Best Rifle Caliber For Short Range Deer Hunting

[Truegent2004]

My nephew asked me (his so called expert Uncle), what caliber rifle he should shoot for short range (50-200 yd) deer hunting. He doesnt like the recoil of a 30-06 (too harsh), but he does like the .243.

He wants to know if there is something practical and yet slightly stronger than a .243 that doesnt have much kick in the recoil.

[Sean Gaines]

.243 is a real good gun for deer, as far as recoil, he's probably only going to make one shot at a deer. So to me, I wouldn't think recoil would be that big of a deal. You could try a 25-06 or 270 with a recoil pad.

[George]

If you are using commercial ammo, the .243 is a good choice for lack of recoil and flat trajectory. It's Power is not great so shot placement is very, very important (true with any caliber actually).

If you handload, a lot more options open up and even the venerable 06 becomes a tamed animal with the right recipe, yet still powerful enough to get the job done.

[Dan Sierpina]

Take a look at the .257 Roberts. Light recoil, extremely capable for the parameters you stated.

[38superman]

Okay, the criteria is: powerful enough for deer size game at short range and low recoil.

If he likes the .243 then there is no reason not to use it.

However, I would prefer a heavier bullet than is possible in .243

The best balance between power and recoil would be a slightly larger bore on a similar size case.

The .257 Roberts would be a good choice but it's pretty close to being obsolete.

I think there are still a few companies producing the rifles but factory ammo may not be readily available.

If you reload it would be a great choice.

If he can tolerate a bit more recoil a .270 is hard to beat as a great all purpose rifle.

If he is willing to get away from a bolt action, a .30-30 or even a lever action 44 mag at short range would be workable.

Tls

Edited June 26, 2006 by tlshores

[minnesota1]

If he wants more power than the 243 I'd go with the 270 although a lot of people like the 25-06 but ammo for that will more than likely be less readily available than the 270 and probably a little more expensive. My brother-n-law has a case of wussitis . He flinches because of the recoil of a 30-06 but he now has a browning A-Bolt 270 and hasn't missed anything he's shot at. I have a 270 and love it. I prefer mine over my 30-06, not because of recoil, just a personal preference. I have a .243 and it's a great rifle. I would recommend he stay with that but if he wants to jump to the 270 I'm sure he could handle it.

Good Luck,

Bob

[George]

The reason I didn't recommend the .270 is that in a very light rifle, factory loadings have brutal recoil even with a "sissy pad" installed. A heavy rifle ain't a huntin' rifle if you walk up the game.

The .30-30 is a good choice for close in (100 yards and under), but it's trajectory resembles a mortar round beyond a hunnert' yards.

I forgot about the .257 Roberts. Good choice for a balance of power/low recoil, but not a good choice for lotsa' commercial ammo availability compared to .243 and .270.

The .270 handloaded down a little with a 135 to 150 grain softpoint would be a great choice. Factory .270 ammo is way hot IME.

[cpty1]

The 7mm-08 fits your requirements to the letter. I have either shot, or seen my young son shoot several deer with both the 08 and the .243. Very little if in difference in noticeable recoil and both are great deer rounds IMO.

[warpspeed]

How old / big is your nephew ?

I have hunted with a 270 win since I was 13 years old and never found the recoil bad.

[bayoupirate]

+1 on the 7mm-08. I have an uncle who's shoulder pain made him put down his 270, even after he had it ported. Light recoil, bullet weights up to 152 or 154 available.

His is the Rem 700 with the DM.

Personally I shoot and would also recommend the 308 win.

If you reload, you can produce really soft recoil and 200yard accuracy is hard to beat.

Good Hunting.

[38superman]

+1 on the 7mm-08.

I also thought about recommending that cartridge.

My thinking was that its pushing up close to 308 / 3006 class ballistics (and recoil) so I passed on it.

However, I have no first hand experience with it so I will defer to Chris' judgement.

If the felt recoil is less than a .270 the 7-08 might be ideal.

If not, I repeat, the .270 is an outstanding choice.

I always considered the recoil of a 270 pretty tame, but even the Ultra-Mags don't bother me so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

I have more than a dozen hunting rifles but the one I always reach for is the .270 A-bolt.

Sportswriter Jack O'Conner was a great fan and advocate of the cartridge writing about it throughout his carrer.

The more I shoot mine the more I think he had it right.

Tony

Edited June 26, 2006 by tlshores

[JD45]

Everyone has their favorites, so it's hard to say one choice is better than another.

I've shot most of the deer calibers, and used several different cartridges to take deer. Right now, I most often carry a Ruger M77MKII in .257 Roberts, or "Bob", as gunwriter John Barsness likes to call it. It kills way too good to be so small. Recoil is soft even in my hottest handloads. The old factory Rem. 117gr. RN load is slow, but it is so sweet to shoot, and will work fine on short range deer.

If you can find an older rifle chambered for it, the 250 Savage is another fine deer round. Plus, the cool factor goes up 50% because you can tell people you shoot a .250 Savage.

[AZ38super]

I have to go against many others here. If he likes the 243 then by all means use it.

Factory ammo will perform fine for what you are looking for and hand loads are even better.

We hunted deer and most others things with our 243's with no questions at all. We had many guys hunt with us with 270 and larger guns all raise an eyebrow when then found out we only used the 243 but eventually they all asked this question.

How come when we shoot a deer it gets up and runs but when you shoot them they go down right away and stay there?

We even ended up loading ammo for a couple and their 270's after they hunted with us.

Our loads were accuarate and powerful enough to handle almost anything. We even challenge a couple guys by betting we could take the side mirror off your truck at 500 yards and they would not take the challenge after hunting with us and seeing the results.

I know of people who killed elk using a 243 and factory ammo as well.

Let him us the 243 and enjoy the hunting.

[cpty1]

I agree with AZ38Super. I would recommend the .243 as well. I was simply answering the question that was posted literally....what has more downrange energy, with minimal additional recoil than the .243...? That is the 7mm-08 is my opinion. I have plenty of guns to use when I hunt, but 95% of the time, I use my son's youth model .243. We got the gun when my son was 9 so I was concerned about recoil and opted for the .243. On the other hand, I was concerned about downrange energy and did opt to use premium Winchester black box ammo. I appreciated the short, light little rifle, and after seeing it's effectiveness on deer time and time again, I gained plenty of confidence in the round and the gun. I use his youth model gun all the time now, even though my son feels he's "outgrown" it and now shoots my 7mm-08.

[Singlestack]

+1 on .243

I hunted Deer with a .270 for many years and then I got a 6mm Rem. I fell in love with the 6mm. There is very little difference in the hole between a .270 and a 6mm in a Deer. I use a .243 now because I gave my 6mm to my Dad so he would not have to lug his trusty 03A3 around when he got "old". He fell in love with it too.

I sold my Rem .270 BDL after one season with the 6mm and I don't miss that mule kick recoil one little bit. I do not understand why people use calibers like the 7mm mag for Whitetails.

[tightloop]

35 Whelen...just a small bump, but a wonderful slayer..

[standles]

I hunted deer early on with a .243. I placed good shots that had minimal effect on the deer. the 100grainers can only carry so much momentum. If you have any foliage in the way such as brush or such then the lighter bullet is going to deflect.

In my opinion the 7mm-08 or a regular .308. I liked the latter due to easier to find ammo, wider selection of bullet weights and configurations, larger selection of rifles in that caliber, etc. etc.

Now I agree a 243 can take deer but efficiently and reliably I will disagree on that. Even with the larger calibers shot placement is more critical than the caliber. If they can put the 243 through the eye at 200yds then go ahead.

I once killed a duck with a bb gun at 20yds. Does that make it a suitable weapon for duck hunting? NO. Primary duty as a responsible hunter is to use a weapon that can reliably and quickly dispatch the animal. A wounded animal is a failure of the hunter and/or his equipment. I have passed up many shots out of respect for my quarry rather than risk an injured animal.

Standles

[Bruce]

The 30-30 is a wonderful short-range deer rifle. Ammo is very available, and he can practice with it.

.45-70 out of a Marlin GG with the factory brake on it is real loud, but easy on the shoulder with factory loads.

.243 is great as well in the open.

[Guy Neill]

Since it is for short range use, the high velocity of many cartridges, such as the 243 can work against it. How about the 35 Remington? It's been a popular deer cartridge for a long time for short range woods hunting.

Guy

[cpty1]

Sounds like standles has had some bad experiences with the .243. I have heard first hand stories from others with bad experiences as well; but I have heard the same stories with deer shot with 30-30s, and everything up to 300 Winchester Magnums. I've shot deer thru the heart with a 300 and still had them run 100 yards. That's basically why I always used, and still use, premium ammo, because as mentioned earlier, bullet placement (and performance) is more critical than caliber. I like the Winchester black box supreme, because it's loaded with Nosler bullets. Any premium ammo loaded with premium bullets is probably just as good. If memory serves, in the last three years, my son, or I have killed 14 deer with a .243; Remington model 7 youth, 100 grain Winchester black box ammo. Ranges were from 40 to 125 yards. We don't hunt any areas where longer shots are possible, and frankly, I wouldn't use the .243 if that were the case. Of those 14 deer killed, all were found; 11 dropped in their tracks, or took one or two steps, one ran about 10 yards, and two ran about 20 yards before going down. Admittedly, the ones that ran were at the longer ranges. I will say if marksmanship is an issue, then bigger is better. We hunt primarily in permanent tree stands with safety rails built around them that double as shooting rests, so it is real easy for even a young beginning hunter to make good shots on deer, and we frankly don't take any shots that are questionable.

[AZ38super]

I have not hunted deer since moving to Arizona but when I was back in South Dakota we hunted open fields, shelter belts, cat tails, corn fields and so on with rifle, bows, blackpowder and handgun.

I harvested deer with my 243 from 5 to 500 yards with no problems and never lost a single animal. We used a 85 grain boat-tail hollow point if I remember correctly. I used a lever action 30-30 with stock sights my first year with my longest shot being a single shot kill at just under 100 yards.

While as with all hunting shot placement is key but using a larger caliber is not correct all and I have seen it leave more wounded animals from those who believe in such nonsense.

We made solid kill hits to save the meat as that was the main reason we were hunting deer.

If we accidently caught a bone in the front shoulder the whole quarter was most likely ruined by the 6"-8" section of bone being shattered into tiny fragments.

We used to hunted all kinds of small game as practice each year. My favorite practice was gophers at 100 yards or more which made a good shot on a deer seem like nothing.

This is off track a bit but...

My typical year was 4 rifle tags, 2 archery tags and one blackpowder tag and I normally filled them all each year. And I hunted archery for 25 years straight with deer harvested from 10' to 20 yards as my longest shot. The fun was getting them close.

As I said before let him use the 243 and be happy. Work with him, practice and teach him to hunt responsible. Enjoy what you both have to gain from the whole experience.

This is the best way for you, him and the sport of hunting.

[kellyn]

To be honest a .308 is probably the best recommendation but a .308 lacks a certain style. Absolutely nothing wrong with a .243 but a .243 is nowhere near as cool as a .257 Roberts (my Dad's first deer cartridge). I'll add my first deer cartridge into the mix, a .250 Savage! Little recoil and decent bullet weight.

In Arizona, I use a .25-06 (built by my grandfather back in the 50's when a .25-06 was considered Thor's hammer), a .260 Remington and a .280 Ackely. All are capable of killing deer out to as far as I care to shoot them.

I don't buy into the theory that "heavier" bullets deflect less. All bullets deflect when they hit stuff.

[Singlestack]

I don't buy into the theory that "heavier" bullets deflect less. All bullets deflect when they hit stuff.

+1

[cottyw]

+1 7mm 08

[bayoupirate]

Bruce,

I'm glad that you brought up the 45-70 Govt.

I've transitioned my nephew, now 13, to my Marlin 1895G in 45-70.

He was hunting with a 243 but I always put him where the shots are 100yards or less.

Last year he shot it with factory, (For All Firearms) loads which are relatively soft.

This year I've worked up a hand load using a Sierra 300grain HP that is even softer, but still packs the same speed.

The gun is very short and easy to handle.

It doesn't fit the, out to 200yds, criteria mentioned by the original thread but its a great gun for inside of 125yards, even with open sights, and it packs a lot of knock down power.

I'd have to disagree with Kellyn.

The 308 has a long history of being The Accuracy Cartridge. I

IMO I'd say accuracy trumps style.