223 or 243

Rimfire bolt action rifles, lever action, pump action and self loading rifles. Air rifles.

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigfellascott » 31 Dec 2018, 6:52 am

bigrich wrote:30 plus years ago, before we were spoiled for choice, the 243 was the "one gun" for everything .pigs , goats , deer , if you upgraded from a three-oh , to a new fangled flat shooting sporter , 243 was it . at least that's how i remember it in south east queensland back then. of coarse if ya lived in NT ya owned something bigger . a lot of big stuff was killed with 303's back when, and with the 30-30 and 44-40's as well . in another generation , 300 win mag will be required for goats at this rate :lol: :lol: :lol:

:drinks: :drinks: :thumbsup:


Yep Red Deer and others were culled for years using a 222, now we need armour piercing tank shells to do the job apparently :lol:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigfellascott » 31 Dec 2018, 6:58 am

I think the problem is manufacturers and their pursuit for more and more profits, they come up with all these new cals and justify their need/benefits to market them to all and sundry, when in fact most would have cals that are good enough for the majority of their hunting they do.

It's like Mobile Phones, it's every other week just about that apple or samsung bring out the latest and greatest must have phones that essentially all do the same bloody thing anyway but yet people have to rush and a buy the "Latest and Greatest" because it's so so much betterer than the one they have now.

People are just flat-out plain retarded these days I swear to god, dumb and dog s**t the lot of em :lol:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigrich » 31 Dec 2018, 8:32 am

bigfellascott wrote:I think the problem is manufacturers and their pursuit for more and more profits, they come up with all these new cals and justify their need/benefits to market them to all and sundry, when in fact most would have cals that are good enough for the majority of their hunting they do.

It's like Mobile Phones, it's every other week just about that apple or samsung bring out the latest and greatest must have phones that essentially all do the same bloody thing anyway but yet people have to rush and a buy the "Latest and Greatest" because it's so so much betterer than the one they have now.

People are just flat-out plain retarded these days I swear to god, dumb and dog s**t the lot of em :lol:


it is fun having lot's of toys, and things with "thump" :D . one or two capable centrefires is all most of us really need , but consumerism , new products , having the latest and greatest. it's all part of human nature i guess scott , i'm considering moving on my 308 sako synthetic . it's beutifully made , super accurate . but in reality my winchester in 6.5 swede will do everything i'm likely to come across . i've bin thinking a original old octagonal barreled '92 winchester in 32-20 would be more fun as a plinker and handloaded it's not too bad in grunt :D just a thought ......

:drinks: :drinks: :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigfellascott » 31 Dec 2018, 11:06 am

bigrich wrote:
bigfellascott wrote:I think the problem is manufacturers and their pursuit for more and more profits, they come up with all these new cals and justify their need/benefits to market them to all and sundry, when in fact most would have cals that are good enough for the majority of their hunting they do.

It's like Mobile Phones, it's every other week just about that apple or samsung bring out the latest and greatest must have phones that essentially all do the same bloody thing anyway but yet people have to rush and a buy the "Latest and Greatest" because it's so so much betterer than the one they have now.

People are just flat-out plain retarded these days I swear to god, dumb and dog s**t the lot of em :lol:


it is fun having lot's of toys, and things with "thump" :D . one or two capable centrefires is all most of us really need , but consumerism , new products , having the latest and greatest. it's all part of human nature i guess scott , i'm considering moving on my 308 sako synthetic . it's beutifully made , super accurate . but in reality my winchester in 6.5 swede will do everything i'm likely to come across . i've bin thinking a original old octagonal barreled '92 winchester in 32-20 would be more fun as a plinker and handloaded it's not too bad in grunt :D just a thought ......

:drinks: :drinks: :thumbsup:


Pretty sure my mate runs a 32-20 on pigs with good effect, I think he uses lead projectiles (100gn or something like that) or he just uses his ol 223 and for some variety a 270win. You are right we just buy s**t for the sake of having it half the time, not that we really need it as such (got a good collection of fishing rods sitting here doing SFA along with a heap of Chainsaws and rifles too :lol:

I've stopped buying crap now, I'm into offloading mode as I only use a couple of each and I don't really see the point of having them cluttering up the place especially when I know I won't be using them again. :drinks:

It's funny how our needs and thinking changes of the years hey. :unknown:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigrich » 31 Dec 2018, 12:16 pm

too true scott , too true :lol: :lol: :lol:

:drinks: :drinks: :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: 223 or 243

Post by Baronvonrort » 31 Dec 2018, 7:06 pm

simpsonhey wrote:Hey all so im loving the forum and have lernt a lot. Im looking at getting a second gun for the cabinet. I have a hmr17 which will look after the small criters and range. What would be a good alrounder for the little bit bigger crits like roos or pigs etc. Im thinking a 223 or 243



It depends on how many guns you want to have, if you get a .223 you will probably get something bigger sooner or later.

A .243 is a good allrounder, if you start reloading you can send the 55-70 gr projectiles a few hundred feet per second quicker than a .223 with starting loads with the option of using up to 100gr as well. Trailboss opens up options to forget about rimfires.

A .223 is what pro roo cullers use and ok for smaller pigs, a .243 would be better for big pigs.

Lots of opinions on what to get all valid, in rimfire I would only get .22lr as it's cheapest for ammo, a .223 would be good then something like a 260 rem/7mm-08 or .308 as well. Add a shotgun as well then you have most bases covered.

I know a guy who is 74 who has a .22lr and .243 and db shotgun that is all he has had for about 45 years, he had quite a selection of calibres before that and does really well.

You can only really carry one rifle when on foot and budget plays a big part as well, if money is tight then a .243 would be the go.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 896
New South Wales

Re: 223 or 243

Post by alucarD » 19 Jan 2022, 11:24 am

Hi all,

I’m in the same boat. Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.

Cheers
Aim small miss small..
alucarD
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 35
New South Wales

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bladeracer » 19 Jan 2022, 3:48 pm

alucarD wrote:Hi all,

I’m in the same boat. Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.

Cheers


Both are capable out to around 350m or 400m in most people's hands, with some practice and some ability to read wind conditions. Bullet choice will determine how effectively it drops the game when it hits it. You probably want to handload to shoot with rabbit-head accurately much further than 250m.

Ruger American Predator for me in both of those chamberings. You can drop it into a chassis later on as well if you want to.
Learn to load your own ammo and you increase the versatility of both cartridges enormously. You can reduce your .243 loads and use it as a .223 most of the time, then just feed it some hot 100gn loads when you go after some pigs, goats or deer. Or you can use the .223 (the Ruger has a tight 8"-twist and feeds way over-length cartridges) and load some 80gn to 90gn bullets when you want to reach out and touch things a long way away.

Both cartridges have similar trajectories.
.223 55gn VMax does around 3250fps
Zeroed around 250m it's about 40mm high at 50m, 85mm high at 100m, 95mm high at 150m, 70mm high at 200m, 120mm low at 300m, 300mm low at 350m, and 550mm low at 400m, so out to 300m you only need hold a few inches high or low to be on target, say under or over the fox's head or chest.
Handloading the 80gn ELDM at 2800fps follows virtually the same trajectory.
Zeroed around 250m it's about 50mm high at 50m, 100mm high at 100m, 130mm high at 150m, 80mm high at 200m, 125mm low at 300m, 310mm low at 350m, and 550mm low at 400m, so out to 300m

.243 with the 87gn VMax at 3250fps follows a similar curve.
Zeroed around 250m it's about 30mm high at 50m, 70mm high at 100m, 80mm high at 150m, 60mm high at 200m, 100mm low at 300m, 240mm low at 350m, and 420mm low at 400m.
Switching to a 100gn SP for deer or goats at 2950fps.
Zeroed around 250m it's about 45mm high at 50m, 90mm high at 100m, 100mm high at 150m, 70mm high at 200m, 120mm low at 300m, 290mm low at 350m, and 520mm low at 400m.

Or if you decide to load your own ammo from the start, go with the 7mm-08. A 78gn SP at 3700fps will do everything the .223 does out to 300m (after 300m the reduced BC bleeds velocity quickly), while also doing .308 stuff with heavier 162gn to 175gn bullets.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 223 or 243

Post by boingk » 19 Jan 2022, 5:09 pm

alucarD wrote:Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.


Another vote for the Ruger Americans. I've got a 223 Compact and a Ranch 308. Both shoot sub-MOA with cheap PPU factory ammo.

Also be realistic on ranges - 200m is a fair distance and I'd say most people would be confident at that range with a basic Ruger American and say a 4-12x40 scope up top, even a 3-9 would be fine.

- boingk
Nil
boingk
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 682
Other

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bladeracer » 19 Jan 2022, 6:13 pm

boingk wrote:
alucarD wrote:Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.


Another vote for the Ruger Americans. I've got a 223 Compact and a Ranch 308. Both shoot sub-MOA with cheap PPU factory ammo.

Also be realistic on ranges - 200m is a fair distance and I'd say most people would be confident at that range with a basic Ruger American and say a 4-12x40 scope up top, even a 3-9 would be fine.

- boingk


I would agree, if you have to shoot at more than 200m you're not hunting, you're just strolling hoping for a shot at something.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 223 or 243

Post by Oldbloke » 19 Jan 2022, 6:57 pm

bladeracer wrote:
boingk wrote:
alucarD wrote:Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.


Another vote for the Ruger Americans. I've got a 223 Compact and a Ranch 308. Both shoot sub-MOA with cheap PPU factory ammo.

Also be realistic on ranges - 200m is a fair distance and I'd say most people would be confident at that range with a basic Ruger American and say a 4-12x40 scope up top, even a 3-9 would be fine.

- boingk


I would agree, if you have to shoot at more than 200m you're not hunting, you're just strolling hoping for a shot at something.


It's horses for courses. But I agree. IMO 200mtrs is a very long shot. Can't remember if I ever took one. 50 to 160mtr for me is more the the norm. Also keep in mind field conditions are nothing like a range bench.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 223 or 243

Post by Shootermick » 19 Jan 2022, 8:26 pm

boingk wrote:
alucarD wrote:Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.


Another vote for the Ruger Americans. I've got a 223 Compact and a Ranch 308. Both shoot sub-MOA with cheap PPU factory ammo.

Also be realistic on ranges - 200m is a fair distance and I'd say most people would be confident at that range with a basic Ruger American and say a 4-12x40 scope up top, even a 3-9 would be fine.

- boingk


I’ll add another tick for the Ruger American. Mine is the 243 compact, also with a 4-12x40, I’ve also got a Lithgow in 223, but I normally grab the Ruger 243 first these days. I just shoot OSA 87gr vmax and it loves them. I don’t worry about the price of the ammo either, honestly if I take it out after work I might only take 3 or 4 shots. If I’m out spotlighting I’ll put a lot more rounds through whichever rifle I happen to take, but cost doesn’t worry me, I just shoot them and enjoy it.
200 metres is also a long shot for me, I doubt I’d take many shots outside of that, pretty confident most times at 150m though.
.22, .22wmr, 223, 243, 303, 20ga, 12ga
Shootermick
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 795
Victoria

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigrich » 19 Jan 2022, 9:08 pm

Oldbloke wrote:
bladeracer wrote:
boingk wrote:
alucarD wrote:Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.


Another vote for the Ruger Americans. I've got a 223 Compact and a Ranch 308. Both shoot sub-MOA with cheap PPU factory ammo.

Also be realistic on ranges - 200m is a fair distance and I'd say most people would be confident at that range with a basic Ruger American and say a 4-12x40 scope up top, even a 3-9 would be fine.

- boingk


I would agree, if you have to shoot at more than 200m you're not hunting, you're just strolling hoping for a shot at something.


It's horses for courses. But I agree. IMO 200mtrs is a very long shot. Can't remember if I ever took one. 50 to 160mtr for me is more the the norm. Also keep in mind field conditions are nothing like a range bench.


depends on what and where your hunting OB . i've taken long shots on goats in granite ridge country . pigs so far have all been under 100 yards :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: 223 or 243

Post by bigrich » 19 Jan 2022, 9:14 pm

bladeracer wrote:
alucarD wrote:Hi all,

I’m in the same boat. Mastered the .22lr and looking to go up to centre fire.
What distances is the .223/.243 rounds good for hitting small to medium game?
Also which rifle brand would be recommended for accuracy & reliability.

Cheers




Or if you decide to load your own ammo from the start, go with the 7mm-08. A 78gn SP at 3700fps will do everything the .223 does out to 300m (after 300m the reduced BC bleeds velocity quickly), while also doing .308 stuff with heavier 162gn to 175gn bullets.


my 7-08 instils more confidence for pigs than my 243 . i still have to develop a "light" flat 120 vmax load for it as well.
to the OP, if your going to get into reloading, the 243 would be a good choice as it's more flexiable for different game weight than 223 for all the reasons blade outlined :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: 223 or 243

Post by Oldbloke » 19 Jan 2022, 9:51 pm

223 or 222
then
308 or 30.06

and start reloading
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 223 or 243

Post by northdude » 24 Jan 2022, 11:03 am

Id go 243 because ive had a couple and its close to my ideal caliber (6.5)
22 hornets and most things 6.5
northdude
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 834
New Zealand

Re: 223 or 243

Post by alucarD » 13 Feb 2022, 10:14 pm

Thank you legends for all this valuable info!! It’s going to help heaps with my choice when the time comes to buy..
Rugers seem to be a favourite choice, but I had a look at a Tikka and sorta fell lil bit in love. Everything about it felt mint. Weight, length of pull, up to the shoulder, trigger, stock and as everyone knows the super ultra smooth bolt cycle action.
Above all it felt robust af. Which my main purchase point is as I want zero issues with this next buy. And from what I’ve read, watched and heard they never f*** up..
I know they are pricey but like a saying I’m liking “Buy once, cry once!”
Aim small miss small..
alucarD
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 35
New South Wales

Re: 223 or 243

Post by Tilb004 » 20 Feb 2022, 1:21 pm

Hi simpsonhey

I have 22-250 for roos and foxes and a 243 for anything bigger .
Got my 250 tuned with the 55gr pill and 243 with 90 and 100 pills .
Also got 22lr for rabbits.
That covers everything i need to dispatch even know the little boy in me would like a 308 or a 6.5 of some sort haha.
Good luck with your choice.

Tilb
Tilb004
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 116
Western Australia

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Rimfire rifles, and air rifles