A Case of Use Enough Gun?

[Altitude sickness]

458, many hunters think the spine is just below the top hairline so when they shoot 6” below the top line. They think they are into the chest cavity. And below the spine. So the Void myth built up over decades of not doing the forensics after spinal process impacts.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Shooting a deer with a.243win and shooting buffalo with a 375 h&h are both the barest legal minimum in most cases , I don’t see people squealing about 375 as inadequate for the job on DG
Looks like lots of mistakes were made by the hunter, ! shot placement being #1
Just my 2ct worth on caliber choices .
Nobody wears glasses on their ass’s so should’ve, could’ve , would’ve hindsight is futile, lost trophy and luckly not a killer on the loose

If the authorities were setting caliber limit for Cape buffalo at the barest minimum capable of killing one, it might be something like 338 or 300 magnum. They set the bar much higher than that because buffalo are dangerous game. Unfortunately for our deer they are not considered dangerous game so the authorities will set minimum caliber restrictions at the bare minimum capable of stopping one. The probability of stopping it properly and humanely or even it seems mortally does not figure into the decision.

 

[Pilgrim]

I know of somebody who years ago poached many deer with a .22 LR. I suppose if that was adequate, a .243 would be plenty. Somebody mentioned .25 caliber should be a minimum, that is .007" (seven thousandth of an inch) larger diameter and .004 square inches cross sectional area larger. Seems rather insignificant to me. So where do you draw the line? You don't. If somebody wants to hunt with .243, that is their choice. I would personally do it shamelessly and my shot placement would be as careful as I could make it. I would also keep shooting until I knew I had a mortal hit.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

If the authorities were setting caliber limit for Cape buffalo at the barest minimum capable of killing one, it might be something like 338 or 300 magnum. They set the bar much higher than that because buffalo are dangerous game. Unfortunately for our deer they are not considered dangerous game so the authorities will set minimum caliber restrictions at the bare minimum capable of stopping one. The probability of stopping it properly and humanely or even it seems mortally does not figure into the decision.

A derailing addendum: Though African authorities set the bar adequately high for Cape buffalo stopping caliber at 375, they also allow bow hunting for them. The bar drops way way down (disappears?) for archery. I don't get that. I guess the ASSUMPTION is bow hunters have more sophisticated hunting expertise? Does expertise (real or imagined) really make THAT much difference when we are talking about equipment with such a huge deficit in potential stopping power?

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I know of somebody who years ago poached many deer with a .22 LR. I suppose if that was adequate, a .243 would be plenty. Somebody mentioned .25 caliber should be a minimum, that is .007" (seven thousandth of an inch) larger diameter and .004 square inches cross sectional area larger. Seems rather insignificant to me. So where do you draw the line? You don't. If somebody wants to hunt with .243, that is their choice. I would personally do it shamelessly and my shot placement would be as careful as I could make it. I would also keep shooting until I knew I had a mortal hit.

Your poacher obviously did not care how many deer he buggered up with a .22 that wandered off and died a slow death. Assholes like that, and their methods, don't count for shit.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Let's see if I've got this right. This is a story about a fella hunting big Montana deer with a marginal gun. He took a dicey shot over a doe at a nice buck just before dark on the last day of hunting. He hit the animal but did not follow up, deciding instead to let it suffer through the night and come back in the morning to hopefully find it dead (and possibly starting to spoil if early in the season) or finish it off. I mean really, what else could he have done wrong? Not enough gun was only the beginning. It is claimed this fella was an "experienced" hunter. In my opinion a novice without a mentor and barely passing grade in hunters ed might not have made this many screwups.

Anyone who takes crappy shots just before dark, especially with a "marginal" gun, damn well better be prepared to go after a wounded animal in the dark. He owes it to the poor critter to make it right. I have tracked one deer and one elk after dark and finished them both. The bull elk almost finished me! In Africa I hit a kudu bull poorly (shooting through brush) late in the afternoon and we stayed on it till well after dark, returned the next day and kept after it. Finally got him the third day. I would not give up.

 

[WyoBull]

Back when I lived in Texas they changed the minimum required bullet diameter for deer to .224. That means a 222 Rem, .223, 22-250, 220 Swift etc. became legal calibers. Many, many people I talked with after the change started hunting deer with one of those calibers and swore by them.
So, where do you draw the line? That is a million dollar question with as many answers that clearly will never have consensus on this forum any other.
Shoot what you are “proficient” with as long as it is legal and don’t worry about what the so called experts try to tell you.

 

[Pilgrim]

Your poacher obviously did not care how many deer he buggered up with a .22 that wandered off and died a slow death. Assholes like that, and their methods, don't count for shit.

The answer is none. Every one he shot at he killed. Despite the fact that his actions were deplorable, the animals didn't suffer.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The answer is none. Every one he shot at he killed. Despite the fact that his actions were deplorable, the animals didn't suffer.

How would you know for certain every deer shot at was not wounded and wasted ... unless you were the poacher? People who habitually break the law are generally not a font of truthfulness.

 

[HankBuck]

If the authorities were setting caliber limit for Cape buffalo at the barest minimum capable of killing one, it might be something like 338 or 300 magnum. They set the bar much higher than that because buffalo are dangerous game. Unfortunately for our deer they are not considered dangerous game so the authorities will set minimum caliber restrictions at the bare minimum capable of stopping one. The probability of stopping it properly and humanely or even it seems mortally does not figure into the decision.

@Ontario Hunter - I certainly agree bigger is better as long as you can shoot it well. I also think that if a hunter can’t consistently kill whitetail & mule deer out to 150-200 yrds with a .243 he either can’t shoot or is making poor shot decisions: any broadside, slightly quartering towards/away or Head-on should result in a dead deer…but Not a Texas heart shot. I’m not implying there are not better calibers and the .270, .308. .30-06 are some of the many better calibers…but some consider the .270 ‘too small’ so this opinion is open to endless speculation. We all have our preferences and mine is the .270 out West and .30-06 everywhere else

 

[Pilgrim]

Let's see if I've got this right. This is a story about a fella hunting big Montana deer with a marginal gun. He took a dicey shot over a doe at a nice buck just before dark on the last day of hunting. He hit the animal but did not follow up, deciding instead to let it suffer through the night and come back in the morning to hopefully find it dead (and possibly starting to spoil if early in the season) or finish it off. I mean really, what else could he have done wrong? Not enough gun was only the beginning. It is claimed this fella was an "experienced" hunter. In my opinion a novice without a mentor and barely passing grade in hunters ed might not have made this many screwups.

Anyone who takes crappy shots just before dark, especially with a "marginal" gun, damn well better be prepared to go after a wounded animal in the dark. He owes it to the poor critter to make it right. I have tracked one deer and one elk after dark and finished them both. The bull elk almost finished me! In Africa I hit a kudu bull poorly (shooting through brush) late in the afternoon and we stayed on it till well after dark, returned the next day and kept after it. Finally got him the third day. I would not give up.

I really wonder how your opinion or that of anybody in here about which cartridge meets the ethical minimum for deer becomes the almighty word? A lady I know shoots mule deer every year with a .243 and has never not recovered an animal she shot. Frankly, cartridge choice is an individual decision that everybody gets to make respecting the laws in their state or country and is nobody else's business.

 

[Rafiki]

Warning: this may provoke a response from Bob Nelson...

Friend loses buck of a lifetime in Montana: Last week a friend passed up 7 bucks waiting for the monster seen on cameras. At last light, he appeared, but was surrounded by does. The only shot was a high chest shot, passing over the back of a smaller doe. He took the shot, hit the deer, and watched as it slowed from a run to a walk, then a stagger, and then a lay down in knee high grass, just short of the woods. It raised and lowered its head, and antlers could be seen, but the position for a shot was a guess. Range was about 160 yards. Rather than get its adrenalin up, they let it lay until morning and planned to find it right there.

That night it snowed. Deer had vanished in the night with any visible tracks or blood trail covered by snow. Searches were conducted even with outside help for three days. Buck not found. (no word whether dogs were employed) Son vowed to find the deer, father who shot it had to return to Graham, Texas. Buck was shot with a .243 Win.! Locals commented .243 was probably too light. Shot possibly went below spine, but shallow if at all into chest cavity proper. They all said that the same wound, but hit with a 300 Win mag, would probably have killed the buck, a massive, heavy racked 10 point in the best Montana tradition! "You can't kill them too dead" was the last comment offered. Shooter had elected not to take his 25'06 or 45-70...

Son called last night saying he found the deer...IT WAS STILL ALIVE, seen on two trail cams, limping around but eating. Will it make it though the winter? Should the son finish it off and him take "first blood" rights to the deer? Is it fair game, likely to be shot by another? Undecided.
The hunt was taken with the knowledge that this buck (+200 lbs) was the intended quarry. Comments?

I wasn't going to comment on this but I must; this is a shot that should not have been taken. First of all a 243 is not the caliber for a large trophy class mule deer, or any mule deer for that matter. The post didn't say anything about the bullet but 100grs is usually the max for this round, and way too weak for an animal this size.

Secondly, shooting over the back of the doe to hit the buck is just plain stupid. At 160 yards the chance of hitting the wrong deer is too great, and even if you hit the intended deer the target presented is not all that great.

Here we have a case of someone seeing a deer that was a chance of a lifetime, that was admitted. To take the shot, let alone with a marginal caliber, no matter the outcome is simply unethical and personally makes me sick. This wasn't a paper target, it was a living breathing game animal that deserves respect, not a painful existance or long suffering death.

 

[SRvet]

243 was well regarded by the Scotts for stalking Red Deer, which generally are larger than white tail.
It’s also regarded as one of the best white tail cartridges, I read. That may be because of its recoil though for youth and what not, haven’t really read up on why.

The 243 results in more slow kills than larger calibres in studies I have read. Furthermore a larger proportion of deer followed up by organisations that offer this service are shot with .243 than other larger calibres. The use of the 243 in Scotland is largely because of expedience in that the rifle they own and use is a 243 and the highly experienced stalkers/ghillies who often will shoot several hundred deer per year and just make it work. This level of experience is an important factor compared to a trophy hunter who gets one tag per year. Many estates and stalkers in Scotland prefer the use of larger calibres for red and sika deer, especially with less experienced paying guests.
As others have said the story recounted demonstrates multiple errors in terms of rifle selection, decision to take the shot, poor shot placement, failure to take a second shot immediately where the first shot was known to be compromised and poor decisions with follow up. I confess that I don’t understand the desire to use the smallest possible cartridge that leaves less margin for error and increases the risk of wounding. Much more desirable in my opinion is to use the largest calibre that can be shot accurately.

 

[HankBuck]

The 243 results in more slow kills than larger calibres in studies I have read. Furthermore a larger proportion of deer followed up by organisations that offer this service are shot with .243 than other larger calibres. The use of the 243 in Scotland is largely because of expedience in that the rifle they own and use is a 243 and the highly experienced stalkers/ghillies who often will shoot several hundred deer per year and just make it work. This level of experience is an important factor compared to a trophy hunter who gets one tag per year. Many estates and stalkers in Scotland prefer the use of larger calibres for red and sika deer, especially with less experienced paying guests.
As others have said the story recounted demonstrates multiple errors in terms of rifle selection, decision to take the shot, poor shot placement, failure to take a second shot immediately where the first shot was known to be compromised and poor decisions with follow up. I confess that I don’t understand the desire to use the smallest possible cartridge that leaves less margin for error and increases the risk of wounding. Much more desirable in my opinion is to use the largest calibre that can be shot accurately.

@SRvet - For Deer hunting I agree with “part” of your last sentence: “…use the largest caliber that can be shot accurately”. Now “largest” is a relative term and no need to ever use a .416 Rem for deer so there should be some common sense applied - a .270 is better then a .243, as is a .308/.300wm etc.. But, and this is a BIG Butt — if you shoot the .243 more accurately then larger calibers, are more confident with it because you don’t Flinch with it, THAT is more important then caliber….AND you might be one of the few “honest Men” that admit you can’t shoot magnum rifles as well as smaller calibers.

 

[MS 9x56]

If you think it acceptable to shoot over the back of one animal to hit one behind it you really just need to find another hobby. As Bob would say “ 243 is only good for varmints and staking tomatoes.”

 

[HankBuck]

A derailing addendum: Though African authorities set the bar adequately high for Cape buffalo stopping caliber at 375, they also allow bow hunting for them. The bar drops way way down (disappears?) for archery. I don't get that. I guess the ASSUMPTION is bow hunters have more sophisticated hunting expertise? Does expertise (real or imagined) really make THAT much difference when we are talking about equipment with such a huge deficit in potential stopping power?

@Ontario Hunter - you raise an interesting point, how can anyone condemn use of a .243 for deer when 1000s are legally taken each year with a bow? Same goes for Elk, bear, Grizz etc.. I would think that there are more deer wounded & lost with bows - including both the total number of wounded game and % hit & lost must be far greater with a bow then a rifle. If my LIFE “depended on killing a Deer at 20 yards” - I’d rather have a .223 then any Bow or Cross Bow…..and I am an avid bow hunter. So, if you think using a .243 for trophy size deer is “unethical” you can’t be a fan of bow hunting deer at all? I know, “Bow hunters take game at closer ranges” and that’s true but 40 yrds is a long shot with a bow and shots are commonly taken 40-50-60 yrds especially at Elk (a very tough animal). Even a perfectly aimed bow shot can miss its mark because the Deer “hears & reacts” to the sound before the arrow can get there and this is somewhat common on shots over 25-30 yrds. I think others have mentioned that criticizing a Hunter’s rifle caliber selection is highly subjective and while we all have our preference and opinions my feeling is: as long as the rifle is “legal” for the game pursued - caliber choice is up to the Hunter. There have been many valid points raised on this topic and most have been well substantiated with some statistics as well - it has been informative for me to read and learn about the Experiences of others.

 

[mark-hunter]

Though African authorities set the bar adequately high for Cape buffalo stopping caliber at 375, they also allow bow hunting for them. The bar drops way way down (disappears?) for archery. I don't get that. I guess the ASSUMPTION is bow hunters have more sophisticated hunting expertise?

Different killing mechanisms.

Killing mechanism between expansion bullet, and sharp broadhead arrow is different.
They kill in different way. Here is best description i found:

Bullets kill primarily through high-energy impact. When a bullet strikes an animal, it crushes tissue and bone due to its kinetic energy. This impact can incapacitate the animal by breaking major bones, which reduces its ability to escape. The energy transfer from the bullet creates a wide wound channel, leading to significant tissue destruction. This mechanism also causes severe bleeding and can induce shock to the nervous system, further contributing to the animal’s incapacity or death.

In contrast, arrows utilize a low-energy impact mechanism. Broadhead-tipped arrows are designed to cut through vital tissues rather than crush them. They function more like knives or swords that slice blood vessels upon penetration. The effectiveness of an arrow relies heavily on proper shot placement; if an arrow is poorly placed, it may not cause immediate incapacitation or significant blood loss, making recovery difficult.

Wound Characteristics

The wounds created by bullets are characterized by both permanent and temporary cavities due to their high speed and mass. Bullets create a larger wound track compared to arrows because they expand upon impact (in the case of expanding bullets) or maintain their shape while causing extensive damage as they pass through tissue.

On the other hand, arrow wounds tend to be narrower but deeper due to their design and sectional density. Arrows penetrate effectively because they are long and skinny, allowing them to travel through flesh with less resistance than a bullet would encounter when trying to penetrate similar material.

In summary, bullets kill through high-energy impact that crushes tissues and causes extensive damage, while arrows kill by cutting vital tissues with low-energy impacts, requiring precise placement for effective results.

 

[DG870]

You could float a boat in the gallons of whisky consumed while arguing over the merits of the 243 on deer. I had a good friend who had a lease that brought some guest hunters on that wouldn’t even say the word 243 - he called it that unmentionable rifle that was “the great crippler of western game”. He typically had hunters from the east used to 100 yard shots in heavy cover that weren’t prepared for the wide open spaces of the west. He tracked down too many poorly shot deer and it soured him on the 243. It was probably more the hunters shooting ability but he blamed the cartridge.

I had another friend who favored the 6mm Remington. We would argue the merits of his 100 grain bullets vs the 140’s of my 270. One day during deer season he called me to look at the deer he had shot. It was a big bodied mature mule deer doe. His first shot had hit one of the large bones in the shoulder and broke up, not entering the body cavity. The shoulder was broken badly but he said she could run on 3 legs as fast as she could on 4. He obviously recovered the deer but not a clean quick one shot kill.

I guess my point on the 243 is it is not a round that will fail every time or even a majority of the time but there is not a lot of margin of error. It will do the job if the shots are perfectly placed and no major bones are hit.

As to setting minimum calibers for deer one has to remember a mature Montana mule deer will weigh almost twice as much as a mature south Texas whitetail. That needs to be taken into account when establishing minimums.

Lack of a follow up shot is another issue in the op’s story. I have seen the problem with some folks I have hunted with. I don’t know if it is an American hunters problem but too often we miss the opportunity for a follow up shot because we don’t reload our rifles. We watch to see what if the animal goes down but we stand there with a fired case in our rifles. Watch some of the African hunting shows, how often is the PH reminding the hunter to RELOAD. My Dad taught me that if the animal is still on its feet or still has its head up to keep shooting. We hunted in areas with steep canyons and there were places you didn’t want to drag a deer out of.

Sorry for the long post, not much going on here today, this is a topic that has been argued about as long as I can remember and isn’t going away anytime soon.

 

[mark-hunter]

Lack of a follow up shot is another issue in the op’s story. I have seen the problem with some folks I have hunted with. I don’t know if it is an American hunters problem but too often we miss the opportunity for a follow up shot because we don’t reload our rifles.

The worst cases of not doing reload and follow up shot, were worse then what you describe.
I know for quite a few refusing a follow up shot, in order to prevent more meat wastage and meat damage.
However, in this case this was not the reason.

 

[Saul]

When I was trying to get the women in my life into shooting/hunting, I bought a 6mm Rem, thinking that the recoil would be low enough as to not scare them away. This last year, my niece killed her very first deer with…a 300 Weatherby.