Hunting with .22 center fire rounds?

[Kilo Charlie]

It's worth noting that here in Ontario, where one can use a CF22 to hunt deer, almost no-one does so. I think the .223 et al can be effective deer killers in the hands of a good hunter, and when loaded with suitable deer bullets, several of which are now being made. I liken it to hunting moose with a .30-30 or hunting ducks with a .410 bore.....yes, it can be done, but it's not the best choice for a beginner.

 

[stubblejumper]

Later in the day another mule deer standing broadside, same hold for the important vitals, bang, bullet must have landed within an inch or two of the hold, the deer bounded off, never to be found.

I dont know what that means really, I have heard my boss say he shot a deer last year with his 300 ultra mag and had the deer run off and he never did find it despite finding a lot of blood. I also remember him saying it was a good shot.

This is a very common story.According to the shooter,the shot was placed perfectly,so the bullet or cartridge gets the blame.The simple truth is,that unless the animal is recovered,there is no sure way to know where the bullet struck,or what path it took through the animal.I have tracked a few animals for other people,and when recovered,those so called perfect shots usually struck at most one lung,and were sometimes even gut shots.

I always just figured that every once in that even a good shot manages to miss everything it needs to for the deer to live.

If it didn't strike the vitals,it wasn't a good shot.

 

[srt4u2nv]

I would not even second guess a shot on a deer with a 60gr nosler partition or TSX out of my .22-250....

 

[dizzy dan 1]

I just tried out some Barnes 53gr. XLC in my 220 Swift today & I would not be afraid to shoot at a deer with it,esp. in a clear cut or power line.No brush.DAN>>>

 

[Swifty]

Manitoba hunting reg's are screwed.They have a min.calibre for muzzleloaders,a bow has to have a certain lb.pull, but if you wanted to you could go elk/moose hunting with a 17 remington (cause it's a centrefire ???????????).I wrote a letter a few years back to the Mb.Natural resources Dept.in which I expressed my toughts on maybe getting with the times and uping the centrefire cal.to use but they wrote back and said thru their consultations with the various wildlife groups it would not be changed.I don't really like trying to tell other people what to use but I also don't want some anti's seeing a wounded suffering animal either to use against us.

 

[todbartell]

placement, construction, caliber

 

[Gatehouse]

A good marksman with a .223 and a good bullet is far more deadly than a poor marksmen wiht a .300 magnum...

 

[Gatehouse]

Manitoba hunting reg's are screwed.They have a min.calibre for muzzleloaders,a bow has to have a certain lb.pull, but if you wanted to you could go elk/moose hunting with a 17 remington (cause it's a centrefire ???????????).I wrote a letter a few years back to the Mb.Natural resources Dept.in which I expressed my toughts on maybe getting with the times and uping the centrefire cal.to use but they wrote back and said thru their consultations with the various wildlife groups it would not be changed.I don't really like trying to tell other people what to use but I also don't want some anti's seeing a wounded suffering animal either to use against us.

Is there a big problem wiht animals being wounded and lost with the 17 Rem in Manitoba? If not, why would anyone be concerned?

 

[Brutus]

Manitoba hunting reg's are screwed.I don't really like trying to tell other people what to use QUOTE]
Then take your own advice, and dont do it. There is enough "experts" in government already telling us what they think is best for the "greater good." You are slotting yourself with Wendy Cookier.

 

[pharaoh2]

I like to think most hunters out there using it are aware enough to understand that the .17 Rem is a varmint round. And by that I mean the .17 calibers aren't like the .308 or .30-06, shooters using it aren't buying it because their Dad, and his Dad shot one. Those buying them would be gun guys, and they would know what is what. Of course I'm not saying people still won't use it, but I don't think it would be of any concern to try to initiate a new law.

 

[Otokiak]

I'm honestly not sure what the reg is here in Nunavut for .22 calibre ... mind you widely used and quite successly ... so I hear ...

Otokiak
Rankin Inlet, NU
CANADA

 

[proonur]

Shooting for the head is in my opinion un ethical. Most animals have a very small effective target area in the head with a much larger ineffective target area where the animal would live for several days suffering before dying. For example a moose has a very small brain and the majority of the head is the mouth and snout. A slightly misplaced shot would likely damage the mouth and snout, making the animal unable to eat but not stopping it from running for a significant distance.

I can put shots inside a target the size of a loonie all day long with my .223 with any weight of bullet at 100 yards. While I agree that with something like a moose you would have to be very, very sure of hitting with the correct angle to hit either the brain or brainstem/spine area I'm sure it would be possible. It would definitely require the shooter to discipline himself much more than normal, which is where the danger to the animal suffering unnecessarily is valid. The other good thing about aiming in the brain area is that if you shoot high, you just miss and the animal runs away unharmed, which is preferable to me to a nasty gut shot or long track through the woods. The animal either bang flops or runs away, it's win/win when you consider the animal's amount of suffering.
With a deer however, I feel it would be nothing short of easy with a 22-250 or .223 cal.
I don't think 17 HMR has any real business being aimed at big game, but that's uninformed opinion since I haven't ever hunted anything with it.

 

[bisonhd]

Sneaky way of starting, yet another "are 22's adequate for big game", thread.

 

[cbabes]

Some people belive bigger guns make up for shooting ability.

This topic has been discussed to death on here, but that's ok. I for one would have no problem in hunting with a .222, .223, .224, .225, or .22-1,000,000. I have also told this tale to death. One of our family stories involves a passed on Uncle of mine. He killed a mule deer dead with one shot from a .22 short. I belive if you put a bullet into it's lungs, he's going to die and probably better than if you would have used your bosses .300 Ultramag. If for no other reason than you will be able to shoot a .223 better and with more confidence without the flinch.

This is wisdom I have just gained recently. I was always the bigger is better guy but I totally agree with you. Mind you I am still going to get a .338 WinMag just for the fun of it. I will be shooting my smaller calibres a lot more though.

 

[stubblejumper]

The other good thing about aiming in the brain area is that if you shoot high, you just miss and the animal runs away unharmed, which is preferable to me to a nasty gut shot or long track through the woods. The animal either bang flops or runs away, it's win/win when you consider the animal's amount of suffering.

Supporters of head/neck shots would like us to believe that the result is either a clean kill,or a clean miss,but that isn't the case.What if you hit low,or to one side?The animal can a nasty wound which could could break it's jaw and cause it to starve to death.Or you could damage the esophagus which could cause a slow death.Or you could glance off the skull or vertebrae and the animal drops at the shot,only to get up just as quickly and run off wounded.I have had to track three different head/neck shot animals,two of which required long tracking jobs,and the other deer had to be shot a second time.

 

[Jeff000]

Supporters of head/neck shots would like us to believe that the result is either a clean kill,or a clean miss,but that isn't the case.What if you hit low,or to one side?The animal can a nasty wound which could could break it's jaw and cause it to starve to death.Or you could damage the esophagus which could cause a slow death.Or you could glance off the skull or vertebrae and the animal drops at the shot,only to get up just as quickly and run off wounded.I have had to track three different head/neck shot animals,two of which required long tracking jobs,and the other deer had to be shot a second time.

would any of the light 4000+ fps rounds really glance off the skull or vertebrae?
From my experience the high velocity (varmint rounds anyways) do not ricochet very well. A spine hit would be devastating, I can see a jaw hit being bad though.

 

[proonur]

Supporters of head/neck shots would like us to believe that the result is either a clean kill,or a clean miss,but that isn't the case.What if you hit low,or to one side?The animal can a nasty wound which could could break it's jaw and cause it to starve to death.Or you could damage the esophagus which could cause a slow death.Or you could glance off the skull or vertebrae and the animal drops at the shot,only to get up just as quickly and run off wounded.I have had to track three different head/neck shot animals,two of which required long tracking jobs,and the other deer had to be shot a second time.

I agree 100% that this is a possible scenario using .22 caliber. I would argue however that it would happen much less than it does using 30 caliber, considering people are less likely to flinch using 22 calibre rifles and they are usually more accurate over typical hunting distances (less than 200 yards). Also, if you think about this from a scientific point of view, the .22 caliber penetrates better than 30 caliber with a similar velocity because it has a smaller surface area. If you'd like to test this theory out, put a 1 lb weight on the head of a nail with the pointy end touching your hand. Try it again with finishing nail and you'll get a nasty surprise (you get the idea without trying it I'm sure). Add to this the idea that the 22 cals move at roughly 1000 fps (roughly) higher velocity than the 30s do and in my mind inside 200 yards one equals the other... except the 30 leaves a bigger mess and sore shoulder.
There's a reason that police snipers aim for the head of targets (some using .223 I might add) and that reasoning holds true for wild game too.
Anyway, it's just my opinion and it doesn't matter since it's illegal to hunt big game with them after all is said and done, unless you're one of those lucky guys up in Nunavut, eh?
Now, I'm off to buy myself a 30-06

 

[X-man]

Centerfire .22s are very popular in Labrador for Caribou. Haven't really been any major problems harvesting caribou ethically with them. Centerfire .22s are also the goto rifles for hunting seals. With the right bullet they can easily take deer, caribou or even moose. Bullet placement will win out over bullet weight/caliber anyday.

 

[stubblejumper]

I agree 100% that this is a possible scenario using .22 caliber. I would argue however that it would happen much less than it does using 30 caliber,

It is just as easy to shoot a jaw off with a 30-06 as with a .223.Two of the head/neck shot animals that I had to track were shot with the 30-06,and the other with a 270win.

Also, if you think about this from a scientific point of view, the .22 caliber penetrates better than 30 caliber with a similar velocity because it has a smaller surface area.

At the same velocity it does have a smaller surface area,but it also weighs much less,and has much less energy so it won't penetrate any more.

If you'd like to test this theory out, put a 1 lb weight on the head of a nail with the pointy end touching your hand. Try it again with finishing nail and you'll get a nasty surprise (you get the idea without trying it I'm sure).

Your comparison is severely flawed in that the same amount of force/energy(1lb) is applied to both nails.When comparing the .22 cal bullet to a .308" bullet,the 22 has much less force/energy due to it's much lighter weight.

Add to this the idea that the 22 cals move at roughly 1000 fps (roughly) higher velocity than the 30s do and in my mind inside 200 yards one equals the other... except the 30 leaves a bigger mess and sore shoulder.

The .308" bullet also expands to a much larger diameter,creating a much larger,more effective wound.The extra velocity can help expansion ,but the smaller bullet can only expand so far before it comes apart.

There's a reason that police snipers aim for the head of targets (some using .223 I might add) and that reasoning holds true for wild game too.

The police snipers goal is to put a man out of action as quickly as possible,they aren't overly concerned if the person is stunned or if his jaw is shot off,as long as he is no longer a threat.Snipers also generally don't use expanding bullets,which are legally required for big game hunting in most locations.Non expanding bullets don't kill as quickly with lung shots so a head shot can be a better choice for the quickest kill.

 

[stubblejumper]

would any of the light 4000+ fps rounds really glance off the skull or vertebrae?
From my experience the high velocity (varmint rounds anyways) do not ricochet very well. A spine hit would be devastating, I can see a jaw hit being bad though.

Yes light high velocity bullets are easily deflected if they don't strike bone square.To reach the spine,they also need to penetrate some tissue without breaking up or fragmenting,so that they can destroy the bone when they reach it.To do that,you need to use bullets that are more heavily constructed than the varmint bullets commonly used in these cartridges.Those more heavily constructed bullets will deflect off of bone if struck at angles.As to bullets glancing off of skulls,I have seen a deer knocked flat by a .243" 100 grain bullet that struck it's skull.The deer dropped at the shot,then quickly regained it's feet.A second shot put it on the ground for good before it could run off.