It's plenty of rifle to kill a deer. Accuracy is more important then caliber.

All I know is I killed my 9 point at 60 yards right though the heart, he dropped. All with my Remington 243...now he's on my wall. Say what you want about a 243, but if you know how to shoot it will do the job nicely. :-) yes I'm a women...with a 9pt right next to her husbands 8pt on the wall.

Yes the .243 is enough gun for deer sized game, but like CoBowHunter said, "Accuracy is more important then caliber" is so true.

The gun is plentey capable of killing a deer, and I have killed many deer with my dads .243, but given the choice I would choose something a little bigger like a .270 or 25-06.

Yes it is a very good deer rifle. It works very good for hunting in the Sandhills of Western Nebraska. I have killed many deer using this gun. Mostly any gun will kill a deer if you know where to shoot.

It depends on the bullet. A varmint bullet will likely explode without causing much damage. A good big game bullet should expand, but retain most of its weight. Good shot placement is a necessity regardless of caliber. The .243 is based on the .308 cartridge and is part of a family of cartridges that includes the .260 Rem. and the 7mm-08, all good deer cartridges. The Barnes TSX bullet, being solid copper should be a great bullet for deer.

I had a girlfriend like the Axis one time long ago. She was an expert cook, was fine in bed, but she was so ugly you had to tie a bone around her neck to get the dog to play with her. That was before I got my eyes checked. WAM you are right you can't wash off ugly you have to look at them all of the time and I can look at my Sako and Weatherby and smile.

I can drive a 10 penny nail with a tac hammer but it is much easier with a regular claw hammer.

Where did you find a .243 150 grain bullet ?

No. It's in the same class as a .223. Closer to a varmint gun than a hunting round.

I know, I know. I'll take some flak for this, but someone has to say it.

Heck yeah it's a good deer rifle. If you shoot straight it will kill deer within any reasonable distance.

A friend of mine shot a deer this year with his .243 hitting it in the shoulder. The bullet did not penetrate the rib cage. The deer kept going on its other 3 legs and was finished off by his hunting partner about a quarter mile away. My .308 would have dropped it in its tracks (I speak from plenty of experience) with the same shot and would have caused no more damage to the meat. I agree with the point that accuracy is most important but knock down power is also a factor - especially in heavily hunted public lands where a deer could be shot by others if it does not go down right away. I have also heard complaints from hunters in heavy brush that the .243 can deflect easily but not having hunted with one myself, I am not sure if it was deflecting or just bad aiming...

I think that the point that I was trying to make was that everyone says the .243 is a fine caliber for kids and women but dosen't imply that it is a good caliber for adult men. If it is a good caliber for kids and women then it is good for seasoned adult men. Still personally I don't perfer it for deer hunting however I'm sure alot of people have had success with the caliber. I know an old man near me that has killed a truck load of deer with a .22 Hornet but I don't consider it a fine deer cartridge either.

I'm not a big fan of them you step up to a .270 or 30-06 and you have so many more bullet choices if you ever want to shoot an elk or something bigger than a deer.

I just finished my 6th box of various grains and bullet styles in my new 243 Handi rifle. 4 cartridges left, shot them with 2 being 2 inches apart followed by 2 being 6" and 12" below the first 2. Tried different scope with little improvement. After the last 4 shots, I was off to the sporting goods store to return my cute little single shot.

I received store credit, bought an Axis Savage in 243 along with
another box of shells. I came home with a 3x9 scope. I shot it at 25 yards, adjusted it and moved back to 100 yards. Shot 6 times with some adjusting. My last 3 shots I could cover with a quarter. The trigger is really stiff, so I know that I am looking at a rifle that is capable of shooting 3 shots and cover
them with a dime.

A gentleman who sights most of the stores rifles in said to me;
see all of these thousand dollar and up rifles, your new rifle will compete with almost all of them. Smart buy.

Shucks, with those Axis/Edge rifles being so accurate and all, Big Green and Ed Weatherby better find another line of work. But you can't wash off fugly.

Sorry for the double post, it looked like the first one didn't post.

Absolutely, I have taken three deer this season with a remington 700 in .243 win with a tasco 4x32 scope. After borrowing the gun I fired a few shots to check zero and went hunting. With no previous experience with high-powered rifles I took these deer at 200-300 yards. One other deer appeared to be hit(mule-kicked and ran like its tail was on fire) but was never recovered. Blame it the stupidity of the shooter not the power of the gun. It was almost dark at aprox. 300 yards with a rifle I had barely used from the sitting position. Deer probably died in a creek, log pile, or across the property lines wich weren't far away. The rest of the deer died on the spot or within a few yards. Oh,and none of my shots were perfect either. One-lungers mostly. Keep your shots under 300 yds., learn to shoot, and you will do fine. However, from my research I consider the 25-06 and 7mm-08 better deer guns for the low-recoil enthusiast.

I did look for the doe that got away, both that evening and the next day. I found some blood, but it rained right after I shot the deer making blood trailing almost impossible. The property line was only about 75 yards away downhill. The deer was running towards the preperty line when I last saw it. I was not able to mesasure the distance because of terrain and lack of a range finder. The distance is a guess, but I have measured similar distances by stepping them off. I only compared it to similar known distances. I was unclear in my last post. Under 300 yards a .243 is a great deer gun, if you know how to shoot it. However, if you can stand the slight increase in recoil the 25-06 and 7mm-08 make for better blood-letters.

Give me my .257 Weatherby, .280 or my 300WSM anytime over a .243. I live by the SOCOM slogon "Bring enough gun".

The .243 could kill any big game animal in North America. The 7mm-08 is also good for new hunters.

I have used the 243in a Mod 100/Winchester for 20+ years in New York State a truck load of Deer a two bares all with the 80Gr Rem Ammo I fond the 100Gr to Damaging on 165# white tails....so spend your Money on a Good Rifle in the Caliber of your Chose. I now use a 7MM-08 it stops Hogs Faster with 140Gr Hornady Ammo.

I shot my first buck, a 148 lb 8 point with a .243 and the bullet performance was fine. I agree that it is a good rifle for a younger shooter/hunter because it has more to it than a .22 caliber center fire. also, if someone has hunted with that rifle since they were a kid, then I don't see why they cant use it later on in life

A little Smart car will get me from point A to point B, but my full sized loaded Ford Taurus will get me there quicker and alot more comfortable. Point being small will marginally get the job done but not for me bigger is better and for me that is my .280 Remington or my 300WSM. Since all of my shots are high shoulder shots those two rifles are my choices. That is why they make all of the calibers that they make so all of us will have a favorite choice of what we want to use. If we only had one choice for a cartridge it would be boring.

All personal opinion and no slight is meant:

People love them or hate them. I have not seen a lot of deer die "in their tracks" unless hit in the spin or brain but in my experience, higher velocity loving guys tend to say they see them die at once when shot anywhere in their bodies. 243/6mm Remingtons can kill deer, no question about it. The .270 Winchester is a caliber that will routinely kill Elk. I would suggest they are both the minimum calibers one should consider for those species.

My issue? I simply do not feel comfortable with a .243 and its 100 grain loads to shoot from end to end in a Whitetail if I decided to take that shot. I do feel my 30-06 with the 180 grain controlled expansion load I prefer will do it, will make a nicer quartering shot, etc. Consequently, I have never owned nor hunted with one of the .243s. This makes me less of an expert than I should be to comment, I agree. The .243 made its reputation by being "fast" and shooting "flat". if I had a buck for all the guys I saw with starry eyes softly saying "look" (pointing at a ballistics chart) "the .243, it's so fast . . ." I'd be wealthy. It shoots about like a .270 in that regard and a 30-06 shoots about as flat and better over longer distances. So, what do you gain? A flat shooting rifle can get the average guy to make a few more shots over common ranges, that makes the hits more accurate, makes them more vital, makes the rifle seem effective. Learn to shoot any rifle and you will be as effective. Shoot something with good sectional density and pick only the best shots, you will humanely kill everything you shoot at.

Oh, FWIW? I also thing 100 grain loads in the .257s is too light.

I grew up out west and we hunted Mule Deer which can run larger. We also had longer shots on average and almost everyone had a gun they felt comfortable with on an elk hunt. Consequently, few of us owned the 6mms although they were popular for hunting varmints with. Here in the South I saw/heard more about them when I first arrived then I do now. I think the trend here is away from them (though lots of guys raised in the 1970s seem to consider one for children or grandchildren as a first rifle). I talked with 3 of 4 founding members of a hunting lease here when I first moved to town. The four buddies all bought new so-described "fast" .243s and started a lease together. After three years all four abandoned the 243s and all claim to have better results. Is this a fact? Who knows, perhaps they simply became better hunters as they gained age and experience, but the lightest gun any of them had last I checked was a .270. The reason all gave was "too many wounded deer". I have a very good friend here who shoots a 6mm at deer. He says the trick is this: "If the neck is broke, the legs don't work." I know for a fact he would also shrug off losing a wounded one, I can't do that.

My personal opinion only? I would prefer not to hunt with a gun I consider the minimum caliber for the game in question. I like longer, heavier bullets. I am more than seriously considering having a rifle made for deer hunting here and my choices are narrowed down to the 6.5x55 or the 7x57. If the former, I will shoot at least 140 grain loads and 160s in the 7x57. I am leaning toward setting up a rifle to shoot 156 grain bullets in the 6.5. I could shoot that through any deer and have a lovely blood trail to follow. If my daughter ever tries deer hunting? I will buy her a .260 Remington and load it with 140s.

Handsome is as Handsome does, I will take the savings on initial cost and find a better place to hunt, a better grade of optics and mounts, and not worry about the ding that will come to my rifle in the field.

better to have to much gun than too little

Yes but some on here seem to feel the need to drive their finish nails with a framing hammer.

That I think we can all agree on. I have taken two deer with my .243 using the Barnes 85gr TSX loading by Federal. The range was really short, 5-10yds on both. Not the most comprehensive test I will agree but the results, full pass through with 3" entrance and exits in the ribcage, combined with the numbers on ballistics and retained energy over reasonable distances lead me to conclude it is an adequate round for deer. I would not hesitate to use it again.
That being said I am trying a 45/70 this year. It will be interesting to see how the heavy bullet and relatively slow velocities perform. The recoil is definitely on the stiff side and I ended up putting a scope on the rifle as much to add a pound of weight as to improve my accuracy. The .243 is definitely more pleasant to shoot but I like to try things before making up my mind. The argument for me is heavy slow bullets vs small fast ones. Heavy fast bullets gets into the framing hammer realm mentioned above, at least for me. So far everything I have shot through the lungs has died within 40yds.
Happy hunting to you the WVA crew.

.243 was the rifle that brought my first deer to the ground and many more after that. In the hands of a good shooter they are a wonderful gun. I do agree with sarge01 that they really should'nt be the beginner's rifle. Good for a beginner to shoot but not to hunt.

I think some of you need lessons in physics,just because it has a smaller number doesn't mean its less effective....the 243 win 150gr with suggested powder loads have very high velocities. One of the bigger reasons why the army switched from the 308 in the M14 to the the 223 M16 for Vietnam, it could cut through the bruch and still have a lot of velocity, plus you can carry more ammo...i have shot and killed many deer with my Ruger M77 mark 2(beautiful gun by the way)i saw someone say they saw a bullet not go through a rib.....might want to check your loads and or the bullets becuase i have a seen a 243 go through one rib and then through the other rib on the other side....

But no worries Sarge, our loving country would probably pitch in and buy him a Sako.

It doesn't matter on what type of gun you have. It matters where you shoot the animal at to kill it.

I killed a deer once with the grill of a '72 Ford pickup, it wasn't pretty, but the deer was just as dead. Killing deer cleanly with a .243 requires knowing precise shot placement and deer anatomy. It isn't a gun for a novice on large game. Give the young person a .243 and let shoot paper targets or varmits untill they know these things and then let them shoot game. You will have a shooter for life. God bless all the little children.
Red

thats what i killed my first deer with. and he didnt even move after i shot him. just fell straight down. its about accuracy mostly.

I am always amazed that we think that a .243 is a gun for young and inexperienced beginning hunters . Just the opposite it should be a rifle for an experienced hunter that can place his shot at a very exact spot to cleanly kill the deer. The .243 is not a "rifle for young hunters and women" like we hear alot unless they are expert shots. Of course I will go on record as saying I don't think that it is a fine deer rifle at all.