.243 Win or 6.5 Creedmoor?

[Osceola]

I'm a minimalist when it comes to most things. I try to have enough to get the job done, but no more.

When it comes to deer hunting cartridges, I think this is important because I believe excess recoil degrades accuracy and shooting enjoyment unnecessarily. According to my understanding of cartridge ballistics and performance, a .243 with a good bullet is all that is needed to humanely and effectively kill a deer sized animal out to 250 yards or so, which is my personal range limit. I'm not comfortable going down to a .22 center fire for deer, so I consider the .243 to be my minimum.

Having said that, the difference in recoil between a .243 and 6.5 Creedmoor is small and maybe even indiscernible. If you were buying a new rifle and these were your only two choices, which would you choose?

 

[tlh2865]

243, cheaper and more widely available ammunition = more practice

 

[birdgunner]

Whichever one has a threaded barrel
90% certain my next barrel for my sons TC will be a Creedmoor, more energy than the .243 is the only reason I am considering it vs the .243 and as you stated recoil is very similar so I figure why not get a little more E.

 

[Jason Broom]

Even the most well-intentioned comment could be little more than a distinction without a difference. Buy the gun you like best and don't deliberate between these two cartridges. They are peas in the same pod.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Osceola]

Even the most well-intentioned comment could be little more than a distinction without a difference. Buy the gun you like best and don't deliberate between these two cartridges. They are peas in the same pod.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Agree. But isn't splitting hairs what enthusiasts do best? In truth, this is a theoretical question as I don't intend to buy either one. I was just pondering the question and thought it would make for some good banter on a Friday afternoon.

The 6.5 Creedmoor has become so popular so quickly it may challenge the .243 some day as the most popular youth/female/minimalist choice.

 

[OkieKubota]

Ammo cost and availability would make my decision...

 

[Jason Broom]

I handload for all of my rifles, so cost and availability of factory ammo is not a consideration. One of the rifle/cartridge combinations I've taken an interest in is the CZ527 (or Howa 1500) micro action in 6.5 Grendel. It's not as popular, or as fast, as the 6.5 Creedmoor, but I still think it would be a fun little coyote/deer cartridge. It would be great for youth and women hunters, for sure!

Ruger offers their American Ranch series in both 7.62x39 and 6.5 Grendel, for a more affordable option on these short-action rounds.

 

[Osceola]

I handload for all of my rifles, so cost and availability of factory ammo is not a consideration. One of the rifle/cartridge combinations I've taken an interest in is the CZ527 (or Howa 1500) micro action in 6.5 Grendel. It's not as popular, or as fast, as the 6.5 Creedmoor, but I still think it would be a fun little coyote/deer cartridge. It would be great for youth and women hunters, for sure!

Ruger offers their American Ranch series in both 7.62x39 and 6.5 Grendel, for a more affordable option on these short-action rounds.

Same here. Ammo availability not an issue. Don't know much about the 6.5 Grendel, but it sounds intriguing. I'm surprised it's popular enough for Ruger to offer it in the American Ranch. One other "oldie but a goldie" to consider in this class of mild rounds that get the job done is the .257 Roberts. Probably harder to find rifles in this round though.

 

[Jason Broom]

When it comes to cartridges, I like the weird, "Improved", "wildcat" kind of stuff. The 243 (we have 2 in the family) and 6.5 Creedmoor (none, yet) are pretty mainstream, at this point. Nothing wrong with either of them, for sure.

 

[Osceola]

When it comes to cartridges, I like the weird, "Improved", "wildcat" kind of stuff. The 243 (we have 2 in the family) and 6.5 Creedmoor (none, yet) are pretty mainstream, at this point. Nothing wrong with either of them, for sure.

I'm practical almost to a fault. I chose to outfit my whole family with 7mm-08s years ago for a few, very practical reasons:

• I can load it down to .243 level recoil for the kids or juice it up and/or use heavier bullets for bigger game or longer range if necessary.
• I can buy one bullet type, one powder type and one reloading die for all rifles and use the ammo interchangeably.
• My only other rifle is an inherited .280 Rem...same bullets and powder as 7mm-08, just a different die set.

Sometimes I wonder if I had it to do over, would I get everyone a 6.5 Creedmoor/.260 Rem instead and the answer is probably not. 33.5 grains of Varget behind a Hornady 139 gr. SST is about as mild and effective as anything we've already mentioned, with a little more versatility.

 

[maddog3355]

I asked the same question and the answer was the .243 is better until 500 yards then the 6.5 takes over.

 

[Gravel Road]

I just bought two 6.5 Creedmoor's and am very impressed. Light recoil and seem to be very well balanced. Both guns shoot lights out too. I like them way better than the 243 and will take the 140gr 6.5 over the 100gr 243 any day. There are two 243's in the safe, and haven't shot them in years as they don't do anything for me. One is a Varmint Special and one is a 27" Pacnor barreled Savage 243 Ackley tight neck.

 

[DocHolladay]

I'll take the .243 with a 100-105gr bullet. I haven't researched the new 107-108gr bullets yet, but the .243 has been around for ages now and has proven its worth, ammo is more available and cheaper, and for the distances most hunters are shooting game, it is more than accurate and has energy to get the job done. I like to look at BC numbers and how a bullet is designed and the .243 has high BC's(100gr+) and the majority of bullets from 90-105gr are well built and can kill game out to 500yds. Do I shoot 500yds? Nope, its to thick here locally and 75yds is the average shot in my part of the country. I don't even have a place to see 500yds, much less shoot. The longest shot I have ever had was 200yds with my .270 and my niece killed a deer at 300yds, on the nose, with her .243 and it drt'd. I used to own a .243 but back when I was wheeling and dealing all the time, I ended up trading it for a different rifle. I wish I still had it. I have looked at everything the 6.5 Creedmoor does and it is impressive, but if I was to buy a new rifle, in a new cartridge, it would be the 6mm Creedmoor. Am I going to buy one? No, I think my next rifle purchase will be a .243 bolt action(Remington Model 7) or a .308 AR...... decisions, decisions.

 

[dogghr]

I can tell you this, I started my son on a 243 and he routinely dropped more bucks in their tracks with it over the years than any rifle any of me and my buddies have used. So while I don't routinely hunt with one myself, it stays my fav as I've seen it in action over that 20+ years he shot it. And it was my grandfathers fav along with a 257 Roberts he took many a nice buck with long before deer were common. I doubt you could go wrong on either and I agree, the thot of recoil affects more people then their macho genes will admit.

 

[sagittarius]

Having said that, the difference in recoil between a .243 and 6.5 Creedmoor is small and maybe even indiscernible. If you were buying a new rifle and these were your only two choices, which would you choose?

6.5 Creedmoor, simply because it is larger in diameter, 0.264, rather than 0.243. My son has been shooting a .243 for 12 years, my Dad has two .243's, and I would consider it a minimum cartridge on upper midwest deer. As I get older, and think about weight and recoil, my current choice would be a 7mm-08.

 

[dogghr]

6.5 Creedmoor, simply because it is larger in diameter, 0.264, rather than 0.243. My son has been shooting a .243 for 12 years, my Dad has two .243's, and I would consider it a minimum cartridge on upper midwest deer. As I get older, and think about weight and recoil, my current choice would be a 7mm-08.

My friend shot her 6x6 elk in CO last year with a 243 at 300 yds. Pretty sure it can handle any whitetail. Can't argue with your choice tho.

 

[Mennoniteman]

I vote .243, this is an amazing cartridge. I like the 7mm-08 also for a youth rifle, but I've noticed that the 7mm-08 factory loads from Remington and Federal seem to drill small holes through deer rather than knock them down like a.243 often will at short to medium range?

 

[Osceola]

A lot of love for the .243! I admit I'm a little surprised considering the Creedmoor is more "en vogue". It says a lot about the proven performance of this little round.
If I knew I would never elk or bear hunt, the .243 would be my choice. But the possibility of bigger game would push me to heavier bullets. Then, if I was going bigger, I would probably just skip 6.5 mm and go straight to a 7 mm, which brings me right back to the 7mm-08.

 

[Jason Broom]

A friend of mine just went to Spain on a red deer hunt (basically an elk) where he shot 5 stags and a hind, all with 95 grain SST bullets from a suppressed 243 Winchester rifle. Every one of them was killed with one shot, with 4 of them going no more than 30 meters. One of the deer was running at about 80 meters when he shot, so it was adrenalized, but still didn't make it 100 meters after the shot.

There is nothing wrong with the 260 Remington or 7-08, or the long-action versions thereof, but with the right bullet a 243 Win. will kill just about anything.

 

[FL Plotter]

Interesting all the .243 love here. Most everyone I know stays away from it down here and prefers the .270....and we have small deer. Lots of lost deer to no blood trail with the .243 and very few bang-flops. I've personally seen a doe knocked down twice with 100gr CoreLokts and get up and walk out of the plot never to be found.