# Hunting > Hunting >  Calibre for goats and occasional deer?

## MB

As per title. It'll primarily be a goat gun, with the very occasional deer stalking trip, maybe once a year. Just started doing some reading and trying to decide between .243 and .270. Any thoughts?

----------


## timattalon

Neither. Both are good but there are so many out there. By the sound of it, you have not done a lot of shooting yet, would that be correct?




If this is the case, there are a few things I would suggest you consider. Price and availability of ammo. More common and cheaper to shoot calibres mean more affordable to spend time at the range getting familiar and accurate with whatever calibre you  get. I would suggest 308 would be one of the most common but there are others. 

Secondly get something that wont beat your shoulder up to start with.  If you start out with 270 or 30/06 or a magnum (7mmRem etc) then the likelihood of you developing  a flinch is higher and this will have a negative impact on your accuracy.

308 would be my first choice if I was in your situation. Easy to source a wide selection of ammo, capable of more than you re asking. 
6.5x55 would be a close second. It has very similar performance to a 308 but recoil seems lighter making it easier to shoot accurately.
243 is still capable but is perhaps not a suitable than the above. shot placement is more critical, but with lighter recoil accuracy is usually easier.
7mm08 is so similar to 308 that it may as well be the same except the ammo tends to be dearer as the selection of cheaper brands like Barnaul etc are not available in that calibre though there is nothing wrong with the 7mm08 and with its increased popularity, there is quite a range out there for it.

Finally there is a mosin nagant listed on this forum for $500 that would well be worth a look at. A bit heavier to carry, but capable of handling anything from 130gr to 220gr projectiles. Barnaul make a 203gr Soft point that works well in these. 

To all the haters out there that will say 270 is brilliant, I am not saying that any calibre is not capable of what he is asking it to do, but pointing out there are different points to consider when looking for a first rifle.

----------


## LJP

You just told me you want a 308! One of the cheapest calibres to run (great for goat bombup's & is ample performance for any deer that walks NZ. A tikka t3 308 job done :Yuush:

----------


## craigc

The .243 would be an excellent caliber for what you required. It is easy to shoot and reload and is more than capable of cleanly killing both goats and deer. 
The .243 also has the advantage of probably having a higher resale value as its more popular with internet experts. 
Actual international sales figures may suggest otherwise...
I've owned and operated both calibres and I'd go for the .243 for the situation that you have described.
I'm sure you'll get heaps of advice on these two and many other calibres...
In the end, as I've said before, what caliber you get doesn't matter that much as a good man will own many different calibres over his life! ;-)

Just my opinion.

----------


## Marty Henry

Jw 103 Norinco ticks those boxes the ammo is cheap enough to shoot lots and recoils light. Its got the power for kills on deer out to 300 yds, light and handy in the scrub. A guy I know at alfredton got one for a bike gun, taken more deer with it in the last 2 years than his 2506 or 7mm. 
The rifles not pretty but it's practical.

----------


## foxhound

Mainly goats and deer either 223 or 243. if shooting a lot of goats I would go for 223 ammunition is ready available and affordable in all gunshops and choose a heavier bullet for the occasional deer. I shoot 308 as well but for a new shooter probably to much recoil if he is shooting lots of rounds in a short time on goats. I reload for all three calibres but to use the 243 to its best he would need to reload for it or buy expensive premium ammo.

----------


## deer243

> Neither. Both are good but there are so many out there. By the sound of it, you have not done a lot of shooting yet, would that be correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the case, there are a few things I would suggest you consider. Price and availability of ammo. More common and cheaper to shoot calibres mean more affordable to spend time at the range getting familiar and accurate with whatever calibre you  get. I would suggest 308 would be one of the most common but there are others. 
> 
> Secondly get something that wont beat your shoulder up to start with.  If you start out with 270 or 30/06 or a magnum (7mmRem etc) then the likelihood of you developing  a flinch is higher and this will have a negative impact on your accuracy.
> 
> ...


Are you for real? Don't you work it in sports/hunting shop??(correct me if im wrong) What a load of nonscense. Firstly, for what he wants to use it for the most suitable Cal would be the 243, or 223 .Its for goats for and a once in a blue moon hunt for deer...243 is ideal, or a 223. Secondly, you suggesting a 243 or 270 isn't as common for availability for ammo etc...of cause they are, what planet are you on.
Without a doubt, for a first rifle for what you want and next to no recoil, the 243 is perfect, as it gives some room for error and gives you some distance over the next best choice a 223.
Go to a 6.5 ? 308 ?270 when you decide to hunt deer full time if you wish but if you shooting 0-250m the 243 will be perfect for that too.

----------


## 25/08IMP

Dear243 is spot on .223 or .243 learn to shoot these first.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

----------


## HNTMAD

out of those two choices .243

----------


## Mathias

If primarily goats then get a 223. As said, plenty of affordable ammo and you will learn to shoot well without hammering yourself as you would with a heavy caliber. I've shot hundreds of goats and this is my choice and where I cull there are a few deer around for the pot as well, never had an issue because of the confidence you build with the easy to shoot 223.
If only a choice of the two mentioned then 243.

----------


## Dama dama

I'd suggest .243, regardless of the choices you suggested.
.308, .270 (my preferred hunting calibres) etc will have more recoil than a beginner needs to endure.
The .223, while it has cheap ammo, does not leave much margin for error on deer.  It would be fine for goats.

That leaves the .243, which has a great selection of both ammo and rifles.  Light recoil so that you will be able to shoot it at the range or bomb up a mob of goats without getting bashed up, enough gun to kill large red stags if you take sensible shots.

Some other calibres have lowish recoil to such as .260 and 25/06 but ammo and rifle selection is small.  And ammo probably quite expensive (I reload so not sure on factory ammo prices these days).

Go the .243!

----------


## northdude

A handful of guys I know and have been out with that spend more time hunting than quiet a few of us put together including me just use 308 its not very trendy but it just does the job they are one rifle guys who don't have a collection for every different animal they will shoot and they just use factory ammo  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## DanS

Exactly what deer243 said, totally agree, start smaller and learn to shoot, .243 is an awesome round or .223 for that matter. No need to go big ... Worst thing you could do is jump into a big caliber like a .270 . 308 and develop a flinch

----------


## blake

.243 all the way man. Hornady 95g sst's and go hunting.

----------


## veitnamcam

308 is not a "big" or hard kicking caliber. Thousands of kiwi hunters learnt to hunt and shoot with lightened 303 smle with steel or brass butplates.

308 is a fantastic learners caliber,cheap ammunition available anywhere and modest recoil. 

However for mostly goats I would recommend the 223 even cheaper to shoot and almost non existent recoil while still being plenty of power for the job.

----------


## Spudattack

I always laugh at a .308 or .270 being referred to as a big banger or big kicker! Seriously, harden up!

----------


## timattalon

Neither. Both are good but there are so many out there. By the sound of it, you have not done a lot of shooting yet, would that be correct?




If this is the case, there are a few things I would suggest you consider. Price and availability of ammo. More common and cheaper to shoot calibres mean more affordable to spend time at the range getting familiar and accurate with whatever calibre you get. I would suggest 308 would be one of the most common but there are others.

Secondly get something that wont beat your shoulder up to start with. If you start out with 270 or 30/06 or a magnum (7mmRem etc) then the likelihood of you developing a flinch is higher and this will have a negative impact on your accuracy.

308 would be my first choice if I was in your situation. Easy to source a wide selection of ammo, capable of more than you re asking.
6.5x55 would be a close second. It has very similar performance to a 308 but recoil seems lighter making it easier to shoot accurately.
243 is still capable but is perhaps not a suitable than the above. shot placement is more critical, but with lighter recoil accuracy is usually easier.
7mm08 is so similar to 308 that it may as well be the same except the ammo tends to be dearer as the selection of cheaper brands like Barnaul etc are not available in that calibre though there is nothing wrong with the 7mm08 and with its increased popularity, there is quite a range out there for it.

Finally there is a mosin nagant listed on this forum for $500 that would well be worth a look at. A bit heavier to carry, but capable of handling anything from 130gr to 220gr projectiles. Barnaul make a 203gr Soft point that works well in these.

To all the haters out there that will say 270 is brilliant, I am not saying that any calibre is not capable of what he is asking it to do, but pointing out there are different points to consider when looking for a first rifle. 





> Are you for real? Don't you work it in sports/hunting shop??(correct me if im wrong) What a load of nonscense. Firstly, for what he wants to use it for the most suitable Cal would be the 243, or 223 .Its for goats for and a once in a blue moon hunt for deer...243 is ideal, or a 223. Secondly, you suggesting a 243 or 270 isn't as common for availability for ammo etc...of cause they are, what planet are you on.
> Without a doubt, for a first rifle for what you want and next to no recoil, the 243 is perfect, as it gives some room for error and gives you some distance over the next best choice a 223.
> Go to a 6.5 ? 308 ?270 when you decide to hunt deer full time if you wish but if you shooting 0-250m the 243 will be perfect for that too.



Please re read the post. You have clearly misread what I said somewhere. Yes, there is plenty of 243, and 270 ammo about and they are not uncommon calibres. Yes I said all those calibres will do what he wants. Yes I did suggest lighter recoiling calibres for goats and I did not say that 243 or 223 were not capable of killing deer. 

What I suggested was that it sounds like he is fairly clearly a newer shooter if he is asking this question. And if that is the case, accuracy will benefit from plenty of practise and learning to shoot. Practise does not come cheap when ammo costs $2 to $4 per round for premium ammo for calibres like the 270 and 243 in comparison to 223 or 308 with the likes of Barnaul, or mil surp. If you go into ANY sports shop and see how many DIFFERENT choices and prices for the 270 and 243 and compare that to 308 and 223. How many can you get for $1 per round? 223 yes, 308 yes, 7.62x54R yes, 270 Ummm Nope, 243 Nope again. 

To be very clear and so you dont misunderstand again. if choosing between 270 and 243, yes the 243 would be a far better choice than the 270.  Ideal even. But for a newer shooter, I usually start them with my 223 then my 308 and give them plenty of Barnaul to get them used to the gun. If recoil becomes something they struggle with then I drop back to something like 243 or 6.5x55 which has lighter recoil but still effective on what they are using it for. For big reds and a newer shooter 243 would not be my first choice simply because I think there are better options available. Butt would not be my last choice either. 

It would all depend on what is priorities are? Is price a concern? Ammo price? Or is it simply which will work better?

----------


## Tommy

You could do a lot worse than this

Tikka M690 RH 6.5x55SE | Trade Me

Maybe a tad more expensive on ammo, but it's not exactly a bankbreaker of a round, and there's probably several chaps on here who would help you load for it, making it lots cheaper. Just my $0.02

----------


## Ryan

> By the sound of it, you have not done a lot of shooting yet, would that be correct?


Lolz  :Psmiley:

----------


## northdude

> You could do a lot worse than this
> 
> Tikka M690 RH 6.5x55SE | Trade Me
> 
> Maybe a tad more expensive on ammo, but it's not exactly a bankbreaker of a round, and there's probably several chaps on here who would help you load for it, making it lots cheaper. Just my $0.02


shit thats nice im a 6.5 man

----------


## Danny

243 over a 270 and there are many reasons for that decision.

----------


## Micky Duck

if you are mainly looking at goats the .223 is great and cheap to run as is the .308 or the 7.62x39mm if ranges are going to be short.

----------


## BushHunter

7.62x39 or 44mag will do the damage on goats deer an pigs at close range and be cheap to run too. Other wise slightly longer ranges 243 708 or 308 or 3006 if ya feel the need. Not 270 or a tikka.

----------


## MB

> Neither. Both are good but there are so many out there. By the sound of it, you have not done a lot of shooting yet, would that be correct?


Lots of shooting with shotguns, air rifles and now rimfire, but no, no experience of centrefire, hence the question  :Have A Nice Day: 

I'm not planning on buying a gun tomorrow, want to get more experience with the rimfire first and have a good long think about my options.

Thanks for the all the advice.

----------


## Ginga

223. Good for rabbits, hares, goats and deer out to sensible ranges. And ammo at half the price of 243 makes it easier on the pocket.

----------


## big_foot

Definately .308 i just got a 100 rounds from the russians in wanganui for $118 including postage and I rate that shit over a lot of brands youll pay $40-50 for 20. Recoil isnt noticeable.

If your a new shooter and planning on shooting goats its most likely after your first shot, the rest of your shots will be either trying to hit a moving target or making a quick shot while the animal pauses, bigger calibers dont make you a better shooter but they give you a bigger margin of error.

In terms or meat damage a bigger caliber is not necessarily going to bugger your meat, for instance I shot a 60lb pig on friday night, 50m broadside on straight behind the shoulder, slotted perfectly between 2 ribs, obliterated the internals, no exit 0% damage.

Ive owned 223, 243 and 270 before i got a .308 and never looked back, ill be the first to tell you Im not a perfect shot but the my current rifle- rem700 sps 308 with factory iron sights hasnt failed to drop anything ive pointed it at in the last 7 years :Thumbsup:

----------


## sako75

If you read the original post he said between 243 and 270
That leaves either 308 or 6.5
I would go the 6.5 for accuracy, reliability and cost/availability of ammo

Remember opinions are like arseholes

----------


## Happy

The top one 308 T3 Tikka. Short as . Gunworks specially build suppresser. 125 Noslers going real fast
Light as ,accurate as and hits real hard . Also loves the Belmont HP 130s
Nothing survives this baby !! Shoot off the shoulder no problems . 
Recoil non existent with light fast loads. A not too expensive semi custom 
very usable and accurate .



The bottom is same but not as short or cool as the top one

The Belmont ammo is so cheap I have been  known to shoot Rabbits with it

----------


## stretch

Just buy my 6.5 and get the ball rolling. Will chuck in a box of 139gn  to get you started. Plenty of reloading options if you wish to get into that side of things down the line, from 95gn to 160gn.

http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...ad.php?t=25232

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## rockland

Hey MightyBoosh, I agree with the guys who say "don't go too big too soon" but if you've done a lot of shotgun shooting you will likely know how recoil-sensitive you are.

I'd say it's between the .223 .243 and .308...only reason I leave the .270 out is that it burns a lot of powder for the bore size and will be hard on your barrel if bombing-up goats. Speaking from experience!

If you hate recoil and want to shoot a lot of cheap ammo get a .223

If you tolerate recoil OK and want to shoot a lot of cheap ammo get a .308

If you don't mind a little bit of recoil and want the ideal calibre for goats + odd deer get a .243...ammo is more expensive. Try the Partizan or Highland or Winchester "3 boxes for $90" deals.

Perhaps someone could let you shoot a typical lightweight .308 (eg.Tikka T3) and see how you go.

----------


## chainsaw

600 Nitro Express ??  :Pacman: 
243, 25-06 or 6.5x55 or 260 would be my pick

----------


## timattalon

> Just buy my 6.5 and get the ball rolling. Will chuck in a box of 139gn  to get you started. Plenty of reloading options if you wish to get into that side of things down the line, from 95gn to 160gn.
> 
> FS: Carl Gustaf M38 6.5x55
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk



That actually is a better idea than it sounds. That's a very good price for a 6.5x55, its a great calibre, and would be ideal for most game in NZ. And if the original poster wants to trade up there wont be a lot of $$$ lost as at that price, its worth keeping as a spare.


Bloody good idea.

----------


## jackson21

I'll chuck a vote for 308 as your first center fire with a 20" barrel plenty of great rifles new or secondhand. 
If you have a look around you can pickup 308 ammo for same price as 223. Get some Winchester 147 fmj and Barnaul SP for around a buck a pop for plenty of fun practice and goats. Splash out on some hornady super-performance for the deer.  
Have this as your hack rifle, get a 223, 243, 270, 6.5 or whatever you fancy later on....the list is endless.

Although there is some validity to learning with a lighter shooting calibre it can also teach you bad habits in not holding firearm correctly due to lack of recoil, of course know one will admit to this.

----------


## hunt_fish

If it's mainly goats go for 223. Quality ammo is dirt cheap. If you actually want to start shooting deer (ie more than a couple a year) then I'd get a 308 - you can get dirt cheap ammo for the goats and you can get some higher quality ammo for when you go deer stalking. Like they said above... Opinions are like arseholes...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Tararua Phil

Jw 103 has been a good, reliable killer of both goats & deer where we hunt & I've only used Norinco FMJ so far. My hunting companion uses the Barnaul sp which helps in the tissue damage dept. The JW does need a bedding job though to get the best out of its accuracy. I found the 223 a bit light on the deer unless you place the shot well, & the 308 is over gunned for goats IMO. Most shots done in NZ bush are out to 200yds anyway.
Good luck in your search.
Phil.

----------


## Rusky

What? 200 yards in bush? Try more like 30 yards.

----------


## Tararua Phil

We often see deer @200yds+ across gullies etc while bush stalking goats. Too far "FOR ME" to kill reliably with my 223 so use the JW 103 Bisley 7.62x39 or Sako260 instead. Too expensive to shoot goats solely with the 260 though, even with reloading.

----------


## 7mmwsm

> What? 200 yards in bush? Try more like 30 yards.


Beech forest creek beds, slips and gully heads it's quite common to stretch out to a 200.

----------


## rossi.45

> We often see deer @200yds+ across gullies etc while bush stalking goats. Too far "FOR ME" to kill reliably with my 223 so use the JW 103 Bisley 7.62x39 or Sako260 instead. Too expensive to shoot goats solely with the 260 though, even with reloading.


you need to try different bullets for your .223  -  my experience is 200yds is a comfortable range with an accurate .222/.223  -  bullet placement is everything.

----------


## deer243

> you need to try different bullets for your .223  -  my experience is 200yds is a comfortable range with an accurate .222/.223  -  bullet placement is everything.


Like he said," For Me" 200yards is too far to kill reliably with his 223 and I doubt different bullets is the answer for him. A 223 can kill a deer at that range ok, but its certainly pushing it for the genral joe blog as bullet placement has to be spot on and a 223 just loses to much energy at that range. Far better to go up in Cal if you going to shoot at that sort of range and even longer so hes on the right path.  A 223 has under the recommened energy required to kill mediuem size game at 200 yards so its wise to move up in Cal to make sure of certain kills.

----------


## 300_BLK

7.62x39

----------


## Marty Henry

Need to have a range day so he can try all the recommendations made so far, that'll sort the wheat from the chalf.

----------


## MassiveAttack

The only sensible answer to this question is buy a AR-15 with all the bells and whistles.  Then buy extra uppers in 7.62x39 and 300 blackout and you should be set for any occasion.  Anything else is old school.

----------


## Marty Henry

> The only sensible answer to this question is buy a AR-15 with all the bells and whistles.  Then buy extra uppers in 7.62x39 and 300 blackout and you should be set for any occasion.  Anything else is old school.


Just about the most sensible suggestion yet!

----------


## chrome

.223 all day for the goats.   If you only occasionally want a deer hunt. Borrow something off ya mate until you decide you want to, or can afford to buy a second rifle. 


Sent from the swamp

----------


## deer243

> If I was starting out, off the shelf cheap and cheerful would be the go so a .270 would be out and so would the .243.  Used both, the .270win kicked harder than one of them silly Aussie hopping animals and the muzzle flash could be seen from the International Space Station.  The .243 lead to a lost deer and two lost pigs, that was with reasonable quality ammo and all were solid heart/lung/boiler room placed shots - at around 125m range standing animals.  
> 
> I was spotting all three shots and saw impact points with video for two, after that the thing was retired to a rabbit gun.  Found one pig the next day, about 200m away in a gully dead.  Did it's job, don't get me wrong - but if I'm going to shoot something I want to recover the thing.  (stands back and waits for the herd to start bellowing)
> 
> Being all serious, I would not be concerned what the actual caliber was as long as it was a short action rifle - and the gun fits well (I mean actually fits the shooter well we know nothing yet about his frame size, LH or RH).  A good quality scope, and a decent suppressor would be my next two recommendations.  Anything in .308, 7mm-08 basically.  No to the -06-length cases just due to cost of ammo and the lesser selection available (or at least around my area).  The types of ammo that are most easily available in quality ammo are .223, .308, 7mm-08, 7mmRM and maybe .300WM with a lesser selection of .270 and .30-06 with some steel case 7.62x39.  And a .22LR rifle.


Well clearly the ammo was shit or the shots weren't placed where you thought they actually hit as with the 243 ive shot nearly all my animals with one. 100gr powershoks and havnt lost one animal yet with the 243. Missed a couple here and there, but never hit one and had any issue with it not dropping, that includes darn good size stags (shoulder /chest shots, biggest over 126kg totally dressed out, no head, ) plus a couple of good size boars.  Right ammo and around that shoulder area it works amazing out to a pratical range (0-250m). :Thumbsup: 

PS  some of that top ammo isn't always the answer either and doesn't perform, I started out using norma 100gr 243 ammo and it was crap. Struggled at times to knock over goats, often requiring a second shot. Soon as I changed never had anything not go down, includes dozens of goats, too many deer to remember, stags, pigs.

Lets face it, theres lost animals with most Cals, always hearing some story of the one that got hit that got away. Its all about shot placement and the right projectile for the range and game. Ive lost one deer this year, hit with the 308, thought shot was good but the fact is it cant of been as good as I thought or it would have not escaped .  Too many have a bad experience with something, then rubbish it, its nonsence

----------


## Rusky

I'm in the same boat as you deer 243.  I'm even more careful as my rifle of choice on most occasions is the 223 so shot placement is everything. I've shot a stag out to 180m and dropped him. I've also shot another stag across a river late last year with a well placed neck shot and it went belly up. All other deer have been shot in the bush and gone no further then 20-30m. It's not what you shoot with its how you shoot that matters!

----------


## southernman

this thread has been running a bit now, 
 I wonder what sort of country mighty Boosh is hunting, open or tight bush, and if there are deer and pigs, in his goat hunting area's. 
 My pick would be a .222 or .223 for goats, and if its open country with longer shots, and deer around a 22-250 or .243, bit more expensive but both much more capable.
 In thick bush country, 3030 or a 7.62x39 bolt action, be both cheap to run, work fine on intended game.

----------


## rossi.45

the problem with the lighter calibers is there is a HUGE difference in killing power depending on what bullet you use . . . the bigger .308s etc have bullet weight which balances out things in there favour . . sadly most shooters are cheap when it comes to ammo . . then recoil to worry about  . .. and if it all turns to custard the gun / caliber gets blamed . .. i wish people would learn good marksmanship skills ( real ones not shooting off the bench or cans n bottles ) and work their way up the caliber chain as skills developed, but everyone is in a hurry.

----------


## 260hunter

> We often see deer @200yds+ across gullies etc while bush stalking goats. Too far "FOR ME" to kill reliably with my 223 so use the JW 103 Bisley 7.62x39 or Sako260 instead. Too expensive to shoot goats solely with the 260 though, even with reloading.


Nah mate the 260 is the ducks nuts on goats and deer. 120 gr corelocts are $99 for 200 so cheaper than most projectiles and work a treat on all the game discussed including bull tahr

----------


## Shearer

Yep. 260 is a great cartridge for goats.

----------


## jackson21

May have to go back to start of post....guy is just after a rifle to knock some goats over and still capable of a good deer rifle, in assuming a beginners hands?
 Doesn't mention any desire to also start out buying reloading gear, learning that art, developing precision loads for precision shots out of experienced hands with lighter weight calibers.
Maybe him in a few years time....?
All posts above are quite correct but maybe not for this guys situation, example 260 Rem is awesome calibre(had a 260 tikka and foolishly sold)but almost identical to 7mm08 or even its parent cartridge 308. You can get around 3 different types of factory in NZ, when you can get hold of it at magnum ammo prices so probably not a starting out round in NZ and be easier with something more common.
This man needs a common cartridge with some knockdown power 7mm08, 308 to cover his bases and allow for a few cock ups like we all have had.

----------


## deer243

> May have to go back to start of post....guy is just after a rifle to knock some goats over and still capable of a good deer rifle, in assuming a beginners hands?
>  Doesn't mention any desire to also start out buying reloading gear, learning that art, developing precision loads for precision shots out of experienced hands with lighter weight calibers.
> Maybe him in a few years time....��?
> All posts above are quite correct but maybe not for this guys situation, example 260 Rem is awesome calibre(had a 260 tikka and foolishly sold)but almost identical to 7mm08 or even its parent cartridge 308. You can get around 3 different types of factory in NZ, when you can get hold of it at magnum ammo prices so probably not a starting out round in NZ and be easier with something more common.
> This man needs a common cartridge with some knockdown power 7mm08, 308 to cover his bases and allow for a few cock ups like we all have had.


See, this is a problem with new shooters. Starting of with bigger Cals because you think you need more knockdown power to help with a few cock ups etc etc. What happens is a couple of things in my opinion.  Firstly, recoil can cause flinches, and secondly because the new shooter thinks they have some fire power shot placement isnt the  end all.  Results in missed and wounded game.
Like i already stated, a 223 or 243 is the best start you going to get. Little to no recoil, can hold it light like a 22 and they accruate..  Put those crosshairs on the exact spot, get in range to do the job and you going to have no fuck ups and dead anaimals.   
Then after you become a marks man, and rack up game move up to longer range shooting and bigger Cals.  Mastering the basics with the lighter CALs will have you suss for the Bigger Cals. We all started with .22, just seems natural way to go is go to a 223, 243 and learn shot placement then move up as shot placement is everything, including with the big boys

----------


## MassiveAttack

You are all mad.  None of these are a bigger caliber and with a suppressor none are unpleasant to shoot.  Anything from 223 to 416 rigby will do for that he has described so just pick a cailber based on ammo cost so choose 223 or 308.

If 223 then go get a AR15 cos they are no more expensive than a bolt action and they look a lot cooler.

----------


## StrikerNZ

> If 223 then go get a AR15 cos they are no more expensive than a bolt action and they look a lot cooler.


Twice the price of a bolt action of reasonable quality, noisier and more complex to operate, terrible triggers, things sticking out everywhere. Awesome.. at least they look 'cool' then.

----------


## jackson21

> See, this is a problem with new shooters. Starting of with bigger Cals because you think you need more knockdown power to help with a few cock ups etc etc. What happens is a couple of things in my opinion.  Firstly, recoil can cause flinches, and secondly because the new shooter thinks they have some fire power shot placement isnt the  end all.  Results in missed and wounded game.
> Like i already stated, a 223 or 243 is the best start you going to get. Little to no recoil, can hold it light like a 22 and they accruate..  Put those crosshairs on the exact spot, get in range to do the job and you going to have no fuck ups and dead anaimals.   
> Then after you become a marks man, and rack up game move up to longer range shooting and bigger Cals.  Mastering the basics with the lighter CALs will have you suss for the Bigger Cals. We all started with .22, just seems natural way to go is go to a 223, 243 and learn shot placement then move up as shot placement is everything, including with the big boys


Yes there are two trains of thought on this I guess, and not saying you are wrong.
A bad shot with any calibre is still going to be a bad shot regardless, I have .223's, 243, rifles etc but if I was only going to have one rifle it would be the 308 out of these. Hands down they do kill much more emphatically and they are not a heavy recoiling rifle using 150gr to the average sized kiwi bloke, the more people say this people will start believing it.
Answer to any flinching is more rounds down range, chuck 50-60 rounds of FMJ at range, cost you same as going to pub for a few hours in variety of shooting positions and there will be no flinch by the end and you will naturally start getting in behind it, other one is dry firing.
Ideally you would have a couple of cals, but sounds like he just after an all rounder.
Put this scenario, new shooter, spies a solid looking red deer at approx 250 meters in a clearing surrounded by solid scrub I know which cal I would want to bring the bacon.

----------


## deer243

> Yes there are two trains of thought on this I guess, and not saying you are wrong.
> A bad shot with any calibre is still going to be a bad shot regardless, I have .223's, 243, rifles etc but if I was only going to have one rifle it would be the 308 out of these. Hands down they do kill much more emphatically and they are not a heavy recoiling rifle using 150gr to the average sized kiwi bloke, the more people say this people will start believing it.
> Answer to any flinching is more rounds down range, chuck 50-60 rounds of FMJ at range, cost you same as going to pub for a few hours in variety of shooting positions and there will be no flinch by the end and you will naturally start getting in behind it, other one is dry firing.
> Ideally you would have a couple of cals, but sounds like he just after an all rounder.
> Put this scenario, new shooter, spies a solid looking red deer at approx 250 meters in a clearing surrounded by solid scrub I know which cal I would want to bring the bacon.


I agree to most of what you say. The ideal all rounder esp if you looking at the cheap ammo option as well would be a 308. I have one as a back up to my 243. There are ways to over come flinching as you state, and thats all good.
But is he really after a all rounder? He states he wants it mainly for goat shooting, with the odd once in a while maybe deer hunt. Certainly Cals are more suitable for certain situations.
I would have thought for goat shooting a 223 would be the first choice, far nicer to shoot mutli shots and cheap ammo. Still capable of knocking over a deer. second , and even better is a 243. great cal, will not only be great for goats but can be used no problems as a big game rifle . Its a all rounder only draw back is the range.  So you have a rifle that covers all your hunting out to say 250m.   
Seems to fit what he wants.  If he was doing more deer hunting, or a good mix of the two then the 308 is the way to go, because it gives you some more range and knockdown power .
But mainly for goats would you be blasting away with a 308 all day rather than a 223 or 243??
i know what i be using, horses for courses, and for a new shooter a 243 wins, then 223, then a 308 if you going to shoot more than just goats more often..buts thats just my opinion.   I use a 243 as my main rifle for deer, a 308 for a back up and for longer range, never used a 223 thou

----------


## Tararua Phil

If these 2 cals you've settled on are your only option then I'd go for the 243.


> As per title. It'll primarily be a goat gun, with the very occasional deer stalking trip, maybe once a year. Just started doing some reading and trying to decide between .243 and .270. Any thoughts?

----------


## MB

My simple question has generated lots of answers, thanks! I didn't consider metric calibres out of sheer ignorance, so some more to think about. 

Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?

----------


## veitnamcam

> My simple question has generated lots of answers, thanks! I didn't consider metric calibres out of sheer ignorance, so some more to think about. 
> 
> Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?


It is overgunned for goats.
Its waning popularity is due mostly to poor selection of high bc bullets in that bore size.

----------


## GravelBen

> Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?


It has noticeably more noise and recoil than some other options, without a real advantage to justify it. Nothing wrong with the way it kills animals, its just that more efficient options will kill just as well with a smaller case and less powder burnt.

More recoil is fine for shooters with decent technique to handle it, but there are plenty of inexperienced shooters who get a bit of a fright from a harder kicking rifle and develop a flinch - which throws their accuracy and shot placement to bits and ends up with missed or wounded animals instead of clean kills. Better to learn with something friendlier IMO.

----------


## Sideshow

My first two rifles where 270 which I sold due too not being able to handle the recoil.
Bad shooting technique, which then turned into a flinch.
Was much happier going too a 243.

----------


## Rugerman76

243 would be my recommendation.
It was my 1st rifle and I wish I never sold it, a Browning BLR 81. Was light and accurate as out to 250+ metres.
243 is very versatile round! it shares the same parent case as 308 & 7mm08 and as you develop your shooting you could later also develop lighter loads to suit goats and a heavier load for deer with something like a Hornady Sst projectile.
My 2 cents, good luck

----------


## Tahr

I haven't read through this thread. Not sure if the OP will hand load or not? For all of the bang, recoil and ammo expense I wouldn't touch anything bigger than a 243 for what is contemplated.

Barnes and bonded bullets combined with modern powders have revolutionised the .223. For goats and the odd deer out to 250-300 yards the .223 would fill the bill reasonably cheaply and efficiently I reckon. The kill zone of animal doesn't shrink because you are using a .223. You just need to actually hit.

A 55 grain Barnes TTSX doing 3.2k at the muzzle will go right through a Red at 250 yards, and flatten it. 
You can use cheaper bullets than the Barnes on goats, like the Hornady. You just need to fiddle a bit to get the 2 loads in sync.

----------


## bully

Tahr.
Where is your point of aim with the .223 at those distances on a red?
On the shoulder or behind?
The amount of deer I see you with in your threads I have no doubt you know what your talking about.

----------


## Micky Duck

> My simple question has generated lots of answers, thanks! I didn't consider metric calibres out of sheer ignorance, so some more to think about. 
> 
> Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?


 Im biased as I own a .270 and love it to bits...that said I bought a .223 to shoot wallabies as it was easier on shoulder,ears and wallet where 40 rounds for a day is normal
I now also own a 7.62x39mm which ticks same boxes for shorter range with heavier projectile giving better energy than the .223
if you are into reloading your .270 will do everything you can ask of a rifle,so will a .308
you can down load to 100grn pills for bugger all recoil or up to 160grn for big and angry up close or a reasonably sleak and fast number for longish range
the .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,the suppressor has tamed the cartridge recoil down to where it is fine to use.
yip factory fodder is hard on wallet if you are into bomb ups but if you fire 3 shots and kill two animals it is cheap. on par with 7mm/08 .243 30/06 pricewise.

----------


## deer243

> Im biased as I own a .270 and love it to bits...that said I bought a .223 to shoot wallabies as it was easier on shoulder,ears and wallet where 40 rounds for a day is normal
> I now also own a 7.62x39mm which ticks same boxes for shorter range with heavier projectile giving better energy than the .223
> if you are into reloading your .270 will do everything you can ask of a rifle,so will a .308
> you can down load to 100grn pills for bugger all recoil or up to 160grn for big and angry up close or a reasonably sleak and fast number for longish range
> the .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,the suppressor has tamed the cartridge recoil down to where it is fine to use.
> yip factory fodder is hard on wallet if you are into bomb ups but if you fire 3 shots and kill two animals it is cheap. on par with 7mm/08 .243 30/06 pricewise.



Have you had too many Beers :Thumbsup: . Quote .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,Un quote.    This is nonsence is it not .
Its a bit of a fairy tale that that Cal and others are classed as flat shooting when in the real world they still going to drop a reasonable amount when you get out to 300 plus.  You can sight any CAL to hit a animal at 400 yards but you not going to point and shoot at that range if its sighted at 100, or even 200m zero.
A 130 silvertip sighted at 100 yds is going to have a drop of 26 plus inches at 400 yards in a 270, and the list goes on. Even sighting a 150gr win at 275 yards zero(above a normal zero for most people) its still a 12 inch drop at 400.
Like i said, you can zero any Cal to hit 400 yards but even with a 270 you cant point and shoot without its zero being way over normal , they drop a good distance and if you actually compare different Cals theres not heaps in it to class something very flat shooting, esp with normal hunting rounds without hot reloads with light pills.
Plus lets be honest, the average Joe isnt shooting 400 yards, prob not even 300 yards, more like 0-250m tops.

----------


## southernman

> Have you had too many Beers. Quote .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,Un quote.    This is nonsence is it not .
> Its a bit of a fairy tale that that Cal and others are classed as flat shooting when in the real world they still going to drop a reasonable amount when you get out to 300 plus.  You can sight any CAL to hit a animal at 400 yards but you not going to point and shoot at that range if its sighted at 100, or even 200m zero.
> A 130 silvertip sighted at 100 yds is going to have a drop of 26 plus inches at 400 yards in a 270, and the list goes on. Even sighting a 150gr win at 275 yards zero(above a normal zero for most people) its still a 12 inch drop at 400.
> Like i said, you can zero any Cal to hit 400 yards but even with a 270 you cant point and shoot without its zero being way over normal , they drop a good distance and if you actually compare different Cals theres not heaps in it to class something very flat shooting, esp with normal hunting rounds without hot reloads with light pills.
> Plus lets be honest, the average Joe isnt shooting 400 yards, prob not even 300 yards, more like 0-250m tops.


Micky duck is mostly correct, but should have worded his shoulder at 400m better,
 270 is in the top 5 of deer rifle sales, mostly one or two position, for every rifle manufacture in USA.

270 is 90 plus years old, and the 375H&H is a 100 years, really what have 100 years,  of ballistic, advancements gained us, 5 %, 10 at most.

----------


## 7mmsaum

Tradition, is simply the same mistake repeated over and over again......

----------


## deer243

> Micky duck is mostly correct, but should have worded his shoulder at 400m better,
>  270 is in the top 5 of deer rifle sales, mostly one or two position, for every rifle manufacture in USA.
> 
> 270 is 90 plus years old, and the 375H&H is a 100 years, really what have 100 years,  of ballistic, advancements gained us, 5 %, 10 at most.


The 270 is up there in rifle sales but the number one selling is the 3006 in the Usa. The 308 is normally in the top 5 as well as the 223 plus a lever action as americans are in love with them..  You say he is mostly correct, but the fact is comparing a 270 to a 3006 and a 308 theres next to no difference in drop between the 3 out to 300 yards that matter, and out to 400 yards theres nothing to it with a 3006 and you only talking 2-4 inches on average between a 270 and a 308(all depends on whats being used).  Normal hunting ranges "flat shooting Cals""  the difference is so minor to the non flat shooting cals that in the real world its a myth .    My mate uses Rems 140 in his 270(assume a few do) and compared to my 150sst in my 308 theres no difference in drop at 400 yards. What matters most is the BC and energy that tell a round apart.
A 270 has the edge with the same weights but when you move up 165gr etc and larger in 3006 and 308 the 30 cals have it over a 270

----------


## Tahr

> Tahr.
> Where is your point of aim with the .223 at those distances on a red?
> On the shoulder or behind?
> The amount of deer I see you with in your threads I have no doubt you know what your talking about.


I have 2 loads. With the Barnes so long as its in the kill zone (hilar I think its called), they work. The max range I've used them is about 250 yards. But as the range increases the more I tend to move back from the bony shoulder to the lungs with my point of aim. The Barnes bullets are so effective I don't tend to fiddle so much with head and neck shots now.
I also use 69 grn Targex and the new 69 grn Sierra plastic tip. Have used them out to 300 yards and am more careful about making lung shots in the crease behind the shoulder.

The only reason I don't use my .223 a lot more is that you do need to limit your range to under 300, and where I tend to hunt that's not always possible. Plus I like the variation of using different calibers and rifles.

This is the exit from the ribs into the back of the off shoulder with a 69 grn Sierra plastic tip at 288 yards. Red spiker. It a bit yucky I'm sorry.

----------


## Tahr

MD is correct. Back before range finders (sort of prior to the 1980's) the .270 was probably the most respected longer range calibre. It was also before the internet, so long winded comparisons of calibers were not often made and we stuck to what we new.

Kills around about 400 yards were common enough, and this was because we sighted in our rifles to be _3" high at 100 yards_. We didn't crawl all over ballistic tables, but we did know that at 400 yards if we held on the top of the shoulder the bullet would strike into the kill zone about 12" lower. It wasn't difficult to do with an accurate .270.

----------


## GWH

> MD is correct. Back before range finders (sort of prior to the 1980's) the .270 was probably the most respected longer range calibre. It was also before the internet, so long winded comparisons of calibers were not often made and we stuck to what we new.
> 
> Kills around about 400 yards were common enough, and this was because we sighted in our rifles to be _3" high at 100 yards_. We didn't crawl all over ballistic tables, but we did know that at 400 yards if we held on the top of the shoulder the bullet would strike into the kill zone about 12" lower. It wasn't difficult to do with an accurate .270.


While I agree with all you've said there, how did you know it was 400 yds and not 350 or 450 without a range finder  

I've listened to my father recite stories for many years about shooting deer at 400 yds with his 'flat shooting' 270, well before the days of Lazer range finders.

Friday just gone I took him to the range to shoot the classic model 7 243 I got for him. After he put a few thru at 100 we went out to 300 yds to shoot my gong.

We got back to the 300 yd bench and he says 'bloody hell that's a long way, I've never shot a deer that far before'.

I had him on and reminded him of all his stories, he ended up admitting that in hindsight  all the 400 yd deer he'd shot years ago were very likey much closer  

The old boy didn't disgrace himself at 300 tho I must say.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

----------


## veitnamcam

I watched my dad shoot a fallow from a big rock to a clearing many years ago with his 223. It went about ten steps and rolled down the hill.
Many years later I have a range finder and we ranged it at over 500y.
Not recommended and there was probably a large amout of luck involved but shows what can be done with a 223 and a 4x scope.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

----------


## Tahr

> *While I agree with all you've said there, how did you know it was 400 yds and not 350 or 450 without a range finder*  
> 
> I've listened to my father recite stories for many years about shooting deer at 400 yds with his 'flat shooting' 270, well before the days of Lazer range finders.
> 
> Friday just gone I took him to the range to shoot the classic model 7 243 I got for him. After he put a few thru at 100 we went out to 300 yds to shoot my gong.
> 
> We got back to the 300 yd bench and he says 'bloody hell that's a long way, I've never shot a deer that far before'.
> 
> I had him on and reminded him of all his stories, he ended up admitting that in hindsight  all the 400 yd deer he'd shot years ago were very likey much closer  
> ...


We didn't. So that will explain the odd high shoulder hit, and the odd puff of dust at their feet.  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Micky Duck

the lack of knowing the actual range is where a accurate rifle sighted in (as said ) 3" high at a hundred comes into the equation it didn't matter if it was 350 or 400 you projectile was still going to connect and if you under estimated range it fell underneath .Ive shot a chammy with std 130 grn load 1st shot trimmed her toenails and 2nd dropped her like sack of spuds nearly 24" of drop in that case and sighted in 3" high at hundy. I recently shot a fallow 1st shot anchored it at over 400 and I finished it at 350ish both measured later on google earth.I don't normally take long shots and those two wee unusual for me. having confidence in your rifle helps,knowing where it shoots helps even more."how many footy fields away" was often used.

----------


## jackson21

> I have 2 loads. With the Barnes so long as its in the kill zone (hilar I think its called), they work. The max range I've used them is about 250 yards. But as the range increases the more I tend to move back from the bony shoulder to the lungs with my point of aim. The Barnes bullets are so effective I don't tend to fiddle so much with head and neck shots now.
> I also use 69 grn Targex and the new 69 grn Sierra plastic tip. Have used them out to 300 yards and am more careful about making lung shots in the crease behind the shoulder.
> 
> The only reason I don't use my .223 a lot more is that you do need to limit your range to under 300, and where I tend to hunt that's not always possible. Plus I like the variation of using different calibers and rifles.
> 
> This is the exit from the ribs into the back of the off shoulder with a 69 grn Sierra plastic tip at 288 yards. Red spiker. It a bit yucky I'm sorry.


Those Barnes 55gr look awesome but are kinda pricey @ around $1.40 just for projectile?  Are the 69gr Seirras you refer to TMKs? Look a better option for pushing range with 223 with better bc.
Have you tried 75gr Hornady BTHP on game by chance?

----------


## Tahr

> Those Barnes 55gr look awesome but are kinda pricey @ around $1.40 just for projectile?  Are the 69gr Seirras you refer to TMKs? Look a better option for pushing range with 223 with better bc.
> Have you tried 75gr Hornady BTHP on game by chance?


Yes, TMK. I haven't tried anything heavier than 69 grns. Only a 20" barrel. Yes. the Barnes are pricey but if you are using them on deer you don't use many. The TMK shoot to the same point as the Barnes from my rifle so I use the cheaper TMK on rabbits and for mucking around. I would be happy enough only using the TMK on deer if cost is an issue.

----------


## Lukeduncan

For shooting goats I would choose a .223 any day. Also .223 is a good calibre for deer as well. I have shot many deer using a .223

----------


## Timmay

> My simple question has generated lots of answers, thanks! I didn't consider metric calibres out of sheer ignorance, so some more to think about. 
> 
> Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?



your splitting hairs mate.

God Tier:
6.5x55
.260
7remmag
.308

Top Tier
.270
30.06
.223

Mid tier
7.62x39

Why would you even bother Tier
7mm08

You are a closet gay Tier
25.06

Everything else is not worth mentioning.










Only good for shooting Rats in the ear Tier
.243

----------


## Allizdog

> Are you for real? Don't you work it in sports/hunting shop??(correct me if im wrong) What a load of nonscense. Firstly, for what he wants to use it for the most suitable Cal would be the 243, or 223 .Its for goats for and a once in a blue moon hunt for deer...243 is ideal, or a 223. Secondly, you suggesting a 243 or 270 isn't as common for availability for ammo etc...of cause they are, what planet are you on.
> Without a doubt, for a first rifle for what you want and next to no recoil, the 243 is perfect, as it gives some room for error and gives you some distance over the next best choice a 223.
> Go to a 6.5 ? 308 ?270 when you decide to hunt deer full time if you wish but if you shooting 0-250m the 243 will be perfect for that too.


I agree. Nothing wrong with a 243. Many hunters use the 243 primarily for red deer with continuous great success. For what he wants, it would be the ideal calibre.

----------


## mucko

> As per title. It'll primarily be a goat gun, with the very occasional deer stalking trip, maybe once a year. Just started doing some reading and trying to decide between .243 and .270. Any thoughts?


get a semiauto 7.62x39 great for quick shooting of goats and a good bush rifle for deer.

----------


## Nathan F

Don't muck around. Just get a .338 or a 7mm ultra mag variant. Job done.

----------


## hotsoup

> Don't muck around. Just get a .338 or a 7mm ultra mag variant. Job done.


If he wanted to split goats in half he could just use an axe!

----------


## timattalon

> I agree. Nothing wrong with a 243. Many hunters use the 243 primarily for red deer with continuous great success. For what he wants, it would be the ideal calibre.


As mentioned, Yes, there is plenty of 243, and 270 ammo about and they are not uncommon calibres. Yes I said all those calibres will do what he wants. Yes I did suggest lighter recoiling calibres for goats and I did not say that 243 or 223 were not capable of killing deer.



To be very clear if choosing between 270 and 243, yes the 243 would be a far better choice than the 270. Ideal even. But for a newer shooter, I usually start them with my 223 then my 308 and give them plenty of Barnaul to get them used to the gun. If recoil becomes something they struggle with then I drop back to something like 243 or 6.5x55 which has lighter recoil but still effective on what they are using it for. For big reds and a newer shooter 243 would not be my first choice simply because I think there are better options available. But would not be my last choice either.

----------


## Micky Duck

the main selling point for either the .223 or the 7.62x39mm or even the mighty .308 is the cheaper ammo that is availiable for them. shooting goats or wallabies is great fun if you arent having to limit yourself as its $2+ each time you squeeze of a shot.....once upon a time the .270 was my only centrefire and it was common to use 40-60 rounds chasing wallabies for the weekend..it got plurry expensive when buying factory fodder for her.
hornady 50 packs have made the first 2 very good and barnaul caters for all 3.

----------


## Beetroot

My 260 is great on goats, shot one at 30 meters, dropped on the spot dead as a dead thing.

----------


## GravelBen

> My 260 is great on goats, shot one at 30 meters, dropped on the spot dead as a dead thing.


Funny that.

----------


## nor-west

Have you made a decision yet ? I have a lovely .243 with a leupold vx2 3-9 dies and brass for sale.

----------


## Tahr

> Have you made a decision yet ? I have a lovely .243 with a leupold vx2 3-9 dies and brass for sale.


Probably has...the thread started 15 months ago  :Thumbsup:

----------


## craigc

Best calibre I've ever used on goats was my .284; please don't disrespect them, they're just another big game animal/pest.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> The only sensible answer to this question is buy a AR-15 with all the bells and whistles.  Then buy extra uppers in 7.62x39 and 300 blackout and you should be set for any occasion.  Anything else is old school.


YEAH!

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Twice the price of a bolt action of reasonable quality, noisier and more complex to operate, terrible triggers, things sticking out everywhere. Awesome.. at least they look 'cool' then.


Price and accuracy = same for bolt gun. Yes a good trigger will cost you a little more. Better for goats with multiple 7 round mags that don't cost a million dollars each.

Noisier and more complex to operate?? Are you Australian?

----------


## Blisters

> Have you made a decision yet ? I have a lovely .243 with a leupold vx2 3-9 dies and brass for sale.


Pm me with details please

----------

