Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rifle for Foxing

24

Comments

  • #32
    garv123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭garv123


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    You do know that the .17 HMR is exactly the same case as a .22 WMR, necked down to take a smaller bullet, right? Hardly a step up...

    and packs more punch out to 80 yards.


  • #33
    Vegeta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    garv123 wrote: »
    and packs more punch out to 80 yards.

    Are you talking about the .17hmr or the .22wmr?

    quoting from the link above
    What we can conclude from this is that the 40 grain .22 WMR load is the most powerful cartridge out to at least 100 yards


  • #34
    garv123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭garv123


    Vegeta wrote: »
    Are you talking about the .17hmr or the .22wmr?

    quoting from the link above
    [/FONT]

    missed your link at the end of the last page but yeah i was on about the wmr packing more punch. Only off by 20 yards :D


  • #35
    Glensman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Glensman


    4200fps wrote: »
    I don't think the 22magnum is a humane round for foxs at all. At the least a .17hmr i recon

    :confused::confused::confused:

    Ignoring power and trajectory (others will point out that the WMR has more power)

    The 17HMR is a highly frangible bullet.
    It can break up on a fox's hide rather than giving penetration and the round can be thrown way off by a blade of grass.

    I foxed for years with a WMR, my advice is that ANY centrefire cartrisge will be suitable. I have a soft spot for .223 and .204 myself.


  • #36
    Tawny Owl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 853 ✭✭✭Tawny Owl


    garv123 wrote: »
    No matter how experienced he is, I'm afraid the above in bold is bullsh1t.

    Have a look at the thread on here where the lads post photos of their groups at 100-300 yards and see for yourself how accurate the gun is.

    There must of been something seriously wrong with the gun/shooter when he saw one in action. Even a factory CZ is accurate

    Thanks for your imput.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Tawny Owl wrote: »
    garv123 wrote: »
    No matter how experienced he is, I'm afraid the above in bold is bullsh1t.

    Have a look at the thread on here where the lads post photos of their groups at 100-300 yards and see for yourself how accurate the gun is.

    There must of been something seriously wrong with the gun/shooter when he saw one in action. Even a factory CZ is accurate

    Thanks for your imput.
    Well his imput is correct in fairness

    As for shooting costs of the 223 it can be just as expensive as anything else for hunting rounds but you can buy the cheap stuff for plinking which you cant do with alot of others. You can also buy hornady 55gr soft points at €40 for 50 rounds and they are very accurate in My cz.


  • #38
    Gonzor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭Gonzor


    garv123 wrote: »
    No matter how experienced he is, I'm afraid the above in bold is bullsh1t.

    How can you say that...??? You have absolutely no idea what the uncle was saying :rolleyes:

    His uncle could have being saying "I tried shooting foxes at 600 yards with my 223 and I missed them every time but I nail them right between the eyes with my 308 at 800 yards every single shot"

    SO yeh his uncles probably right. 223 is a sh!te round when you start comparing it to deer calibers- and Tawny did say quite clearly his uncle is a deer man.


  • #39
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Gonzor wrote: »
    How can you say that...??? You have absolutely no idea what the uncle was saying :rolleyes:

    His uncle could have being saying "I tried shooting foxes at 600 yards with my 223 and I missed them every time but I nail them right between the eyes with my 308 at 800 yards every single shot"

    SO yeh his uncles probably right. 223 is a sh!te round when you start comparing it to deer calibers- and Tawny did say quite clearly his uncle is a deer man.

    Doesn't mean it's less accurate. If someone said the above to me I'd believe he was talking complete bollocks too.


  • #40
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Yeah but in fairness gonzer we all know his uncle was not saying that and if you cant hit a target with a 223 at 600 you sure as **** cant hit one at 800 with 308!

    How many foxes have you shot passed 300 yards?? Very few id imagine as most foxes would be shot under 200.

    For accurate fox shooting with the option to plink for very little and the sheer variaty of ammo available in .223 including heavy rounds for long range targets you will not beat it


  • #41
    homerhop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,958 ✭✭✭homerhop


    My self and my lamping partner have been after foxes with everything from a .22 up to a swift.

    He has a swift and I have a 223.
    Anyone seriously into lamping will tell you that the swift is one of the most devestating foxing rifles out there. Be it short range or long it will drop them. Our longest this year @ roughly 425 yds stepped out with the swift(not something we do on a regular basis). I am hitting comfortably at 200yds with the 223.

    At the start of the year when foxes are abundant the likes of the HMR and 17 are ok, I personally never liked the .17 and you will find yourself getting stuck for distance as the weeks go by. We used the smaller calibres at the time as thats all that could be licensed here and there is nothing more frustrating than seeing a fox sitting off knowing you can get the shot but dont have the fire power.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Gonzor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭Gonzor


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Yeah but in fairness gonzer we all know his uncle was not saying that and if you cant hit a target with a 223 at 600 you sure as **** cant hit one at 800 with 308!


    I still reckon the uncle would be comparing 223 to a deer caliber. And in that case hes right. Long range 223 are $hite.
    kildare.17hmr wrote: »

    How many foxes have you shot passed 300 yards?? Very few id imagine as most foxes would be shot under 200.

    Im not much into foxes with a rifle to be honest. On the other hand. Ever since I got the 270 I just sit up on the highest hill in the club and shoot rabbits out to 800. Something I never had much luck with on the 223 unless it was a very very very calm day.


  • #43
    Vegeta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    OP see this thread for the groups made by hunting rifles

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056168205&page=2


  • #44
    virminhunter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 346 ✭✭virminhunter


    homerhop wrote: »
    At the start of the year when foxes are abundant the likes of the HMR and 17 are ok, I personally never liked the .17 and you will find yourself getting stuck for distance as the weeks go by. We used the smaller calibres at the time as thats all that could be licensed here and there is nothing more frustrating than seeing a fox sitting off knowing you can get the shot but dont have the fire power.

    same here, I had a hornet for a while it was a very good round but I couldn't stick having to let foxes because they were lamp shy and out of range.


  • #45
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Gonzor wrote: »
    I still reckon the uncle would be comparing 223 to a deer caliber. And in that case hes right. Long range 223 are $hite.

    No, they're not. They're less powerful than a deer rifle, but that's not the same as accuracy. If you can't hit with one at range, it points a lot more fingers at your familiarity with the round than any inherent disadvantage of it. Plenty of deer cartridges out there I wouldn't bother trying to shoot at long range too.


  • #46
    Gonzor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭Gonzor


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    No, they're not. They're less powerful than a deer rifle, but that's not the same as accuracy. If you can't hit with one at range, it points a lot more fingers at your familiarity with the round than any inherent disadvantage of it. Plenty of deer cartridges out there I wouldn't bother trying to shoot at long range too.

    You got to be joking...

    Going by your theory I should be able to shoot my 22lr at 1000 yards just as accurately as the guy next to me using his 300 win mag.

    And the reason I can shoot my 22lr just as accurately is because Im more familiar with my round then the other guy is with his 300win mag.

    Is that what your trying to say...??? :rolleyes:


  • #47
    aurin07
    Closed Accounts Posts: 170 ✭✭aurin07


    The only limiting factor of any weapon is the man behind it.


    Dont know too many folk shooting foxes over 300 yards now do you?.


  • #48
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Thats not what he is saying at all lad!


  • #49
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Gonzor wrote: »
    You got to be joking...

    Going by your theory I should be able to shoot my 22lr at 1000 yards just as accurately as the guy next to me using his 300 win mag.

    And the reason I can shoot my 22lr just as accurately is because Im more familiar with my round then the other guy is with his 300win mag.

    Is that what your trying to say...??? :rolleyes:

    No, you're being either facetious or wilfully ignorant. If you can shoot a .270 to six hundred yards accurately, you can shoot a .223 accurately at that range. If you can't, it points to your familiarity with the round or the rifle. Either is enough to shoot small groups at that range. The analogy would be more valid if you'd used a hundred yards instead of a thousand.


  • #50
    tomcat220t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭tomcat220t


    A good .204 and you will never look back :cool.
    In a different league to most other nor deer cailbers!


  • #51
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    tomcat220t wrote: »
    A good .204 and you will never look back :cool.
    In a different league to most other nor deer cailbers!
    Not really tho, 40gr from a 223 are very similar in performance to 204


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    tomcat220t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭tomcat220t


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Not really tho, 40gr from a 223 are very similar in performance to 204
    In what way ?


  • #53
    Gonzor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭Gonzor


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    No, you're being either facetious or wilfully ignorant. If you can shoot a .270 to six hundred yards accurately, you can shoot a .223 accurately at that range. If you can't, it points to your familiarity with the round or the rifle. Either is enough to shoot small groups at that range. The analogy would be more valid if you'd used a hundred yards instead of a thousand.

    Maybe Im missing something, but you said that "powerful" doesnt = accurate. And I agree. It doesnt.

    But at the same time, more power allows you to be accurate at further ranges. Do you not agree with me..??


  • #54
    Gonzor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭Gonzor


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Thats not what he is saying at all lad!

    What is he saying...??? :confused:


  • #55
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    tomcat220t wrote: »
    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Not really tho, 40gr from a 223 are very similar in performance to 204
    In what way ?
    Trajectory and speed there is not a whole lot in it and with the 223 ya have much more ammo choice.

    Not knockin the 204 at all i think its a crackin round which i was strongly considering. I just didnt see any advantage over the 223 for me


  • #56
    tomcat220t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭tomcat220t


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Trajectory and speed there is not a whole lot in it and with the 223 ya have much more ammo choice.

    Not knockin the 204 at all i think its a crackin round which i was strongly considering. I just didnt see any advantage over the 223 for me
    40gr .204 hornady Vs 40gr .223 hornady !
    The .204 is 100fps up on the .223 ....not much to talk about but the B/C is where the big difference between them .
    .204 ...275 B/C
    .223...200 B/C
    I would say the .223 53gr superformance is a better round to compare to the .204 !Not heard outstanding results in terms of availability or accuracy of the 53gr in .223 .Otherwise it sounds a cracking round for foxes in .223 .


  • #57
    4200fps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭4200fps


    The .223 and .204 are quite similar, the .204 would be that bit flatter and a bit faster with a 40grain. They are two flat,accurate good killing rounds but with the .223 has the advantage as it can be loaded to heavier grain up to 75gr as far as i know so there's more energy down range. The .220swift and 22-250 are charged more creating a great punch and they are very flat,energy and fps is roughly about 30% greater down range at 200-300yards compared to the above that's simply why they do great damage. The 22magnum i think is gravity propelled as its sucked into the ground when it hits 100yards so out the window for fox's that's my opinion. I'd fire the grain that the rifle works best with. And about shooting a fox at range 250-350 yards that is down to how good you and your sight is. You wont make him out with a cheap scope/poor magnification and it could be an easy target at the end of it all if your unsure what it is.


  • #58
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    tomcat220t wrote: »
    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Trajectory and speed there is not a whole lot in it and with the 223 ya have much more ammo choice.

    Not knockin the 204 at all i think its a crackin round which i was strongly considering. I just didnt see any advantage over the 223 for me
    40gr .204 hornady Vs 40gr .223 hornady !
    The .204 is 100fps up on the .223 ....not much to talk about but the B/C is where the big difference between them .
    .204 ...275 B/C
    .223...200 B/C
    I would say the .223 53gr superformance is a better round to compare to the .204 !Not heard outstanding results in terms of availability or accuracy of the 53gr in .223 .Otherwise it sounds a cracking round for foxes in .223 .
    Yeah the bc is a fair bit higher alrite on the 204 so there is an edge on range there with them rounds. For me tho the bullet choice and cheap stuff available won out over the 223 plus the fact that it would sell quicker if i needed to or wanted to change up

    Im yet to try the surperformance stuff because i was gettin on very well with the 40gr and picked up the 55gr soft points to try them out. Think ill go back to 40 gr tho they are a very good round on foxes


  • #59
    tomcat220t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭tomcat220t


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    Yeah the bc is a fair bit higher alrite on the 204 so there is an edge on range there with them rounds. For me tho the bullet choice and cheap stuff available won out over the 223 plus the fact that it would sell quicker if i needed to or wanted to change up

    Im yet to try the surperformance stuff because i was gettin on very well with the 40gr and picked up the 55gr soft points to try them out. Think ill go back to 40 gr tho they are a very good round on foxes
    The fairest think to say is ,if one was out foxing with either .223 or .204 it would be silly to think one would be under- gunned for Mr fox .


  • #60
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Cant argue with that lad!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    TriggerPL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,012 ✭✭✭TriggerPL


    4200fps wrote: »
    The .223 and .204 are quite similar, the .204 would be that bit flatter and a bit faster with a 40grain. They are two flat,accurate good killing rounds but with the .223 has the advantage as it can be loaded to heavier grain up to 75gr as far as i know so there's more energy down range. The .220swift and 22-250 are charged more creating a great punch and they are very flat,energy and fps is roughly about 30% greater down range at 200-300yards compared to the above that's simply why they do great damage. The 22magnum i think is gravity propelled as its sucked into the ground when it hits 100yards so out the window for fox's that's my opinion. I'd fire the grain that the rifle works best with. And about shooting a fox at range 250-350 yards that is down to how good you and your sight is. You wont make him out with a cheap scope/poor magnification and it could be an easy target at the end of it all if your unsure what it is.

    gud job it your opinion ! ive been shooting foxs for years with a magnum . at ranges out to 200 yards and any where from just behind front shoulder to head has resulted in death , or a fox running a few yards .

    i would not recommend it for fox hunting now that you can get 223 , and diferent calibers but it still holds the right of a gud vermin gun . and theres lots of older shooters here that will agree with me


Advertisement