243 for elk?

[Opportunist]

You can't compare arrow/broadhead and rifle/bullet killing effectiveness.  They kill in entirely different ways, archery kills through massive hemoraging and rifle through traumatic shock. Bullets destroy as they enter and tear a wound channel and behind the bullet cavitation is created which destroys vessels, tissue and organs as the bullet passes through, also shards of shattered bone from the shock do their own damage. Arrows/broadhead simply slips through and slices and only destroys tissue the blades actually come in contact with. Sorry I'm not meaning to sound like Dr. Science. So you can't really compare bullets and broadheads other than they both kill.

I feel the minimum for elk is the .308.  My aunt used to shoot a .243 for elk and killed 4 or 5 elk. Then in one season she wounded and lost two bulls. It's all about shot placement but I would still rather shoot something that throws a bigger chunk of lead.

[demontang]

I think the 243 is a little to light for elk, yes you can kill them with it, but you can also wound one. I know a couple that used 243's and after shooting and losing one elk they both switched to a larger cal. I bought a 338 win for it but there are alot of other cals out there that can do it that dont kick that hard (338fed ).

[runningboard]

Elk are too valuable an animal to be shot with guns of so small caliber in my opinion. Seems like some folks like to get their jollies by shooting too far or shooting rounds too small for the critter.

I agree with MW338 on this one, I know that shot placement is it. BUT, you can't control every aspect of the shot. what about animal's awareness, level of excitement, size (i.e. big bull vs. average cow), etc. that plays into it as well. I have seen double-lunged animals drop on the spot with no broken bones and other double-lunged animals run hundreds of yards. I have shot deer in Montana with a 22-250 (legal) but I wouldn't recommend it for the inexperienced and won't do it again myself even though I can.

[NoBark]

It ain't fishing guys, we're not trying to give them a chance to get away.

Use plenty of gun!

[hard hunter]

I was with a guy that shot an elk with a 30-30 @ about 25 yds, I think it was a 180 grain Remington Factory Load.  The elk only when about 15 feet before colaping but the bullet was found under the skin on the far side of the elk. 

[waoutdoorsman]

possible (under the right situation) but not ideal at all.

[granola/hippyslayer]

  I have a friend who is an ex sniper instructor he told me of a hunting trip to Montana with the good old boys and one of them tried a shot with a round nose .308 and the bullet fragged against the elks hollow hair and peeled back a huge patch of hair . with no penetration one of the other guy es saved him from his mistake and took it out with a 375 h&h . a little over kill if you ask me. but i also prefer an  arrow to the bullet. 

[Red Dawg]

if a guy feels comforable with that round than by all means use it. A lot of people also say that a 270 is to small. And we all know that is not true.

[Bofire]

is a 243 able to kill an Elk, yup it is. BUT what would happen to me is I would see the bull of my life at about 300 yards, 7 point royal, 60 inch spread 3 inch bases drop tines,in less than a perfect position. I would take my 243 and beat it against a rock and swear to never go after Elk again without my 300 mag. Are you willing to risk that? I aint.
Carl

[Red Dawg]

i see your point but a 300 is no more deadly at 300 yards if a guy cant shoot. I am not saying that you cant shoot, but i have heard to many stories about people who shoot an animal anywhere just because they think the have big firepower. and that mostly comes from outfitter friends but still a guy has to tink about that also.

[high country]

I sat right next to a guy who wounded an elk with a 300RUM, I shot after him and bang flopped my elk with a 257, which is not much bigger. the range was 350ish and it passed through cleanly. I am confident enough to take the shot with any rifle I shoot well, including the 243. a good hit is a good hit. no bull is going to walk away frm a 243 in the boiler room. they may be tougher to trail than if you shot them with a 460 wby, but likely just as dead.

anyone who thinks any cartrige that is loaded today for big game is too weak, light, small.......yada....well they either have never done it, or tried it and did not shoot well.

how many elk have you cleaned with someone else's bullet in the lungs?

[jackelope]

how many elk have you cleaned with someone else's bullet in the lungs?

 

i like that one.

[MountainWalk]

Never a bullet, but I have found broadheads.

[addicted]

if the gun doesn't kick me, how do i know it kicks the elk? lol.

not that we put much faith in them,(redraw redraw redraw) but if the wdfw feels that the 24 caliber is big enough then maybe it is. 

i like what mountainwalk338 said though. they are a very valuable thing to be gambling on. 

if you and i are walking through the woods with a 243 and an elk walks out 20 feet in front of us, i sure as hell aren't going to stop you from putting one straight through the boiler room. of course i don't like walking around with people that are dangerous enough to miss at 20 feet lol

[Intruder]

possible (under the right situation) but not ideal at all.

I think that sums it up well.  Hell even a 22 can kill and elk..... doesn't mean I wanna go hunting w/ 1.  To me the .25 calibers w/ 120 grn bullets and up are really what I'd term the bare min for elk.  The 260 and 7mm-08 would be even better as far as a cal on the light side. 

That being said, I'd rather heart/lung an elk w/ a 243 than gut shoot it w/ a 338.