Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72

Thread: 243 for sheep?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    mission bc
    Posts
    1,334

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Heitsman View Post
    I have a concern on the .243. (think it was a 115 grain bullet), don't recall the type
    i dont think they make a 115grain bullet for a 243. the biggest i can find for my 243 is 105g that you have to re load, off the shelf is 100g, but i could be wrong.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    West Kelowna
    Posts
    5,174

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    Gee, I dunno! A .243 Win for sheep? I've heard with all that armour thick hide they've got that the only bullet that'll do the job reliably on sheep is the .570 T-Rex! Only a tiny bit of recoil to get used to...
    Seriously, a .223 would do the job on sheep, they practically roll over and die if you look at them in a mean way! If you're choosing a bullet, get one that expands quickly and well, no bonded stuff required with sheep!
    B.C.,the best place to play! Cogito, ergo armatus sum!

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    281

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singleshotneeded View Post
    Gee, I dunno! A .243 Win for sheep? I've heard with all that armour thick hide they've got that the only bullet that'll do the job reliably on sheep is the .570 T-Rex! Only a tiny bit of recoil to get used to...
    Seriously, a .223 would do the job on sheep, they practically roll over and die if you look at them in a mean way! If you're choosing a bullet, get one that expands quickly and well, no bonded stuff required with sheep!
    A 3oo lb bighorn ram is no sissy and he aint gonna just roll over and die

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    7A
    Posts
    13,774

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    243? Should work

    "If you ever go into the bush, there are grizzly bears lurking behind just about every bush, waiting to pounce, so you need a powerful gun, with huge bullets" - Gatehouse ~ 2004


  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    West Kelowna
    Posts
    5,174

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    My point, Tod, is that mountain sheep aren't thick skinned animals
    or huge ones, and at reasonable ranges any hunting centrefire from .223
    on up will do the job. A .243 is just fine for deer and sheep...
    B.C.,the best place to play! Cogito, ergo armatus sum!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    7A
    Posts
    13,774

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    absolutely. I haven't shot a bighorn but I'd bet $100 that a 85gr Barnes TSX or 90gr Nosler eTip would punch both shoulders and exit on one inside 400 yards

    I've had a 55gr Nosler BT @ 3800 f/s exit broadside on a lung shot, on coyotes as well as a 250 lb 5x5 mule deer at 40 yards

    243's kill with luck
    Last edited by todbartell; 03-06-2011 at 11:21 AM.
    "If you ever go into the bush, there are grizzly bears lurking behind just about every bush, waiting to pounce, so you need a powerful gun, with huge bullets" - Gatehouse ~ 2004


  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    323

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Heitsman View Post
    I have a concern on the .243. I know it's taken plenty of game over the years but here's a recent experience with our group.

    We were riding back around dusk on the Churn and a young buck crossed the road we were riding on. I dismounted, glassed him and verified his size and told my uncle that there wouldn't be a much easier buck to deal with than that one as we were within an hours ride of the horse trailer.

    The deer was at best out 140 yards and starting to move away. My uncle dropped to one knee while I held his reins and shot the buck. It humped up like they can do and went straight into high gear never looking back and went over the edges. I looked for blood seeing none where he was hit but was still certain that he was shot. Lack of daylight prevented further looking for him but we returned to the area in the AM.

    After several hours of peering into the various ledges and benches etc I actually found him. Unfortunately he required a dispatch. We felt bad of course but were happy to have located him.

    The initial shot went in on a quartering away angle just touching his rear left ham and stopping in his right shoulder. It think it was a 115 grain bullet, don't recall the type but the lack of energy simply didn't create the hydraulic shock that would have finished him immediately.

    Needless to say, my uncle bought a .300 that year and has never looked back.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatGuy View Post
    There's no substitute for shot placement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher-Dude View Post
    Shooting an animal in the ass with a 300 magnum won't give much different result than a 243.
    Quote Originally Posted by Walking Buffalo View Post
    There's the problem. Thinking that hydraulic shock kills. A poorly placed shot is a poorly placed shot, .243 or .300.
    I don't recall David Heitsman saying anyone shot something in the ass?????? It reads to me like it was a decently placed and ethical "quartering away" shot and although he didn't say it, it sounds like the shooter would have correctly assumed and intended that the bullet SHOULD have touched a lung on the way through to the shoulder, albeit at the end of the day the shot might have been a bit farther back than he would have liked..... What I took from his post is that his feeling is, had the shooter had a different rifle (ie: better bullet design, heavier bullet, larger calibre, more velocity etc.. like the .300 wm he mentions) than the deer would be dead on the spot, and he is likely right.
    Bullets kill in more ways than one, and hydraulic shock and delivered energy into the target animal is certainly one of them. Again, he didn't say the shooter made the shot with the intention of killing the deer with hydraulic shock, but rather, that would have been helpful (in conjunction with the expected blood loss, broken bones etc) in delivering a quick kill.
    Last edited by Whisky Creek; 03-06-2011 at 12:32 PM.
    Here's to the land of diamond hitches, packers and cooks, the Ol' Son$ofbitche$.......... Skook Davidson

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Toon town
    Posts
    11,657

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whisky Creek View Post
    I don't recall David Heitsman saying anyone shot something in the ass?????? It reads to me like it was a decently placed and ethical shot and although he didn't say it, it sounds like the shooter would have correctly assumed that the bullet SHOULD have touched a lung on the way through to the shoulder, albeit at the end of the day the shot might have been a bit farther back than he would have liked..... What I took from his post is that his feeling is, had the shooter had a heavier rifle (ie: better bullet, heavier bullet, more velocity etc.. like the .300 wm he mentions) than the deer would be dead on the spot, and he is likely right.
    Bullets kill in more ways than one, and hydraulic shock is in fact one of them. Again, he didn't say the shooter made the shot with the intention of killing the deer with hydraulic shock, but rather, that would have been helpful (in conjunction with the expected blood loss, broken bones etc).
    If they didn't find blood he didn't touch lungs. If the deer was still alive the next day he didn't touch lungs. The whole death thing isn't complicated. If it's puking out of its mouth and nose you did your part.

    Shooting a deer in the ass while it's quartering away (rear left ham if it makes you feel better) isn't the best or even a good choice for the first bullet, it's an emergency shot. I've seen that shot on critters from deer to grizzlies, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - a .338 doesn't solve that problem.

    All this story and experience does is reinforce shot placement kills animals.
    Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.

    Mandela

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    323

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    To the original poster, although I might not agree with his calibre choice for many of the critters he has killed with the .243, Pat Ferguson, in writing his books, makes no bones about his opinion and experience in killing anything in BC (goats, sheep, moose, bears, caribou etc...) with his .243.
    Again, although certainly not my personal preference as I don't own one, but many folks likely use a .243 on sheep with great success.
    Here's to the land of diamond hitches, packers and cooks, the Ol' Son$ofbitche$.......... Skook Davidson

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    323

    Re: 243 for sheep?

    Goat,

    Yeah, I'd say it does sound like he didn't touch lungs.... But "just touching the right rear ham" doesn't mean it was "shot in the ass". Sounds like the shot was likely a bit high and in through the flank (just touching the right rear ham), but that's just my interpretation of his information. And Yep of course, not a great first choice and one that is inevitably going to be a bit messy. (I prefer an intact gut bag). BUT, I wouldn't say an unethical shot if the shooter thought he was going to hit lungs and kill the deer on the spot. Remember, where the shooter intended to hit given the opportunity and animal position he is faced with and where the bullet actually does hit are two different things.
    So you're not going to get an argument out of me about this being "ideal shot placement" but you are dead wrong that a .338 Win Mag wouldn't have changed the result in this case. The extra 1600 ft lbs of energy (double that of the .243) larger calibre bullet and resulting wound channel would have dropped that deer on the spot as well as smashed that shoulder.
    Yep, not ideal in a game animal that you are wanting to eat, but come on, lets be realistic.....
    Last edited by Whisky Creek; 03-06-2011 at 12:59 PM.
    Here's to the land of diamond hitches, packers and cooks, the Ol' Son$ofbitche$.......... Skook Davidson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •