Anyone use a 22 Hornet for deer?
- Thread starter tactical870
- Start date
tactical870
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Buckhorn, Ontario
Wolves are more determined than deer....... I shot a running coyote with the muzzleloader from the treestand a couple years back. Gut shot him and damn near cut him in half with a 250 gr XTP HP. I mean his entrails were dragging behind him as he ran. He ran over 200 yards to the treeline, I let him bleed for 10 minutes and he still got up and turned on me when I approached him. I had to shoot him a second time.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Took a lone wolf November 1988 in Ontario using a 222 Remington. It was a young male wolf and it took two shots to ends it's life.
First anchoring shot was at about 70 yards, the second finisher was at point blank. An ugly and messy scene that I wish to never repeat.
This is not a cartridge I would recommend for this singular purpose.
First anchoring shot was at about 70 yards, the second finisher was at point blank. An ugly and messy scene that I wish to never repeat.
This is not a cartridge I would recommend for this singular purpose.
Where were all these "were" wolves shot??? Certainly not a solid heart/lung shot... I have taken many wolves and dozens of coyotes over the past 35+ years with .223's and .222 Rem Mags... and all but a couple were clean one shot kills... I just put together a new .22 BR Remington for wolves and you all are making me think I should rebarrel to .375 H&H...
To bring it back to this thread... my K-Hornet's with 40 and 50 grain V-Max bullets over H110 do an admirable job on coyotes... as said earlier, I am starting to experiment with the 60 Partition and 62 TSX.
To bring it back to this thread... my K-Hornet's with 40 and 50 grain V-Max bullets over H110 do an admirable job on coyotes... as said earlier, I am starting to experiment with the 60 Partition and 62 TSX.
We ate a legally acquired Moose that winter, and it was good. Not only that, but we still talk about that trip, and it was 22 years ago. Maybe if your parents had done a better job, you wouldn't be such a whiner about it. So take your disgust elsewhere, champ. It's not necessary here.
Tac 870.............so there is your answer........about 1/2 and 1/2. It appears some have done it already and some agree with trying it and some moderately disagree and some vehemently disagree.......................sounds about right for any given topic on CGN. LOL I guess if it is legal in yoiur locale there is nothing stopping you from trying it...........so have at it and good luck and report back with pics win or lose, OK.
Just my opinion, no more or less valid than yours or anyone else's. As c-fbmi tactfully stated, the viewpoints here run the full gamut. I wonder how the results would be skewed if the OP suggested a Hornet for use on moose at 100 yards.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Mine was a mover. First shot busted his front shoulder bone. 50 grain Hornady SX.
And if a beaver dam was not there to slow down his exit, I would have lost him.
Last edited:
T870 I don't know why you would see this as a challenge? If you hit the boiler room with a 338 or a 22H it is going to die, so what's the challenge? Same shot at the end of the day, more like a bet of sorts, "I bet I can kill it with "X" caliber" and I am sure you can. No challenge in it, only the potential to feel bad if the shot is a little off and you know a larger cal would have killed it and instead it went unrecovered.
I think the point he is making, and one I advocate, is why not try to get that close and make that same shot without using a sub par calbre...
And the counter to that is that it is not a sub par caliber in the right circumstances. He compared the Hornet to a .338 - at 150 yards (or even significantly further) a deer can be taken at any angle with the .338, whereas with the Hornet a hunter may need to get to within 75 or even 50 yards and wait for a good broadside shot. That may never happen and the hunter will pass on the shot and go home empty handed.
Yes, I get that, but that is not the chambering's fault, is it? One could easily say the same thing about all of the hunters who head into the field with magnums and flail away at game from who knows what distance when at the same time due to their inability to handle the recoil combined with a lack of practice they have a tough time hitting a 6" circle at 100 yards from the bench!
Late last summer I personally witnessed a fellow with a new scope on his rifle flail around at 25 yards trying to get the thing bore sighted. He couldn't get on paper. Finally, in fading light I offered to give him a hand. I got on paper with decent accuracy at 25 in two shots, then took a shot at 100. IIRC the shot was about 8" high and a couple of inches left. I handed the rifle back to him and told him how many clicks to come down and to the right. Did he do it? Nope, he was "on paper at 100 and that was good enough for moose". I coudn't believe it, but there you go.
Indeed... All weapons become marginal at some point... Either ballistically or due to incompetence... So does this mean the only unethical weapon is the one that still can't get the job done at the muzzle, or "point" as the case may be, when it's bearer places it directly against the target? I guess you could argue then (since shot placement is everything) that if the wielder is not a student of anatomy there is no appropriate weapon, even at "point blank" range... He should stay at home and watch AFV reruns...
