.22 wmr

[DKGPestControl 22]

I have just brought a Ruger all weather .22wmr, I have a .17hmr and a .22lr also but wanted a bit more stopping power for foxes than the .17hmr.

Now i have been using the 22wmr Im not sure i will ever use the 17hmr again! I love it, the only trouble it getting hold of the rounds local to me as nobody holds them as stock! Grr.

 

Do any of you guy still use the wmr?

[paulus 26]

ive been thinking about one for a while now, be ideal for where i am, ive had the 17hmr and dont rate it as a fox round at all,(just my view)

[charlie caller 3,654]

yep I been thinking about one for a while as well,why would you want an hmr when the .22 is so much better, a mate of mine has one and uses the Hornady 30gn vmax in his and I have to say what a cracking little rifle,and of course,you can have a semi auto,

[dedger 16]

Our kid uses a WMR and has done for quite a while and the only critisism is the rounds bounce, they don't expand the same as the HMR and mainly when he is shooting crows or rabbits at range he has had the odd ricochet, luckily where our permission is there is nothing else around for miles.

[charlie caller 3,654]

Our kid uses a WMR and has done for quite a while and the only critisism is the rounds bounce, they don't expand the same as the HMR and mainly when he is shooting crows or rabbits at range he has had the odd ricochet, luckily where our permission is there is nothing else around for miles.

The vmax dont bounce mate.

[bob.243 8,993]

Trouble selecting a bullet, listen to this guy, watch to the end. http://www.google.co...357700187,d.d2k

[charlie caller 3,654]

Trouble selecting a bullet, listen to this guy, watch to the end. http://www.google.co...357700187,d.d2k

Well apart from the man being a certified lunatic,that was very informative,and backs up what I have said about Remington rf ammo for years,it is shite,wish he had tested vmax, he wouldent have been slagging them off, lol

[dadioles 68]

I am not speaking from first hand experience of the WMR as I have .22LR and HMR but the impression I get from this and other forums is that the WMR is a very capable round with considerable hitting power.

 

The HMR is certainly the most accurate (superb factory loads) and for me that is the most important thing as my quarry is mainly rabbit and I need accuracy at distance (1" or better at 100+ yards). My .22LR brilliantly covers the distance to yards after which my .22 groups begin to open up too much (more than 1" is too much), that is where the HMR takes over and with that my groups are good out to 120 yards or so for head shots and after that 150 yards with body shots. This is real world shooting off sticks, not a solid bench at the range.

 

Meat damage with the HMR can be massive, my preference is for head shots. Maybe the WMR is better in this respect as I doubt that it would fragment. I still have a feeling though that the extreme accuracy of the HMR would continue to make it my weapon of choice.

 

Talk about using any of the rimfire rounds as a routine bullet for foxing raises the question of suitability and legality as I doubt that many police forces will approve rimfire for foxes these days. The word "vermin" has not been tested in law (any volunteers to be the first case?) it is a fair bet that "vermin" does not include foxes and they need to be mentioned specifically against a weapon to avoid doubt.

 

Having had a fox attack my chickens, I will happily shoot one at up to, say, 50 yards with rimfire if only because I should be able to get off a second shot quite easily at that range. Given the fact that it is possibly illegal and questionably outside the wording of my licence (all a bit grey) I would do so discretely! Whether the HMR or the WMR would be more or less effective against fox I don't know. The HMR would virtually explode and leave a huge wound but not penetrate bone, the sheer mass of the WMR (40 grain) would do a fair bit of damage but there is greater risk of it passing straight through and not giving up all of its energy. Shoot a cow in the head with a .22LR from a few inches away and you have a dead cow even though its skull is enormously strong. Try it from any distance and the bullet is likely to bounce off.

 

If the WMR is only used for small prey, typically rabbits, I am tempted to argue that the HMR is a better choice because of its greater accuracy at longer ranges and the virtually explosive impact of the bullet is very humane. For a straight forward culling operation where meat damage is not an issue body shots with an HMR are very effective and compared to head shots the body presents a pretty big target.

 

There is not enough difference in the price of bullets to break the bank so maybe availability could be an issue.

 

I have never heard a WMR but expect that the noise will be similar to an HMR as they both break the sound barrier.

 

.22 is a bigger tube to clean than .17 so that is a bit easier.

 

I can only conclude by saying that I do not hanker after a WMR because the HMR does what I need it to do.

 

If foxes were my sport in open countryside I would use centrefire. Urban foxes are a different kettle of fish and the quietness of .22LR at close range is probably a good thing - if approved legally.

 

If I did not own HMR then I would certainly look at WMR but ultimately it is accuracy that counts for me and at 150 yards (figure from Chuck Hawkes) the HMR drops 2.6" and the WMR 5.8" with group sizes at 100 yards about twice as big with the WMR as with the HMR. I consistently group much better than 1 inch at 100 yards off a bipod with the HMR and it is rare to have a flier (Anschutz 1517 14" + Hornady 17gr V-Max).

 

Shooting is a great past-time.

[cyclonebri1 8]

I have .22 and hmr along with centrefire. Both rimmies are listed as for "vermin/fox/ground game, and range........etc"

 

Didn't ask for that specificaly. Derbyshire Police Auth.

[DKGPestControl 22]

I have a 243 but I'm pretty sure the local police would prefer for me to shoot in small back gardens as a professional with a .22 wmr or such like! Think the 243 is a bit of an over kill at 25 yards.

 

I have on my ticket under the rimfires that it may be used to dispatch foxes,

 

I have been using the 40gr cci maxi mag (as it was all I could get) then switched to the 25gr and 30gr hornady ntx and vmax rounds of which my rifle likes the 30gr vmax best. I zeroed at 40 yards and that it also then zeroed at 140 yards, Grouping was similar to the hmr with the vmax rounds but was fairly shocking with the hollow point at about 3" at 140yards.

 

I use most of my rabbits as fox bait so meat damage isn't really an issue how ever it does make a bit of a mess! I have only shot 2 foxes with the 30gr vmax rounds as yet both were about 90 yards and dropped on the spot, one was heart shot and one neck.

 

As for "bullets bouncing" I have had a few flyers with the hmr! Can't trust the vmax to always break up.

 

I have used the hmr on a 200yrd range at bisley camp and with it zeroed at 100yards the drop at 200yards was around 8-9" more than I expected and the wmr was about 6"

 

I think my hmr with be on gun trader soon!

[dadioles 68]

Another example of how each police area has a different policy.

It is interesting that the wording for DKG is "may be used to dispatch foxes" and I wonder if what they had in mind was the shooting of foxes at almost zero range while caught in a trap rather than use of the rimfire at longer distances. Things are never entirely clear and when some unfortunate person does get used as a test case they will need a fair bit of luck on their side.

 

I did not get on too well with the heavier HMR rounds and currently use 17gr but it is always good to keep an open mind.

 

Next time I talk to my local police firearms dept I must ask them about their views on rimfire and foxes as I rather expect that if I could make out a reasonable case based on need they would be open to allowing it.

[tegater 789]

The wording in the home office guidance, the document that the police work from, is perfectly clear when it says that there maybe some circumstances that rim fires are suitable for foxes.

No where does it say foxes cannot be shot with rimfires!

It does however say that applying for a rimfire for the purpose of foxes would not be good enough reason to approve the application. Common sense I think we all agree because there are better calibres out there for the job. What that means is that rimfires can be used without fear of prosecution.

Ask yourself this.....does it state on your ticket, that you cannot shoot foxes with a rimfire? Bet it doesn't! Which is probably why, as far as I know, nobody has ever been prosecuted for doing so!

 

 

 

 

[paulus 26]

i still fancy a 30cal whisper for fox, i did ask once :laugh: i carnt repeat the answer she gave me :laugh:

[dadioles 68]

The wording in the home office guidance, the document that the police work from, is perfectly clear when it says that there maybe some circumstances that rim fires are suitable for foxes.

No where does it say foxes cannot be shot with rimfires!

It does however say that applying for a rimfire for the purpose of foxes would not be good enough reason to approve the application. Common sense I think we all agree because there are better calibres out there for the job. What that means is that rimfires can be used without fear of prosecution.

Ask yourself this.....does it state on your ticket, that you cannot shoot foxes with a rimfire? Bet it doesn't! Which is probably why, as far as I know, nobody has ever been prosecuted for doing so!

 

I would like to think that you are right but fear that you are being rather naive. It is back to not wanting to be the "test case" in court and when society is being whipped up into a rather anti shooting frenzy I would not like to assume that the reasonable actions of the shooter would carry the weight in court that you and I might think they should.

 

Imagine shooting and wounding a fox with a .22 and being witnessed doing so by an anti. Maybe a second shot dispatches the animal or worst still perhaps the first shot killed it but the unseen witness elaborates somewhat on what really happened. The police get called and it is your word against theirs. Your licence then is examined in detail and given the politically correct and spineless nature of so many teflon coated people these days it reveals that you have not got fox on your licence. A good lawyer and deep pockets are now required and maybe your guns have been confiscated in the meantime, many months will now go by and you are stuffed even though you may win the case. On the other hand if your licence says "can shoot fox" - no problems.

 

 

The Home Office Guidance is just that - guidance. Your local police force is perfectly entitled to completely ignore it and create whatever conditions on your licence that they want to and it is those conditions that would apply in law. That is the problem, the "Chief Officer of Police" in your area defines the law and it varies from area to area and in many cases the wording on a licence is confusing, contradictory, imprecise and illogical.

Indeed, the local firearms officer is likely to be in a civilian role and may not know very much about firearms - extraordinary but true. The chances are that they do not have first hand knowledge of your type of weapon and may never have fired a rifle.

 

It would be a foolish person who failed to comply with the specific wording of their licence. If in doubt ask for it to be clarified (in writing!) or amended. Don't read into the wording what you want it to mean, that does not work in law. If it does not exclude foxes that does not mean that you can shoot foxes. Vermin does not include foxes (probably). If it clearly states that you can shoot foxes then all is well.

 

My certificate states:

 

5. (.17HMR & .22RF rifles, moderator, ammunition) "..... shall be used for shooting vermin and ground game ........"

6. (expanding ammunition) "..... shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife."

 

I do not assume that I can routinely shoot foxes based on that wording. Ground game is rabbit and hare, vermin is rats and pigeons etc. (General Licence). What exactly the bit about ".. in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife." means I am not sure but this would be my "get out of jail card" if I chose to shoot a fox that I inadvertently came across or humanely dispatched an injured deer or whatever.

 

"vermin" has never yet been defined in law - that is part of the problem. Certain individuals have been colloquially described as vermin but unfortunately we cannot shoot them.

 

Start by assuming that you do not have the right to own any firearms or ammunition or shoot at anything at all.

Now see your licence as granting you limited and strictly controlled privileges.

 

Life is too complicated.

Edited January 14, 2013 by dadioles

[tegater 789]

So the farmer who catches a fox killing his hens and only has a .22 with him breaks the law if fox is not on his ticket:laugh: