I'm in the market for either a Mark V or a Vanguard, and I can't decide between the .243 Win or the harder to come by .240 Weatherby Magnum. I was hoping someone on here might be able to tell me a little bit about these calibers and the differences in the rifles that shoot them (rifling characteriscs, etc.).

Thanks!

dont know about the guns you mentioned.. but a rem 700
in 243 it would be pick your target . head,,,lung ,, shoulder or sweet spot just over the shoulders.. this at 200 yds which i think im going to limit myself to..around here ill never get a chance to make a 200yd shot anyway ,,im thinking.. good luck on what you decide..

You can look up the ballistics for the .240 here:
http://www.weatherby.com/products/ammo.asp?prd_id=2

and the .243 here:
http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/


Weatherby and Remington use different sight-in ranges, so use the JBM program to compare them at the same range.
http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/traj_basic/traj_basic.html

Bye
Jack

My vote would be the Vangaurd in .243 due to cost, your talking quite a bit more money for a moderate increase in velocity.

The 243 win has less power but is way more popular and easier to get factory ammunition for. The 240 would shine for the handloader at the cost you would be spending for factory ammunition. The Mark V is the real deal in the Weatherby lines. Its cost will reflect that. The Vanguard has a 1 1/2" accuracy guarantee, and is very affordable. They can usually shoot 1" or smaller groups with proper ammunition anyways.

I have a rem 700 in 243, and had a vanguard 300wby. They were very close in accuracy, I think the rem was better. I know the rem was alot lighter. The decision for me would be easy, 243 win. I can buy 243's at any gun store and some general/convenience stores. I think I'd have to go to a weatherby dealer for 240 ammo. Think about it this way, your in the middle of montana huntin pronghorns and you become separated from, shoot up, loose or somehow come out of contact with your ammo. What is going to be easier to replace and get you back hunting again? If you handload you can get alot out of a 243, maybe not quite as much as a 240 though. I loaded up 100 rnds of 55gr. balistic tips and loaded them hot, boy were they the woodchucks enemy. Litterally ripped them in two, since I have stuck to shooting 100gr. pointed soft points. Good accuracy and good performance on everything from deer to chucks, and I don't have to check that I picked up the right ammo.

If you are a reloader I would suggest the .240 WBY. It has it all over the .243,especially in the heavier bullets(100gr+).

Not scanning the books but I would say it will shoot any bullet at least 300 fps faster than a .243.

As stated WBY has a accuracy guarantee and from what I've seen,most WBY's will outshoot it. My Accumark will shoot 1MOA out to 700yds.

The .240 is an interesting caliber. So is the .257. Both will absolutely hammer any game hit with them.-----pruhdlr

You will gain some speed with the Weatherby. Good cartridge both of them are. The difference won't show until extreme distance is involved.

I suggest you "weigh' the cost vs. gain for your intended shooting goal? Don't forget to concider the 6mm Remington!

Cheezywan

If you are a reloader I would suggest the .240 WBY. It has it all over the .243,especially in the heavier bullets(100gr+).

Not scanning the books but I would say it will shoot any bullet at least 300 fps faster than a .243.

As stated WBY has a accuracy guarantee and from what I've seen,most WBY's will outshoot it. My Accumark will shoot 1MOA out to 700yds.

The .240 is an interesting caliber. So is the .257. Both will absolutely hammer any game hit with them.-----pruhdlr
Plus having a cartridge that is so totally different than what others are shooting.

Handloading is a definate necessary here, though.

Owned a Mark V in .257 Weatherby, shot my largest whitetail to date, 252 lb. 11 pt., at 100 yards thru the woods. he went down like a pallet of bricks. Also owned a 6mm-06, ballistic twin to the .240 Weatherby, shot quite a few deer with that also, devistating on whitetail size game. Both of these calibers have lots of hydrostatic shock...........

It depends on what you are using it for. Varmints, deer?
The Weatherby is a great performer and you pay for it in the price of both rifle and more so in the cost and availability of ammo. The extra 300FPS will add a few yards to your shooting range but not as much as most people would think.
The old and proven .243 is a great little caliber with less noise and half the price for ammunition. It is also available any where you cam buy ammo.
If money is not an issue and you have a Weatherby dealer near you then it comes down to what are you shooting at and how far.
If it is varmints then the Weatherby advantage doesn't show up until about 300 yds.Both rounds shoot very flat out to there and then past that the .240 has an advantage. 300yds is my limit for shooting anything with anything.
If it is deer then both rounds are limited by the light 100Gr bullets. I wouldn't push either of them much past the 200yd mark and maby 250 with the .240. For shooting deer farther than 200yds I would go with a .25 caliber or bigger.
There is the novelty factor in owning something a little faster or a little different and if you can afford it thats up to you.

243 unless you are going to load for it. I have one and I love it. I have never had a problem being undergunned with it either

Thanks for all the information! You guys are really helpful. I live near a Cabela's, and they always have plenty of the Weatherby ammo...but it is definitely pricey! I'll probably go with the .243, but I just wanted to make sure there weren't any glaring differences.

Thanks for all the information! You guys are really helpful. I live near a Cabela's, and they always have plenty of the Weatherby ammo...but it is definitely pricey! I'll probably go with the .243, but I just wanted to make sure there weren't any glaring differences.

One more opinion for you - go with the .243 whether you reload or not. The .240 Weatherby is a cool cartridge, but not a good all around cartridge for beginners like the .243 is. (Since you're asking these questions, I'm assuming you are still a beginner, at least for small bore bolt action hunting rifles, no offense or insult intended. :) )

The .240 will burn out a barrel faster, it is expensive to buy ammo for, and it is more expensive to reload. It uses a much larger volume of powder than the .243, and while it does offer higher velocity, most 6mm bullets are designed to give optimum performance at .243 velocities anyway. My long range varmint rifle is a Benchmark barreled 6mm Remington Ackley, and partly because of the long barrel, it does equal or sometimes exceed published velocities for the .240 Weatherby. I find that some bullets don't like to be pushed full speed in this gun, for example the Speer 70gr TNT. My max load gives 3900 fps, but the label in the box says not to push them over 3550 fps.

The .243 will give you longer barrel life, better ammo selection, and more all-around versatility, with a little less muzzle blast and recoil. Recoil isn't usually an issue with the .243, but that's partly what's so great about it.

IF you do handload, I would personally go for the 6mm Remington over the .243 if you have the choice. If you don't handload, go with the .243.

One more opinion for you - go with the .243 whether you reload or not. The .240 Weatherby is a cool cartridge, but not a good all around cartridge for beginners like the .243 is. (Since you're asking these questions, I'm assuming you are still a beginner, at least for small bore bolt action hunting rifles, no offense or insult intended. :) )

The .240 will burn out a barrel faster, it is expensive to buy ammo for, and it is more expensive to reload. It uses a much larger volume of powder than the .243, and while it does offer higher velocity, most 6mm bullets are designed to give optimum performance at .243 velocities anyway. My long range varmint rifle is a Benchmark barreled 6mm Remington Ackley, and partly because of the long barrel, it does equal or sometimes exceed published velocities for the .240 Weatherby. I find that some bullets don't like to be pushed full speed in this gun, for example the Speer 70gr TNT. My max load gives 3900 fps, but the label in the box says not to push them over 3550 fps.

The .243 will give you longer barrel life, better ammo selection, and more all-around versatility, with a little less muzzle blast and recoil. Recoil isn't usually an issue with the .243, but that's partly what's so great about it.

IF you do handload, I would personally go for the 6mm Remington over the .243 if you have the choice. If you don't handload, go with the .243.

Thanks for the info. Yeah...you guessed it, i'm new to the world of rifles. I come from shotguns and handguns :)

hey 243, 257 and 260 are all geart! Well I'm off!

Little loading trivia-
You can run 25-06 brass up into your 240 Wby resizer die and it'll squeeze the belt on. Could make a difference in group size as it worked for me.

I have a Mk V in 240 Wby and I love the cartridge. The rifle is a beautiful peice of work, but, it is a very heavy rifle for the cal. that it shoots. I bought mine for Wyoimg goats and it gets pretty heavy pretty quick. I would go for the 243.

If you are going to hunt the wide open country for mule deer and pronghorn take a look at the Vangurd 257 Weatherby with a controlled expansion bullet it will also work on elk. Tell us more about what you plan on hunting.