Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Mossburg Rifles
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ez bake" data-source="post: 796516" data-attributes="member: 229"><p>I get that. And I'm in no way saying that I'm a super-star hunter either - I've killed less than 10 deer in my whole life. I almost always go out hunting either hogs or deer with at least one friend who will bring along a .243 - they all seem to love it and claim that with proper shot-placement, they've never had a deer make it farther than a few yards (many have dropped on site).</p><p></p><p>IMO, shot-placement is easily important in hunting than caliber (again, like self-defense - as long as you don't go below that critical threshold of inadequate) but honestly, .270 just seems like overkill to me if you're just hunting in OK and I don't care for that .30-06 recoil. </p><p></p><p>I'll be honest, if I felt the need to have more bang than my .308, I'd probably go with a .270 over most other calibers and there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't see that the gain of a .270 is enough to justify the cost, recoil, and dedicated hunting round (I wouldn't punch paper with a .270 in a target setting) over a .308.</p><p></p><p>.243 just gives you the reduced recoil, so the cost savings over .270 isn't huge (if any), and I wouldn't say .243 is optimal in my opinion, but a 100gr bullet traveling at .243 speeds is certainly more than adequate to kill a <200lb deer. </p><p></p><p>Like I said, different strokes for different folks - personally, I think you're both crazy for not wanting a .308 <img src="/images/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ez bake, post: 796516, member: 229"] I get that. And I'm in no way saying that I'm a super-star hunter either - I've killed less than 10 deer in my whole life. I almost always go out hunting either hogs or deer with at least one friend who will bring along a .243 - they all seem to love it and claim that with proper shot-placement, they've never had a deer make it farther than a few yards (many have dropped on site). IMO, shot-placement is easily important in hunting than caliber (again, like self-defense - as long as you don't go below that critical threshold of inadequate) but honestly, .270 just seems like overkill to me if you're just hunting in OK and I don't care for that .30-06 recoil. I'll be honest, if I felt the need to have more bang than my .308, I'd probably go with a .270 over most other calibers and there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't see that the gain of a .270 is enough to justify the cost, recoil, and dedicated hunting round (I wouldn't punch paper with a .270 in a target setting) over a .308. .243 just gives you the reduced recoil, so the cost savings over .270 isn't huge (if any), and I wouldn't say .243 is optimal in my opinion, but a 100gr bullet traveling at .243 speeds is certainly more than adequate to kill a <200lb deer. Like I said, different strokes for different folks - personally, I think you're both crazy for not wanting a .308 :D [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Mossburg Rifles
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom