22LR .17HMR Fox?

[dadioles 68]

I asked about Muntjac because there are quite a few around here and they are something of a nuisance. Someone told me they were classed as rodents and not deer. That is wrong of course.

 

I'm guessing they/you meant vermin. They might be classed as Vermin (but their status as Deer takes priority) but they are definitely not rodents.

 

Hi Colster

No, he really did mean rodent. Something to do with teeth which meant they were more like rats than deer. It just shows how misinformation gets spread around. There are reports of escaped Capybara, and that is a rodent, being seen in the wild and they are a similar size to muntjac, although a different species. I wonder how our firearms legislation would deal with shooting a capybara? (smile).

 

Les

[danebrewer10 6]

I asked about Muntjac because there are quite a few around here and they are something of a nuisance. Someone told me they were classed as rodents and not deer. That is wrong of course.

 

I'm guessing they/you meant vermin. They might be classed as Vermin (but their status as Deer takes priority) but they are definitely not rodents.

 

Hi Colster

No, he really did mean rodent. Something to do with teeth which meant they were more like rats than deer. It just shows how misinformation gets spread around. There are reports of escaped Capybara, and that is a rodent, being seen in the wild and they are a similar size to muntjac, although a different species. I wonder how our firearms legislation would deal with shooting a capybara? (smile).

 

Les

 

true, there were capybara running around in the fens in norfolk a while ago but they were eradicated, not sure of any at the moment

[Colster 1]

I asked about Muntjac because there are quite a few around here and they are something of a nuisance. Someone told me they were classed as rodents and not deer. That is wrong of course.

 

I'm guessing they/you meant vermin. They might be classed as Vermin (but their status as Deer takes priority) but they are definitely not rodents.

 

Hi Colster

No, he really did mean rodent. Something to do with teeth which meant they were more like rats than deer. It just shows how misinformation gets spread around. There are reports of escaped Capybara, and that is a rodent, being seen in the wild and they are a similar size to muntjac, although a different species. I wonder how our firearms legislation would deal with shooting a capybara? (smile).

 

Les

 

true, there were capybara running around in the fens in norfolk a while ago but they were eradicated, not sure of any at the moment

Really? You're not thinking of Coypu, are you?

[RicW 67]

Yup, coypu. Capybara are big bugglers, around 100 lbs.

[dazzz 421]

first, considering the wording on your cert it looks OK

 

Humane? totally. provided you can place the shot accurately every time, a fox will die with a hole through his head and a scrambeled brain, mo matter what the diameter.

 

shot placement? I have shot 3 foxes with my HMR, one in the head at about 40m, right between the eyes, went down just like that, eyes bulging a tad, brain most definitely scrambeled,

the second, at about 40m, broadside on ( a small fox of that years litter) and right behind the shoulder, dropped like the proverbial stone,

and the third, again right behind the shoulder at about 20m, so close the crosshairs on the fixed 6 were a bit fuzzy, again dropped on the spot, not such a small fox this time, a largeish vixen.

 

anything further than 40m, I would definitely opt for the head shot, ideally looking straight on right between the eyes, side on (further than 40m), I'd go for right in front of the ear. no more than 100m away would be my max range I think

 

as for less than 40m, if it's a smaller fox with smaller less robust bones, then a broadside chest shot behind the front leg in the heart area will do the trick (remember aim small miss small!) and fron on ,I'd think one righ in from the front would knock him down, though I haven't tried this particular shot myself, if anyone could enlighten me there....

interesting that mate,,, it's somthing ive been pondering over, at the end of the day the hmr isnt the best calibre for fox but it will do a job,,, what ive found is if you shoot broadside then you need to place the shot without hitting the shoulder, i know

this is the norm but ive had a couple now that have hit the shoulder and not dropped the fox stone dead,, but give it a very bad flesh wound, luckily ive managed to put another into these fox's to finish the job, but it's only a matter of time before they get away and suffer, so a change in tactics and head shot's may be the way forward.....just to add i shoot nothing over 60m and not the 100 + m ive read about

[geordieh 74]

Legally it is fine to shoot foxes with either the .22lr or the 17hmr although morally some people are against it. I personally have shot alot of foxes with both calbres over the years and it is all down to distance and ability. Out to 50 yds with the 22 and 75yds with the 17. My mate has shot them at longer distances with his hmr but he is alot better shot than me. If we see one and we dont have one of the bigger rifles with us (which is very rare) it gets left for another night.

 

As for deer..... Muntjac and CWD (and roe in scotland) can only be shot with a minimumin .220 with a bullet weight of 50 grains, generating a muzzle energy of 1000FP. This is where the .220 falls short because it generates less than 1000fp. The smallest calibre is a 222 which generates just over 1000fp with a 50grain bullet. Larger deer require a minimum 240 generating 1700fp This is for shooting deer in England. I know Scotland and Ireland are different.

Sorry doddsy the 220 swift generates more energy than the 222 or 223 so is perfectly legal and very effective on small deer

Geordie

[cyclonebri1 8]

first, considering the wording on your cert it looks OK

 

Humane? totally. provided you can place the shot accurately every time, a fox will die with a hole through his head and a scrambeled brain, mo matter what the diameter.

 

shot placement? I have shot 3 foxes with my HMR, one in the head at about 40m, right between the eyes, went down just like that, eyes bulging a tad, brain most definitely scrambeled,

the second, at about 40m, broadside on ( a small fox of that years litter) and right behind the shoulder, dropped like the proverbial stone,

and the third, again right behind the shoulder at about 20m, so close the crosshairs on the fixed 6 were a bit fuzzy, again dropped on the spot, not such a small fox this time, a largeish vixen.

 

anything further than 40m, I would definitely opt for the head shot, ideally looking straight on right between the eyes, side on (further than 40m), I'd go for right in front of the ear. no more than 100m away would be my max range I think

 

as for less than 40m, if it's a smaller fox with smaller less robust bones, then a broadside chest shot behind the front leg in the heart area will do the trick (remember aim small miss small!) and fron on ,I'd think one righ in from the front would knock him down, though I haven't tried this particular shot myself, if anyone could enlighten me there....

interesting that mate,,, it's somthing ive been pondering over, at the end of the day the hmr isnt the best calibre for fox but it will do a job,,, what ive found is if you shoot broadside then you need to place the shot without hitting the shoulder, i know

this is the norm but ive had a couple now that have hit the shoulder and not dropped the fox stone dead,, but give it a very bad flesh wound, luckily ive managed to put another into these fox's to finish the job, but it's only a matter of time before they get away and suffer, so a change in tactics and head shot's may be the way forward.....just to add i shoot nothing over 60m and not the 100 + m ive read about

 

 

I can't claim to have shot many, but everyone that I've had a static shot at with the .22 has dropped like a stone. never tried a shot head on over the snout as I'd almost expect a ricochet??

Side on, somewhere twixt eye and ear works. Don't like body shots with the .22.

 

With a bit of field craft you get get some stupidly close shots that even the meagre 22 appears over gunned

 

Ps, the way my hmr is set up, the zero at 60 is the same as at 100 yds, not shot a fox with that though

Edited February 6, 2011 by cyclonebri1

[matt_hooks 188]

Talking about Coypu and Capybara, they are both alien species, so have no legal protection and are classed as vermin. I wouldn't fancy shooting a capybara with a .22LR though, big suckers they are!

 

All my rifles are conditioned for "'primary species' and any other legal quarry" so I can shoot just about anything that's not a deer with any of them. I also have a "any animal in the management of an estate" and "pest control" condition. It's a shame they then chose to tie it all up by giving me the restrictive condition "on land deemed suitable by the chief constable of police" but I hope to get that lifted soon as I'm putting loads of rounds through the rifles!

[danebrewer10 6]

I asked about Muntjac because there are quite a few around here and they are something of a nuisance. Someone told me they were classed as rodents and not deer. That is wrong of course.

 

I'm guessing they/you meant vermin. They might be classed as Vermin (but their status as Deer takes priority) but they are definitely not rodents.

 

Hi Colster

No, he really did mean rodent. Something to do with teeth which meant they were more like rats than deer. It just shows how misinformation gets spread around. There are reports of escaped Capybara, and that is a rodent, being seen in the wild and they are a similar size to muntjac, although a different species. I wonder how our firearms legislation would deal with shooting a capybara? (smile).

 

Les

 

true, there were capybara running around in the fens in norfolk a while ago but they were eradicated, not sure of any at the moment

Really? You're not thinking of Coypu, are you?

 

yeah probably, I was at marwell the other day and my head is filled with capybara, got them mixed up. coypu it was.....

 

first, considering the wording on your cert it looks OK

 

Humane? totally. provided you can place the shot accurately every time, a fox will die with a hole through his head and a scrambeled brain, mo matter what the diameter.

 

shot placement? I have shot 3 foxes with my HMR, one in the head at about 40m, right between the eyes, went down just like that, eyes bulging a tad, brain most definitely scrambeled,

the second, at about 40m, broadside on ( a small fox of that years litter) and right behind the shoulder, dropped like the proverbial stone,

and the third, again right behind the shoulder at about 20m, so close the crosshairs on the fixed 6 were a bit fuzzy, again dropped on the spot, not such a small fox this time, a largeish vixen.

 

anything further than 40m, I would definitely opt for the head shot, ideally looking straight on right between the eyes, side on (further than 40m), I'd go for right in front of the ear. no more than 100m away would be my max range I think

 

as for less than 40m, if it's a smaller fox with smaller less robust bones, then a broadside chest shot behind the front leg in the heart area will do the trick (remember aim small miss small!) and fron on ,I'd think one righ in from the front would knock him down, though I haven't tried this particular shot myself, if anyone could enlighten me there....

interesting that mate,,, it's somthing ive been pondering over, at the end of the day the hmr isnt the best calibre for fox but it will do a job,,, what ive found is if you shoot broadside then you need to place the shot without hitting the shoulder, i know

this is the norm but ive had a couple now that have hit the shoulder and not dropped the fox stone dead,, but give it a very bad flesh wound, luckily ive managed to put another into these fox's to finish the job, but it's only a matter of time before they get away and suffer, so a change in tactics and head shot's may be the way forward.....just to add i shoot nothing over 60m and not the 100 + m ive read about

 

that's the thing you have to avoid the large leg bone with the HMR as the bullet is so small, plus you need all the velocity you can get to create the shock and so that the bullet fragments have enough energy to do the job, hence the 40m body shot max range, anything further, like I say a head shot is a must, plus absolutely still conditions and a rock steady rifle as you know as well as I that that teeny bullet does get blown around a tad, fine if you're after rabbits, but it really dosen't have any energy to pare if you screw the shot up.

[dazzz 421]

spot on dane,,,, ive heard it a few times of lads shooting 100m +,, thats just stupid, the little pill isnt upto it, i dont care what

anyone say's... i find it a bit more of a challenge to be honest to get them within a decent range,,,, if you want anything over 60m then get the clibre for the job,,,,, .222 or 22.250

[Colster 1]

All my rifles are conditioned for "'primary species' and any other legal quarry" so I can shoot just about anything that's not a deer with any of them. I also have a "any animal in the management of an estate" and "pest control" condition. It's a shame they then chose to tie it all up by giving me the restrictive condition "on land deemed suitable by the chief constable of police" but I hope to get that lifted soon as I'm putting loads of rounds through the rifles!

 

I'm in a similar situation, I lost my air-rifle moderator slot when I put in a variation a few months back. I'm applying to get it back and in the covering letter included a request to have my FAC Air and Rimfires opened. Let's hope they look kindly on us both.

[RicW 67]

I think we may be getting at cross purposes here guys. All .22 centrefires are ".220" calibre. The ".220 Swift" is the most powerful of them all. It's a quarter-mile fox dropper. .222, .223, .22-250, .220 Swift are all the same calibre.. The chambering is very different. Remember that "calibre" is defined as the internal diameter of the barrel measured across the lands. For example, .243, 6mmbr, H&H.244, Weatherby Magnum .240 are all the same calibre. Very different ballistics though!

[doddsy1970 9]

Legally it is fine to shoot foxes with either the .22lr or the 17hmr although morally some people are against it. I personally have shot alot of foxes with both calbres over the years and it is all down to distance and ability. Out to 50 yds with the 22 and 75yds with the 17. My mate has shot them at longer distances with his hmr but he is alot better shot than me. If we see one and we dont have one of the bigger rifles with us (which is very rare) it gets left for another night.

 

As for deer..... Muntjac and CWD (and roe in scotland) can only be shot with a minimumin .220 with a bullet weight of 50 grains, generating a muzzle energy of 1000FP. This is where the .220 falls short because it generates less than 1000fp. The smallest calibre is a 222 which generates just over 1000fp with a 50grain bullet. Larger deer require a minimum 240 generating 1700fp This is for shooting deer in England. I know Scotland and Ireland are different.

Sorry doddsy the 220 swift generates more energy than the 222 or 223 so is perfectly legal and very effective on small deer

Geordie

 

 

Cheers Geordie........ You learn something new everyday....I stand corrected.

[matt_hooks 188]

Possibly you're confusing the .220 swift (a 4000fps, 1800ft.lb beast of a round) with the .22 Hornet (pushing out a not to be sneezed at, though not deer legal, 800ft.lb)

 

All of the .22 calibre centre fire cartridges fire the same .224" diameter bullet, albeit at a wide variety of weights, speeds and energies.

[doddsy1970 9]

Possibly you're confusing the .220 swift (a 4000fps, 1800ft.lb beast of a round) with the .22 Hornet (pushing out a not to be sneezed at, though not deer legal, 800ft.lb)

 

All of the .22 calibre centre fire cartridges fire the same .224" diameter bullet, albeit at a wide variety of weights, speeds and energies.

 

No i just believe I got it wrong ...... I honestly thought the 222 was the smallest round for deer.... What are the bullet costs for the .220 Swift against a .222