I'm thinking of buying a new gun and kind of a toss up between a ar15 223 with flat top and a bolt 243 with bull barrel looking for a varmint gun but can still deer hunt with either here in Minn. I know a 223 ammo would be cheaper but the 243 would be a little quicker and less drop with a little more nock down. But AR's a little more versatile and not just another bolt action. What do you guys think would be the best bang for my buck?

Of the two the .243 is a much more potent round. Others will say the heavy .223 is very strong, but that depends on distance. I've seen scores of .243's at long range matches and the .223 twice. Each time the .223 shooter was handicapped and took a bit of a beating.

If you load your own ammo, if you really want an AR platform, you could go the best of both worlds and use the 6.5 Grendel.

But as a straight up comparison the .243 is the winner in energy delivery, wind cheating, and medium/ long range capability.

You can get an AR in .243. I would also recommend the 6.5.

Big deer up there. I wouldn't suggest a .223. I hunt deer in Missouri and we have shot a few with .223 and .22-250s and sometimes we had trouble finding deer even with good shots.

If your going to have to go up to the ar10 might as well get 7-08.

But tge 243 with 80ttsx is nasty combo

.223 st the muzzle has 1500 ft/lb of energy. At 300 yds it is something like 800ft/lb. some of these guys love their AR. I don't blame them neat comobation. In the hands of a cool very good shot the 223 will do things that the average hunter should not attempt.

243 is a lot more rifle. Not a bad Texas whitetail gun. I like the cartridge. The military considered the six mm before it selected the .556

Rusty

243

AR10 in .243,.260 or 7-08

Problem solved.

It seems that for what you are wanting to do, the .243 is the better option, in my opinion. It is a little over kill for smaller varmints but probably better for the larger game. The .223 will work for deer as well but I still think the .243 is better in your particular case. You can get different muzzle velocities with barrel lengths and different ammo manufacturers. As far as muzzle energy, if you stay in the 1000 to 1200 ft/lb. area, that's enough energy to get a deer. Also, in the AR platform, it is my belief that you will not be as accurate as the bolt action. I'm not saying AR's don't shoot well. I just believe that with the bolt action, you'll have a better chance for consistency. Again, that is just my opinion.

As mentioned the 243 is a much more potent round. But if you shoot a lot, you must understand that the barrel life is pretty short for a 243.

If you want something in the AR format, a .260 would be dandy. But the .243 is a lot more cartridge that the .223, so between the two I'd go with .243.

Ive taken deer with both at about the same range and size of deer.


243 is way more powerful then 222special.

My 223 was a ruger ranch at the time. I had one deer run and not recovered. Yes, the shot was aimed right behind the shoulder, vital area. Small doe. Never did find her. Blood trail was tiny drops maybe 10-15' apart. Heavy cedar cover. The deer before her dropped like a rock.


243 on the otherhand, packs alot more punch. It's a super common cal in central Texas. At ranges of 100-200(common in central Texas) it jacks up a deer. Ive seen shoulder hits, heart, lung hits. All had a really good destructiveness on the inside organs.

I know folks take deer with 223. If I had a two day lease, theres no way I'd take a 223 over 243. IMHO, 243 has three times the killing power over 223.

.243 in AR platform is a heavy gun to carry
6.8 spc in AR platform is best compromise

True that. The Remmy AR25 in 243 or what ever it's called. IS HEAVY. Fells like 11# bare.

Whatever is used for hunting in an AR....223 just isn't the best round to take deer. All my AR's are for hunting. I had enough of the tactical mumbo jumbo in the army. No more rolling around the dirt for me.

I have one AR in 223 and another in 300black. The only way I would use the 223 for deer, is with the heaviest, nastiest, explode on contact 223 ammo, I could get. Ill soon be trying out Win razorbacks. But not on deer. On critters i won't get a heart ache over not finding them.

3oo blacky wacky does the job at the distance I hunt. I would have built a 6.8 but ammo cost sucks for plinking.

243. You could also make it a long range gun if you get a proper barrel.

6mm shooting a 115 dtac or 105 hybrid vld ride or die!!!!!!

If it shoots tight, any barrel is a long range barrel. Doesn't have to be a heavy barrel if you're not going to send 10 rounds very fast. I've shot a friend's Savage .243 to 700 yards with a light weight sporter barrel. Handloaded 100 gr. Sierra Game Kings spire points and they kill with a authority.

Here's a good write up on the 243.

http://www.6mmbr.com/243Win.html

.243 by far will allow for more range and bullet toughness at less than perfect shot angles.

Here in Texas I shoot whitetails with an 80 grain bullet with good expansion and often no blood trail because they drop where they are shot. In Missouri I switch to a 100 grain heavier built bullet due to the heavier body size and bone structure. In .243 or 6mm, which I prefer, your better off for whitetails IMHO. This one took one shot from a 100 grain bonded bullet from a 6mm last year in Missouri and went about 30 yards and dropped within sight. Field dressed 190 lbs. He was a little run down from the rut.

Thanks for all the input everyone not swayed one way or the other I have good deer guns and would like a good distance varmint gun just not sure what I want yet.

Without reading all the post on this thread I would say get one of each. I love both calibers.

.243 is a great gun.

243 with barnes bullet is a bad little round