foxing rifle?

bruce264

Hi all thinking of getting a rifle for shooting foxes, just wondering what others are using and also wat size optics needed for mainly lamping, any help much apprechiated

tomcat220t

I use a .204 ruger for foxes and rabbits and it works fine .1" high at 100 yards and on the foxes back at 300 yards .

Tackleberrywho

bruce264 wrote: »

Hi all thinking of getting a rifle for shooting foxes, just wondering what others are using and also wat size optics needed for mainly lamping, any help much apprechiated

Depends on your budget.
I use .223 Remington
I have two scopes, but the best one for night is the 5.5-22x56 NXS Nightforce Illuminated reticle.

However, 3-9x50 was the most common fox scope for years. Bushnell, weaver and Leupold are good entry quality scopes.
Nikon Scopes are fantastic in low light, I had a 2.5-10x56 and could make out shapes in almost pitch black, recognize cattle in field etc without shining lamp

S/H Nikon around €700
Entry level Bushnell weaver etc around same

Zeiss are Pecar and Nightforce make fine low light scopes, but they are pricey

endasmail

bruce264 wrote: »

Hi all thinking of getting a rifle for shooting foxes, just wondering what others are using and also wat size optics needed for mainly lamping, any help much apprechiated

id recommend ya getting a quality scope whatever ya do
a 50mm or 56mm should do the trick

kay 9

.204 Ruger is a dedicated foxing round but the .223 is a more versatile calibre for target shootin etc if you opt for a 1 in 8 twist rate (heavier bullets). But if primarily for foxing I'd go with .204. Everyone has .223 anymore and I think it was a fad for a while. But the only downside of the .204 is the availability of ammunition. Anyway, enough said on my behalf and good luck with whatever you decide to go for. Plenty of the lads be right along anytime now to point you in the right direction and give some of their past and present experiences with the variety of different calibres.

Ps. I have a remmy .223 and have no faults, but have seen what a .204 can do an its accuracy is absolutely tremendous wind permitting;)

What's your budget mate and it's alot easier to break it down then

Johnny_Coyle

If you have thousands of euro to throw around, stop reading, congratulations.

If you are willing to spend a few euro, cash is a concern, and will use the equipment for years to come, an excellent investment would be:

Rifle: Remington 700 in 223
Scope: Burris Fullfield II 6.5-20 x 50mm

You'll be hard pressed to ever out grow the above kit. Throw in an illuminated reticle and even more so.

Note of caution on the illuminated reticle: sure they are nice, however, you pay a lot for that accessory. Do you really need it? Lot's of people on the board seem to be able to throw down thousands on a scope, if you can, more power to you.

If lamping is of the primary use, consider getting a scope that has a thicker reticle. Definitely stay away from a cross-hair reticle.

Also, consider whether you want the 1" (25.4mm) diameter scope or the 30mm. Thicker diameter gives better light transmission.

If you go on eBay.ie, you will see some GREAT deals of Burris Fullfield II's. The company looks to be exhausting its stock on 1" scopes and moving towards the thicker 30mm.

bruce264

Thanks for the replys, was hoping to spend around 1000 maybe more if needed want good quality.
How much is the remmy on its own?

bunny shooter

FTR a 204 Ruger bucks the wind better than my 220 Swift especially at 300 yards :eek:

tomcat220t

bunny shooter wrote: »

FTR a 204 Ruger bucks the wind better than my 220 Swift especially at 300 yards :eek:

What bullet do you use in your swift ,B/S?

bunny shooter

Federal 52 Grain BTHP or Hornady 50 Grain BT (Moly)

sikastag

Might be worth considering .222 Remmy for fox work. Also fine on rabbits. Very accurate little round. With a 40gr bullet 300 yards is well within its capabilites. Availability of ammo might be an issue allthough plenty stockists in North.

Optics - if its just fox and varminting then keep it simple with non-illuminated fixed power maybe 10x42, 10x50, 12x50, 12x56 with a No. 7 reticle or similar.

If intending targets aswell then a variable would be more suitable and maybe a different reticle. Wouldnt be too familiar with target reticles (mil-dot etc) but there is plenty of people on here who know their stuff.

Dont spare cash on your optics, a good scope can always be put to good use on a different rifle. Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski, Zeiss to name a few are all good scope manufacturers.

Whatever you decide and your budget allows...........The best of luck to you and may you enjoy many years of safe shooting.

cavan shooter

tomcat220t wrote: »

I use a .204 ruger for foxes and rabbits and it works fine .1" high at 100 yards and on the foxes back at 300 yards .

For rabbits?? is there anything left.

If i were to get rid of the hornet Id go for a 204 really like that round.

Just for the record 22 hornet is a tidy fox gun at sensible and safe distances

tomcat220t

cavan shooter wrote: »

For rabbits?? is there anything left.

If i were to get rid of the hornet Id go for a 204 really like that round.

Just for the record 22 hornet is a tidy fox gun at sensible and safe distances

At 300 yards the rabbit is split open but at 50 -200 its instant soup .Pigeons and grey crows and are the best fun .PUFF:D:D.

tomcat220t

bunny shooter wrote: »

Federal 52 Grain BTHP or Hornady 50 Grain BT (Moly)

Is there any heavier bullets for your swift ?

bunny shooter

tomcat220t wrote: »

Is there any heavier bullets for your swift ?

55 Grain BT Hornady

They make a 60 grain HP but I haven't seen them here..............yet

tomcat220t

bunny shooter wrote: »

55 Grain BT Hornady

They make a 60 grain HP but I haven't seen them here..............yet

Id say a tight twist barrel ,AI 60gr would be a wet dream for long rang varmint shooting?

bunny shooter

Ya 60 grain would be nice

foxshooter243

bunny shooter wrote: »

FTR a 204 Ruger bucks the wind better than my 220 Swift especially at 300 yards :eek:

this guy disagrees;

http://www.petersenshunting.com/content/220-swift

bunny shooter

Nice link haven't seen that one before.

Cheers

He used Winchester ammo?

We used Hornady both in 40 grain in our test.

Maybe I should clarify my statement ................... :P

2 x remmy VSSF's one in 204 Ruger and one in 220 Swift both firing Hornady 40 grain bullets at 300 yards in a good 15mph right-left wind at MNSCI the 204 was pushed off centre by 8" and the 220 Swift by 18".

Maybe the 55 grain 220 Swift will buck the wind better I didn't have any for the test:(

foxshooter243

bunny shooter wrote: »

Nice link haven't seen that one before.

Cheers

He used Winchester ammo?

We used Hornady both in 40 grain in our test.

Maybe I should clarify my statement ................... :P

2 x remmy VSSF's one in 204 Ruger and one in 220 Swift both firing Hornady 40 grain bullets at 300 yards in a good 15mph right-left wind at MNSCI the 204 was pushed off centre by 8" and the 220 Swift by 18".

Maybe the 55 grain 220 Swift will buck the wind better I didn't have any for the test:(

yeah thats true bunny, the 55 grain in the swift is flatter, and if you load a 58 in a 243 its flatter again..it just depends on the distance your shooting and the B.C and weight of the bullet your firing, the swift is the flatter shooter cos of its ability to use the 55 grain bullet...in the states a swift with a fast twist and 70 grain bullet is the way to go for long range varminting:)

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

this guy disagrees;

http://www.petersenshunting.com/content/220-swift

Hes taking one of the lightest .204ruger rounds(32gr) and comparing it to a 55gr swift round .

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

yeah thats true bunny, the 55 grain in the swift is flatter, and if you load a 58 in a 243 its flatter again..it just depends on the distance your shooting and the B.C and weight of the bullet your firing, the swift is the flatter shooter cos of its ability to use the 55 grain bullet...in the states a swift with a fast twist and 70 grain bullet is the way to go for long range varminting:)

What B/C has your 58gr .243 ?What drop has it at 500 yards ?Sounds fast

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hes taking one of the lightest .204ruger rounds(32gr) and comparing it to a 55gr swift round .

thats true, but to consider any calbre you must consider its true potential, the swifts true potential is that its flatter than the 204, the same as the 243 is flatter than the swift and so forth, you cannot use blinkers when considering any calibres , that is being narrow minded.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

thats true, but to consider any calbre you must consider its true potential, the swifts true potential is that its flatter than the 204, the same as the 243 is flatter than the swift and so forth, you cannot use blinkers when considering any calibres , that is being narrow minded.

Dont get me wrong ,the swift is a great varmint round !What .243 round is flatter than the swift ?58GR?

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

What B/C has your 58gr .243 ?What drop has it at 500 yards ?Sounds fast

Its not all down to the B.C..theres a relationship between bullet weight , B.C and velocity.the 50 grain bullet in a swift and the 58 grain bullet in a243 have similar velocity and B.C figures..but the 58 grainer is heavier which causes it to overtake the swift after 400 yards..if you used a 65 grain bullet in the 243 it gets better again..

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Dont get me wrong ,the swift is a great varmint round !What .243 round is flatter than the swift ?58GR?

any bullet from 58 grain up.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

Its not all down to the B.C..theres a relationship between bullet weight , B.C and velocity.the 50 grain bullet in a swift and the 58 grain bullet in a243 have similar velocity and B.C figures..but the 58 grainer is heavier which causes it to overtake the swift after 400 yards..if you used a 65 grain bullet in the 243 it gets better again..

The facts are that the .234 58 gr ,which you claim shoots flatter than the swift does not shoot flatter and has a lower B/C the 40gr hornady .204 ruger.

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

The facts are that the .234 58 gr ,which you claim shoots flatter than the swift does not shoot flatter and has a lower B/C the 40gr hornady .204 ruger.

tomcat..no disrespect but you must think that a bullets B.C figure constitutes everything in ballistics..it doesnt..you have to couple a bullets b.c with muzzle velocity and calibre to figure downrange ballistics , if you dont believe me go talk to john greene or someone else who understands:rolleyes:
I have owned both calibres and hanloaded for both, the 58 grain bullet in the 243 leaves the swift well behind.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

tomcat..no disrespect but you must think that a bullets B.C figure constitutes everything in ballistics..it doesnt..you have to couple a bullets b.c with muzzle velocity and calibre to figure downrange ballistics , if you dont believe me go talk to john greene or someone else who understands:rolleyes:
I have owned both calibres and hanloaded for both, the 58 grain bullet in the 243 leaves the swift well behind.

Lets get exact for a min.. What 58 gr .243 round are you claiming is flatter than the swift ?

foxshooter243

maybe guns and ammo dont know what they are talking about either-

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/243-varmint-loads?channel=handguns/tactics-training

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Lets get exact for a min.. What 58 gr .243 round are you claiming is flatter than the swift ?

theres only one .....58 grain v max

sikastag

http://www.hornady.com/images/ballistics/ballistics_charts.pdf

Might be helpful, might not. If not, sorry for the rubbish.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

theres only one .....58 grain v max

Thats what i taught (HORNADY) .Now while your posting your opinions on flat rounds and seem to find it hard to give the B/C of your choosing .243 58gr which your stated shoots flatter that the swift and in hand shoots flatter than the .204 rounds ,all info.. is on the hornady site for everyone to see and compare !I dont need to speek to John Greene or any one else for that matter ,nor did i have blinkers on before choosing the .204 ruger as my varmint rifle .Once again your argument is flawed,sorry !

sikastag

Tomcat,

As examples of very streamlined bullets, note the BC of these Speer match type bullets. These are all pointed hollow point, boat tail bullets.

.224" (.22) 52 grain Match, BC .253
.284" (7mm) 145 grain Match, BC .465
.308 (.30) 168 grain Match, BC .480
.308 (.30) 190 grain Match, BC .540

Note that in the .308 pair, the heavier bullet (which has the greatest sectional density) has the better BC. The extremely poor SD of the .224" bullet lowers its BC, even though its shape is similar to the others.
Which explains why .22 bullets drop so much at long range and are so subject to wind drift, compared to larger caliber bullets with superior sectional densities (and hence, BC's). At a MV of 3100 fps a .224" Speer 52 grain BTHP Match bullet zeroed for 300 yards has a 500 yard drop of -43.9 inches, not much better than the 6mm round nose bullet in our trajectory examples near the beginning of this article. An interesting subject, this ballistic coefficient, and worth paying attention to when you select a bullet (or a caliber) for long range shooting.

Full text available here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc.htm

Good read.

foxshooter243

sikastag wrote: »

http://www.hornady.com/images/ballistics/ballistics_charts.pdf

Might be helpful, might not. If not, sorry for the rubbish.

thank it proves what im saying , the 243 overtakes the swift at the longer range:D

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

thank it proves what im saying , the 243 overtakes the swift at the longer range:D

Please explain how you .243 58rg is flatter than the .204 40gr ?Also how it bucks the wind better?Both are hornady !

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Please explain how you .243 58rg is flatter than the .204 40gr ?Also how it bucks the wind better?Both are hornady !

you must be forgetting something.it was a comparson between the 220 swift and 243 which sikastag put to rest:)

tomcat220t

sikastag wrote: »

Tomcat,

As examples of very streamlined bullets, note the BC of these Speer match type bullets. These are all pointed hollow point, boat tail bullets.

• .224" (.22) 52 grain Match, BC .253
  .284" (7mm) 145 grain Match, BC .465
  .308 (.30) 168 grain Match, BC .480
  .308 (.30) 190 grain Match, BC .540

Note that in the .308 pair, the heavier bullet (which has the greatest sectional density) has the better BC. The extremely poor SD of the .224" bullet lowers its BC, even though its shape is similar to the others.
Which explains why .22 bullets drop so much at long range and are so subject to wind drift, compared to larger caliber bullets with superior sectional densities (and hence, BC's). At a MV of 3100 fps a .224" Speer 52 grain BTHP Match bullet zeroed for 300 yards has a 500 yard drop of -43.9 inches, not much better than the 6mm round nose bullet in our trajectory examples near the beginning of this article. An interesting subject, this ballistic coefficient, and worth paying attention to when you select a bullet (or a caliber) for long range shooting.

Full text available here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc.htm

Good read.

If foxshooter answers my question and backs his statment where he say the .243 58gr, shoots flatter that the .220 swift which in hand shoots flatter than the .204 ruger ill conceed to your post .

tomcat220t

sikastag wrote: »

Tomcat,

As examples of very streamlined bullets, note the BC of these Speer match type bullets. These are all pointed hollow point, boat tail bullets.

• .224" (.22) 52 grain Match, BC .253
  .284" (7mm) 145 grain Match, BC .465
  .308 (.30) 168 grain Match, BC .480
  .308 (.30) 190 grain Match, BC .540

Note that in the .308 pair, the heavier bullet (which has the greatest sectional density) has the better BC. The extremely poor SD of the .224" bullet lowers its BC, even though its shape is similar to the others.
Which explains why .22 bullets drop so much at long range and are so subject to wind drift, compared to larger caliber bullets with superior sectional densities (and hence, BC's). At a MV of 3100 fps a .224" Speer 52 grain BTHP Match bullet zeroed for 300 yards has a 500 yard drop of -43.9 inches, not much better than the 6mm round nose bullet in our trajectory examples near the beginning of this article. An interesting subject, this ballistic coefficient, and worth paying attention to when you select a bullet (or a caliber) for long range shooting.

Full text available here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc.htm

Good read.

Waiting .Read the hornady site and compare the 3 calibers!Maybe Hornady got it wrong

foxshooter243

Tomcat..the figures on the ballistics we are talking about are not mines.they are out there, its common knowledge the 243 is a flatter shooter than the swift, sikastag provided the info to back this up!

This is enough on the subject as it seems you wear a large pair of blinkers:rolleyes:

sikastag

Sorry. Comparsion that i thought (as foxshooter said) was with 58gr (.243) and 55gr (swift). I thought comparison was being made due to bullets of similar weight.

But......... :D as for .204, is flatter and has superior ballistics to a point, but can imagine wind drift being slightly more than that of the larger calibres with heavier bullets. Again pushin out to longer ranges the big lads will take over.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

Tomcat..the figures on the ballistics we are talking about are not mines.they are out there, its common knowledge the 243 is a flatter shooter than the swift, sikastag provided the info to back this up!

This is enough on the subject as it seems you wear a large pair of blinkers:rolleyes:

If thats your best effort at explaining bluffing posts and dismissing that facts on the hornady site ,fair play !You and sikastag are right and hornady are wrong ,i dont think so :eek:.The fact is you dont like been worng and you get your buddy to back you up on horse....e claims .The 58gr .243 is not flatter than the .204 ruger 40rg nor bucks the wind better ,either !GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON ,GUYS !

tomcat220t

sikastag wrote: »

Sorry. Comparsion that i thought (as foxshooter said) was with 58gr (.243) and 55gr (swift). I thought comparison was being made due to bullets of similar weight.

But......... :D as for .204, is flatter and has superior ballistics to a point, but can imagine wind drift being slightly more than that of the larger calibres with heavier bullets. Again pushin out to longer ranges the big lads will take over.

If thats what you think ,fair play .The fact is you backed someone who was wrong on this topic !Read facts before posting with a friend .

sikastag

tomcat220t wrote: »

If thats what you think ,fair play .The fact is you backed someone who was wrong on this topic !Read facts before posting with a friend .

Tomcat.
I don’t consider myself to be an authority/expert on any topic related to hunting/shooting; however, I do have a great grá for it and always will. I’m a relatively new poster and I joined this site because I had been a looker for quite some time and thought I might be able to make some worthwhile contribution whilst no doubt gaining insight/knowledge from other users. If I couldn’t swim I wouldn’t jump into a deep, fast flowing river and likewise if I could I would advance cautiously and test the waters first. Similarly, if I had no idea of subject matter I wouldn’t post as it wouldn’t be of much help to anyone, I would more than likely ask.

There may be an element of fact/truth to foxshooter's comment on blinkers as they seemingly have fallen down, blocking your vision and ultimately preventing you from reading my post where I referred to what I thought was being compared .243 (58gr) & Swift (55gr). In which case, drawing comparison from Hornady ballistics table alone the .243 is superior. And as already stated compared with 6mm, .204 is flatter to a point but the 6/7mm’s are less affected by wind and are superior as distance increases. As regards 22 cals, the little twenties seem to be stirring up a right old storm being both flatter and less affected by wind, in a grain for grain comparison. But as already stated I’m no expert, just an enthusiast.

FACT: I’m as friendly with foxshooter as I am with you.

So in future, while I’m reading the facts before I post, backing up a friend, would you kindly flip the auld blinkers up and read my post. Just to avoid any confusion.

I’m going to leave it there because I’m sure the op is more excited about getting a new foxing rig than he is about who’s backing who and who’s buddy was wrong or right. Let’s hope he has luck with it.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

thats true, but to consider any calbre you must consider its true potential, the swifts true potential is that its flatter than the 204, the same as the 243 is flatter than the swift and so forth, you cannot use blinkers when considering any calibres , that is being narrow minded.

This is where it makes no sense .By this its statment the .243 has somehow a flatter round than the .204.Also, picking the best merits of one round and compairing it another round is been really narrow minded,imo !One of the flattest .243 round(58gr)compared to one of the slowest (55gr) swift .There is less that 1" of drop between the 55gr swift and the .243 all the way out to 500 yards but the swift has a better B/C.The .204 40gr hornady is 5" flatter than the .243 58gr or .220 55gr out to 500yards and has a much better B/C than either rounds.

Cass

bruce264 wrote: »

Hi all thinking of getting a rifle for shooting foxes, just wondering what others are using and also wat size optics needed for mainly lamping, any help much apprechiated

CZ 527 in .223 cal with Kevlar stock, Burris Fullfield II (6.5-20x50), sportsmatch mounts, Harris 9-13" swivel bipod and Predator Wildcat moderator. Great rifle and very happy with the setup. All in all cost ran about €2400-ish.

Only just got her so still breaking her in and trying out different ammo. So watch this space............:)

Jonty

OP, you'll be hardset to get away with a comlete rig for €1000. You should also consider a savage in 223 or a stevens in 223. I don't know prices but I think they are cheaper than a CZ and a savage is not a bad rifle. A cheaper rifle might give you a little more breathing room for a good scope.

Ghost.

I have a CZ varmint kevlar in 223. Its a great gun and is very accurate. I think it has to be one of the best value rifles out there for foxing. Im very happy with it. You wont be disappointed with with a CZ.

bruce264

Thanks for getting thread back on track was thinking it wouldnt after the lesson in ballistics!
Didnt realy know what i would be spending, but have found a few prices on line for remmys 700 in 223 from 800 up to about 1500 look a good rifle and plenty of options for upgrading stock and other bits at a later date.
I will have to do a bit more research into other makes mentioned but i think i will go for the .223 cal.

Cass

Here is a thread i started 2 months ago when i first started looking for a foxing rifle. I did know i wanted a .223 so the thread is limited to that caliber, but its a good read for ideas.





Here is a thread about hunting scopes.
Here is a thread about foxing rifles also. (oldie, but worth a read)

ormondprop

1000 aint much if u want to buy quality kit, so i'd reckon u either save up for longer and buy a nice rifle, scope and mounts for about 2000+ or buy a good scope now and a cheap second hand rifle with your change and start saving again and change the rifle when you can afford too and hold on to your scope, i went and bought a 950 euro rifle and scope foxing combo a few years ago and have been wanting to change them ever since, as i want better kit for the job, spend lots and cry once rather then spending small and crying lots, although saying that you could get lucky and find a nice second hand deal in a shop thats within your budget