIFICANTLY more than a .243. I had a Winchester Model 70 lightweight in .270, and it really kicked my butt. I popped my shoulder out a coupla years ago, and I'm now very recoils sensitive. Having said that, I persocally think the .243 is marginal for deer, unless you've got a "perfect" shot, where the .270 gives you a signifcant increase in power. Get the .270, and put a really good recoil pad on it.

 

[jasonmha]

Either the .243 or .270 is fine. My father has hunted with the .243 for years and has killed plenty of deer with it -- one shot, one kill. I've used the .270 for the last 3-4 years, and have have the same success.

The .270 was the remington model 710. Of all the combo packages I checked out, it felt the best in my hands. Also, at 100 yards, I could fire a three-shot group, cover one shot completely with my thumbnail, and still have the two other shots partially covered w/in my thumbnail. It may not be a $700 piece of equipment, but it sure works.

 

[270Win]

While both .243 and .270 are good choices, I always lean .270.

The .270 can be loaded down to .243 levels and with relatively similar bullet weights, with correspondingly light recoil, if necessary.

It is extremely flat shooting, as well: -33.3 inches at 500 yards with a 130 grain bullet is quite good. From 0-300 there is very little drop at all - what Chuck Hawks calls "point blank range" or something like that. Not to say .243 doesn't have a corresponding trajectory somewhere, but out at the farther ranges, the .270 retains more energy and velocity. According to Hornady.com, a .243 100 grainer has 1397 lbs of every at 200 yards (pretty far shot for most hunters), while the 150 grain .270 round has 2002 lbs. Pretty large difference. The .270 bullets (taking, for example, the Sierra GameKing line) have a better BC as well, for those longer shots.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the .270 is more versatile; while it can easily shoot lighter bullets and be used for coyotes or whatnot, it can also be used for Elk and larger game as well.

But I think you really would be hard-pressed to go wrong with this choice. Both have proven themselves as worthy calibers time and again.

Good luck, either way!

 

[Lupinus]

I'm thinking of going with a savage/stevens now in .243 after this thread and one on another forum I go to. Found a package deal that I didn't look much into cause of the suggested retail but seems it goes for well under it so going to look into it, has accutrigger and a simmons scope and should stay under 400, going to go gun fondeling on tuesday.

One side hunting question though.

The guy at the hardware store said his friend that uses .243 (also the one who said he doesn't trust a hundred grain bulelt to not break up on bone) does neck shots. Now I have heard this is a no no and chest shots are what you should always go for. Why is it neck shots are a no no exactally? Seems like cutting off the spine is the same as breaking the neck and woud be quick and humane and with the arteries it should bleed out sufficiantly? Also seems like it would do less meat damage cause aside from hamburger there isn't much in the neck, I know it would screw it up for mounting but Im not to interested in that. Why aren't neck shots alright?

 

[22-rimfire]

I would not buy the low priced Remington line for the reasons mentioned above. If you go Remington, go with the Model 700 ADL for a lower price relative to the BDL version. Hard to beat these rifles. I also REALLY like the looks of the newer Savage models with walnut stocks. But they are over $400.

The Stevens will work.

Recoil with 243? You will notice some recoil. Years ago when I first starting shooting the 243, I was surprised with the amount of recoil. It was still manageable and no big deal, but it will bruise your shoulder if you shoot much.

You seem to be sold on the 243 for deer. So be it. We all learn as we grow in experience. Good luck.

The neck is a smaller target than the heart-lung area of the front shoulder. If you hit the front shoulder and break it, the deer will usually fall. Neck shots work well if you can make the shot on whitetails. Spine shots are even tougher, but will always be one-shot kills and the effect is immediate. I shot a whitetail once with a 243 on a running buck at 5 yds from the hip... dropped like a rock. It was my second shot and the deer ran straight toward me in the woods. I used to practice all the time with a 22 rifle that way and hunted rabbits with the 22 rifle frequently making jump shots.

 

[Lupinus]

I wouldn't call it sold, just convinced it will do the job if I do mine and seeing as this isn't going to be a one or two shot a year hunting only rifle but rather a paper puncher I will be familer with I see no reason why I wont do my end of the bargin. If it is a shot I just don't have the angle for I won't take it.

 

[tosainu1]

I have a Remington 700 CDL in .270 and I use Remington 115 grain Managed Recoil ammunition. The R3 recoil pad combined with this ammo makes the gun a pleasure to shoot at the range and VERY accurate at 100 yards... If you need a budget rifle, I would recommend you wait when Bass Pro Shops has a sale on Stevens 200 rifles in .270 or 30-06 for $199 during the Fall Classic which is coming up soon.....Either one of these rifles, with a Limbsaver type pad and the Managed Recoil ammo will be on par with a 100 grain .243 level recoil or less and therefore easy to shoot, even with a bum shoulder.....

 

[Lupinus]

no bass pro shops near me lol

going to see what this-http://www.savagearms.com/11fxp3.htm is going for at my local shops both listed as dealers so they should either have it or be able to get it easily enough. From what I am hearing it is generaly under 400 bucks and seems to be a good combo to fit my needs.

 

[wdlsguy]

My dad bought me a Savage 110CL in .243 a few decades ago now. The Wisconsin whitetails I shot with it dropped in their tracks. I don't hunt much anymore, but a buddy dropped a Texas whitetail and a Texas hog in their respective tracks with it, so I guess it still works.

 

[mnrivrat]

So where is that spot? Well, "the right spot" is a flexible concept. It depends on the angle of the deer as viewed by the hunter, how far the deer is from the hunter, whether or not the deer is calm, how solid a gun rest the hunter has available, and many other variables.

Just pulled this little tidbit from an article because I think it is appropriate to your question. It goes on to say that the neck shot is just fine if the right oppertunity presents itself. (as well as spine shots and head shots) I agree with that . The traditional shot allows for a larger margin of error , it is not the only option . The .243 can work just fine however shooting in the traditional kill zone - it doesn't require a neck shot to perform in my opinion.

Savage has earned a good reputation lately for accurate and reliable bolt guns. If the last one I purchased is represenitive ,then I also agree with that good reputation . I was pleased with mine , and I thjink they are indeed worth having.

 

[Lupinus]

so it is basically just a smaller margin of error?

If a neck shot was taken and you were off by a few inches from the spine yet still hit the neck what would happen? Would the energy still be enough to break the neck even without a direct hit? Would the possible hit to the windpipe and arteries still take the deer down quickly and humanly?

 

[Kingcreek]

I have an old Winchester model 70 in .243cal that has, over the years, effectively and efficiently killed quite a few deer and pronghorn, and also a bunch of varmints. The .243 is one of those rounds that seems to work better than you would expect if you just look at ballistics. (I know a rancher in Montana that shoots elk with one but usually a cow for meat and never very far, however, I am not comfortable hunting elk with the .243) .
I would classify the .243 as perfect for pronghorn or coyotes, and at least adequate for deer.
I also have a .270 and a .300mag, but they don't kill em any deader than that old reliable .243.
Have fun!

 

[22-rimfire]

It is possible that the trauma of a shot very close to the spine would "break the neck". But generally, you hare trying to hit arteries in the neck. It is a good shot, but I generally would not take it as my first choice.... go for the traditional kill zone around the front shoulders and you will be fine. Depends on the distance to the animal and the angle.

 

[Kingcreek]

Would the energy still be enough to break the neck even without a direct hit? Would the possible hit to the windpipe and arteries still take the deer down quickly and humanly?

Most likely not.
Neck shots are dicey and should be avoided under most field conditions.
Heart, lungs, and maybe shoulder depending on angle= always a better choice.

 

[Lupinus]

I figured to go for the heart/lung anyway but just wanted to ask bout the neck

seemed at the very least like less meat damage, I'm not big on hamburger lol

 

[Outlaws]

going to see what this-http://www.savagearms.com/11fxp3.htm is going for at my local shops both listed as dealers so they should either have it or be able to get it easily enough. From what I am hearing it is generaly under 400 bucks and seems to be a good combo to fit my needs.

Just incase you didn't notice, they have that in 243 and 270WSM....WSM being Winchester SHort Magnum.....not the same as a 270. Just an FYI. I can't speak for the 270WSM, but there are way too many short mags coming out for the market to sustain in factory ammunition so some will become hard/expensive to obtain in the future unless you handload. Again, I don't know about the 270WSM.

 

[Lupinus]

the 111FXP3 is the long action version but other then that same thing and comes in .270. Since I am pretty much leaning to the .243 I put the one in .243

 

[dcloco]

Go with a Savage. Don't bother with the package rifles, the scopes, well..nearly junk.

Don't go with the 270, due to your shoulder. They kick...a LOT...most of the 270's with sporter barrels are lighter rifles, for packing while hunting. There is a lot of recoil. I have shot, at least 20 different rifles in 270 caliber. They all kick. I have a Rem 700, with the limbsaver, helps...but there is still recoil (I am not small either....and shoot a lot!!).

Go with the 243 and buy a limbsaver, it will help some as well. If you plan to hunt, stay away from the varmint barrels, the 8+ pound rifles get heavy quick.

.....and don't listen to that salesman again....ever.

 

[Lupinus]

I already know not to listen to salemen, hence why I ask you fine folks lol

Doubt it was sale driven though and was more personal opinion, the rifle I was looking at (710) pretty much lowest price in the place, same price reguardless of caliber, and the .243 ammo is more expensive then their .270 ammo. Either way I know not to listen to one or two people, esspecialy ones behind counters.

As far as scopes being nearly junk I am in the less expensive scope crowd and don't go much for the high dollar ones, and if I don't liek the scope I still have the rifle at a good price a spare scope and can just buy a new one.

 

[Taurus 66]

.270 and one of these:

http://www.clcweb.com/reports/Hunting_Gear/Limbsaver_Recoil_Pads/limbsaver_recoil_pads.html

 

[steelhead]

Just another thought but.... If you mainly plan to punch paper, and take shots at dogs, then think about a Savage or Stevens in .223. Cheaper ammo and non exsistent recoil that you literally could shoot all day without fatigue/sore shoulder.

If deer is still on the list, then I would still go with the .243. Or purchase a 243 or 7mm-08 barrel to swap out for deer hunting but use the 223 for everything else. You could get another barrel, and all the tools needed for barrel swaps, for under $175.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

I'd second the recommendation of getting a .270 and using Remington's Managed Recoil ammunition.

I used this ammunition in a .30-06 last season and shot four deer dead as bricks with four shots. Recoil was very mild--less than a 30-30, just as the ads say.

Then if you decide you want a "beefier" load, you can use standard .270 ammunition.

Whatever you decide on, good luck!

 

[10X]

Having shot several antelope and deer with the 243 and 270 I will say the 270 without a doubt has more recoil than the 243 in the same rifle. I am going by memory so allow me some leeway, the 270 with a 130 grain bullet has about 17 ft pounds of recoil and the 243 with 100 grain bullet has about 12 ft. pounds of recoil. Both shoot equally flat at hunting ranges. For target work, I believe there are very good Sierra match bullets available for a 243/6mm. For a 270, I don't recall any. If you limit hunting to no larger than deer, a 243 is fine, but get Nosler 95 grain partition bullets. The Noslers will penetrate and that is what you want. I have had 100 grain Federals blow up on Antelope shoulders. Then you have an merry many mile chase.

I won't comment on the Remington 710, I don't know anything about it.
I will say a little more rifle weight rather than a little less weight is what I prefer. That helps me steady on a target.