Looking for a weapon

[Coues Archer]

I would say .243.... I just bought a savage 110 and WOWWW Am i amazed that sucker is an absolute tack driver!!! I shot .73" of a group at 100 meters out of the box.... And get this i shot these groups with the cheapest factory ammo at wal-mart!!

[double lunger14]

7mm Ultra Mag...... Perfect gun for any Animal

[weatherby1]

I have a remington 7400 in 30-06 that I shot my first deer and elk with. It has never failed to shoot staight or to cycle flawlessly.

[desertdog]

At proper angles (mostly broadside), responsible distances (250 and under), and good bullets (Tsx/Scicorro II's) the .243 is definately capable for elk, but those are alot of limitations. Ill just take my 300 wsm with 180 TTSX and have at it!

 

You see Casey that's just it. I dont dispute that a .243 wont get it done. heck that would be stupid many elk have fallen to a .243. But its those dang limitations that you speak of that will make me shy away from the lighter weight calibers every time, if your looking for one gun to hunt all kinds of big game with. I say pick the .270, 30-06, or .280 (only if your reloading), and you will have a great round with plenty for bullet choices. light recoil. but plenty of power to get the job done on deer or elk. And I know you were not saying go with the .243

[firstcoueswas80]

Oh believe me, there are lots and lots of better guns for the job, but a 243 WILL get it done if those guidelines are met. That is exactly why I only shoot a 243 for predators.

[Weston]

AR-10 in 308 with a 20" tube.

[oz31p]

If you can't find a 7400 or 750 a reminington 742 is a great semi. We have one for my dad. He has digerterive disk syd. In the disks between his shoulder blades. A .410 is becoming to much recoil for him but the 742 in 06 he can shoot all day. I've seen them in 270 06 and 243 but the 06 are the most common.

[oz31p]

Oh believe me, there are lots and lots of better guns for the job, but a 243 WILL get it done if those guidelines are met. That is exactly why I only shoot a 243 for predators.

 

 

243 w/ 75gr vmax knock the snott out of varmits. But you either have to reload or buy hsm. And extremy accrurate

[desertdog]

Oh believe me, there are lots and lots of better guns for the job, but a 243 WILL get it done if those guidelines are met. That is exactly why I only shoot a 243 for predators.

 

Yep we are on the same page bro!!!

[Diamondbackaz]

I did an internet research on autoloaders few years ago when I was looking at getting one myself. The BAR won hands down over the remingtons. For someone light weight and petite, get a light weight short track or zenith in 243. The zenith is lighter at 6.1 pounds. Short track: http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/f...talker-firearms . the zenith: http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/f...estige-firearms . Both should have minmal recoil in .243 as they are gas operated. This will be good for up for deer.

[Broken Wheels]

First of all stop YELLING!!!!! Turn off the 17 font bold print.....we can hear you just fine without it! I highly doubt "all she can only handle is a semi-auto" but whatever.

 

If she "just must have a semi -auto" get her a Remington R-25 in 243.

 

Coues7 correct me if I am wrong but "yelling" would be if everything was in CAPS as opposed to larger fonts as I used! It seems in previous messages my fonts were too small and hard to read thus the reason for the creative sizing and font type. I do though like your idea of a military type weapon for the wife as I am comfortable with them as well and they are simple to understand. I was thinking either the 308 or 243 in the R25 as well which would cover all species of critters top to bottom, just asking opinions to see if something is out there I may have missed. Thanks for your input and have a very Merry Christmas... Kirk

[.270]

IF A 243 IS TOO LIGHT FOR ELK, HOW IS A BOW AND ARROW OK? LARK!

[desertdog]

IF A 243 IS TOO LIGHT FOR ELK, HOW IS A BOW AND ARROW OK? LARK!

 

Okay Lark question for ya. Why do you choose a .270. I’m not sayin and never did say that a .243 would not get it done. I just feel there are a lot better choices out there for a all round big game caliber. If I had a choice between a .270 and .243 for elk I would choose the .270 every day of the week. And a .270, .280 or 30-06 can be loaded down with light recoil for a kid or woman that is recoil shy. Again just my opinion.

 

and as far as the bow questions goes that is a totally different ball game.

[.270]

how is it a totally different ball game? i have to disagree with that. you're out there to kill an elk. you use what you have. i hear people all the time talk about this and that not being enough for a certain animal, when guys kill the same animal with a bow and arrow. there ain't a bow and arrow on earth that is even 50% as effective as a .243. i ask this question all the time. and so far nobody has answered it. here's the answer. the difference is the guy packin' it. if any gun ain't enough for an elk, it's because the guy doin' the shootin' ain't enough, not the gun. indians used to kill buffs by runnin' em off a cliff. no weapon. just experience. they killed all kindsa other stuff with bows that pale when compared to today's. and spears. cavemen killed mastodons and mammoths with clovis pointed spears. my ol' man shot several wily coues bucks with his ol' bear recurve. pigmys kill elephants with dinky little bows and arrows that will just barely stick in em. with poison tips, they get their animal. well, they used to. poor little fellers have about been outta business by progress. bows and rifles are completely and within reason, comparable, with the right guy packin' it. there are calibers that are "better" in a certain scenario, but they are all pretty much capable of the same results. i read a story once about an old eskimo that was real good at killin' polar bears. he used an old single shot .22. snuck up and shot em in the head. i think he had an extra sled just to haul his gonads. the greatest ivory hunter was karamojo bell. he used a 7x57 mauser and a .303 british. i kinda doubt you'll find anyone using those calibers these days for elephants. the only true variable, is the hunter. if anything is inadequate, it's the hunter. well, unless we're talkin' 7mm/08's. then it's just a severe behaviorial disorder.

 

if you can only have one rifle, then get a .270. if someone can't take recoil, a .243 is a perfect choice. hotrod little cartridge, light recoil, even when loaded hot. and if you know what you're doing, they'll kill anything in this state.

 

the reason i use a .270, for most stuff, is because i've shot one since i was 12, have used the same rifle now for almost 35 years, and because my ol' man says they are the best. Lark.

[desertdog]

how is it a totally different ball game? i have to disagree with that. you're out there to kill an elk. you use what you have. i hear people all the time talk about this and that not being enough for a certain animal, when guys kill the same animal with a bow and arrow. there ain't a bow and arrow on earth that is even 50% as effective as a .243. i ask this question all the time. and so far nobody has answered it. here's the answer. the difference is the guy packin' it. if any gun ain't enough for an elk, it's because the guy doin' the shootin' ain't enough, not the gun. indians used to kill buffs by runnin' em off a cliff. no weapon. just experience. they killed all kindsa other stuff with bows that pale when compared to today's. and spears. cavemen killed mastodons and mammoths with clovis pointed spears. my ol' man shot several wily coues bucks with his ol' bear recurve. pigmys kill elephants with dinky little bows and arrows that will just barely stick in em. with poison tips, they get their animal. well, they used to. poor little fellers have about been outta business by progress. bows and rifles are completely and within reason, comparable, with the right guy packin' it. there are calibers that are "better" in a certain scenario, but they are all pretty much capable of the same results. i read a story once about an old eskimo that was real good at killin' polar bears. he used an old single shot .22. snuck up and shot em in the head. i think he had an extra sled just to haul his gonads. the greatest ivory hunter was karamojo bell. he used a 7x57 mauser and a .303 british. i kinda doubt you'll find anyone using those calibers these days for elephants. the only true variable, is the hunter. if anything is inadequate, it's the hunter. well, unless we're talkin' 7mm/08's. then it's just a severe behaviorial disorder.

 

if you can only have one rifle, then get a .270. if someone can't take recoil, a .243 is a perfect choice. hotrod little cartridge, light recoil, even when loaded hot. and if you know what you're doing, they'll kill anything in this state.

 

the reason i use a .270, for most stuff, is because i've shot one since i was 12, have used the same rifle now for almost 35 years, and because my ol' man says they are the best. Lark.

 

I dont recall the OP saying his wife was a pigmy, caveman or a Indian form the old days that is good at killin stuff with poison darts, spears, or runnin game off of cliffs. I do recall him sayin that she is a inexperienced hunter that does not have much experience with guns or a bow. I agree that in the right hands any weapon is deadly on any game. Buts that’s not really what we are talkin about. All I am sayin and all I have ever said is that if you have a choice to choose a caliber with a little extra punch for a hunter that is not very experienced why not go with the bigger option. We can bring all kinds of crazy scenarios into the equation but is that really getting us anywhere.

 

And what I was saying about bow hunting being a different ball game than the hunting with a gun is most people use totally different tactics when hunting with a bow vs. hunting with a gun. Now if more people applied the bow hunting tactics when hunting with their gun then more people would be using lighter calibers.