Taking large game with small calibers

Rimfire Shooter

I've had the odd fox run after being hit with my .22lr but if all you using bigger calibres are honest I'm sure ye have had runners too. It happens. No calibre is infallible. Things go wrong sometimes. As I said earlier know your limits & stick to them. This goes for all calibres. I'll also add that power should not be a substitute for accuracy. 99% of the foxes I shoot are at less than 70 yards. Maximum would be approx 100 yards. I don't need anything more than my .22lr. My advice is get the calibre that does what you want or need not what everyone else has.

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I've had the odd fox run after being hit with my .22lr but if all you using bigger calibres are honest I'm sure ye have had runners too. It happens. No calibre is infallible.

Absolutely.

I'll also add that power should not be a substitute for accuracy. 99% of the foxes I shoot are at less than 70 yards. Maximum would be approx 100 yards. I don't need anything more than my .22lr. My advice is get the calibre that does what you want or need not what everyone else has.

The same argument comes up with deer shooting. Lads arguing about the Swift being legal, some saying its not, then the conversation moves onto suitability.

I'm a firm believer in exactly what you said. Shot placement over raw power. However i also adhere to the school of why go for the smallest calibre. If you were somehow legally limited to a certain caliber then i'd understand but if you had the choice of a 22 over say a 223 then i'd take the 223.

Also the land i shoot is open. So i need something that can not only reach out easily to the distances, but can still deliver a high energy impact. As you said about your 22 going out to 100 yards max, my max range is around 330 yards. At that distance my 223 will still have over 5 times the energy than a 22 does at the muzzle.

BTW apologies to the OP is your thread has gone somewhat off topic.

Rimfire Shooter

Cass I don't necesarilly disagree with you but applying your logic I could argue I need a 300 Win Mag for bunnies as you can never never have enough power or I may need a bit of extra range.

My distance limitations are what I choose to shoot my quarry at not the distances I encounter it at.

Cass

But its quarry related.

Rabbits don't need large calibers for a clean kill. Foxes are larger and a tougher animal so whenever possible i'll use a suitable caliber. It's also the same with deer and why there is a minimum caliber. I'm sure a 22lr would drop a deer if the shot was exact, but its about suitability and reducing the risk of run offs.

Anyway i'm not trying to convince you, or the OP, to go for a larger caliber. The 22 will do most of the work the OP needs just as tyou said he should learn the rifle and the bullet and both of their limitations.

Rimfire Shooter

Cass wrote: »

But its quarry related.

Rabbits don't need large calibers for a clean kill. Foxes are larger and a tougher animal so whenever possible i'll use a suitable caliber. It's also the same with deer and why there is a minimum caliber. I'm sure a 22lr would drop a deer if the shot was exact, but its about suitability and reducing the risk of run offs.

Anyway i'm not trying to convince you, or the OP, to go for a larger caliber. The 22 will do most of the work the OP needs just as tyou said he should learn the rifle and the bullet and both of their limitations.

If the calibre works & works properly, it works. Legality is another discussion and another can or worms.

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

If the calibre works & works properly, ...............

I highlighted the important part. Question: If 22lr for deer shooting was legal in the morning would you shoot deer with it?

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Yes as I'd have to get to about 50 yards of it to get a kill. The stalk would be more important to me than the kill.

Not talking about distance, i'm asking would you use a 22lr to shoot a deer?

Rimfire Shooter

Cass wrote: »

Not talking about distance, i'm asking would you use a 22lr to shoot a deer?

Yes. And I'd stalk in to approx 50 yards to do it. Which I used to be able to do in my younger days before we were allowed bigger calibres. Gave up deer stalking many years ago once the sniper brigade took over.

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Yes.

That is all i wanted to know.

Rimfire Shooter

Cass wrote: »

I highlighted the important part. Question: If 22lr for deer shooting was legal in the morning would you shoot deer with it?

Question: Do you think reckon the 22lr will not humanely kill a deer at 50 yards with a well placed head shot?

cookimonster

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Question: Do you think reckon the 22lr will not humanely kill a deer at 50 yards with a well placed head shot?

I neck shoot 99.9% of every deer I take and have to date only lost one deer and statistically I reckon the longer I shoot the higher the chance I have of losing another deer (law of probability). The neck shot has in my opinion the greatest chance of 'anchoring' an animal on the spot even if it does not deliver a instantly fatal wound. Having shot a lot of deer in forest stalking at sub 100m ranges I would not only rely on my shooting skills but also on the devastating trauma delivered by a 100gr SP .243 Win round. No doubt a well placed .22 round would achieve a instantly fatal wound, but even with shooter error, as I had with one hind last season and put a round through the animals' cheek, the larger calibre delivers enough energy to do the job. As a avid hunter with .22 I would seriously doubt the ability of my .22 to guarantee this.
The question is not 'if' as anything is possible but 'why would you?' . I use to question bigger calibres but now I'm of the mind if it gets the job done better than why not. Don't leave any thing to chance and in my opinion field shooting is about reducing the odds at all stages to get the clean kill.


That's just my two cents..........

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

No doubt a well placed .22 round would achieve a instantly fatal wound, but even with shooter error, as I had with one hind last season and put a round through the animals' cheek, the larger calibre delivers enough energy to do the job. As a avid hunter with .22 I would seriously doubt the ability of my .22 to guarantee this.

As would i.

Take the following four calibers using an average round/bullet in each:

• 22lr - 40gr - 100ft/lb
• 223 - 55gr - 1,280 ft/lb
• 243 - 95gr - 1950ft/lb
• 308 - 155gr - 2650 ftlb

All of the above are energy outlays for the various calibers and bullets at the muzzle. The 22 lr is not only the lowest at the muzzle, but at 100 yards, 200, 300 all the way out to 1,000 the 223 (next lowest) has more energy than the 22lr.

Begs the question that if you are okay using such an under powered caliber on large game, why would have a problem with long range shooting where the impact energy is the same. I mean if a person could make that shot it would essentially be the same as someone shooting the animal point blank with a 22.

I believe the idea of holding onto to such a small caliber for large game hunting stems back to when small calibers were all you could license. Times have moved on and so has the thinking behind using them. A large caliber can do what the large caliber can do and the small one. The small one can only do what it does.

I made the argument on other threads against using "Elephant guns" on deer in this country as being unnecessary and for the very reasons Rimfire said above. Shot placement of raw energy of the round/bullet. However while there really is no such thing as too dead, the same cannot be said when going small. There is such a thing as too little power.

clivej

cookimonster wrote: »

I neck shoot 99.9% of every deer I take and have to date only lost one deer and statistically I reckon the longer I shoot the higher the chance I have of losing another deer (law of probability). The neck shot has in my opinion the greatest chance of 'anchoring' an animal on the spot even if it does not deliver a instantly fatal wound. Having shot a lot of deer in forest stalking at sub 100m ranges I would not only rely on my shooting skills but also on the devastating trauma delivered by a 100gr SP .243 Win round. No doubt a well placed .22 round would achieve a instantly fatal wound, but even with shooter error, as I had with one hind last season and put a round through the animals' cheek, the larger calibre delivers enough energy to do the job. As a avid hunter with .22 I would seriously doubt the ability of my .22 to guarantee this.
The question is not 'if' as anything is possible but 'why would you?' . I use to question bigger calibres but now I'm of the mind if it gets the job done better than why not. Don't leave any thing to chance and in my opinion field shooting is about reducing the odds at all stages to get the clean kill.
That's just my two cents..........

A great answer to the OP question.
.22 for fox is OK but at a limited distance. .223 for deer OK but not allowed for reasons of a humane kill and is why we have a minimum calibre for deer shooting.

"Don't bring a knife to a shoot out" comes to mind

cavan shooter

Rimfire Shooter wrote:

I've had the odd fox run after being hit with my .22lr but if all you using bigger calibres are honest I'm sure ye have had runners too. It happens. No calibre is infallible. Things go wrong sometimes. As I said earlier know your limits & stick to them. This goes for all calibres. I'll also add that power should not be a substitute for accuracy. 99% of the foxes I shoot are at less than 70 yards. Maximum would be approx 100 yards. I don't need anything more than my .22lr. My advice is get the calibre that does what you want or need not what everyone else has.

Shot many a fox with 22lr mainly using stingers when I was alot younger and only had an old brno, they were also not as shy to the lamp.

When I could buy a rifle, I went up to a 22 WMR and now I have a hornet and a 22lr for other things

I've seen runners with all caliber including a 223. They are tough critters. Personally id say shoot foxes with a minimum 22 WMR I'm not convinced on the 17 hmr but that's another argument.

Cass

cavan shooter wrote: »

I'm not convinced on the 17 hmr but that's another argument.

Yeah, neither was i. It can be, but again takes as much care in terms of shot placement as the 22 with the only difference being a flatter round and a little more energy.

cookimonster

clivej wrote: »

...... "Don't bring a knife to a shoot out" comes to mind

Love it...... you read my mind.

By the way 'a well placed RPG will take out an M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank' and according to "Death in the Long Grass" author, Peter Hathaway Capstick, 'a well placed .22 LR will kill an elephant'.


I would not like to be in either scenario if the any of the 'well placed shots' were off their mark....

Rimfire Shooter

cavan shooter wrote: »

Shot many a fox with 22lr mainly using stingers when I was alot younger and only had an old brno, they were also not as shy to the lamp.

When I could buy a rifle, I went up to a 22 WMR and now I have a hornet and a 22lr for other things

I've seen runners with all caliber including a 223. They are tough critters. Personally id say shoot foxes with a minimum 22 WMR I'm not convinced on the 17 hmr but that's another argument.

I no longer use Stingers. I find Velocitor as good power wise & more accurate.

What range do you reckon Hornet is good on fox for? Not many lads using 'em these days. The were a "big" fox calibre a few years ago.

17hmr not seen too much of this in action. 22 mag is decent alright. If I were to upgrade a Hornet would be on the wish list.

"only had an old Brno" some of us still do ! Wouldn't agree with the "only" bit though. Newer Brno/CZ rifles aren't a patch on 'em.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

But its quarry related.

Rabbits don't need large calibers for a clean kill. Foxes are larger and a tougher animal so whenever possible i'll use a suitable caliber. It's also the same with deer and why there is a minimum caliber. I'm sure a 22lr would drop a deer if the shot was exact, but its about suitability and reducing the risk of run offs.

Anyway i'm not trying to convince you, or the OP, to go for a larger caliber. The 22 will do most of the work the OP needs just as tyou said he should learn the rifle and the bullet and both of their limitations.

I read an article years ago written by a scottish highland stalker, as a boy he had been out with his father who was also the stalker/gamekeeper for a large estate in scotland. He said he watched his father drop 6 hinds in pretty short order with an old .22 bolt action bsa. He was an expert at stalking obviously, and hit them all in the back of the head killing them cleanly.

On the other hand i was watching a video of a chinese guy in africa shooting deer with a 9.3 heym, all he did was wound them and then panic when they were screaming.

Horses for courses.

gunny123

cookimonster wrote: »

Love it...... you read my mind.

according to "Death in the Long Grass" author, Peter Hathaway Capstick, 'a well placed .22 LR will kill an elephant'.

George Orwell wrote an account of an elephant being shot and dying sometime later by a po'ed indian villager with a very small gun, when he was a policeman out there.

Vegeta

Have experienced and seen runners with perfect shot placement and what would be considered suitable for quarry calibres. One neck shot stag with a .243 inside point blank range always stands out, was a 95 grain Winchester ballistic silvertip. Perfect shot, normal distance and the animal didn't go down. Required a follow up and the wound from the first shot was inspected, bullet was recovered from exactly where it should have been and it just didn't perform as it should have.

Ever since I've been a big fan of having as much power as is comfortable to shoot with. Even when everything is done right, the result is not always guaranteed and at those times more energy can help overcome whatever failing might occur.

No-one here has done this bit I'm always wary of those who boast they they "never had a runner". Generally that is a flag for me to start thinking/asking, "have they really done much hunting at all?"

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Horses for courses.

Don't agree at all with the scenarios you posted.

I could kill a deer or fox with a big stick, but should i? There is a reason why we have minimum calibers for deer. It's to ensure that in the real world where the perfect shot is not always possible (and i don't mean lack of marksmanship i mean forces outside your control such as the deer moves as you pull the trigger) that the power and effect of the bullet used is enough to compensate for such unpredictable situations.

I've seen many videos of lads with large rifles making a balls of it, but i've also seen lads doing the same with small calibers, with bows, and even one lad with a spear.

I want something that will instantly kill the animal. We have a personal obligation to them to do this as well as a legal one too. As was said above and by others, because it can be done does not mean it should be.

gunny123

You misunderstand. The scottish chap used the .22 because he knew he had the ability and skills to kill the deer with a very small rifle, and he did so. The chinese guy had probably never handled a firearm before he went to africa, and even with an extremely powerful rifle, couldn't kill one at short range.

Its down to the shooter, W.D.M Bell, the famous hunter, killed hundreds of elephants with a 6.5 ms, which has less power than a .243 win.

Cass

I got your point lad, no problem there. When i said i don't agree with them i mean regardless of skill level i'd still rather see something with more "ability" being used.

Sounds weird coming from me as i've often argued the other side.

cookimonster

gunny123 wrote: »

I read an article years ago written by a scottish highland stalker, as a boy he had been out with his father.......

Not doubting the validity of the story.....like my own it my be contextual.
The killing of elephants with .22s were in fact slow deaths caused by internal bleeding (if ture at all) and I had also read an article on the beginnings of driven pheasant shoots where game keepers and such like shot dear on sight with shotguns on such estates that emphasized the pheasant shooting.
They where then, as was here, considered a nuisance to the new fangled sport of driven pheasant shooting. A far cry from the Kings Prize, soon ignored when the King found more favour in the driven pheasant.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

I got your point lad, no problem there. When i said i don't agree with them i mean regardless of skill level i'd still rather see something with more "ability" being used.

Sounds weird coming from me as i've often argued the other side.

Its just you read and hear so much cobblers about the abilities of calibres, especially since the interweb came along. On a uk forum a lad had been left a sporterised lee enfield. The buffoons on there were telling him its wasn't enough gun for large deer ! There seems to be a bigger is always better attitude with rifles.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

There seems to be a bigger is always better attitude with rifles.

That is what i mean with my post above about aruing the other side.

I used to ask lads why they went for the .375 H&H (exaggerated example) to stalk Sika. I'm not saying everyone should go for a 243 and to hell with the other calibers, but sometimes you need to up the ability of the rifle to compensate for the unpredictable.

In your examples above, what if the deer flinched or moved? Say the bullet was faulty and did not penetrate? If it only grazed the deer and left it wounded? IOw any one of a dozen scenarios that are outside the control of the stalker.

Now compare the 22lr to say a 243 bullet. Even if it's faulty, did not get a completely clean hit, and was off by an inch. The impact energy, design of the bullet and the same placement would give very different results.

yubabill1

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I no longer use Stingers. I find Velocitor as good power wise & more accurate.

What range do you reckon Hornet is good on fox for? Not many lads using 'em these days. The were a "big" fox calibre a few years ago.

17hmr not seen too much of this in action. 22 mag is decent alright. If I were to upgrade a Hornet would be on the wish list.

"only had an old Brno" some of us still do ! Wouldn't agree with the "only" bit though. Newer Brno/CZ rifles aren't a patch on 'em.

I rate the Velocitor above Stingers, too. Think they are the best 22LR all-rounder, great stopping power.

I had a Hornet back in the mid-80's and went back to the 22LR - I limited myself to 120yds for foxes with the old Anschutz double-trigger Hornet. Could only get PSP's in the Hornet back then and they made a complete mess of rabbits. Bloody expensive to shoot back then, I remember them being 50p per round, when a box of 22LR was around a fiver for good ones like RWS.

Like I said before this thread was split out of the other one, you can take anything on this island with a well-placed 22LR, but that doesn't mean that you should. Yes, a 22LR in the back of the head at 40yds will knock a stag, but if you're a bit out....

cavan shooter

Rimfire Shooter wrote:

What range do you reckon Hornet is good on fox for? Not many lads using 'em these days. The were a "big" fox calibre a few years ago.

200 yards maximum.

dodderangler

I stupidly loaded up a fmj in my .223 one day and took a fox at over 100 yards and he ran for about 30 yards before dropping. Bullet went straight through him. So I have seen them run with bigger Callibre.

Crow Pigeon and Pheasant

What is a reasonable distance to shoot a fox at with a . 22lr!?

clivej

Crow Pigeon and Pheasant wrote: »

What is a reasonable distance to shoot a fox at with a . 22lr!?

easy PBR