adirondackbushwhack

If you mean by adequate; barely suitable or as good as necissary than I can tell ya that is the exact reason I stopped useing the 30-30. It wasn't up to the job that I required even though it is a known deer gun. I see the 243 as the same. Sure it will kill deer and do so really well a lot of the time but on those other times there are other more powerful cals that will do a better job. That was my experiance with the 30-30 and the 25-06 and I see no reason to believe that the 243 will outperform them.

Certainly this shot should have the deer down if the bullet had penetrated. As I said earlier I don't know what ammo the guy was using.

Shot placement was good but who knows if the leg was slightly forward or back at the shot but at any rate the deer should have been down with the proper round.

Okay then we will assume that the fella was using the correct ammo for deer. The deer was hit in the shoulder a few inches above the elbow a perfect hit for a broadside shot and a dead deer with an adequate round. The shoulder was broken but the bullet did not penetrate. Yes I did gut the deer and had my deer drag all hooked up when I saw the fella coming up the hill so I waited on him to get there before dragging the deer off. There was no disagreement over who's deer it was.

LOL I knew ya were playen about the 700; it would do the job though.

That (flincher) may also be possible I suppose it would depend on the individual shooter involved. Certainly it is most likely with the .444 but likely less so by a wide margin with the 35 rem.. It is for that reason that I THINK the 35 rem. might be a best compromise between knockdown and recoil for the newbie. Lets not forget that the newbie might need to track too and if there isn't complete pass through the .243 leaves a vary small hole for blood to leak out of. The 35 is much better there too. Agreed on cheaper ammo as being an influence for shooting more. But it is only one of many reasons for not shooting. I believe I can get .243 ammo for $16 a box, $20 for .35 rem. for factory ammo so there isn't that big of a difference in price and with a little searching either might be found cheaper. The levels of dead thing doesn't resonate with me. Shoot a deer with a .22 and it will die but certainly you know why it isn't a good idea. I switched from using a 30-30 to a .444 because the 30-30 didn't drop them all right there and I had some run off to die and lost a few and one REALLY BIG one was the last straw and that caused me to switch. I did a lot or research back in the day and had my choice of any caliber. Without going through the whole process here I finally settled on the .444 as being ideal in thick cover and woods where shots would be 200 yards and under for dumping them right there. It has worked for me and I've not had a deer run farther than 20 or so yards after being hit with it. It does the job I wanted it to do. A .243 can't boast that for my requirements but it certainly will kill deer.. Now the .444 is what I use and for my requirements it does exactly what I want so in that respect it is the perfect round. Maybe something like a 35 Whelen might be it's equal under those conditions but I just don't know as I've never tested it. Some pick their cal by one thing or another but my requirements were simple. It had to be flat enough shooting for 200 yards and it had to have the ability to plant the deer in it's tracks and if not, leave a hell of a blood trail by the entrance hole alone. I don't think the 444 is over kill for those requirements although the 700 nitro might be.

Agreed. The .444 can beat ya up a bit. I switched from a Marlin 444ss to a TC custom Encore with their flextech stock to minimize recoil. With todays modern stocks I've found the recoil to be managable even with my bad shoulder. I don't like to use it but I also have a limbsaver I can slip on for those days when the shoulder is acting up. For pure shooting pleasure at the range I have a Sako in 25-06 that is a joy to shoot.

I can agree that a big bore isn't REQUIRED. Certainly the 35 does a great job and the 06 has long proven it's effectiveness. BUT even you have to preface the .243 to be within certain paramaters. Yes there is that thing about the .243 not kicking that makes it so popular. Do ya really think evryone who uses it practices all that much or that those who use a big bore don't practice? I'd be willing to bet that the majority of hunters who shoot the .243 shoot a single box of ammo a year if that. In that case are ya still thinking the .243 is the go to gun for them? Newbies, especially those who maybe put 20 rounds a year down range might not be the best shooters to put the likes of a .243 in their hands. .35 rem might be a better choice in my oppinion. But I'll stick by my belief that the .444 does a better job of knocking deer down then the .243. If ya can't admit that than so be it.

Ha! I've shot turkey with a 12 ga. and lost them. The point is folks that the .243 just doesn't have the knock down ability that a big bore has. The 06 isn't a big bore by the way. Of course fellas if ya are sayen that the .243 does have the same effect on shot game that a big bore does then......well I don't know what to say to ya. Have fun with yer .243

That may or may not be the case here I just don't know what ammo the fella was using. It could be he had ammo designed for varmint or he could have ammo designed to open at lower velocity (greater distance) and had a close shot. Who knows? It makes an interesting point about the .243 though I'm thinking. It's not for the newbie hunter. First the right ammo must be choosen and then the proper shot must be waited for and made and those things are best left in the hands of more experienced hunters. I think in many instances the .243 is given to young hunters because there is little recoil associated with it. A better choice for the newbie, young, inexperianced hunter might be something like the .35 rem. where any factory hunting ammo will do the job just fine and it has a whole bunch more knock down power without killing one with recoil.

I have no bias on caliber either but some work better than others and thats just the way it is. Actually that's not quite true there are cals that are terrible for deer hunting and would result in far more deer lost and i am biased against them for deer hunting. The .243 is NOT one of them though. I used to hunt with a 30-30 many years ago and at the time I thought that I could not find a better rifle round for deer. Had anyone suggested that it might be lacking in some way I would have been upset. I eventually stopped useing the 30-30 for deer hunting because it lacked knock down ability. Although I did kill a buck with it that somebody else had already shot with a .243 and it ran away. It had been shot in the shoulder and the bullet did not penetrait to the body cavity. The fella was tracking it in the snow and caught up to it and me after I had gutted it. Said he had been tracking it for over a mile. Here is the trajectory for a 265 grain .444 muzzle - 1.5 50 yrds + 1.66 100 yrds + 2.98 150 yrds + 2.03 200 yrds - 1.7 Point and shoot In all of my years of hunting in the areas where I hunt I've never had a shot much past 200 yrds. The vast majority are under 100. However I'll give ya this the .243 is much flatter shooting and handles the wind much better. After all it was initially designed as a varmint round and so it would meet the needs of the varmint hunter.

Yes I have a question. If the .243 is such a great deer killer how is it you had a 40 - 50 yard blood trail with a deer hit like that? If you had shot it in that manner with a big bore there is no way that deer would have gone 40-50 yards after being hit. Just saying Your friend Bozo

35 cal. 225 grain bullet 2400-2500 fps or a bit either way is deadly. I don't currently have any 35 cals but I've been looking at a whelen however the 358 win is really nice too you've got me thinking about it now too.

The idea of a larger caliber for deer is to kill quickly and to put the animal down even when some unforseen thing occurs. Nobody hits the bulls eye EVERY time even at the range let alone in the deer woods where anything can happen. An unseen twig, a bit of jitters with the heart pumping, sudden gust of wind and countless things we can't think of right now but that can and will go wrong to someone at some time. I seem to not hit exactly where I am aiming in the woods more than I like to admit. A little off this way or that ain't too bad but a little too much off and there may be a difference in a deer getting away and a deer down when choosing caliber. Certainly the .243 will kill deer and put them down nicely IF the deer is hit exactly where intended EVERY time. It's the iffy shot placement where the larger calibers shine AND they also put the animal down in a hurry with good shot placement and so the animal feels less pain. I personally have a 25-06 and I've dropped deer so fast with it I didn't know what happened to them, on the other hand i've had some long tracking jobs with it too. I believe it is my responcibility as a hunter to kill as quickly and painlessly as possible and to accomplish that I choose a larger caliber rifle. Sure I can kill deer with any center fire round, can kill them with a 22 too but I want to kill quickly and painlessly with the least chance of a possible lost wounded animal. To accomplish this it is my belief that bullets of .35 caliber and up work best. My personal choice and one that has never failed me is the .444 Marlin. With flat nosed 240 to 265 grain bullets at around 2400 fps it really does the job I require. Now there is nothing wrong with the 243 but it just doesn't have the knockdown power of the 444 and....well you get the idea.

I vote for the Sako. Mine is in 25-06.

The thing about evidence is that the government accepts witness testimony as evidence when they want to but not in the case of Lion.

It wasn't a pet, it's the real deal. http://content.usato...-south-dakota/1

No I'm not forgetting that at all. I have private insurance and it already HAS been affected by Obama care in that the rates have increased. Now then what would make me, you, or anyone think that my private insurance won't be affected by Obama care in the future as well? If the death panels now being formed in medicare, and will surely be formed in Obama care, decide not to cover certain things what will keep my insurance from dropping that coverage as well? After all the government is setting the standards isn't it? You have faith that Obama care will work is that so? I have faith that it not only won't work but will also cost peoples lives and I don't want me and mine to die because somebody else choose to spend their money on something other than insurance. If you hgave insurance now why in gods name would you want a politician to take over control of it and if you don't have insurance now why don't ya?

So wait what if i die while in the hospital? How is that rated in the customer satisfaction survey? It seems to me that if I don't like a hospital I don't go there; this thing about rateing hospitals by patient surveys is the wrong way to do things. I'd be happier if they just published survival rates for a hospital rather than how happy people felt when they died. Heck I don't care what the hospitals around here rate I know if I ever have a really life threatening illness that I am not going to any of these local places as there are much better hospitals to choose from as far as survival rates go. And currently I can do just that. I don't believe for a second that doctors with patient care as their main concern will make those determinations. If that were the case Obama care wouldn't need to address it. All they would have to say is that the doctors choose. I'm thinking it will go the same way as midicare is now going with boards being set up to determinbe who gets what. Of course there is the real core of our disagreement. You believe that the government will take care of you and has nothing but your best interest at heart and will give you the best care no matter what isn't that so? And I don't blieve that for a second, I choose to look at their track record and have no choice but to believe that countless American people will be denied health care while costs skyrocket. Under Obama care we will all lose excepting maybe a few poor soles or lazy individuals who might see a moderate increase in health care so long as they don't have a major illness.

Well under Obama care the policy holder only has to pay like $1500.00 a year right?

Well now I appoligize for calling you gullible. I'll tell ya. I'm quite happy with my health care and insurance. I have one of those cadillac plans the government is mad about and only want to reserve for themselves. I don't have a problem being kept in the hospital as long as my doctor deems necciassary. Now my insurance isn't cheap and because of Obama care it has gone up quite a bit. You see since the first parts of Obama care went into effect such as kids staying on their parents policies until 26 or so it has meant more people being insured and that means they need more money to pay for them SO they raised rates. Isn't that just the opposite of what Obama care was supposed to do? Wasn't it supposed to lower the costs? Oh well just ignore that little glitch I'm sure he's right about the rest of his boasts about it. So lets see if I understand this correctly? Waste is determined by medical protocals for specific diagnosis right? Who determines those protocals under Obama care? Patient surveys? So other patients and not doctors will play a roll in determining the quality of my health care? How about this for an idea. If your doctor sucks get a new one and if he is good keep him. I don't want other patients determining anything for me Sabe?

And who pays the insurance premiums? You know that medicare/mdicade is being cut right?

Where does the third party payor get the money to pay the bill for ya?

Who decides what is waste and what is performance? I'm damn sure I don't want some bureaucrat telling my doctor how to treat me. I go to the doctor because he knows what he's doing; if some government type is going to tell him what to do I don't need the doctor anymore I can just go to the county office building and have the secretary treat me. Pay for performance hey? More like kick them out of the hospital faster to save money. Don't be so darn gullible.

Somebody gets the bill. Here are other reasons I don't want the government responcible for my health. Remember Social Security? We've been being told for years now that it is broke and not sustainable. Over time those benefits have been being cut because the money just isn't there anymore. So now folks have to pay taxes on their benefits. Isn't that the dumbest thing ya ever heard. The government taxing money they distribute, why not just keep it in the first place? Anyway, The Social Security fund is going broke. Now as to the reason for why it's going broke. When SS was started there were many more people paying into the fund then there were people collecting from it. That left lots of money laying around and when there is money laying around a politician just cant sit still so they took all of the extra money that was being paid into SS and stole or spent it (either way it's the same thing it isn't their money) on their pet projects instead of reinvesting it back into SS. You see the reason why SS is broke is because they screwed it all up and stripped all of the funds out of it. Had they invested that money for our future good we'd all be able to retire comfortably on SS but instead they screwed us. I expect the same to happen with Health care. They'll just spend what they want and cut benefits for the aged because lets face it they are just too expensive to keep around and THAT is why they exempted themselves from Obama care, they want to live. Of course then there is the fact that once they control our health care they really control us. Speak out against them and your liable to find your file is lost and so you can't get the care you need. Now I understand you Obama boys not worrying too much about that so long as Obama is in power but what happens to you guys if another Bush takes over? Now to quell any discontent they don't actually have to kill anyone all that's required is that the news section of the government media complex report it as true and many folks will shut up. I'd guess that Fox would report it is happening whenever a Dem is in power and MSNBC would do so when a Rep. is in power the end result being they'd keep us all seperated and people too scared to speak out. Sabe? Now tell me how that is good for the country to be under the governments control in that way?