Roe Calibres

Would you shoot roe with a c/f .22 in England?


  • Total voters
    0
Undoubtably the .22cf are up to the job but personally i'd choose .243 as my minimun cal but if i only had .22cf i wouln't have any worries about using it with the right bullet of course.If only neck shots were allowed then i suppose .22cf would would win hands down in the accuracy stakes or even better what about .17 rem :lol: yes i am only kidding but no doubt its just as capable with correct shot placement.
Neil
 
An interesting debte....

I actually agree with a number of contradicting views here.

I have shot deer with everything from triple two to 9.3 x 62 and a killing shot did indeed do the job! the only difference between how fast it dropped was usually down to the exact bullet placement (also the pre shot state of the animal) but more specifically to the damage the bullet type did.

My obsevation is that the deer dont react gernerally any different to different calibres but more to what construction the bullet was and at what velocity it was traveling, non varmint bullets out of my 22-250 would tend to drop them on the spot virtually every time, on inspection it was very destructive and caused massive internal damage.

Im using Berger VLD in 6.5 at the moment as a trial and apart from not always getting an exit wound ive had 100% no runners. Now before anybody comments on no exit wound and thus the limited ability to follow up with my dogs (which did concern me at first) thats only an issue if i do get a runner!!!! so far 35 deer and 100%...... The bullet appears to enter about 4 inches and totally fragment causing massive tissue damage but surprisingly not that much damage to the edible carcass. They are similar to Hornady Amax.......

Its a bizarre law but a point was made about being able to decide ourselves; dangerous ground as there is a wide range of experience and or knowledge...this site proves that.
 
If we dont think that a .223 is upto the job of taking a roe deer humanely, should we be sending troops to war with it. I would like to think that humans are due the same consideration.
 
The argument that because we have an FAC we should be able to choose what calibre we use is fairly redundant.

I have come across a good few people with a .22 rimfire who happily shoot at foxes at ranges unsuitable (reflected in the number that they actually pick up). If having an FAC qualified you to decide what to shoot a deer with do you think that they would really buy something else?

I also think that the argument that if you have a DSC then you should be able to choose is redundant because a 3 day course doesnt mean that you are actually any more experienced to make a decision (most decisions made by new rifle shooters are meerely parroting what they have been told by an 'expert'). It will also lead to an extension of the problem that we are already seeing in that people will rush through these things as a means to an end rather than a process.

I am in no way against using .22 CF for roe and would not hesitate to use mine if allowed but you have to draw a line somewhere.
Why can you shoot roe but not fallow?
Why cant you use a .220 swift (i dont think that you can currently? might be worng for Scotland) or a .17rem?

Once you allow one calibre then the calibres that were completely out of thought before come actually quite close to the legal allowed and people (for some reason) will want to use them.

Just think, if you could shoot roe in France with a .222 but not here then would you feel so hard done by?

Its a daft law but as always there has to be a line somewhere.

We probably dont help ourselves on here by telling people .243 is a small round and not really great for deer (i know that its always qualified by adding 'larger deer' but legislators dont read the whole thing!)
 
This will go on and on and on......
But to sum up, as said by me and others why should a 55gr be ok in a .240 cal and not ok in a .22 cal.??
The fairest thing would be to ban any bullet under 100gr. and off argument.
that will kill any deer well in this country.
Otherwise bring us in line with scotland.
And allow big .22's in for roe.
As deer populations expand and much ground has many species the thing would be to really ban all the light stuff. (EVEN THOUGH I'D LIKE TO SEE THEIR USE HERE IN ENGLAND).
 
Certainly the reason the issue came to mind yesterday was I had been out with the .223 doing a check zero, it was sweet to shoot, & I then thought of the roe I had shot with this rifle.

On a popular reloading site, they describe the optimal game weight for calibres/bullets.

.222 with 50gn V-Max 106lbs.

.223 with 60gn Partition 151lbs.

.22/250 with 55gn speer sp 223lbs.

Now the roe I shoot will not normally weigh as much as 40lbs with head and legs off.

This made me think, how much do our law makers in this country really know?
 
This is a very intresting debate and we had a similar discussion at the Salisbury social a few weeks ago.

.222 and .223 are inherently very accurate rounds and if like me you reload then they are clinical (as is 6mm BR). My rifle easily outshoots my capabilities.

I think apart from bullet placement, bullet selection is the key.

As a newcomer to the sport and forum I am under the impression that the wisdom was that you used an expanding bullet that went through the quarry leaving a good exit hole and thus allowing a blood trail to be followed if need be.

However how much energy you dump on the quarry is the important factor.

Clearly if it is a head shot then that is not an issue, but in the classic heart lung shot then it does.

Lots of members appear to have issues in relation to balistic tipped bullets. They are inherently v acuraate and better still dump a huge percentage of the energy in the quarry effectively incapacitating it.

One respondandant made a very important point, in that the v max does not exit, hence all the energy is delivered to the target.

Before I knew of this site I was extermly intrested on the on going debate re the use of .22 C/F rifles for roe and had considerable coorespondance by e mail and telephone to the guy co-ordinating the data gathering in Bristol.

There seemed to be a complete disregard of the fact that thousands of Roe are shot on the continent and in Scotland with .22 C/F and in many places it is the calibre of choice.

I am firmly of the opinion that some high placed individuals with a vested intrest in Deer "management" were very opposed to the though that lots of fox shooters would be let loose on Roe with their .22C/F so efecively used their position to block the bill.

Prehaps the alternative thought should have been that these so call fox shooters are in fact precision marksman, mostly with custom made rifles and reloads who regularly shot foxes at ranges none of us would dream of attempting to take a deer at.

They use balastic tips for accuracy and the kncok down ability and very little chance of bullet deflection/fragment ricochett.

I would be very intrested to read of studies relating to the amount of energy required to incapacitate/knock down a roe, I understand the USA army thinks it is about 80-100 ft/lb for a human

D
 
It was me who said the Vmax did not exit Roe.
That been true it has a number of good and bad points.
1. No exit, Very safe on one hand but on the other no blood trail should the deer run.
2. Poor penetration not ideal if an angled or follow up shot is required.(or bone is hit).
3.A little more accurate perhaps but under field conditions IRRELIVENT.
4.A bloody soup at gralloch time and bruising beyond belief.(not good for the game dealers).
I WOULD STRONGLY DISCOUNT THEESE BULLETS FOR DEER. CHOOSE A SOFT POINT.
I do not allow anybody to use Bal tips on my roe unless they are taking the carcass home with them.....THATS any calibre.
 
Without the intention of changing the direction / initial subject of this thread, I feel I must support Cyres in his statement concerning dedicated fox shooters, as I have belonged to this happy band of night hunters since 1970, .22 CF's are , wether you want to admit it or not, fully capable of humane kills on deer up to & including Roe , with the correct bullet selection & placement, shot placement, Imho being the most important part in the equation, night shooters for the pot, will habitually head shoot rabbits at 200yds with the .17HMR & similar, if you consider the target size & conditions you have to realise that many many shooters out there are fully capable of taking deer humanely with .22CF's.
 
I would also like to add a comment on V max, I will not use them, on anything!, I feel they are overrated rubbish, & I intend that to be taken as rubbish for serious fox control, & yes I have used them myself, 'IF' they do penetrate, they can result in runners, dead on their feet granted but I really don't want to spend half the night looking for it, I find that other products from the same manufacturer produce Instant DRT. maybe they were initially intended to amuse people who like to have colourful results on things like P dogs?
 
pheasant sniper 1 said:
I disagree with most of the views here..

If some of the shots ive seen were taken with a .22 there would undoubtedly have been a good few more lost deer..

The bullet placement argument rarely stands up in the field amongst such a large group of stalkers with varying levels of experience..

Thankfully the calibres used amongst many of the stalkers i have met have ensured the margin of error has still seen the deer despatched humanely..

Ive met a lot of stalkers especially over the last three years and including myself i have seen a huge number of them with the look of horror as a shot has not gone as planned ..

Terry

Not this old chestnut again? dont you know that in England the roe are the size of horses?

Sorry Terry, I think you are talking.......................
In Scotland we have been using 222, 223 and 22-250 to control ROE for years without issue.
You are etitled to your opinion but it is not based on fact in mine.
 
The .22 CF are very much up to the job of Killing deer . I would also say that in most cases the smaller more compact bullets designed for small animals like Roe deer etc will do a far better job than the larger calibres. The bullets of the larger calibres expanding later than there small cousins.
pheasant sniper 1 .If you have seen some bad shots then that is down to the person or persons not the rifle or bullet choice.
 
Hi dan..

Not my old chestnut my friend but happy to contribute my own views..

As for talking.........

I have to say not once have i visited somebody offering stalking in the late availabilities section without a tale or two of fellow site members that would have us believe their marksmanship abilities mean they can open a window and drop a munty two counties away :lol:

My margin for error in my belief due to my chosen calibre cannot be seen as detrimental..

My own view is quite simply where does the need arise to go bare minimum?

What is the advantage?

Some really good posts and im not averse to learning from them ;)

Terry
 
Hightower said:
The .22 CF are very much up to the job of Killing deer . I would also say that in most cases the smaller more compact bullets designed for small animals like Roe deer etc will do a far better job than the larger calibres. The bullets of the larger calibres expanding later than there small cousins.
pheasant sniper 1 .If you have seen some bad shots then that is down to the person or persons not the rifle or bullet choice.

My point fella

Not such a great shot with minimum calibre equals.. ??

Im not understanding why being well gunned is a problem and where being just about gunned is seen as a positive..

Where is the line drawn if any of the larger species present themselves..

In the real world :confused: ;)
 
Finnbear,

Not wanting to hijack this important debate but I have used 60grn V max's exclusively for years. Never encountered your problems, everything hit in the correct place drops on the spot.

Rifle twist rate and velocity could well be important factors in determining what happens when the bullet strikes. This I think is a little understood and highly complicated area which has a significant importance on how a bullet reacts when it hits a living target.

It is not unknown for .224 bullets to disappear on route to target if the velocity is too high for the twist rate, and down range stability is a major consideration. I know this relates to target bullets but the same principle apply to hunting bullets.

As for bruising, isn't that the same for any bullet, some while ago there was some great pics of a deflected bullet completly trashing the front end. There were varrious comments relating to what happens when the bullet hits bone may it be shoulder or rib and often it is luck/bad luck.

You could well say why take a heart/lung shot when a neck/head shot is also a viable option, a balistic tip in these areas is considerable asset as it completly takes out the strike zone.

The decision as always is the persons who squeezes the trigger, but if you know you rifle will shoot and you are confident with your shooting position and range, why take a heart shot?

I know we are straying off the point here but in my view it seems totally illogical that Roe are not legal quarry in England with .22 C/F

However I would say that bullet selection, ie weight, design and its compatability to the rifle may need some carefull thought.

Regards

D
 
I think of it in these terms...

You are going to take a flight and have the choice of the 22CF airplane which just meets government minimum standards but which may, some people report, explode in a ball of fire if the pilot doesn't hit the glideslope dead on while on approach.

Or you can have the 308Win airplane wich far exceeds government minimum standards and which has quite a bit of wiggle room when it comes to the glideslope. Many people say that it is too safe for the job.

Which one would you get on, given the choice?
 
One thing not yet discussed here is backstop.
I am not making light of a safe backstop but alot of areas are very flat.
Now i know all about a safe place for the bullet to stop.
But a 55gr s/p on exit will be lucky to wiegh half when hitting the ground.
A 180gr 308 bullet will probably still be around 120 minimum.And still carring a massive amount of energy.
I certainally would be "happier" taking some shots with a 22 c/f.
(Not that I'm In the habbit of dangerous shooting).
But there is a point here.
 
pheasant sniper 1 said:
The bullet placement argument rarely stands up in the field amongst such a large group of stalkers with varying levels of experience..

I have shot stacks of Red deer (in NZ) with 222 /22-250/ 220 swift/ 223 and even a few with a 22 rimfire. You defo can kill deer with a .22 with the right bullet placement and that is a fact. But you need to know the rifle like the back of your hand and be doing a lot of shooting/ hunting with it. I used to hunt with several professional hunters and they just love flat shooting fast .22's, which they are experts with. Are they for everyone, no. I think its a matter of knowing your and your equipments limitations.
Most of the deer I have shot recently in NZ I have shot with a .280, but then certainly can't shoot as well as I used too. Not enough practice, although I plan on putting that right ASAP.

In NZ the people I know never shoot with moderators and a lot of them shoot a lot worse with a 270 than a 223 (especially when there is a bit of buck fever) and I think the well placed shot wins every time regardless of cal.
 
Back
Top