torn between

[matt_hooks 188]

Mike.

 

The .22lr is no more inherently unsafe then the .17. A .17 can, and will, ricochet. Anyone who is willing to take a possibly bouncy shot with a .17, that they would refuse with a .22lr, needs to rethink their shooting.

 

The police "know" that the .17 is safer? Really? This is the same police that firmly believe that a .308 is somehow more dangerous than a .243, because "it's a bigger calibre so must be more dangerous right?"

 

I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a safe rifle round, only a safe shooter. If you have the safe shooting aspect in place, then any round can be safe. It is dangerous to tell someone with little experience that a .17 is "safer" than another calibre, because if the soggy organic bit behind the butt points it in an unsafe direction then it's no safer, and the .17 will carry much further than a .22LR if pointed in the wrong direction.

 

To take one, admittedly tragic, but nevertheless vanishingly rare accident, and infer that the .22 is somehow more dangerous than the .17 moving at several times the velocity and three times the initial energy is nonsense.

[danw 1,748]

Mike.

 

The .22lr is no more inherently unsafe then the .17. A .17 can, and will, ricochet. Anyone who is willing to take a possibly bouncy shot with a .17, that they would refuse with a .22lr, needs to rethink their shooting.

 

The police "know" that the .17 is safer? Really? This is the same police that firmly believe that a .308 is somehow more dangerous than a .243, because "it's a bigger calibre so must be more dangerous right?"

 

I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a safe rifle round, only a safe shooter. If you have the safe shooting aspect in place, then any round can be safe. It is dangerous to tell someone with little experience that a .17 is "safer" than another calibre, because if the soggy organic bit behind the butt points it in an unsafe direction then it's no safer, and the .17 will carry much further than a .22LR if pointed in the wrong direction.

 

To take one, admittedly tragic, but nevertheless vanishingly rare accident, and infer that the .22 is somehow more dangerous than the .17 moving at several times the velocity and three times the initial energy is nonsense.

 

yep that will be the same people who tried to insist that I took the dsc when I wanted to change from a .243 to 26-06 even though I already had the .243 for deer their argument was that the 25 was more dangerous than the 243 1 call from the basc sorted that one

[masmiffy 82]

I recon if its mainly rabbits then, as has been said, .22 rimmy.

The 17HMR does give more 'range' but ammo is twice the price!

.222 is really overkill for rabbits will leave them in no fit state to eat and will kill your pocket!

[Squirrel_Basher 17,100]

All very well talking ballistics and carcass damage but what the lad needs to do is buy both .No one cal is an allrounder ,legally anyway so why be tied to the the one rifle .Just save up for the hmr then the .222 when ready ,simple .

[tegater 789]

Let's not forget this lad has space on his ticket for a .17hmr and a .222. I am not quite sure were the talk of a .22rf is coming from. The lad will quite clearly get more shooting done with a .17hmr on rabbits and pigeons than he will with a .222, and at considerably less price, and meat damage.

 

The other thing that needs to be considered is the environment different people shoot in. Up in the hills on sheep farms where I shoot, the .17hmr is far more use to me than a .22rf, and as far as wind goes, the .22 gets affected more than the .17hmr.

 

It isn't as easy as just suggesting a calibre without considering everything else.

 

I am not slagging off the .22rf as it is a great round, but unless I have missed something he hasn't got space on his ticket for one.

[charlie caller 3,654]

I would leave the hmr get a good serviceable .22 rf and the .222 the rimmy will do all you want on the bunnies ect and the .222 mustard on foxes ect and crows out to 300 yds , just so you know the hmr produces about 230ftlbs and the.222 around a 1000ftlbs,and is a very accurate round indeed, you do not need to spend 250 quid on a moderator for the .222 you should get a good used one for around a 100 quid,reloading will always produce a better round than factory if done properly, that said some good factory ammo like hornady ect will be accurate enough to do anything you need, cost should not matter too much, you wont fire that many out foxing and remember with your .222 you can shoot muntjac and water deer in England and wales and roe in scotland,just remember to get deer put on your ticket,best of luck pal get the .222 you wont regret it

[BunnyDoom 1]

I like my .17HMR but it is a noisy fecker and bady affected by the wind, the ammo's expensive, and barrel wear is an issue due to the number of rounds you'll put down it and the fact they're so fast and copper coated!

 

I use my HMR for foxing and the odd rabbit, but only because I have a .22!!! The HMR is an excellent choice for small game and the odd close-ish fox (up to 80yds), and it's my favourite gun simply because it's a small quick and flat round so I can just pull it up and shoot. As it fragments so easily nothing ever seems to run or twitch, and its doesn't bounce of hard ground like my 22 does in the summer/extreme cold.

 

My .22 is quieter than my air rifle, cheap to run, doesn't need cleaning (HMR's are an enigma with cleaning!), and with practice up to 100yds on small game is easy even with a little wind!

 

Personally if I were you I'd start with a .22 for small game and a 17HMR for long range small game and close range fox, and see how you get on - then if you don't like one of the rimfire's you can do a simple 1-for-1 variation and swap one of them for the .222, which is a free variation!

[Simonrees 45]

Here in South Wales we have a restriction whereby we can only shoot fox with a minimum of .223, so its worth taking that into account as he may have a restriction on his ticket stating what he can shoot with each caliber.

[Hawkeye. 26]

South Wales fox = min .223? I'm in Dyfed/Powys area , they granted fox with .222 about 7yrs ago . I now use a .204 for fox control which was granted with no problem , not to mention people who use the .17rem

[Simonrees 45]

South Wales fox = min .223? I'm in Dyfed/Powys area , they granted fox with .222 about 7yrs ago . I now use a .204 for fox control which was granted with no problem , not to mention people who use the .17rem

 

This is part of the problem there is no national standard, each Police Force can effectively make up their own rules.

[SportingShooter 0]

Here in South Wales we have a restriction whereby we can only shoot fox with a minimum of .223, so its worth taking that into account as he may have a restriction on his ticket stating what he can shoot with each caliber.

 

Not sure where the exact .223 calibre came from but never heard of any .22 centrefire from Hornet to .223 being refused for Fox. For instance I have a .222 which was granted without issue and before that I also had a Hornet. Then again, such is the inconsistency, my .17HMR is also conditioned on my FAC for Fox.

 

Until they put it in statute, the Home Office guidance will continue to be misinterpreted or ignored whenever it suits.

[TWOTWOTHREE 152]

 

My rifles from 22lr .17 hmr and 223 are all conditioned for fox, but in the next county things are different again they won't have rimmy on fox, it's complicated stuff ss I dont think any of high up The decision makers have a clue.

Atb

 

[The Seeker 3,048]

 

My rifles from 22lr .17 hmr and 223 are all conditioned for fox, but in the next county things are different again they won't have rimmy on fox, it's complicated stuff ss I dont think any of high up The decision makers have a clue.

Atb

 

Bang on as I have stated before on here .22rf and HMR is not permissible for fox in South Yorkshire