Fox Control With A .22

[walshie 2,804]

Being a competent shooter surely is based on "being a good shot" AND being able to make a judgement call on what is a humane distance depending on the tool in hand. I don't think you can have one without the other and advocating a larger calibre to make up for lack of ability is IMO ludicrous.

 

Where would it end? A Howitzer for a really poor shot?

 

There is a tool for everything, and a place for each calibre, dependent on circumstances.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Being a competent shooter surely is based on "being a good shot" AND being able to make a judgement call on what is a humane distance depending on the tool in hand. I don't think you can have one without the other and advocating a larger calibre to make up for lack of ability is IMO ludicrous.

 

Where would it end? A Howitzer for a really poor shot?

 

There is a tool for everything, and a place for each calibre, dependent on circumstances.

 

Isn't that exactly what we do though? Otherwise how can you justify a 243 for foxing over a 222? Or a 30-06 for stags over a 243? Surely the point in having 'more gun' is to make precision less important........... within reason. Let's face it, someone with high level of skill could kill everything in this country with a 22 Hornet, but we allow more powerful calibres to compensate for people not being exceptionally skilled.

 

Why take a hmr for a guaranteed 100 yard fox when you can take the 222 and just make life easier? I'm definitely a fan of using as much gun as you can within reason, taking into account any drawbacks of the larger calibre.

 

I don't think the answer is at either extreme, it's a compromise.

[walshie 2,804]

BH - making life easier and making up for lack of ability are 2 different things.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

BH - making life easier and making up for lack of ability are 2 different things.

 

I don't really differentiate to be honest mate. Like I said, I don't have the ability to kill everything in this country with a 22 Hornet, the HO recognise that and grant a larger calibre. A Larger calibre makes for a bigger kill zone or at least a less 'energetic' animal if a shot is misplaced.

 

If someone doesn't have the ability to head shoot foxes at 100 yards with a hmr, without a significant rate of wounding then why shouldn't they be granted a 222 etc so they can point at anything in front of the diaphragm and kill it?

 

It's widely accepted that the 243 is perfectly enough gun in the right hands to kill stags, yet many would prefer more gun to make up for cock ups and people of less skill.

 

Just my view on it all.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Born Hunter

[Tornado1979 145]

Thought I'd log on after to see what's going on, it's been a while....And we're still talking about .22LR vs fox lol

[SportingShooter 0]

Thought I'd log on after to see what's going on, it's been a while....And we're still talking about .22LR vs fox lol

 

Indeed,

 

I'm beginning to yawn automatically when I open this topic.

 

At the end of this topic (and the next one) all this wrangling is pointless,

 

It will be decided by the incredibly specific circumstances at the very moment when a shot is taken or it isn't. Once that piece of lead is flying, there's no bringing it back.

[JohnGalway 1,043]

Why do people have a problem with close range fox hunting with a .22 ? i would of thought it's fine aslong as its a clean kill.

is there a law that says it cannot be done ?

 

Daz

 

There's less margin for error. I'd only head shoot a fox with a .22, have done out to yards on a still night, dropped dead.

 

But... All of the foxes senses are located in the head, so if it hears, smells, or sees something, the little target can move suddenly.

 

That versus blowing a large hole in it with a bigger calibre aiming for the heart.

 

That's it in a nutshell, lowering the odds with more damaging round & power, and picking a location less likely to move.

 

They'll still run off if you hit them arseways with a centrefire, but I'd bet they won't survive it unless it's an exceptionally marginal hit.

Edited October 29, 2015 by JohnGalway

[andyf 144]

Also the centrefire option gives the user RANGE, a 22rf is fine at it's 'precise' range that is sub 75 yards, no wind and the time to get off a good shot.

A reasonable centrefire fox rifle (22.250 in my cabinet) will give you all of the capability of the 22rf but extend the range to 200 yards.

In my area most Fox shots are 100+ and often more like 150, for me (and that is just me) that's way too far for the 22rf, my opinion the 22rf cannot

inflict enough trauma at that range, but the 22.250 can with a bit spare.

That said I shoot more Fox with my stalking rifles, as I am out and about sitting the Deer out quietly and old Basil walks right into me, often I need

to decide whether to shoot the Fox or not as the noise will kill off any chance of a Deer.

But that said I have had runners from body shots with both a .270 and 7x57, so power isn't always the answer?

AF

[Alsone 789]

Andy isn't the issue with .270 and 7x57 the jacketing though? I'd have thought the problem with bullets designed for dear is on a soft bodied animal like a fox, they're likely to pass through with little expansion which in turn means little energy transference. Compare that to eg a tipped .22-250 that explosively fragments inside the animal transferring large amounts of energy as it goes, and it's not hard to see why the .22-250 is probably more suitable, but it's not the calibre but ammunition.

[drut 9]

I have a .222 that I take when targetting fox or long range vermin : very accurate & fox capable BUT shoot nearly as many foxes in a year with 22lr purely because they present themselves at relatively short ranges whilst I am out targetting rabbits.Unless you can hit the right area within the calibre's capabilities you should not take the shot but 22lr is a very underrated round.

[shropshire dan 467]

Bagged a fox last night with the .22lr whilst ratting. I set up some bait on a known rat highway about 50meters away with adequate backstop then shot 16 rats when I looked up onto the silage and spotted a pair of ears about 70 meters away but it was skylined gave a squeak on the back of my hand and she came down and dropped with a single shot at 60 meters

 

Farmer was chuffed

[BLACK-GUN 94]

Andy isn't the issue with .270 and 7x57 the jacketing though? I'd have thought the problem with bullets designed for dear is on a soft bodied animal like a fox, they're likely to pass through with little expansion which in turn means little energy transference. Compare that to eg a tipped .22-250 that explosively fragments inside the animal transferring large amounts of energy as it goes, and it's not hard to see why the .22-250 is probably more suitable, but it's not the calibre but ammunition.

That`s correct Alsone, i use Hornady 130gr SST in my .270 for Foxes and it Rips them apart or takes the Head off. All depends where i Shoot him.

[sussex 5,777]

At the right distance it's a useful tool .... All taken in the garden at about 30m ...

[shropshire dan 467]

Happy days Sussex. Nice shooting

[leslie harold gedge 1,390]

sadly i wager too many shooter would not pass up a fox at 120 yards but would in the moment have a go.i allways say the lamp man carries the brain and switches off if not 100% happy .

 

 

small print.it goes without saying the safty of shot lies with the trigger man.

who as told you this 120 yards with a 22 lr .do you want to lose your licence in west Yorkshire there is very few with fox on there ticket,and if you can it a fox at 120 yards whats it scoped in at 30 yards for a rabbit give your head a shake