Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daz Harrison

Fox Control With A .22

Recommended Posts


Hi, funnily enough I asked my FEO the same question whilst he was checking my shoot. He said the same thing as many others have on here. .22lr is not the best round for the job. However, if you are sensible and skilled a headshot will do the job.

Share this post


Link to post

I shot a fox at 60yards in back of the head died on the spot wud not hav chanced any further

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Some forces (like mine for instance) will not allow .22 or any other rimfire on fox, some will, if you can head shoot them at 50-70 yards then a .22 will kill them cleanly, but as a gun to take out foxing specifically then it is not the right choice, if you want to shoot foxes regular then get a .22 hornet upwards, all the .22 cf are perfect for foxes.

 

Doesn't really matter what they choose to believe they "allow". The Police uphold the law, they do not make it! The fact they may not "condition" it on your ticket is neither here nor there. If you shoot a fox with a rimfire rifle it is legal. If they take you to court for shooting a fox with a rimfire (which they won't) they would look pretty stupid ignoring H.O guidelines which all Police forces claim to follow. Proving effective range limits for R/F would be a nightmare for them, otherwise they would stipulate them.

I've shot plenty of fox with LR and HMR and if common sense is used regarding range, perfectly capable calibres.

Share this post


Link to post

I would say ask yourself, "can I humanely dispatch at the distance at which I am shooting, with the tool I am using" As far a I know, no one with a FAC has had to prove they can hit the quarry on their certificate at a given distance rendering the whole .22lr argument irrelevant if you can't hit the damn thing! Do I taken my .25 Patriot (31 ft lbs) out fox shooting: No. While out rabbiting would I use my .25 Patriot at 15 yards with a clean shot in good condition in daylight on a passing Fox: ???

Share this post


Link to post

Think this has been done to death lol its just common sense really, I wouldn't go out foxing with a 22, but if I was rabbiting and saw one which ran in to the squeak to about 50 60 yards or closer than no problem

agreed with you

Share this post


Link to post

 

Some forces (like mine for instance) will not allow .22 or any other rimfire on fox, some will, if you can head shoot them at 50-70 yards then a .22 will kill them cleanly, but as a gun to take out foxing specifically then it is not the right choice, if you want to shoot foxes regular then get a .22 hornet upwards, all the .22 cf are perfect for foxes.

 

Doesn't really matter what they choose to believe they "allow". The Police uphold the law, they do not make it! The fact they may not "condition" it on your ticket is neither here nor there. If you shoot a fox with a rimfire rifle it is legal. If they take you to court for shooting a fox with a rimfire (which they won't) they would look pretty stupid ignoring H.O guidelines which all Police forces claim to follow. Proving effective range limits for R/F would be a nightmare for them, otherwise they would stipulate them.

I've shot plenty of fox with LR and HMR and if common sense is used regarding range, perfectly capable calibres.

 

 

 

Actually the HO Office Guidelines state .22 LR in "Certain Circumstances".

 

Specifically the notes (13.25) say "..22 RF's are generally considered to have insufficient muzzle energy to be used against fox in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons...It is for the operator to ensure the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammo to achieve a humane kill".

 

So it's perfectly open for the police to take you to Court for using it beyond a "short" or "appropriate" range.

 

Also, you can be prosecuted for causing necessary suffering if an animal runs and it can be shown that your actions were unreasonable eg You shot it at an unreasonable range.

 

So anyone using .22RF, against fox needs to be very careful about both range and bullet placement, but especially range.

Edited by Alsone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Some forces (like mine for instance) will not allow .22 or any other rimfire on fox, some will, if you can head shoot them at 50-70 yards then a .22 will kill them cleanly, but as a gun to take out foxing specifically then it is not the right choice, if you want to shoot foxes regular then get a .22 hornet upwards, all the .22 cf are perfect for foxes.

 

Doesn't really matter what they choose to believe they "allow". The Police uphold the law, they do not make it! The fact they may not "condition" it on your ticket is neither here nor there. If you shoot a fox with a rimfire rifle it is legal. If they take you to court for shooting a fox with a rimfire (which they won't) they would look pretty stupid ignoring H.O guidelines which all Police forces claim to follow. Proving effective range limits for R/F would be a nightmare for them, otherwise they would stipulate them.

I've shot plenty of fox with LR and HMR and if common sense is used regarding range, perfectly capable calibres.

 

 

 

Actually the HO Office Guidelines state .22 LR in "Certain Circumstances".

 

Specifically the notes (13.25) say "..22 RF's are generally considered to have insufficient muzzle energy to be used against fox in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons...It is for the operator to ensure the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammo to achieve a humane kill".

 

So it's perfectly open for the police to take you to Court for using it beyond a "short" or "appropriate" range.

 

Also, you can be prosecuted for causing necessary suffering if an animal runs and it can be shown that your actions were unreasonable eg You shot it at an unreasonable range.

 

So anyone using .22RF, against fox needs to be very careful about both range and bullet placement, but especially range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

Share this post


Link to post

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

 

 

 

They'd just obtain an expert opinion and if that fell outside of the range you'd been shooting at, then you'd be in difficulties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

but you could do the same (mess up bullet placement) at what could be regarded as an 'acceptable' range.. what would be the charge then incompetance? I've seen a fox run 70yds after being holed with a 22-250.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

 

 

 

They'd just obtain an expert opinion and if that fell outside of the range you'd been shooting at, then you'd be in difficulties.

 

 

"Public Interest" and the "realistic prospect of conviction" would come in to play a country mile before it got anywhere near a court room.

 

For such a minor offence, it wouldn't be worth either.

Share this post


Link to post

If your so unsure use a bigger gun . If shot with .22 fox dies on the spot or is maimed and dies from injurys.shot with a slug it's just dead simples.

Share this post


Link to post

If your so unsure use a bigger gun . If shot with .22 fox dies on the spot or is maimed and dies from injurys.shot with a slug it's just dead simples.

 

If you are so unsure LEARN TO SHOOT, and stay within the capabilities of yourself and the calibre!.

 

This rubbish about using bigger calibres to make up for the shooters shortcomings is a joke. Why would you want to give an incompetent, and even bigger, and therefore potentially more dangerous calibre, to compensate for their failings? :hmm:

 

"Dear Mr FEO, I can't shoot very well so can I please have a .308 for rabbits!" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

This topic will go round and round, as this shows, risen from the ashes again to join the many threads on the same subject.

 

:thumbs:

Edited by Deker
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

but you could do the same (mess up bullet placement) at what could be regarded as an 'acceptable' range.. what would be the charge then incompetance? I've seen a fox run 70yds after being holed with a 22-250.

 

You could but provided you're within the humane range for your calibre, and reasonably competent, allowance will probably be made for human frailty as everyone knows that there's no such thing as a 100% guaranteed instantaneous death every time. No-one is 100% accurate 100% of the time and then there's extraneous factors such as the sudden wind gust or the ammo that doesn't perform as expected etc.

 

In my opinion as a non expert, that's different entirely to shooting at an unsuitable range, especially when the LR Guidance specifically states LR should be granted for short range use only against fox. Even if you don't specifically breach your conditions, there's still the possibility of prosecution from a body such as the RSPCA if there's evidence to show the range was unsuitable (with any calibre) and an animal suffered as a result as there are animal welfare offences such as "causing unnecessary suffering" that aren't related to firearms. eg I wouldn't bet my wallet on a 1,000yd+ shot against live prey in the UK even with a CF, as I think you'd find it very hard to justify that it was humane given the flight time and drop off in both velocity and energy plus the increased chances of extraneous factors affecting accurate and humane bullet placement. The same could probably be said of .22LR at medium range albeit for energy delivery and drop off reasons. What constitutes "short range" is for the experts to argue over but it would be unwise to push the boundaries with shots that might be regarded as medium range. That's quite apart from the fact that there's the humanity factor - as a shooter there is a responsibility morally, if not in law, to be humane towards your prey. A pest maybe a pest that needs controlling, but it's still a life and it can still suffer pain so everyone who shoots owes a moral duty to do everything within their powers to despatch it as instantly and pain free as possible.

 

 

 

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

 

 

 

They'd just obtain an expert opinion and if that fell outside of the range you'd been shooting at, then you'd be in difficulties.

 

 

"Public Interest" and the "realistic prospect of conviction" would come in to play a country mile before it got anywhere near a court room.

 

For such a minor offence, it wouldn't be worth either.

 

 

You may or may not be correct from a licensing stand point, but I wouldn't bet a prosecution on it as it's not just the police. Just ask yourself, do the RSPCA ignore cruelty because it's just a single animal involved? If you shoot something at an unreasonable range or outside of the conditions specified by your licence, then you're at risk of prosecution from the RSPCA if it results in any suffering and there's any proof. The whole separate issue of have you breached your conditions is going to come down to what your licence says, but at the very least, you're FEO is going to take a dim view of you are using it at excess range, and in my non expert opinion, that may raise questions as to are you a suitable person to hold a firearm should proven shooting at excess range continue.

 

If your so unsure use a bigger gun . If shot with .22 fox dies on the spot or is maimed and dies from injurys.shot with a slug it's just dead simples.

 

Whilst I agree with Deker that the gun to use is the one that's appropriate to the circumstances, the use of a larger calibre is probably a sensible precaution where's there's any doubt and assuming it's safe to do so, albeit the doubt should be over the suitability of the tool not the competence of the shooter. If the shooter isn't competent, then he should be on the firing range or restricting his own range, until he is. A larger calibre is a tool to use when you're shooting range is possibly at or beyond the humane or accurate limits of your 1st choice weapon. That said, there's nothing wrong in choosing a more powerful weapon within the range of weapons considered suitable for a type of prey just to give yourself a a bit more of a margin for error when the unexpected happens (not to make up for poor shooting in the first place). eg. choosing a .22-250 over a .223, or a .243 over a .22-250, or using a CF when at the upper end of rimfire range to ensure enough energy.

 

As an aside, I think the new licensing regulations take account of this as I believe there's a monetary and permission free like for like swap coming within the HO calibre bands.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×