Thread: 15 inch 243.

Again 270 will work just like 243 in the resurch I did there are just better calibers to cut down but that dosent mean that 243 or 270 won't or can't work for what your after

Im thinking it's better to leave the 243 to get better killing power. And just shorten the 270 as am less worried about that rifle. Am only shooting 300-350 max with the 270 so I think 16 inch should be fine. Would factory ammo be okay as I don't reload/ able to develop load.

It sure would good call in going to bigger caliber

As @gimp has pointed out, you can still make a short barrel rifle work for you within its limitations, the main point being knowing what those limitations are. You just might need to be more selective with ammunition selection (i.e under 150m probably doesn't matter so much, but at 300m, you need to be using something known to work at the lower velocities).

And after buying a packet or 2 of the premium ammo, maybe reloading will start to be more appealing! Depends on how much you shoot of course...

90 ELDX is 3150 from a 24” barrel. Losing 9 inches of barrel would probably be 270fps loss. 2850 would be pretty respectable velocity wise. You’ll hit 2000fps at 400 yards which will be plenty of velocity for the bullet to do its thing.

Short barrel 270 is going to bark and blast a lot more than a short 243.

If u want short get a 308

The options are endless but either will work.strongly suggest stainless blast baffle in your DPT suppressor on either option.if thinking of running in suppressed..... Think of all your mates running away with hands over ears when they see you coming.

Originally Posted by TimC

If u want short get a 308

...or a single shot. Or even shorter, get a single shot, short barreled 308!

This may help or not!

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....alibres-83210/

I have a 243 that i shoot with 90 grain projectiles and a 9.3x62 that i shoot with 280grain projectiles. At its most basic i shoot the 243 with light bullets and its shoots comparatively flatter at long distances . But it wrecks the meat especially close up.
So i use the 9.3 for close in shooting out to 150m which travels slower but doesnt wreck the meat at all even 15m away. My thoughts are use the right calibre and bullet for the right shooting you are doing. If you are going hunting for the meat then why use a bullet/calibre intended for longer ranges that will wreck the meat up close ? Either get specific projectiles for those ranges or a different calibre. You wouldnt get a drag strip car and put muddies on it to take off road. You just get an off road vehicle. Same thing as people buying a 7mm remington mag and then using them as close in bush guns.

Eww.

If a 6 ARC will work then there's no reason a case with 15-20gr more powder won't work. Gimp's run the numbers for you and it'll evidently still kill deer fine.

But... I wouldn't want a 243 that short. Enough remaining potential or not, there's more wasted than I'd be willing to accept.

There is going to be a lot of muzzle pressure making it hard on the suppressor. It might not end up as quiet as you want.

I'd try and trade it for a 308, personally.

I ran a 15" 243 for a while in my 20s. A do it all rifle to shoot bailed pigs and the odd deer. Had gunworks put a big maximus suppressor on it and it was quieter than my mates .223 with longer suppressed barrel. I moved it on after roaring a stag to 20m away and having the 90gr projectile ricochet off its skull between its eyes. Ran off bleeding and made me feel horrible. I tracked it for hours until i could no more. Shot the same stag a couple months later.

Holee heck- surely the skull was angled which caused the ricochet?

Looking dead straight at me from behind a couple beech trees so yeah quite a bit of angle. I don't like head shots but that was all that was on offer.

2 months later the animal was skinny and the skull was soft at the impact point. I reckon he had one hell of a migraine