Hunting with .22 center fire rounds?

[proonur]

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.
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.

That's actually the whole point of the comparison (the same force applied to two objects of different surface areas produces greater penetration in the smaller one). I was speaking only about the potential to penetrate at this point, because I believe it was you that was doubting the ability of the small bullet to penetrate as well as the larger one--- not what happens once the bullet enters the animal. The increased velocity of the smaller bullet does boost the already better penetrating ability of the smaller bullet too. I think your theory that the smaller bullets will ricochet or explode on impact only apply to hollow points, as the soft points will penetrate bone just fine... just ask the two badgers in my avatar how their heads felt. I put one shot in each of their ears at about 75 yards (yes I know badgers aren't deer, but they do have thick skulls ).
No question a 165 gr bullet will leave a much more devastating wound than a 63 grain one will. The difference is that the small bullet can be placed much more easily, so not nearly as much devastation is needed to kill outright.
As to your point that the smaller bullet will fragment once it enters the animal... isn't that exactly what we want to happen? A bullet that penetrates and explodes inside the head or chest cavity is the perfect wound as the entire energy is released into the vitals, creating lots of hydrostatic pressure and likely instant death.
The bottom line for me, is that a different set of rules need to apply to using the .22 on big game, but it's definitely up to the task.

 

[stubblejumper]

That's actually the whole point of the comparison (the same force applied to two objects of different surface areas produces greater penetration in the smaller one).

And again you are missing the point.The much heavier larger caliber bullet will usually have much more energy,and therefore much more force to do the penetrating.A reasonable comparison would be a 16 oz hammer striking the smaller nail,and a 2lb hammer striking the larger nail.

I was speaking only about the potential to penetrate at this point, because I believe it was you that was doubting the ability of the small bullet to penetrate as well as the larger one-

Not at all,with a bullet such as the tsx,the smaller diameter bullet will penetrate,however it will leave a much smaller wound channel.

I think your theory that the smaller bullets will ricochet or explode on impact only apply to hollow points, as the soft points will penetrate bone just fine...

Any bullet is likely to ricochet if it strikes bone at an angle.The smaller bullets are not immune to that characteristic just because they are moving at high velocity.

The difference is that the small bullet can be placed much more easily, so not nearly as much devastation is needed to kill outright.

A larger bullet can be placed just as accurately as a smaller bullet,and the larger bullets of the same sectional density are less effected by wind.If a smaller bullet was so much easier to place,why don't military snipers use .223" bullets?

As to your point that the smaller bullet will fragment once it enters the animal... isn't that exactly what we want to happen? A bullet that penetrates and explodes inside the head or chest cavity is the perfect wound as the entire energy is released into the vitals, creating lots of hydrostatic pressure and likely instant death.

It still has to reach the vitals before fragmenting.If it hits a shoulder bone and fragments,the vitals will not be significantly damaged to ensure a quick kill.

With the right bullet,a .223" bullet can kill a deer,and even an elk,but the shot placement must be perfect for a quick clean kill.On the other hand a larger caliber bullet can penetrate an elks shoulder and still destroy the animals vitals.I used elk as an example because you also have to consider elk and moose,since they are available in many provinces,and the caliber regulations normally apply to all big game.

As to head/neck shots,they can be deadly,but they can also result in wounded animals just as easily,if the shot placement is not perfect.A lung shot leaves much more room for error while still providing a clean kill.

 

[Shrek]

I've seen (quite recently) a 30-06 go through the ribs and stop in the first lung of a moose. I wouldn't want to see the same (good) shot performed with a .22 containing much less energy than a .30 caliber bullet.

To those of you who consider headshots an ethical no-no, let me ask you this:

A moose is 35 yards away, and has his head straight up in the air trying to wind you. Due to terrain all you have is a frontal shot to the throat, not even enough for a heart or lung shot. Do you take the shot, or do you let him spook and run, then brag to all your friends about how ethical you are?


Different question, lets just say you took the shot and hit him in the windpipe, then put one in his lung(s) when he turned broadside, and he's standing there hurt but he keeps looking at you. What are your options? The moose is LOOKING right at you, then looking away. Do you shoot again? Where do you aim? Another one in the lungs, or do you go for a spine or headshot to prevent him from suffering and also eliminate the possibility of a charge?

The moose was put down quickly and effectively with a large caliber rifle and a shot a few inches below the ear. The same shot to the lungs would have ruined a lot of meat, and still left the moose with the ability to charge or run.

It's rarely a clear cut issue with headshots IMHO, and each occasion must be be evaluated objectively and carefully.

After seeing what that bull took from high power rounds, I wouldn't want to hunt one with anything small.

 

[stubblejumper]

Different question, lets just say you took the shot and hit him in the windpipe, then put one in his lung(s) when he turned broadside, and he's standing there hurt but he keeps looking at you.

He could have just as easily ran into the timber after the first shot,and not offered a second shot.The result would be a wounded moose that might not be recovered because you chose a neck shot that was not immediately fatal.

The moose is LOOKING right at you, then looking away. Do you shoot again? Where do you aim? Another one in the lungs, or do you go for a spine or headshot to prevent him from suffering and also eliminate the possibility of a charge?

Once an animal is wounded,my criteria for shot selection changes dramatically.I will attempt any available shot to put the animal down as quickly as possible.I will keep shooting until the animal drops as long as a shot is available.

 

[Hermen]

I've not been hunting long but have seen some weird things. A .264 Win Mag shoot a deer in the head so there is a hole on one side of the bridge of the nose and none on the other. Did the bullet slide up along the septum or down and out the nostril? I didn't disect the head but should have. This was at about 40 yards.
Last week I shot a buck at about 150 yards with my .243 with 100 gr NP. In and out the chest, even shot a bit high and clipped the spine. About 10 minutes later another guy took basically the same shot with a .270 WSSM that ended up in a golf ball sized lump on the skin on the far side behind the shoulder. (Not sure what bullet but wonder if it was a varmint type...)
As to head shots sometimes you have to take what you can get but at short range remember the scope is higher than the barrel. I shot a beef bull for a friend recently that had outgrown its cute stage and become a hazard to the fences and handlers. I used a .44 mag rifle because of the area, noise, wanting a big hole not a big bang etc. The sscope was perfectly centred but the bullet hit about an inch and a half lower than I wanted. The bull dropped instantly but on hearing me chamber another round he jumped to his feet, mad. Was I ever surprised. My next shots were a little hastier and poorer placement as I was trying to discourage him from charging me or heading through the neighbour's fence. I only realized later that I had not compensated for the height of the scope. I think this is a problem for any head shots; windage is easy given a steady shot but elevation varies with distance so much even with something flat shooting that I would really hesitate to use it when an inch up or down matters.

 

[H4831]

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.

In an earlier post I told how a brother once shot a mule deer in the ribs with a 222 and it died instantly. Later in the day he got an exact same shot at another buck, bullet in the ribs and the deer took off and couldn't be found.
Some people couldn't see the point. The point is a 222, at least with varmit bullets, is an unreliable killer on deer. Obviously, the first bullet went between the ribs while on the second deer the bullet must have hit a rib.
And the exact same thing is true in shooting a deer with a 22 rimfire short. This same brother once shot a large whitetail buck with a 22 and shorts. he shot several times before the deer fell over.
When the deer was hung, I helped skin it out. The bullets that missed a rib going in went through the lungs and into the ribs on the other side. A bullet that hit a rib on the way in, didn't get any farther. Thus, you could shoot a deer in the ribs with a short and the deer could just escape with a fairly minor wound. The same would be true with light, or fragile, bullets in a 22 centrefire. Heavy, strong bullets would likely go through the ribs into the lungs.

 

[todbartell]

obviously bullet construction is even more important with a small caliber/high velocity than it is with say a 270 or 308. Use a bullet that will break bone and penetrate, like a Barnes X or a Nosler, and a small caliber gun should be able to perform well on deer sized game, given great shot placement and moderate range.

 

[dan belisle]

.230 caliber is the minimum in Alberta... so since that's not a rifle caliber it means .243 is the minimum. This seems crazy to me because what's the difference between a .230 and .224 bullet? Very little really 0.006" is hardly perceptible, but I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere, right?
I agree with what has been said, and I personally believe that with a 22 centrefire instead of going for broadside shots like you do with 30 cals you would just need to shoot for the head and you would be much more successful. Different hunting style is all that would be needed.

Actually, back in the day Ackley made up a 23 cal rifle (and projectiles for it as well), just because of this rule (same law in Utah at the time). - dan

 

[MD]

My father shot deer with a 22 Hornet for a couple decades.

He only aimed for the neck at mostly modest ranges.

I'm not advocating it, but it is possible.

 

[7mmlefty]

Doesn't sound like you stubblies. Do you think 50 rounds would do it. Ha Ha !!...

 

[stubblejumper]

I will attempt any available shot to put the animal down as quickly as possible.I will keep shooting until the animal drops as long as a shot is available.

Doesn't sound like you stubblies.

Let me add the first sentence that I posted,but you neglected to quote.

Once an animal is wounded,my criteria for shot selection changes dramatically.I will attempt any available shot to put the animal down as quickly as possible.I will keep shooting until the animal drops as long as a shot is available.

Does that sound more like me?Unlike you,I choose my shots very carefully UNTIL AN ANIMAL HAS BEEN WOUNDED.Then,and only then,I take whatever shot presents itself.

Do you think 50 rounds would do it.

Perhaps not for you,but I generally only carry ten rounds with me,and I have never run out of ammunition on a hunt,even after finishing off an animal wounded by someone else.As for my own animals,in the last ten years or so,I have shot four animals more than once,a charging grizzly to stop it even though it was fatally hit,a mountain goat to keep it from going over a cliff,and a moose and an elk that were on the edge of some very nasty terrain.In all cases,the animals were fatally hit,but I wanted to anchor them on the spot.

 

[Hermen]

For what it's worth the .243 w 100 gr Nosler punched out an inch of rib coming and an inch going out at 150 yards on a medium 4 pointer. Not sure how this compares to a .223 of half the mass, but I bet if it did half the job it would be enough.

 

[MattW]

I think the problem with hunting big game with a CF 22 is that even a deer can take a vital hit from a light bullet and show little or no sign of being hit, on top of that, without an exit hole and only a 22 entrance hole even a heart shot deer may leave a very minimal blood trail. I think that when you combine these two things there are too many hunters that might just call their shot a miss and go on, leaving a dead deer in the field. That said I do think that a 22 CF with good bullets and shot placement at reasonable ranges is quite capable of taking big game and a good hunter could see good succes with one.
On the issue of head shots. I think they can be great and give the excellent result of an instant kill without meat damage. The head shot isn't for everyone however. For the hunter who fires only a handful of shots a year (one or two to check the sights and a couple more at game) and takes a 100 yard broadside shot just hoping to hit something vital I think the head shot may be beyond their skills. However for the well practiced marksman who knows his anatomy and is familiar with his rifle and is patient enough to take the shot when only he has a nice square shot through the skull to the brain it can be a great option. What stubblejumper said about guys thinking that the head shot is either an instant kill or a clean miss is absurd, there are all kinds of miserable things in between. If someone says that they don't know their anatomy enough to be taking a head shot and further it tells me that they believe there is reasonable chance they could entirely miss the animals head which means they aren't a good enough marksman to be using the head shot either. Just my opinion.

 

[Hermen]

Accurate head shots require knowing range and trajectory. If you can calculate that all at the same time while setting up for a shot go for it. If not take the chest shot. You really lose very little meat that way and can be confident.

Incidently the guy that shot the deer with the .270 WSSM was turning to leave when I told him his deer was down and dead. I think that is more a matter of attitude and ethics than calibre.