Full Metal Jacket Ammo For Fox

[Alsone 789]

The issue is, as Walshie picked up on it's more likely to pass through. For sure, hit something substantial such as a bone full on and you will get shock. But hit pure flesh and it's quite easy for the round to go straight and the fox survive to bleed out.

[Deker 3,478]

The issue is, as Walshie picked up on it's more likely to pass through. For sure, hit something substantial such as a bone full on and you will get shock. But hit pure flesh and it's quite easy for the round to go straight and the fox survive to bleed out.

 

There isn't an issue!

 

Hit any animal anywhere in the wrong place with whatever ammo you like and it may walk/crawl away.

 

I have made it clear I believe there may be better ammo, that doesn't mean a 22-250FMJ isn't suitable or doesn't work on a fox.

[walshie 2,804]

Ladies! Calm down.

 

Let's summarise: Not it's not illegal,. Yes you can.

 

I wouldn't do it out of choice as I prefer to use the right tool for the job.

 

Having said that, I have shot a crow with my 223 and FMJ and it did definitely kill it.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

For fucks sake get out and belt a few and come back on here and put all this arm chair speculation to bed. My money is on dead charlie!

 

All this talk of FMJs leaving nothing more than pinhole wounds...... I've read and seen photos of some devastating FMJ wounds! Theory is great, but only born of direct experience. Get out and try it. They might be shite, then again they might be a reasonable compromise or even superior!

[Alsone 789]

Just because something will kill doesn't mean it's suitable, something the Home Office have recognised in permitting civilians access to expanding ammunition, which is the last thing the authorities actually want civilians to have.

 

As I've said many time before, you can kill anything with anything. There are examples of people being killed by 12ft lb air rifles in accidents or by miscreant youths on housing estates. Search Youtube and there are videos of people in other jurisdictions killing wild boar with .22LR!

 

Of course .22-250 has the energy to kill fox, or even deer, it's never it doubt. However, There's a big difference between something being able to kill and something being able to kill consistently with the necessary repeatable humane results that justify it's full time use. FMJ when used against live prey, especially thin skinned animals of low muscle mass such as fox has as much potential to pass through as to kill instantly and that's why it's not suitable. Will it kill, yes absolutely no doubt. Will it kill humanely enough of the time to when compared to other rounds to justify it's regular use, no. Are there exceptions when it's use can be justified, probably. But no exception justifies it's use as a regular fox round.

[Alsone 789]

 

The 5.56 is designed to wound not kill. For the simple reason if you wound someone, you take another person out of the battle. compared to 7.62 where you kill them and wind the rest of them up

 

 

 

You have read too many comics, the 5.56 was never designed to wound, it was designed to stop whoever it hit. Actually it was designed as a cost saving measure with the bi product you could also carry more ammo, cartridge pressure was also increased virtually immediately upon introduction as it was shown to be less effective and less popular than the 7.62.

 

The fact it was not as effective as the 7.62 (which it generally replaced) somehow lead to this daft suggestion about wounding!

 

When someone is stood in front of you trying to shoot/kill you, the last thing you want in your hand is something that was designed to wound them, you want them stopped, and the only effective way to do that is kill them!

 

 

 

Actually Deker, not trying to be argumentative but lllluke is correct - military rounds are designed to wound at range because if you kill a person you take 1 person out of the battle. If you wound a person, you take out 5, the wounded person plus 4 people to carry the stretcher, plus you use up support resources such as trucks and helicopters ferrying in medical supplies and evacuating people out to field hospitals.

 

There's a google book here on the military theory behind it: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yqHCCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=shoot+to+wound+battlefield+military+theory&source=bl&ots=o6ZURI5KT_&sig=7IOP37J3MpBTkhLE5XA_F13ZGAs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxgtDjqanMAhUDXBoKHWlFABMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=shoot%20to%20wound%20battlefield%20military%20theory&f=false

Edited April 25, 2016 by Alsone

[Deker 3,478]

 

 

The 5.56 is designed to wound not kill. For the simple reason if you wound someone, you take another person out of the battle. compared to 7.62 where you kill them and wind the rest of them up

 

 

 

You have read too many comics, the 5.56 was never designed to wound, it was designed to stop whoever it hit. Actually it was designed as a cost saving measure with the bi product you could also carry more ammo, cartridge pressure was also increased virtually immediately upon introduction as it was shown to be less effective and less popular than the 7.62.

 

The fact it was not as effective as the 7.62 (which it generally replaced) somehow lead to this daft suggestion about wounding!

 

When someone is stood in front of you trying to shoot/kill you, the last thing you want in your hand is something that was designed to wound them, you want them stopped, and the only effective way to do that is kill them!

 

 

 

Actually Deker, not trying to be argumentative but lllluke is correct - military rounds are designed to wound at range because if you kill a person you take 1 person out of the battle. If you wound a person, you take out 5, the wounded person plus 4 people to carry the stretcher, plus you use up support resources such as trucks and helicopters ferrying in medical supplies and evacuating people out to field hospitals.

 

There's a google book here on the military theory behind it: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yqHCCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=shoot+to+wound+battlefield+military+theory&source=bl&ots=o6ZURI5KT_&sig=7IOP37J3MpBTkhLE5XA_F13ZGAs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxgtDjqanMAhUDXBoKHWlFABMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=shoot%20to%20wound%20battlefield%20military%20theory&f=false

 

 

 

Do you ever stop reading, they were NEVER designed to wound, and if you put the 5.56 in the right place, even at distance, it will still kill you.

 

Of course it isn't as effective at killing as a 7.62, the 5.56 has roughly half the energy of the 7.62, and that means there is a bigger chance of wounding than with a 7.62, that happens to be a bi product, a very unfortunate one for some combat soldiers.

 

It was developed/introduced as a cost measure, end of, any and everything else just happens to accompany that!

 

Would you like to stand 200 yards in front of someone who can handle a 5.56 and make a judgment on its wounding/killing capabilities?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Deker

[Born Hunter 17,751]

LOL, it's really neither here nor there but to my knowledge no NATO round was developed 'to wound'. LOL. The development of an intermediate caliber was entirely based on optimising the combat performance of an infantry unit. Typical engagements meant that a 30 cal was 'too much' gun and therefor an unnecessary compromise on other consideration. The US Army carried out combat simulations and found that an infantry unit armed with 556 had superior firepower than one armed with 762 and combat theory generally follows that firepower wins battles, not big bullets. That was the crux of it, not this theory of wounding.

 

In fact generally speaking international law does what it can to prohibit rounds that cause 'inhumane' wounding. The 556 had such an FMJ round banned from NATO use as the wounds were horrendous.

[Deker 3,478]

Just because something will kill doesn't mean it's suitable, something the Home Office have recognised in permitting civilians access to expanding ammunition, which is the last thing the authorities actually want civilians to have.

 

As I've said many time before, you can kill anything with anything. There are examples of people being killed by 12ft lb air rifles in accidents or by miscreant youths on housing estates. Search Youtube and there are videos of people in other jurisdictions killing wild boar with .22LR!

 

Of course .22-250 has the energy to kill fox, or even deer, it's never it doubt. However, There's a big difference between something being able to kill and something being able to kill consistently with the necessary repeatable humane results that justify it's full time use. FMJ when used against live prey, especially thin skinned animals of low muscle mass such as fox has as much potential to pass through as to kill instantly and that's why it's not suitable. Will it kill, yes absolutely no doubt. Will it kill humanely enough of the time to when compared to other rounds to justify it's regular use, no. Are there exceptions when it's use can be justified, probably. But no exception justifies it's use as a regular fox round.

 

 

When did you last shoot a fox with a FMJ of any description, when did you last shoot a fox with a rifle at all?

 

When are you planning on getting a FAC and getting some experience, rather than lecturing the world on how to do the job because you read something.

 

There are plenty here who have shot many pest species with many calibres, and many types of bullet over many years, some of us can remember the days before V-Max and the wealth of other expanding ammo available today. Few will argue that some of the newer ammo doesn't have benefits, but those same people will also tell you 1600ft lb of FMJ does the job very well too.

 

Nobody throws any ammo at shapes, we all aim, and put simply, when it goes in the right place it works, various expanding ammo gives you a bit more leeway with the shot, expanding ammo does not make FMJ unsuitable, ineffective or inhumane!

Edited April 25, 2016 by Deker

[Underdog 2,337]

Fmj.

[Underdog 2,337]

Fmj

[Deker 3,478]

Fmj.

 

I'm sure I've seen that rifle somewhere before , but being an old boy I've forgotten, my guess would be .38 or .357 or 44-40....whatever, circa 300-800ft lb across that range!

 

Am I close?

[SportingShooter 0]

Dunblane, not hungerford yeah?

 

Has anyone used them, other than me?

 

U.

 

Hungerford

 

The Deer Act and the prohibition on non-expanding was 1991

[Underdog 2,337]

 

 

Dunblane, not hungerford yeah?

 

Has anyone used them, other than me?

 

U.

Hungerford

 

The Deer Act and the prohibition on non-expanding was 1991

1996/7 for expanding ammo restrictions.

Think it was the late sixties for the deer act and hingerford resulted in auto rifles and slide actions being banned except 22 rimfires.

Also certain shotgun restrictions.

Hungerford involved a auto rifle using fmj ammo!

 

Dumblane involved expanding ammunition in the crime.

 

U.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Underdog

[Underdog 2,337]

 

 

Fmj.

I'm sure I've seen that rifle somewhere before , but being an old boy I've forgotten, my guess would be .38 or .357 or 44-40....whatever, circa 300-800ft lb across that range!

 

Am I close?

357m mate.

 

These bullets had a flat which must of helped however a 22250 will have alot more velocity.

 

A friend tried some 45grn full patch in his 22250 and they did fine on fox too.

 

U.