.17 HMR Fox- heart or heart shot? Plus ammo.

[Born Hunter 17,788]

[Alsone 789]

Edited quote - see below
 

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Alsone

[Alsone 789]

11 hours ago, Billy_boy_2010 said:

I'm really thrilled this has sparked such conversation 

 

The conclusion i have come to is 

 

HMR will usually kill a fox cleanly. The closer the better and there's a greater chance it will be a slower kill than a larger round- thus it's not ideal. But if you put it in the right spot it will usually do the job. 

 

 At the correct range. Once the hmr loses it's velocity and thus hydrostatic shocking effect, it becomes a .17 sized bullet that performs in a similar way to a .22 lr bullet but with less weight or cross section. The key is to keep within recommended ranges.

As for speed of kill, there's no reason why a .17 hmr shouldn't be as instant as a larger calibre. You don't need a .50 to get an instant kill. It's all about the placement and hydro static shock effect. Those who come unstuck usually are shooting at excessive range or suffer poor shot placement (sometimes through factors beyond their own control such as gusts of wind):

This looks pretty instant to me and it's 135 yds, so not inconsiderable range:
 

 

[Deker 3,478]

9 hours ago, Alsone said:

(Written to newbies knowledge not to you SD), The difference is .22 has too low a velocity to cause hydrostatic shock. It relies entirely on the slightly expanded head driving into a vital organ or blood vessel, or driving the very small area of energy immediately ahead of the bullet into the same. .22 LR also has marginal energy at range against a fox sized target.

.17 HMR despite being small, causes considerable damage around the impact area through a hydro-static shock wave that expands sideways as well as forwards thus increasing it's ability to kill even though not directly on or ahead of a vital organ / blood vessel. The shock wave, not only the bullet, has the ability to damage organs and blow out blood vessels without any direct contact from the bullet. .22 lr will kill fox humanely. It has sufficient energy if it's well placed and the range is short. The reason FEO's prefer .17hmr as a minimum is the hydrostatic shock effect gives more room for error in bullet placement. That's especially important with a less experienced shooter.

As for the OP's question on ammo, you should never use totally solid bullets on live prey as they tend to drill neat small holes straight through and so can pass through without causing any significant damage entirely. Full metal jacket (more usually bonded cores on civilian ammo - are as civilian rounds metal jackets bonded to lead in a way designed to expand progressively (the military aren't allowed expansion under the Geneva Convention)). and are more suitable to large animals such as deer where the bullet needs to penetrate a thicker skin and drive much deeper before expanding than required for small to medium non tough animals such as fox. Bonded cores will over penetrate on small soft animals and again may pass straight through without significant damage due to insufficient resistance to cause expansion. Ballistic tips are ideal for small animals where the emphasis is on delivering maximum shock to achieve an instant humane kill where the preserving the pelt isn't important. A less destructive alternative is a soft point such as found on .22 lr ammo, but there's little point unless pelt preservation is an aim. Generally ballistic tips are recommended for pest control because they increase the certainty of a kill.

That will be the Hague, not the Geneva!

[Brickhill 28]

On 12/01/2020 at 10:24, Deker said:

Now there's a strange thing, many here have spoken about various rimfires bouncing on their quarry, of course it can happen, but I actually witnessed a .204 splash on a fox, fortunately the guy shooting was alert and good and got another off quick, one regret I have is never taking a picture of the splash.

Some who have .204 swear by them, others have moved on quickly and whichever way you look at it .204 has not taken off in the UK.

The .204 ruger it a first class round for fox. Picture of the splash? Whatever does that mean? So he/she didn't hit the target square on and the bullet was deflected? What are you saying. Educate me please.

The .204 ruger has a BIG following, so don't piss off the likes of me and other folk who use it  You don't happen to like it because you've never tried that hard with it have you? Be honest?  You know the lot don't you sir?     

[Alsone 789]

In fairness the .204 did have some initial problems with the 30gr (?) ammunition. However, it never affected the heavier bullets and I haven't heard of any reports of splash even from the lighter rounds for some time now. I'd have to say that initial issues apart, it's a fine round and probably the most destructive of any of the .22 centrefires although I've opened a can of worms there.  Certainly stick to 35gr and above and you should see no issues.

[philpot 5,017]

Some interesting facts about the .204 which I will be totally honest and say I knew nothing about or any centre fire for that matter so every day is a school day. About 4.5mins into the video show the performance figures compared to .204, .223 and .22-250.

 

Phil

[ianm 2,594]

5 hours ago, Alsone said:

In fairness the .204 did have some initial problems with the 30gr (?) ammunition. However, it never affected the heavier bullets and I haven't heard of any reports of splash even from the lighter rounds for some time now. I'd have to say that initial issues apart, it's a fine round and probably the most destructive of any of the .22 centrefires although I've opened a can of worms there.  Certainly stick to 35gr and above and you should see no issues.

.204 isn't a 22 centrefire it is a .20 calibre.

[BenBhoy 4,706]

But started life as 222mag

Edited January 16, 2020 by BenBhoy

[Sausagedog 7,381]

1 hour ago, BenBhoy said:

But started life as 222mag

That morphed into 223.

Then there came the 221 fireball.

Remington fiddled with that case a lot.

Someone made the 30 Apache from 223. Think there was a 25/223 but can't remember. Wasn't the 27 Grendel a necked up 223? Can't remember.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sausagedog

[ianm 2,594]

3 hours ago, BenBhoy said:

But started life as 222mag

Indeed it did, and necking it down to .20 cal is the best use for for that particular cartridge.

[Sausagedog 7,381]

1 hour ago, ianm said:

Indeed it did, and necking it down to .20 cal is the best use for for that particular cartridge.

Na, Ruger found a stash of 222m brass and wondered what they could do with it.

[ianm 2,594]

27 minutes ago, Sausagedog said:

Na, Ruger found a stash of 222m brass and wondered what they could do with it.

 Ruger actually did a great deal of research on cartridges before choosing the 222 magnum as the most suitable.

[Alsone 789]

17 hours ago, ianm said:

.204 isn't a 22 centrefire it is a .20 calibre.

I thought someone might pull me up on that. I know technically it isn't a .22, I tend to classify it as such because it's size and performance is so close to .22 CF. 

[Alsone 789]

20 hours ago, philpot said:

Some interesting facts about the .204 which I will be totally honest and say I knew nothing about or any centre fire for that matter so every day is a school day. About 4.5mins into the video show the performance figures compared to .204, .223 and .22-250.

 

Phil

The 35gr bullet is a little slower, but it's still flat and fast. It's interesting though that it's terminal destruction is pretty much the greatest I've seen from any .22 calibre and it's low recoil. Only swift and .22-250 come close. Then again Ackley always used to say velocity was the key. Now the splash issues are gone, it would be my go to choice of calibre if I had to choose a calibre in .22 (yep reclassifying it again here).