Thread: First gun

Originally Posted by Spudattack

I disagree with you that a light fast bullet is ideal for close bush hunting, however with the right projectile there is no reason it wouldn't work.
With regards to the .243 shot deer that escaped we never got to the bottom of the pill that was used, it is possible that a fragile pill was used (A-max, Matchking etc.) that disintegrated without reaching the vitals after encountering heavy bone or muscle eg. shoulder, one of the side effects of a fast light pill. Have seen this happen on lighter game than a big red with much tougher bullets.
Nothing against the .243, but as you say, use it for what it was intended.

Fair enough, but regards to bush stalking my mates father whose shot hundreds of deer over the years(job was a culler) bush stalking used a 222 then a 243 for years and years. Hardly even lost any deer and i and a couple of my mates use 243 bush stalking and have never had a prob with lost animals yet. I hear plenty of stories from other mates and there circle of hunter friends on how they shot a deer with there 308, 270 etc and how it got away. The fact is even bush stalking you shouldnt shoot unless you have a clean shot, as any caliber trying to shoot thou crap is asking for trouble. And just as a note its been well known on tests that have been done in rod and rifle and field and stream that a 100gr 243 round will out perform much heavier slower rounds keeping a straight line shooting thou rubbish. Last dozen or so deer i have shot all around the shoulder area or just behind none of them have run more than 20 yards, a 243 with a good round drops them fine. I use 100 gr fed powershok rounds, knockdown power is awesum, still think its the best factory round you can use in a 243 after trying a few different brands. I dont like recoil much, so a 243 suits me fine, of cause a 7mm-08 or 270, 3006 does the job even better but you wont be losing deer because you using a 243 , esp if you shooting within 200m like i try to do. In saying that i have shot a deer at 350m and it dropped it on the spot shot in the chest.

Originally Posted by deer243

Fair enough, but regards to bush stalking my mates father whose shot hundreds of deer over the years(job was a culler) bush stalking used a 222 then a 243 for years and years. Hardly even lost any deer and i and a couple of my mates use 243 bush stalking and have never had a prob with lost animals yet. I hear plenty of stories from other mates and there circle of hunter friends on how they shot a deer with there 308, 270 etc and how it got away. The fact is even bush stalking you shouldnt shoot unless you have a clean shot, as any caliber trying to shoot thou crap is asking for trouble. And just as a note its been well known on tests that have been done in rod and rifle and field and stream that a 100gr 243 round will out perform much heavier slower rounds keeping a straight line shooting thou rubbish. Last dozen or so deer i have shot all around the shoulder area or just behind none of them have run more than 20 yards, a 243 with a good round drops them fine. I use 100 gr fed powershok rounds, knockdown power is awesum, still think its the best factory round you can use in a 243 after trying a few different brands. I dont like recoil much, so a 243 suits me fine, of cause a 7mm-08 or 270, 3006 does the job even better but you wont be losing deer because you using a 243 , esp if you shooting within 200m like i try to do. In saying that i have shot a deer at 350m and it dropped it on the spot shot in the chest.

Completely agree, there is no such thing as a "brush buster" even tests performed with a 375 H&H have given deviation of bullet path from small twigs etc.
My reasoning for a slow heavy bullet is more to do with lower impact velocities meaning less chance of bullet disintegration and/or massive meat damage.
I do not doubt the killing capacity of a .243 in close cover provided a suitable bullet, as you have mentioned, is used.

An 85gr barnes TSX pushed fast out of a .243 is a lethal combination!

Bullet placement still remains key and I don't think anyone meant that using a larger calibre was an excuse to shoot recklessly, however people are human and mistakes do happen and I believe the argument is that using a larger calibre could mean the difference between and anchored animal and one that you will never see again.

Originally Posted by Spudattack

Completely agree, there is no such thing as a "brush buster" even tests performed with a 375 H&H have given deviation of bullet path from small twigs etc.
My reasoning for a slow heavy bullet is more to do with lower impact velocities meaning less chance of bullet disintegration and/or massive meat damage.
I do not doubt the killing capacity of a .243 in close cover provided a suitable bullet, as you have mentioned, is used.

An 85gr barnes TSX pushed fast out of a .243 is a lethal combination!

Bullet placement still remains key and I don't think anyone meant that using a larger calibre was an excuse to shoot recklessly, however people are human and mistakes do happen and I believe the argument is that using a larger calibre could mean the difference between and anchored animal and one that you will never see again.

All good, take the point, the feds do abit of damage alright, nearly overkill on fallow lol. last one i shot smashed the shoulder to bits, then went out the other side and hit the leg just below the shoulder, blew the leg off apart from it was still attacted by the skin. I dont mind thou, i expect one shoulder to be stuffed, i bone them out anyway as normally miles from the car an cant carry a whole animal out anyway. As long as it stops them its all good with me.

Originally Posted by deer243

Fair enough, but regards to bush stalking my mates father whose shot hundreds of deer over the years(job was a culler) bush stalking used a 222 then a 243 for years and years.

I'll assume he started with a 30 and was, no, learned to be a good shot with that. If he was culling there was also every chance there was shitloads of animals around, so you could pass up the tricky/marginal shots and not think twice.

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

I'll assume he started with a 30 and was, no, learned to be a good shot with that. If he was culling there was also every chance there was shitloads of animals around, so you could pass up the tricky/marginal shots and not think twice.