Thoughts on a .222 investment

PSE Composites Limited


Well-Known Member
Anyone out there with thoughts on this matter , especially as .222 is min calibre for CWD and Muntjac in England and Wales, and min for Roe IN SCOTLAND!. I feel a hornets nest here !.Why not clear it up
Regards Trapper ;)


Well-Known Member
Another calbre circle-jerk!

Please, just buy a 6.5x55 and join the adults.

I would have added a smiley, but don't want to appear to support the drug culture!



Well-Known Member
no don't do it

you have a smashing .243. why bother spending the money. having your 243 threaded would be a better investment.



Well-Known Member

I previously owned a 223. I put it to the test and waited for a roe to come into the centre of a grass area so that I could witness its full reaction. Shot broadside into heart lung area. The animal ran on 40 yds.
I went to the point of impact, little blood. I tried to follow a blood trail, there was no blood trail. On arrival at the animal, it was dead, but there was no exit wound and little blood from the entry.

They are powerful enough to drop a deer, but, do you want to retrieve a deer with little or no blood trail in wood, plantation or scrub areas. No!!!!

So move onto a minimum of .243.

I cant believe that they droped the calibre in England to 22 centrefire, I wish they would raise it in Scotland.

I use .243 on Roe and 6.5 on Roe and Red


The Mole

Well-Known Member
All previous thoughts seconded - stick with the grown-up calibres and do the job properly! The law was changed to allow .22 centrefires for many reasons, but deer welfare was certainly not among them.

Just a thought - if .22 centrefires have 'proven' so suitable for roe in Scotland, why did the law change not allow them for roe in England & Wales? :rolleyes: :mad:


Site Staff
I have a 6.5 and a 243 and agree they are mustard on our UK deer, I also have a 222. The 222 is a very accurate and very lethal little round which is more than capable on Roe, I have no experience of Muntjac so cannot help there.

I know a good few people who have fed their families over the years using 222, and that would be on Roe, Red and Sika. Now, I know that a lot of people will say but how many have ran off and not been found, and I would probably have to answer about as many as have been shot by larger calibres I expect.

The calibre is certainly more than adequate for Roe, you have to get in the right place and shoot within the capabilities of your rifle and yourself. Having a larger calibre does not make you a better stalker or a better shot. To my way of thinking all this talk of a better margin for error with a bigger calibre is just not so. If the calibre is suitable for your quarry, and you do your bit and put the bullet in the right place, then you are dealing with the margin of error not the calibre. Badly shot is badly shot, irrespective of calibre.

I now sit back and await incoming fire. :D :D



Well-Known Member
+1 for what JAYB says. I've had many roe run 50 mtrs with a well placed shot from the .243 & .308.

I remember the first time i hunted in Sweden. There was another English hunter with us who used a .338 mag. He shot a little button roe buck. He gut shot the buck and we had to get a dog and track said roe which was still alive . So bigger is not allways best.


Well-Known Member
If you shoot a roe deer with the right Rifle- bullet combination it do's not matter wether you use a .308or a .222. Back in the 70's i did all my stalking with a .243 . Several "experts" told me that it was not suitable for shooting big fallow bucks because they were so tough to shoot. I was shooting Fallow on the side of the south downs in Sussex at the time. I shot 2 big fallow bucks one evening. One buck was 200mtrs away. I shot them both in the chest both bullets exited the otherside. Would a .308 or a "#¤ WSM done a better job? Dead is Dead.

If a deer has run 500 mtrs i have cocked the shot up and no big calibre will put that right

Buy the Rifle in a calibre that rings your bell. Learnt to shoot it with the right bullet for the quarry you are after.

The only slight reservation i have about the CF.22's is that people might be tempted to shoot larger deer than roe if they have them on their ground.

In 38 years of stalking i have never lost a deer. I have cocked a few shots up but then i have always had good dogs.


Distinguished Member
I have total confidence in the abilities of the .222 to take roe using the correct bullet.
The problem as I see it is often the use of unsuitable bullets by some stakers, which to a certain extent larger calibres can mask or compensate for.

Bullet selection can be difficlt and an extremly emotive subject, as all of us have our own often fixed ideas.
Personally I would love to see a system adopted universally by all ammunition and bullet manufacturers similar to that used by RWS in their catalogues, where pictograms indicte suitability of use. I know that such recommendations would be purely that, but to those that only shoot occasionaly or rely upon guidance from retailers who sometimes are only too eager to sell what is in stock such guidance could be helpful.
Perhaps we should start a campaign to have such a system adopted by all manufacturers and distributors, can't imagine that RWS would complain. After all Volvo never patented seatbelts as a benevolent act towards public safety, nor did Scania patent vehicle heating systems for the similar reasons, or so we are told.


Site Staff
You really cannot knock experience can you, and Jagare has summed it up perfectly.

What ever way you look at it, it all comes down to the stalker doing his/her job properly, and having a larger caliber with the ability to inflict bigger wounds does not make you a better stalker. The right tool for the right job is a large part of the answer, and in this case the stalker forms a large percentage of the tool.

No responsible stalker would go into the field with a gun where the zero was not checked, if they do then it is them and not the gun that is at fault. If the zero is good but the shot is not, then it is them and not the gun that is at fault. If they are using a gun to do a job that it is not meant for and it all goes wrong, then it is them and not the gun that is at fault. Remember that your rifle will not jump off your shoulder, aim at a beast and fire itself, you have to do that part. You accept the congratulations if it is a success and you are regarded as a marksman, you should also accept the blame if it goes wrong because of you. Cock ups occur it is a fact of life, live with it don't keep trying to find an excuse.



Well-Known Member
I was recently in New Zealand and I was reading the memoirs of a guy called Bill Axeby who was a professional hunter for many years, he went on to be a senoir figure in the Wildlife Service and a well respected author.
The guy was recalling the many hunting trips he had as a boy when he and his friends hunted to for fun and the pot as times were tough.
His weapon was not of choice but necessity as it was all he had, it wass a .22 rimfire with which he dispatched countless pigs and deer.
And even on occasion a .32 S&W pistol was used !!!

All calibres can kill it's not the calibre but the hunter we need to make the allowance of minimum calibre for.


Well-Known Member
222 caliber

over 25 years + i have used a 222 for roe in scotland and never had a problem . The thing is get the correct bullet and put it in the right place , dont take any silly shots as you will only wound and may loose the beast . I and duncan shot a large number of munties since the law changed and have not had any problems again bullet placement and construction of bullet are the key factor . I have had them run with 243 308 270 but cant see any different with 22 cf if shot in the boiler room again its personal choice if it works dont knock it


Site Staff
I think we have been here before on this business. I agree that a 222 with the Right Bullets will do the job, but having said that so would a HV rim fire .22 round if you are near enough.

In my personal opinion (and it is my opinion) a 222 is not for deer. Sure it works, and yes I know it depends on the bullet, and more importantly whether the shooter is a good competant shot, and possibly weather will also play a small part (wind drift etc). But if you are going to buy a rifle to stalk Roe, Chinks or Munties a 243 will make a far better job, and give a novice shooter more confidence.

This bigger bullet business is fine, but what ever calibre you shoot, it is always the person behind the rifle that makes the shot.


Agreed, if it’s a case of Ballistic Thrombosis [clot behind the trigger] then the calibre can be irrelevant.
I have shot many Roe with a .222 and my only comment is that it’s an excellent turnip field rifle, but if used in forestry then due to a lack of blood in many cases a dog is a must, as it can save a lot of time crawling about amongst trees with a ton of pine needles down your back


Well-Known Member
I have all the boys toys that I need to sort out my shooting .243 .308
and would only use these on my shoot , I have a blank on my ticket for a .222 .Didnt say I was getting it for deer , merly that the legislation has changed to allow .222 for CWD and Muntjac. Said this would be a hornets nest , think I was right by some of the comments,.


Site Staff
Trapper, no hornets nest, just personal opinions ;) it is a fine vermin round 222, and yes it will take deer, but for me personally I would prefer a larger calibre.

Although light skinned CWD can like all deer carry a shot sometimes and Munties with their thick hide and muscualr stature can also be hardy. I think its all down to personal choice, and ability.

I wish you well.


1967spud Reloading Supplies Ltd - UK Suppliers for Reloading Equipment supplies, We also stock Bullet Heads and Bullet Cases Guns Cabinets, Night vision and much much more...