Calibre question,new ground.

[MR TEA POT 1,287]

5 minutes ago, Stavross said:

For me, 100% HMR for all 3 on that size of land

It seems the way to go,but as I've mentioned my firearms department said .223 when I rang so I'll have to see what they come back with,it's a minefield this shooting game

[MR TEA POT 1,287]

8 minutes ago, Deker said:

We live in a strange world with this shooting Malarkey...it seems you region may force you to have a CF (.223 apparently), they may not accept a rimfire, even though their Head Office (the Home Office) say it will be fine.

I shoot for a living as well as fun and also target, I have a lot of guns and I take out what I need for any job/land/quarry, I also do site surveys (Google Earth very helpful these days), I don't just get a fox job and say that's .223, I use what I need, and for me and fox, that is FAR more often a rimfire than a CF.

Good luck.

Thanks for input Deker appreciate it

[Alsone 789]

HMR is a bad choice for that location. I know the Peak District, the majority of it is high, very exposed and the moors are frequently very windy and HMR doesn't buck the wind very well. Even in the valleys the wind can tunnel down although only you know your exact location and it's quirks. HMR although accepted as fox suitable is still quite marginal in power and on completely open land, you're probably unlikely to be shooting a close range. Again wind drift might cause wounding.

40 acres is small but equally, given the windy location I'd suggest you probably want a CF for more velocity and a heavier pill to buck the wind. If you were going to go rimfire, consider a .22 Magnum. A little more range, heavier bullet and more energy.

That said, I'm guessing you're under Derbyshire Constabulary and they have no issues with issuing CF. Covering large areas of rural land, they've always been pretty understanding of shooting needs. Like SY these days, they prefer CF for fox as I understand it.

Although I didn't like the calibre in it's early days because of it's reputation to splash with 32gr bullets, something now seemingly rectified, .204 would seem to me to be a good choice here with 39gr ammunition. Very fast, very flat shooting, more explosively destructive than almost any other .22 calibre and more resistant to wind drift than even some other fast .22's with similar weight (39gr) ammunition such as  .22-250 or .220 Swift. Failing that, the "chav" calibre of .223, is pretty much a given as another choice. However, I'd certainly;y give 39gr .204 some consideration.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Alsone

[Deker 3,450]

8 hours ago, Alsone said:

HMR is a bad choice for that location. I know the Peak District, the majority of it is high, very exposed and the moors are frequently very windy and HMR doesn't buck the wind very well. Even in the valleys the wind can tunnel down although only you know your exact location and it's quirks. HMR although accepted as fox suitable is still quite marginal in power and on completely open land, you're probably unlikely to be shooting a close range. Again wind drift might cause wounding.

40 acres is small but equally, given the windy location I'd suggest you probably want a CF for more velocity and a heavier pill to buck the wind. If you were going to go rimfire, consider a .22 Magnum. A little more range, heavier bullet and more energy.

That said, I'm guessing you're under Derbyshire Constabulary and they have no issues with issuing CF. Covering large areas of rural land, they've always been pretty understanding of shooting needs. Like SY these days, they prefer CF for fox as I understand it.

Although I didn't like the calibre in it's early days because of it's reputation to splash with 32gr bullets, something now seemingly rectified, .204 would seem to me to be a good choice here with 39gr ammunition. Very fast, very flat shooting, more explosively destructive than almost any other .22 calibre and more resistant to wind drift than even some other fast .22's with similar weight (39gr) ammunition such as  .22-250 or .220 Swift. Failing that, the "chav" calibre of .223, is pretty much a given as another choice. However, I'd certainly;y give 39gr .204 some consideration.

 

Here's something else for you to read and file.

There are people on this site that have used a HMR since they arrived in this country nearly 20 years ago, I can't help thinking they are better qualified to comment than someone with NO HMR and NO FAC who reads a lot!

HMR isn't a bad choice.  HMR isn't any worse in the wind than some other calibres, and is much better than .22lr.    There is nothing Marginal in the power of a HMR for fox at normal fox distances, I shoot loads of them with .22lr subs at circa 100ft lb, the HMR is circa 245ft lb, the V-Max are also far more devastating upon arrival.  The VAST majority of fox are shot under 100 yards (look it up yourself), you only need a CF when the distances increase, I have been shooting foxes more years than I can remember, my first company was Fox Control, I have certainly shot in the low/medium Thousands of fox, I could count on one hand how many I've needed to shoot over 200 yards and there are still relatively low numbers between 100-200 yards.

HMR/WMR with V-Max will tend to enter, do a lot of damage and impart ALL their energy without an exit, thus imparting their energy far more effectively than many centrefire that will more commonly have an exit wound and waste energy, and risk Ricochet, which we all know you can quote the dangers of for pages!   The WMR has no more effective range than the HMR, actually I'd give the edge to the HMR, the WMR 30g V-Max flies very similarly to the 17g HMR V-Max out to about 100 yards than drops away.    Out to around 130 yards the WMR V-Max carries more energy than the HMR but the HMR is marginally more accurate at all distances.     By around 130 yards the HMR/WMR carry very similar energy  The OP wants Magpie and Crow as well as Fox, and whilst I rate the WMR very highly, there is no question that for Fox/Magpie/Crow, HMR wins every time!  If it was just fox, the WMR would marginally tip the balance for me, just the same I use the HMR for fox a lot.

Some regions are as dumb as some people who comment on this site and may force him to have a CF.

He wants, or more specifically will get, whatever his region let him have, (I suspect that will actually be regardless of what is best suited for his particular 40 acres), the reality is HMR and WMR are VERY useful fox calibres. 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Deker

[ianm 2,594]

On 09/02/2019 at 12:02, MR TEA POT said:

I spoke to my firearms yesterday and they said,rightly or wrongly,they didn't recommend a .22 rimfire for fox,they said .223

That said,they also said they can't find the land on their computer,so I'm thinking they might not pass it for a .223,when they send some one to have a look at the ground,like someone said 40 acres is a small area,I don't know

My force won't give you a rimfire for fox although they do put down AOLQ which covers you for using one on fox. However it would only be granted for rabbits etc. The acreage of land doesn't matter when using a c/f it is about back stops and topography. I know someone with a .243 on less than forty acres  to shoot roe.   

[Deker 3,450]

1 hour ago, ianm said:

My force won't give you a rimfire for fox although they do put down AOLQ which covers you for using one on fox. However it would only be granted for rabbits etc. The acreage of land doesn't matter when using a c/f it is about back stops and topography. I know someone with a .243 on less than forty acres  to shoot roe.   

Just shows how daft some regions are, ......….It is our policy not to condition rimfire for Fox, but we are happy to issue you AOLQ.........….  and that most definitely includes Fox!  

Edited February 10, 2019 by Deker

[Rimfireboy! 1,463]

On 10/02/2019 at 18:30, Deker said:

Just shows how daft some regions are, ......….It is our policy not to condition rimfire for Fox, but we are happy to issue you AOLQ.........….  and that most definitely includes Fox!  

I know, some of the stuff they come out with..... the mind boggles.......

[Alsone 789]

On 10/02/2019 at 13:55, Deker said:

 

Here's something else for you to read and file.

There are people on this site that have used a HMR since they arrived in this country nearly 20 years ago, I can't help thinking they are better qualified to comment than someone with NO HMR and NO FAC who reads a lot!

HMR isn't a bad choice.  HMR isn't any worse in the wind than some other calibres, and is much better than .22lr.    There is nothing Marginal in the power of a HMR for fox at normal fox distances, I shoot loads of them with .22lr subs at circa 100ft lb, the HMR is circa 245ft lb, the V-Max are also far more devastating upon arrival.  The VAST majority of fox are shot under 100 yards (look it up yourself), you only need a CF when the distances increase, I have been shooting foxes more years than I can remember, my first company was Fox Control, I have certainly shot in the low/medium Thousands of fox, I could count on one hand how many I've needed to shoot over 200 yards and there are still relatively low numbers between 100-200 yards.

HMR/WMR with V-Max will tend to enter, do a lot of damage and impart ALL their energy without an exit, thus imparting their energy far more effectively than many centrefire that will more commonly have an exit wound and waste energy, and risk Ricochet, which we all know you can quote the dangers of for pages!   The WMR has no more effective range than the HMR, actually I'd give the edge to the HMR, the WMR 30g V-Max flies very similarly to the 17g HMR V-Max out to about 100 yards than drops away.    Out to around 130 yards the WMR V-Max carries more energy than the HMR but the HMR is marginally more accurate at all distances.     By around 130 yards the HMR/WMR carry very similar energy  The OP wants Magpie and Crow as well as Fox, and whilst I rate the WMR very highly, there is no question that for Fox/Magpie/Crow, HMR wins every time!  If it was just fox, the WMR would marginally tip the balance for me, just the same I use the HMR for fox a lot.

Some regions are as dumb as some people who comment on this site and may force him to have a CF.

He wants, or more specifically will get, whatever his region let him have, (I suspect that will actually be regardless of what is best suited for his particular 40 acres), the reality is HMR and WMR are VERY useful fox calibres. 

We can argue all day about what's suitable. As I've often said before Deker, you can kill anything with anything. There are people who've killed wild boar with .22LR and people who've been killed themselves in accidents with 6ft lbs air pistols, something that weight consideration vs energy would suggest is impossible. The choice of calibre for hunting all comes down to skill and humanity.

Depending on who you believe, it takes between 35-115ft lbs to kill a fox and at least 1 reputable site (one with the low figure) suggests a maximum sized 1.5" lethal zone at 35ft lbs.

The latter pretty much sums up why many police forces and others don't recommend LR for fox over 50yds or so for the average shot, or some even at all. Whilst LR has a bit more than 35ft lbs @ 100yds, how many Joe Averages can reliably put the shot into a 1.5" circle at that range often from standing or sticks? Of course again it comes down to whether or not you believe the 1.5" lethal target area with that energy, but then again that's another argument. The whole point of a more powerful calibre with more energy and velocity i it buys you more leeway to be less precise in where you hit the animal as the effects of hydrostatic shot are much wider spread. Therefore someone less than an expert shot, or who makes a shot affected by wind drift or badly judged drop, or sudden animal movement or just badly aimed, is more likely to be humane despite those failings with a more powerful calibre, and that's why many police forces aren't keen on low power rimfires for a fox sized target. It's not about what will kill, but what will kill reliably with a less than perfect shot from Joe Average. 

The whole humanity argument is also why I prefer more explosive and more powerful calibres rather than those at the bottom of each recommendation for each category of animal. I'd rather take a little more noise and recoil, over risk of wounding. 

 

[Deker 3,450]

7 hours ago, Alsone said:

We can argue all day about what's suitable. As I've often said before Deker, you can kill anything with anything. There are people who've killed wild boar with .22LR and people who've been killed themselves in accidents with 6ft lbs air pistols, something that weight consideration vs energy would suggest is impossible. The choice of calibre for hunting all comes down to skill and humanity.

Depending on who you believe, it takes between 35-115ft lbs to kill a fox and at least 1 reputable site (one with the low figure) suggests a maximum sized 1.5" lethal zone at 35ft lbs.

The latter pretty much sums up why many police forces and others don't recommend LR for fox over 50yds or so for the average shot, or some even at all. Whilst LR has a bit more than 35ft lbs @ 100yds, how many Joe Averages can reliably put the shot into a 1.5" circle at that range often from standing or sticks? Of course again it comes down to whether or not you believe the 1.5" lethal target area with that energy, but then again that's another argument. The whole point of a more powerful calibre with more energy and velocity i it buys you more leeway to be less precise in where you hit the animal as the effects of hydrostatic shot are much wider spread. Therefore someone less than an expert shot, or who makes a shot affected by wind drift or badly judged drop, or sudden animal movement or just badly aimed, is more likely to be humane despite those failings with a more powerful calibre, and that's why many police forces aren't keen on low power rimfires for a fox sized target. It's not about what will kill, but what will kill reliably with a less than perfect shot from Joe Average. 

The whole humanity argument is also why I prefer more explosive and more powerful calibres rather than those at the bottom of each recommendation for each category of animal. I'd rather take a little more noise and recoil, over risk of wounding. 

 

If you'd done it then you would not have have to believe or question all the things you read, you would know what is possible and what isn't through experience, like many people here, we comment from many years of experience in a vast array of situations, we know what works, we don't have to spend all day reading to find out and then lecture experienced shooters that they have it wrong!!!

"The whole humanity argument is also why I prefer more explosive and more powerful calibres rather than those at the bottom of each recommendation for each category of animal. I'd rather take a little more noise and recoil, over risk of wounding."   You don't have a clue, another comment simply based on what you read!   Learn to shoot and you don't have a problem, access the situation, NOTHING is a simple as I need a bit more power to be sure (where does that stop), you need to consider, calibre, ammo type, distances, environment, quarry, weather, experience, etc etc.

Have a nice read and let me know what I've got wrong! 

[Alsone 789]

I have done it with .22LR. It's as I said above it's not about whether or not something will kill, it's about margins and instant death and repeatability. We all know .22lR will kill fox humanely out to 50-60yds. Some would say further, but again we're talking margins. HMR will kill fox further. However, there becomes a point where the risk of wounding increases and the percentage of instantaneous kills for joe average starts to fall / potentially fall, and it's at that point that where it's time to consider something with a little more punch. Yes there are lots of factors involved. But people make mistakes and the whole point behind the restrictions some police forces and indeed the Home Office make with recommendations are not based on whether something will kill in skilled hands, or will kill 50% of the time, they're about how well something will kill with Joe Average's shooting skills 90% of the time.  That's overkill for a skilled shot, yes, but for very good reason.

 

[walshie 2,804]

I reckon I've killed more foxes with my 22lr than my chavvy 223 and hornet combined. Just saying...

[Deker 3,450]

7 hours ago, Alsone said:

I have done it with .22LR. It's as I said above it's not about whether or not something will kill, it's about margins and instant death and repeatability. We all know .22lR will kill fox humanely out to 50-60yds. Some would say further, but again we're talking margins. HMR will kill fox further. However, there becomes a point where the risk of wounding increases and the percentage of instantaneous kills for joe average starts to fall / potentially fall, and it's at that point that where it's time to consider something with a little more punch. Yes there are lots of factors involved. But people make mistakes and the whole point behind the restrictions some police forces and indeed the Home Office make with recommendations are not based on whether something will kill in skilled hands, or will kill 50% of the time, they're about how well something will kill with Joe Average's shooting skills 90% of the time.  That's overkill for a skilled shot, yes, but for very good reason.

 

If you stopped reading and got out and did it you wouldn't have to quote/speculate about everything you have ever read, you could actually make an informed comment!

The idiot can't shoot, lets give him a bigger calibre to allow for his incompetence! 

[Alsone 789]

3 hours ago, walshie said:

I reckon I've killed more foxes with my 22lr than my chavvy 223 and hornet combined. Just saying...

I don't doubt it for a minute Walshie. Deker asked why some forces / the Home Office put limits on certain calibres and I gave a reason. It doesn't mean .22LR is unsuitable for fox. It means it's suitable to certain distances with a certain skill level. Suitable to further distances with a higher skill level, and at some further distances beyond that, or beyond the persons maximum range for their skill level, the ratio of kill to wounding starts to increase in which case in the interests of being humane, there are better choices to be made. There's absolutely no doubt you can have too much power close in. It's all horses for courses based on prey, skill level, weather and wind pretty much as Deker indicated above. The only thing Deker didn't make a point about which I did, is the fact that beyond certain distances for certain skill levels any calibre becomes less humane and when that point is reached the responsible shooter goes up a level to something which gives more of a margin for error. 

[Deker 3,450]

1 minute ago, Alsone said:

I don't doubt it for a minute Walshie. Deker asked why some forces / the Home Office put limits on certain calibres No I didn't! and I gave a reason. It doesn't mean .22LR is unsuitable for fox. It means it's suitable to certain distances with a certain skill level. Suitable to further distances with a higher skill level, and at some further distances beyond that, or beyond the persons maximum range for their skill level, the ratio of kill to wounding starts to increase in which case in the interests of being humane, there are better choices to be made. There's absolutely no doubt you can have too much power close in. It's all horses for courses based on prey, skill level, weather and wind pretty much as Deker indicated above. The only thing Deker didn't make a point about which I did, is the fact that beyond certain distances Yes I did! for certain skill levels any calibre becomes less humane and when that point is reached the responsible shooter goes up a level to something which gives more of a margin for error. 

You are unreal!