So where is the best Fox Kill Zone

clivej

I have read through the boards as to where is the best kill zone when shooting a fox with a CZ .223. So where the the best shot placement?

bitemybanger

bottom right of B 2

cavan shooter

second that
though the big white target god gave them also works c area on the photo.

bunny shooter

Agree, bottom right of B2

johngalway

What that lot up there said. Basically if the fox is side on to you you want to be aiming just behind the shoulder centre height of the body, if it's sitting or standing facing you then middle or top middle of the chest. If in doubt, don't shoot, there will always be another time.

Trojan911

B2 has never failed me either.

quackquackBOOM

im going to ask here what about cz 17hmr id always go for the head behind the ear with a 20 gr and never much beyond 75 mabye 80 was the max anybody gone further with any other shot

and since i said i would try a .22lr after my rampant ravings on the neo thread where and how far 50-75 with a head shot?

meathshooter

B2 WOULD be the ideal placement

bunny shooter

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

im going to ask here what about cz 17hmr id always go for the head behind the ear with a 20 gr and never much beyond 75 mabye 80 was the max anybody gone further with any other shot

and since i said i would try a .22lr after my rampant ravings on the neo thread where and how far 50-75 with a head shot?

we're assuming you're using a real fox calibre

.243

125yrds calm sunny evening !!!

sounder

b2

johngalway

For a rimfire headshot... In the picture, draw a line across the tops of his eyes (not eyebrows, eyes) and put it dead centre of that line. If he's side on then draw a line between his eye and the base of his ear and again put it dead centre that line. By the base of the ear I mean the "open" part at the bottom of the ear if you get my meaning, just to the right of dead centre C1 and sloping upwards to the right of that little box, hard to explain.

The biggest problem with headshots, and the main reason I dislike them is that all of a foxes senses are located in the head, sight, hearing and smell. So if he hears, sees or smells something, what happens class? That's right, he moves his head. And that's if you're lucky and the barsteward doesn't have hayfever and sneeze lol... So B2 with a proper gun will ever remain best.

meathstevie

Even if you're bottom left in B2 or even a wee bit lower or left a .223 will still pulp the vitals. John correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know when you have a good hit on either heart, lungs or liver you're assured a swift kill ( liver through swift massive internal bleeding ).

maglite

.243 wrote: »

125yrds calm sunny evening !!!

ALL 3 in a row


wow

bogteal

a b c 2 with a 223 will do the job if smaller gun go for b2.

quackquackBOOM

bunny shooter wrote: »

we're assuming you're using a real fox calibre

i cant even say anything to that or ill get it again.... can i? :rolleyes:

johngalway

meathstevie wrote: »

Even if you're bottom left in B2 or even a wee bit lower or left a .223 will still pulp the vitals. John correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know when you have a good hit on either heart, lungs or liver you're assured a swift kill ( liver through swift massive internal bleeding ).

When youi have a good hit with the .223 in the vitals it's lights out, it's that dramatic. Sometimes with a hit high in the lungs they may go a bit but it's like the saying, they're dead, they just don't know it. I've shot most of my foxes with .223 and I can only remember one time when a fox ran (20 yards) from a vital hit, that was because he was facing away from me up a hill about to run so I shot him through the back into the vitals. It was a good hit as he'd a large hole in his chest, I guess the adrenaline and shock kept him going that far then kaput!

I can't say about the liver but heart/lungs will kill every time. It's the biggest area you have to aim at with less chance of that area moving like the head does.

It wasn't me!

While the vital organs body shot is a much more well-presented target, in theory is the head not a cleaner kill? Leaving out the fact that he moves his head much more, assuming he's shot there, is it a better killing zone than the heart or lungs area?

bitemybanger

Its not very nice when you take a shot and blow a jaw off or the lil buggers nose off and they run off to die in agony, thats why i steer away from head shots and only take the shot when im 100% certain of a clean kill.
even though i shoot and kill foxes, i still have alot of respect for them.

It wasn't me!

That's what I'm saying. Assuming such a thing is not the event and you nail him between the eyes, is it cleaner than a body shot? Are both utterly instantaneous or is there perhaps some time involved with a body shot that would not be involved with a perfect head shot?

johngalway

Since I'm usually somewhere between 8 and 200 yards from the fox when I take the shot I can only tell you that I make no delay in going to where the fox is and they're 99% always dead on the spot with a well placed .223 shot, with the 1% going on a few yards like the fox I mentioned above.

Theory is only worth a piss in the ocean when you're out foxing. I'm not having a go at you but you ask to take the field variables out of the situation to say a head shot is a cleaner way of dispatching a fox than a heart/lung shot. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid The heart/lung option is the most fair and humane option on the animal itself due to the size of the target and the lower amount of things that may go wrong with it as opposed to a headshot.

Last fox I shot was high above me in a hill, about 120 yards distant but at a steep angle. She was turning (had already run from the lamp three times on me) as I took the shot but I put it where I wanted, heart/lung, she dropped on the spot in full view and did not so much as twitch.

sounder

johngalway wrote: »

Since I'm usually somewhere between 8 and 200 yards from the fox when I take the shot I can only tell you that I make no delay in going to where the fox is and they're 99% always dead on the spot with a well placed .223 shot, with the 1% going on a few yards like the fox I mentioned above.

Theory is only worth a piss in the ocean when you're out foxing. I'm not having a go at you but you ask to take the field variables out of the situation to say a head shot is a cleaner way of dispatching a fox than a heart/lung shot. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid The heart/lung option is the most fair and humane option on the animal itself due to the size of the target and the lower amount of things that may go wrong with it as opposed to a headshot.

Last fox I shot was high above me in a hill, about 120 yards distant but at a steep angle. She was turning (had already run from the lamp three times on me) as I took the shot but I put it where I wanted, heart/lung, she dropped on the spot in full view and did not so much as twitch.

i agree with u 100% a fox is a target to us john the heart/lung shot is the same to me as a head shot but how often will u get head shot the target men on here think u have all day to shoot them.

It wasn't me!

I'm not having a go at anyone either, just curious as to whether heart or lung hits will drop them as instantaneously as say a brain stem hit. It's just a curiosity. I understand shooting in the field is different to targets, and it's by no means a critique of hunting practices, just something I wonder.

BryanL

if you take a heart lung shot the shock and vacum cause such a drop in blood pressure,it's as close to instantaenous as needed.
Bryan

It wasn't me!

There's no need to sound so defensive. I'm not anti-hunting, quite enthusiastically advocative of it in fact. It's a personal curiosity. Is it as instant as a hit to the brain stem?

kerryman12

cant imagine that it would be, but in real terms the differance isnt worth talking about.

The guys are just coming at this froma more practical view gain from years of experiance as opposed to the theoretical view point.

It wasn't me!

I know, and I'm not faulting the way things are done. I know it'll be the best that can be done, I was just trying to see whether perhaps others felt differently, see are there different schools of thought and such. interesting discussion and all that. For instance, with the lower ballistic damage of rimfire rounds, where foxes are shot with rimfire rounds, would the same shooters counsel going for the body shot still, with less impact damage, and therefore a less clean kill, or would they advise a sensible, well aimed brain-stem shot?

Trojan911

It wasn't me! wrote: »

While the vital organs body shot is a much more well-presented target, in theory is the head not a cleaner kill? Leaving out the fact that he moves his head much more, assuming he's shot there, is it a better killing zone than the heart or lungs area?

No. As stated the B2 shot is cleaner. Head shots are a smaller target thus the danger of hitting the nose and leaving the fox run off injured. The B2 shot is clean and fast and knocks all the major organs, instantly resulting in death.

Trust me, I (and buddy) have taken nearly 350 foxes over the last five years using this method.

johngalway

It wasn't me!

I don't know if you meant me with reference to being defensive. If so, it was never my intention to come across that way I tend to be blunt about things, just my way

I, personally, wouldn't go for a body shot with a rimfire (.22lr or .17HMR as they're the only rimfires I've shot, .22wmr may be a different story) on fox intentionally, no. I've posted in the thread earlier where I'd shoot a fox in the head with a .22lr, same would go for a .17HMR IMO. I know of HMR's creating "splash wounds", surface wounds with little penetration, but I'd accept that they mainly take place with the ballistic tipped lighter rounds. With the .22lr's ability to deflect and it's general low power I'd not feel comfortable taking a body shot on a fox with one. Brain shots with those calibres at sensible ranges and keeping withing the shooters abilities should knock the fox in one shot.

Mellor

I thought I posted on this thread already,
I think a clear distinction should be made,

the best place to land a hit to ensure a clean and quick kill,
and the best place to aim for to ensure a clean a quick kill, are not the same.

The head, or brain specificly, is the best place to hit as the death will be instant and as close to painless as possible. But the head is a smaller target, and moves more than the uppr body.

A well placed hit in the upper body will result in a very quick kill, just not as quick as the head. But the "clean kill zone" is considerable larger on the body (vital organs are obviously larger than brain), and the body moves less.

So although its not the best place to hit to get the quickest kill, it is the best place to aim for, as on more hits on average will be quick and clean.

It wasn't me!

That's pretty much the discussion I was intending to generate, and no, it wasn't you I perceived to be defensive, fear not. My thinking was that, while centrefire rifles are considered the optimal for shooting foxes, where rimfires are concerned, headshots are called for, and such a thing, while not ideal, would not be considered by most to be bad practice by definition, so is it just for the sake of avoiding the risks involved with a headshot that shooters with dedicated foxing calibres will advocate body shots, and will a centrefire hit to the body have the same killing power as a rimfire round through the brain, in terms of how fast the fox is gone? It's all a bit wanky, but it's just a discussion I've been having recently and thought I'd throw it out here.

It wasn't me!

Mellor wrote: »

I thought I posted on this thread already,
I think a clear distinction should be made,

the best place to land a hit to ensure a clean and quick kill,
and the best place to aim for to ensure a clean a quick kill, are not the same.

The head, or brain specificly, is the best place to hit as the death will be instant and as close to painless as possible. But the head is a smaller target, and moves more than the uppr body.

A well placed hit in the upper body will result in a very quick kill, just not as quick as the head. But the "clean kill zone" is considerable larger on the body (vital organs are obviously larger than brain), and the body moves less.

So although its not the best place to hit to get the quickest kill, it is the best place to aim for, as on more hits on average will be quick and clean.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. It's not a question as such, not looking for a definitive answer, just decent discussion really.

cavan shooter

37 foxes last year with my trusty 22 magnum (remington 597 varmint). 12 to date with her. 100-120 yards. Always the lung shot or straight for the chest. Used to aim for the head but stopped after one fox turned it's head just as i pulled the trigger missed. But boy did he run........

johngalway

It wasn't me! wrote: »

so is it just for the sake of avoiding the risks involved with a headshot that shooters with dedicated foxing calibres will advocate body shots

and will a centrefire hit to the body have the same killing power as a rimfire round through the brain, in terms of how fast the fox is gone?

Yes, it's to avoid the risk of injury in answer to the first part.

It's just a hard question to answer. I suspect that a centrefire hit to the heart/lungs won't be as quick as a rimfire round through the brain no. But, the difference with both types of shots when done properly honestly is not worth talking about. Going on my own experience of shooting foxes.

bunny shooter

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

i cant even say anything to that or ill get it again.... can i? :rolleyes:

As Mrs Doyle would say Go on, Go on, Go on, Go on

John Griffin

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

im going to ask here what about cz 17hmr id always go for the head behind the ear with a 20 gr and never much beyond 75 mabye 80 was the max anybody gone further with any other shot

and since i said i would try a .22lr after my rampant ravings on the neo thread where and how far 50-75 with a head shot?

I think it is time for people to forget about shooting foxes with rimfires, its not nescessary and its not humane. I know there's no law against it in the wildlife act but it could be seen a cruelty under the cruelty against animals act. Anything from .22 Hornet up is grand in my opinion. As for head shots, I don't think they should be taken, especially side on, I have finished off alot of deer and foxes that have had their jaws blown off by over confident marksmen. As hunters we need to be seen as humane and responsible in todays society, otherwise it could come back to bite us in the ass. Be aware that ICABBs are watching and waiting for us to mess up. Have respect for your quarry at all times:)

rossandjet

John Griffin wrote: »

I think it is time for people to forget about shooting foxes with rimfires, its not nescessary and its not humane. I know there's no law against it in the wildlife act but it could be seen a cruelty under the cruelty against animals act. Anything from .22 Hornet up is grand in my opinion. As for head shots, I don't think they should be taken, especially side on, I have finished off alot of deer and foxes that have had their jaws blown off by over confident marksmen. As hunters we need to be seen as humane and responsible in todays society, otherwise it could come back to bite us in the ass. Be aware that ICABBs are watching and waiting for us to mess up. Have respect for your quarry at all times:)

Sorry John.

You forgot me, I have a 17 Rem (and a 223) and the biddy 17 Rem 25G at 4200ft sec / 900ft lb will certainly put Charlie's lights out at 200 yd + and still has 150ft/lb more than the 45g Hornet at that range. A shot to the engine room leaves him just a bag of jelly and very dead.

It shoots as flat as a witches t*t, 1" high at 100, 1" low at 250 just point and pull.

It kills just as well as my 223 but is not as messy.

johngalway

John,

To say shooting a fox with a rimfire properly in the head is not humane does not make sense, I can't agree with that statement from my own personal experience. To implement even a voluntary "ban" on such things would be a very bad idea opening the floodgates to other "bans".

I do have respect for my quarry.

meathstevie

Opening a can of worms now : what about shotgun at short distance ? Let's say with a AAA Alphamax or 00 buckshot cartridge ?

johngalway

BB for fox Stevie, no farther than 40 yards max (that is if you're going out after him intentionally with the shottie). Problem with AAA and Buckshot is pattern density, there tends to be bigger gaps in the pattern due to fewer pellets.

spideog7

I've shot foxes stone cold out to ~70yds with 36gr BB. But generally inside 40 or 50yds is ideal. I've shot them out to 20yds with 36gr sixes but the that was just an oppurtunistic shot. At night you need to get them much closer.
But I think ye are over rating foxes, most of them are only small and easily brought down, on the other hand I've seen some carry five BB hits :eek:

In an ideal world you want an instantaeous kill everytime but we're not in that world, all animals take hits and keep going, you'll never hit them all rght every time. As long as you are confident that you can shoot them at the range you fired at then it's just an unlucky shot or a bad miss, it's not like you intentionally only maimed him or deliberatly took an ill advised shot.

The PC brigade have ye all ****in' bricks and ye're trying so hard to look innocent, it's sad to watch. We're going out there every day and night killing poor fluffy animals, get over it.

P.S. Dunno where that came outta ^...
Maybe I'll head on over too Personal Issues

Trojan911

I use 52gr 3" Magnums within a fifty yard range with the shotgun. I don't use any other cartridge when shooting foxes.

spideog7

:eek: Those are big.. they wouldn't even fit in my gun.
I bet your shoulder hurts after shooting 5 or 10 !!!!

John Griffin

johngalway wrote: »

John,

To say shooting a fox with a rimfire properly in the head is not humane does not make sense, I can't agree with that statement from my own personal experience. To implement even a voluntary "ban" on such things would be a very bad idea opening the floodgates to other "bans".

I do have respect for my quarry.

I never said anything about properly. Of course its humane if done properly, my problem with it is that there is a big margin for error, distance being the biggest problem, judging distance at night is difficult and we all know how important it is to get you distance right with a .22lr. It's nothing to do with self imposed bans, it's common sense, if there is a better tool for the job then it should be used. I shot alot of foxes with .22lr and i'm sure alot of the ones i thought i missed were badly wounded. It's fair enough to have a go if your out after bunnies and are given the oppertunity to take a fox, but if your main quarry is foxes i think it is only right to get a dedicated gun for the job.

johngalway wrote: »

BB for fox Stevie, no farther than 40 yards max (that is if you're going out after him intentionally with the shottie). Problem with AAA and Buckshot is pattern density, there tends to be bigger gaps in the pattern due to fewer pellets.

Agree totally, you could extend the range to 50yds as trojan says with 3 inch heavy loads and tight chokes. Its really a case of knowing your range and what you have in the gun is capable of. I have shot foxes while after pheasants with no.7's, but at 10-15yds and killed them stone dead.

rossandjet wrote: »

Sorry John.

You forgot me, I have a 17 Rem (and a 223) and the biddy 17 Rem 25G at 4200ft sec / 900ft lb will certainly put Charlie's lights out at 200 yd + and still has 150ft/lb more than the 45g Hornet at that range. A shot to the engine room leaves him just a bag of jelly and very dead.

It shoots as flat as a witches t*t, 1" high at 100, 1" low at 250 just point and pull.

It kills just as well as my 223 but is not as messy.

Didn't forget the .17 Rem, its just that i considered it far more powerful a centerfire than the .22 hornet, hence i said anything above .22 hornet.:)

johngalway

John,

We're in agreement about rimfires then since you clarified your original post My problem with the original post was it looked like you were saying rimfires weren't suitable in any situation, I wouldn't have disagreed otherwise (besides headshots ). I agree if someone is setting out to buy a foxing rifle then it's .22Hornet and upwards yes, but for the pest controller/fox shooter the rimfire rifles can be useful tools to use for the oppertunistic fox.

On the heavy shotgun carts, I've shot 3.5 inch Remington Express 64gram BB loads (sure does teach you to hold the gun properly in a hurry), foxes sure dislike them, can't seem to get them now, but pretty much any decent BB load that patters well will work just fine.

pestshooter7

if you hit this fox in any part of the chest cavity with a 223 and with expanding ammunition the fox will drop on the spot! the 223 i find destroys foxs no matter where you hit him within reason! massive trauma

cavan shooter

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/humane-control/pubs/fox003-ground-shooting-foxes.pdf

very good document

GreatGayHunter

hi Gents,
please would it be possible to point me to where I can get info on Kill zones on small cretters, bunnys/foxes/ect.

also the best .22 LR for the job.

cheers.

Newbeeeeeee.

clivej

GreatGayHunter wrote: »

hi Gents,
please would it be possible to point me to where I can get info on Kill zones on small cretters, bunnys/foxes/ect.

also the best .22 LR for the job.

cheers.

Newbeeeeeee.

A lot of people like the CZ rimfire rifles, myself included.

Kill zone on rabbits would be head shoots behind the eye under the ears or heart & lung, top of front leg mid body like the fox in post #1, and cheast shots on carrion birds.

ivanthehunter

clivej wrote: »

A lot of people like the CZ rimfire rifles, myself included.

Kill zone on rabbits would be head shoots behind the eye under the ears or heart & lung, top of front leg mid body like the fox in post #1, and cheast shots on carrion birds.

Is that post still there as I'm unable to access it

clivej

that website is gone is here it is now for you