Flash
Well-Known Member
So what if there was no wind lol
17 Hornet
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
Then you’re lucky, there’s always wind!
At 250 yards the .17HH is carrying around 250 ft-lb, at 250 the .223 is carrying around 660 ft-lb, that’s more than the 17 at the muzzle.
It means you can confidently and quickly chest shoot foxes without having to fanny about trying to headshoot at 200 plus yards because that’s the only way to ensure a clean kill
Flash
Well-Known Member
I agree with you but ive got both calibres and ive taken many foxes out past 200 with the hornet
1 shot 1 kill
If i shoot my 6.5x55 with 90gr varmint bullets it makes the 223 look silly but i you feel you have to use a 223 on foxes past 150 then well done
We decoy crows with the hornets out to 175 and more and have shot many crows in the head at 140
So to me if you are confident with your equipment and know its limits theres no problem with 17 what so ever
How far would you shoot s fox with s 223 then
the furthest I’ve had to shoot a fox is 257 yards because limit of the NV is 300 or so, in daylight I’d push further but I don’t fox in daylight! But also the NV and TI spotter combo allows me to get in close so long shots just are not necessary. I fox with a 25-45 and 6.5 Creedmoor too.
I don’t feel I ‘have to’ use a .223 I choose to because I have respect for my quarry and I don’t want to limit my opportunities because I’m undergunned. It is also generally windy where I shoot!
Have headshot plenty of bubbies at 150/160 yards with the .22 hornet. The .22 would kill foxes out way further than that but if I’m foxing I take the .223 AI, if I see a fox whilst out with the hornet I squeak it in and shoot it.
Crows take a lot less killing than foxes, same as foxes take less killing than deer so no comparison there.
If you’re so confident in the 17’s ability why start this thread in the first place, just to argue with people who disagree with you?
Last edited:
Apparently .223 is your favourite foxing calibre........ so I guess you just like to argue.
Favourite foxing calibre
22-250 a brilliant foxing calibre with either 50 or 55gn v max. I also have had good results with my 2506 75 v max and 270 110 v max. Pin point accuracy and explosive results.
www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk
The .223 Rem with appropriately frangible projectiles - I use the really EXCELLENT 53gr. Hornady V-Max - is an effective round for bringing down foxes within sensible distances, but then I have used the following from my limited arsenal an ALL have done the same when I do my part at the launch end ... .22 Hornet (now .22 K-Hornet), .17 Rem c/f, and 6.5 Swede. The importance is on the bullet placement and the bullet construction for a quick, no argument knockdown... I have even shot foxes with my Anschutz .22RF with 40gr. Winchester subbies with headshots within 80 yds, but these have been "targets of opportunity" when out for rabbit, quite often cos I have left the bunny be where it dropped and the ever hungry, opportunistic fox has come by to steal my kills!!!....
I should much like to own a .204 cal. Rifle but having the .17 Rem and ALWAYS limiting my shooting to inside of 300 yds no matter what I am shooting/after, the .204 would be somewhat of a replication of what I already own and use. If I were into REALLY long range bunny bashing - like Richard of 'SharpshooterUK - then the .204 would already be in my rifle lockup.. but I am reasonably content with my near 100% hit record at more pedestrian ranges...
With small critters like fox I don't think it matters too much what caliber rifle one shoots them with, rather as I have mentioned above, ones ability to strike the animal in a critical killing area, and the use of quality frangible projectiles - in part cos the target is pretty narrow and the bullet MUST do lethal damage inside of that short distance before going out the other side, especially with the heavier rounds...
ATB ..... and shoot safely
I should much like to own a .204 cal. Rifle but having the .17 Rem and ALWAYS limiting my shooting to inside of 300 yds no matter what I am shooting/after, the .204 would be somewhat of a replication of what I already own and use. If I were into REALLY long range bunny bashing - like Richard of 'SharpshooterUK - then the .204 would already be in my rifle lockup.. but I am reasonably content with my near 100% hit record at more pedestrian ranges...
With small critters like fox I don't think it matters too much what caliber rifle one shoots them with, rather as I have mentioned above, ones ability to strike the animal in a critical killing area, and the use of quality frangible projectiles - in part cos the target is pretty narrow and the bullet MUST do lethal damage inside of that short distance before going out the other side, especially with the heavier rounds...
ATB ..... and shoot safely
Flash
Well-Known Member
Whos arguing
You are the one saying we shouldn't shoot foxes past 150 with the hornet (utter rubbish) i started the thread for people with the hornet its obvious you dont shoot one so you cant say they are no good past 100
How many times have you been out for rabbits and seen foxes
The hornet is an excellent calibre for both
Anyway cant chat no more im off out with my 204 to shoot foxes at 400
I bet you will have a problem with that as well lol
Flash
Well-Known Member
Your a fruit cakeApparently .223 is your favourite foxing calibre........ so I guess you just like to argue.
Favourite foxing calibre
22-250 a brilliant foxing calibre with either 50 or 55gn v max. I also have had good results with my 2506 75 v max and 270 110 v max. Pin point accuracy and explosive results.
If this is arguing id hate to see what a fight is when your involved
Its called a discussion
Maybe you dont know that because its too far away for you
Flash
Well-Known Member
Shoot everything with a 338 lapua then job done
Flash
Well-Known Member
Last thing on the sujectApparently .223 is your favourite foxing calibre........ so I guess you just like to argue.
Favourite foxing calibre
22-250 a brilliant foxing calibre with either 50 or 55gn v max. I also have had good results with my 2506 75 v max and 270 110 v max. Pin point accuracy and explosive results.
Why do snipers take ridiculously long shots
Because they know their equipment, limits and because they CAN
End of discussion you are boring the pants off me now
Happy hunting and paper punching
SAFE SAFE
A somewhat bizarre thread I think! All calibres from 177 air to 308 upwards will kill foxes at certain ranges but clearly, you wouldn't use a 12ft lb air rifle at more than a few yards and would need to be proficient with it.
The 17 calibres are fast, frangible and lethal, and as has been said repeatedly, more than capable of killing foxes out to 250-300 yards. However, it's been said over and over again that shot placement is critical, particularly with these small, high-speed rounds. I for one can't claim to be able to head shoot a fox cleanly (not blowing up its jaw etc.) at 200 yards plus, the rifle is capable, I'm not!
Now, if I'm using my 223 or 243 I would happily chest shoot a fox at those ranges as the substantially greater shock will drop it. There are so many possible variables that affect a shot once you get over 200 yards, that will obviously affect a 20-grain bullet more that one weighing two or three times as much. Surely, our aim (literally) should be to ensure a clean kill whatever the distance and use the best and most suitable tool for the job.
The 17 calibres are fast, frangible and lethal, and as has been said repeatedly, more than capable of killing foxes out to 250-300 yards. However, it's been said over and over again that shot placement is critical, particularly with these small, high-speed rounds. I for one can't claim to be able to head shoot a fox cleanly (not blowing up its jaw etc.) at 200 yards plus, the rifle is capable, I'm not!
Now, if I'm using my 223 or 243 I would happily chest shoot a fox at those ranges as the substantially greater shock will drop it. There are so many possible variables that affect a shot once you get over 200 yards, that will obviously affect a 20-grain bullet more that one weighing two or three times as much. Surely, our aim (literally) should be to ensure a clean kill whatever the distance and use the best and most suitable tool for the job.
I do shoot a hornet, a proper hornet ‘lol’
Amen to THAT 'Penyard' !!...
Years ago I used to read the American magazine "Guns & Ammo" and had not long since bought my current .17 Remington (secondhand) from a guy I knew fairly well. I was astounded at an article in said mag' that was about a fella in North America / Canada (can't remember which but the place had near zero people but lots of fir trees and snow ) shooting BLACK BEAR with his .17 Rem' so that his furs didn't have any unsightly big holes in them???- and NO it was not their April 1st edition)... I was incensed and even considered writing to that magazine with my condemnations of both that same fella AND the magazine for being stupid enough to print such an inflamatory story, but thought otherwise as what fir hunter in North America/Canada would contemplate taking shooting/hunting advice and ethics from a soft skinned Englishman??.. But the 'Guns & Ammo' editors should have known better as they were giving other people (fur hunters in particular) reckless ideas and poor quarry morals. That thought got me madder yet, but "what the hey" eh??
I wonder if that black bear fur hunter(?) took a really heavy duty pistol or shotgun firing slug and/or buckshot with him as a life and death backup system for use against those poor critters he failed to kill outright with that tiny round?
Alternatively I suppose he COULD have been a really excellent stalker who was able to get really close to his quarry to ensure critical point of impact of his tiny bullets.? There again, where the heck would one PURPOSELY shoot a freakin' adult black bear with a .17 Remington firing rifle??? A head shot would likely blow up and totally fragment before getting through that heavily boned skull, and a heart/lung shot would likely get tied up in all that thick fur coat and skin and not reach the intended vital organs. That point was never discussed in the article and I anno recal any followup in the subsequent month's magazine.
Overlay
Well-Known Member
Phew !!!! a few different replies on this thread
Having shot a 22 hornet for some time and grassed a very considerable number of foxes with it I’ve found it a very very capable on rabbit and fox out to a 100metres, I beg to wonder whether head shots to 150 metres are necessary in reality, there is a variable, my theory is to fit the caliber to the distance and quarry, there is a very small area on a foxes head that will provide the instant lights out, more than likely it will result in either a jaw shot or a surface wound out to a further distance, I’m awaiting my 17 hornet as a back up for the 22 hornet and I will be running it up on best ammunition and accuracy to get the correct distance on, providing you have a suitable round and accuracy heart and lung shots are on the cards
I don’t use the 22 hornet over a 100 odd metres, and I’ll be looking to see if the 17 hornet will extend the distance on heart and lung shots over the 100 metres mark.
Why anyone would want to take a head shot on a fox over 100 mts over a longer distance is IMHO getting into being a in - humane shot as the risk of wounding the animals are that very much higher, the correct efficient caliber out to a range is the best way and not pot luck,
I use my 222 out to 220 mtrs on heart and lung shots on foxes and it works perfectly
Having shot a 22 hornet for some time and grassed a very considerable number of foxes with it I’ve found it a very very capable on rabbit and fox out to a 100metres, I beg to wonder whether head shots to 150 metres are necessary in reality, there is a variable, my theory is to fit the caliber to the distance and quarry, there is a very small area on a foxes head that will provide the instant lights out, more than likely it will result in either a jaw shot or a surface wound out to a further distance, I’m awaiting my 17 hornet as a back up for the 22 hornet and I will be running it up on best ammunition and accuracy to get the correct distance on, providing you have a suitable round and accuracy heart and lung shots are on the cards
I don’t use the 22 hornet over a 100 odd metres, and I’ll be looking to see if the 17 hornet will extend the distance on heart and lung shots over the 100 metres mark.
Why anyone would want to take a head shot on a fox over 100 mts over a longer distance is IMHO getting into being a in - humane shot as the risk of wounding the animals are that very much higher, the correct efficient caliber out to a range is the best way and not pot luck,
I use my 222 out to 220 mtrs on heart and lung shots on foxes and it works perfectly
I more or less agree here 'Philip' in that even with my .17 Remington when ranges approach 80 yards or more I point my rifle muzzle at the fox's ribcage NOT head, either for the classic 'heart/lung' deer shot if the critter is presenting side on (favourite shot setup) or central aimed about half way up the bib if foxy decides to sit and look down the red beam of powerful lamp -which is more common than I would have initially anticipated.
Within the first 150 yards or so that teeny wee 20gr projectile fairly screams along, starting out at a bit over 4,400fps with my load, and a hit in the area of ribcage generally turns the critter's heart & lungs to mush, almost always without an exit wound so that 100%?of the bullet's energy is dumped into the fox's chest cavity, giving death like someone flipped a switch. I would think the .17 Hornet does something similar if not to quite the same ranges. EVERY fox I hit just stays where it is, not a single twitch. For this alone the Centre-fire .17 cal. rifles are near ideal on small animals out to across most small British field type ranges, say 250 yards or so (dependant on the cartridge itself) but much farther than this and the wee pellets lose steam like a shuttlecock. In my ballistic program it shows that my 20gr V-Max bullet has lost near as damn it HALF of its energy by the 225yd mark, and from there on it just gets worse, quickly. But keep the distances within that (maybe a little more on really STILL weather days/nights and you'd want for nothing more in a Vermin destruction rifle!!
ATB ...... and shoot safely.
Within the first 150 yards or so that teeny wee 20gr projectile fairly screams along, starting out at a bit over 4,400fps with my load, and a hit in the area of ribcage generally turns the critter's heart & lungs to mush, almost always without an exit wound so that 100%?of the bullet's energy is dumped into the fox's chest cavity, giving death like someone flipped a switch. I would think the .17 Hornet does something similar if not to quite the same ranges. EVERY fox I hit just stays where it is, not a single twitch. For this alone the Centre-fire .17 cal. rifles are near ideal on small animals out to across most small British field type ranges, say 250 yards or so (dependant on the cartridge itself) but much farther than this and the wee pellets lose steam like a shuttlecock. In my ballistic program it shows that my 20gr V-Max bullet has lost near as damn it HALF of its energy by the 225yd mark, and from there on it just gets worse, quickly. But keep the distances within that (maybe a little more on really STILL weather days/nights and you'd want for nothing more in a Vermin destruction rifle!!
ATB ...... and shoot safely.
Not looking to argue just interested, why do you think the 0.17H will be more suitable at say 150 metres than the 0.22H? It is a smaller bullet, smaller cross sectional area and the 0.22 starts with 50% more energy than the 17 version, it can also shoot 40 gr poly tipped bullets a long way accurately which hold their energy well and deflect the wind more.
A mate of mine has the 17, we were discussing this thread at Bisley Sunday, his opinion is it is far less capable than 0.223 and really restrict your options in terms of shot placement. He and I have debated .17H vs 0.22H until the cows come home, we've had a shoot off at 300 metres which he won with a group of about 5" as I had one bad flyer open my group up to 12" with the other 4 inside 4" but that is the rifle (pitted to hell), shooter or ammo, not the calibre.
I would agree with you '25 Sharps' that the .22H (in my present ownership the .22K-H which isn't much different in performance) is the upside of the two. As you rightly say, more energy downrange which increases with distance travelled, better wind stability, just as accurate in still air from a competent rifle/shooter, and with the right (frangible) bullet choice, at least as devastating if not more so....
Regards,
Blobby159
Regards,
Blobby159
Overlay
Well-Known Member
My intention for the 17 hornet is to use as a back up for my 22 hornet, having had my 22 hornet out of action due to a bolt fault, I got a WMR which was ok but not 100 % like the hornet, I didn’t want 2 22 hornets so after checking around I settled on getting the 17 hornet, on paper it appears ( with proviso) using a light round the 17 is quicker and has a longer flatter trajectory that as I understand will give a better true shooting distance
I don’t do elevation as it brings in another reason to miss or wound and I like to point and shoot and be precise as allowed, I’m going to keep a permanent Swaro day scope on the 22 hornet and a permanent NV pard 08 on the 17 if the 17 gives me a true shot to to 120-140 yds I’ll be chuffed if I can’t find a accurate round for that I’ll probably keep it to a 100 with a 30 grn round either way it’s a decent calibre
Looking forward to getting the rifle and have a play around to source a accurate round, trying to get a Annie or Weihrauch but the waiting time ex factory is getting longer everyday it seems
Similar threads
