.22lr for Harvesting Game Animals

[Carl]

I have made good use of AGUILA SSS 60 grain 22 long rifle in 'hunting' situations

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2506135961/aguila-sss-sniper-subsonic-ammunition-22-long-rifle-60-grain-lead-round-nose

It is a 60 grain bullet at about 1000 feet per second and hits and penetrates well,though it is better used for small to medium game. For larger beasties,I use a 38 - 357 leaver action to make use of quiet 38's and near 30-30 power with 357 Magnums I have selection of many noise/power options ,and less costly ammo,with leaver actions and pistol ammo. Look at the RIFLE ballistics of handgun ammo and factor in cost,smile,and know you made a good choice in a powerful MID RANGE hunting tool.

[nelson96]

For me personally it is all about shot placement, not because I am concerned about the round being underpowered, but because I feel it is ethical.

I think you're on the right track but, most "hunters" would not consider a head shot ethical, as their are many variables that can cause an issue with proper placement for that ethical kill, especially with a small cartridge.  Good luck to you and congratulations in your record to date.

I will add that I too am a meat hunter with more animals harvested (elk and deer) than I care to guess.  I've never taken a head shot and have had the fortune of never losing an animal and have efficiently expired my animals with 1 shot 98% of the time in my 36 year career.  My buck from last year was the first animal I've ever had the desire to mount.

[Carl]

  My buck from last year was the first animal I've ever had the desire to mount.

You mean TAXIDERMY...right?

[nelson96]

You mean TAXIDERMY...right?

Fungi, oh, I mean funny guy  . . .  yes.

.

[iccustoms]

When you say "most hunters" don't feel a head shot is ethical, do you mean because it isn't taught in hunters education?  If you are talking about missing, well no shot is ethical if you wound a animal; be it in the face or the gut.  But I don't know how a solid shot to the head would not be ethical.  It drops, right there.  Again, I will reiterate, to work within your capabilities, regardless of where you are aiming...

Further, there is a distinct taste difference in meat that is killed instantly versus meat saturated in adrenaline/cortisol after it has ran a stretch and is bleeding out.

If you,or anyone on the forum, has not had any experience with head shots, a tip is to whistle.  Once you have a solid shooting position, whistle, they will look at you and hold very still for your shot...

[endurance]

Having found a jaw shot deer that starved to death, I personally would prefer the risk of missing the heart by 3-4" and still hitting a lung or liver that will kill it within a few minutes vs. a missed headshot.  Even a gut shot seems less cruel.

[iccustoms]

In the context of an "ethical missed shot", I guess I would agree with you Endurance.  Although neither sounds pleasant.

[endurance]

In the context of an "ethical missed shot", I guess I would agree with you Endurance.  Although neither sounds pleasant.

Absolutely.  I've lung-shot one animal and I couldn't finish it off fast enough for my taste.  Fortunately I'd taken out it's shoulder, too, so I was able to walk up and finish it with a knife to the heart. 

I wish I could rely on being as accurate in the field as I am on the range and I do everything I can to train for the field, but adrenaline, wind, animal movement, temperature (shivering cold sucks), and other factors beyond my control make me a sub-100 yard hunter under most circumstances and even then, I like to leave myself as much margin for error as possible.

[Scottman]

A guy down the road told me once when he was young he while rabbit hunting took a deer at close range with birdshot. Another farmer told me he used 20 gauge birdshot at point blank to drop a cow. Neither seems ideal just like the 22. It seems to me a lot of people keep saying the fact of headshots with the rimfire because 1. if they have to "bug out" the ammo is lightweight 2. The would be using it on cns shots which would drop the animal in it's tracks and not run off to other unexplored areas 3. The report is lower then a cartridge with a lot more gun powder 4. Some of the areas are in the woods so ranges would be very short.


Just today I had three does inside 15  yards. I don't really know if I "needed" meat if it would have been more appropriate to use my 22 mag cricket or my glock both of which were on me.


Truthfully for hunting I don't really care about the cost of my cartridge, the gas up to deer camp costs more. Hunting for me is fun and sport. Seems to me I can time more productively putting in more food sources, and use traps to control pests. It seems I'd always get "jabbed at" for showing up small game hunting with something that cost more then the 22 lr that all the other guys were using. It never bothered me though on the cost to feed my 177 air guns or the magnum rimfires to sport hunt. I"m not counting the cents when I go hunting.

I should add to that their obviously is a certain power level, and bullet construction needed to pierce the cranial vault on different species of animals. I've seen fails with certain power levels on certain species. I've also seen the same load hit a soft life support target (small game) and the animal dies.

[Carl]

As for large game with BIRD SHOT,an OLD TRICK is a CUT SHELL. You cut the outer shell most of the way around with a sharp knife...JUST BELOW THE SHOT,BUT not below the buffer...and you have a pretty good "powdered slug" that will do .And it is lots cheaper to buy,and allows carry without question during small game season as a BIG game deterrent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3M46XVfVOU

[nelson96]

When you say "most hunters" don't feel a head shot is ethical, do you mean because it isn't taught in hunters education?  If you are talking about missing, well no shot is ethical if you wound a animal; be it in the face or the gut.  But I don't know how a solid shot to the head would not be ethical.  It drops, right there.  Again, I will reiterate, to work within your capabilities, regardless of where you are aiming...

Further, there is a distinct taste difference in meat that is killed instantly versus meat saturated in adrenaline/cortisol after it has ran a stretch and is bleeding out.

If you,or anyone on the forum, has not had any experience with head shots, a tip is to whistle.  Once you have a solid shooting position, whistle, they will look at you and hold very still for your shot...

I've come across many wounded animals over the years.  Some I found dead (meat gone to waste) and others soon to be dead from their wounds (meat gone to waste) and all suffered I'm sure.  They have ranged from being shot in the face (possible head shot that was off by an inch or two, or more) to being shot in the ass, and everything in between.  There isn't a single point of impact one could choose that can remotely insure a one shot kill given all of the conditions hunters experience.  For that reason we choose the right equipment for the job (that's what this thread is really about) to negate as many variables as we can.

At my age I don't remember much from my hunters safety course, my comments in this thread and others are based more on experiences. . . .  IMHO, first and foremost a caliber and bullet of adequate terminal ballsitics should be chosen and second, good shot placement.  The reason I place terminal ballistics ahead of shot placement is for the simple fact that with the right combination you do not need to insure that you can hit an area the size of snoose can, or smaller, at a given range and/or other common conditions, to achieve one shot kills.  Given that you have the right equipment first, I feel most feel that ethical shots and one shot kills can be better achieved and that head shots are not part of that equation.  YMMV

As mentioned previously, the majority of my shots have been very efficient one shot kills. . . .  I've never eaten a piece of meat that I didn't enjoy to the fullest.

While whistling and/or using a call can prove helpful in holding your game for a good shot, I would not rely on it to insure I get an ethical kill.

.

[iccustoms]

Nelson, while I appreciate you having your opinion on caliber over shot placement, and being able to articulate why, I respectfully disagree.  For me personally, shot placement trumps caliber.  I can see terminal ballistics being more forgiving for a lack of shot placement, but not so much so that it would warrant me buying another rifle.  I find the 5.56 plenty capable in my hands.

And with respect to the "all of the conditions hunters experience," again I respectfully disagree.  As a hunter we have the ability to create our own conditions.  If the weather is freezing and I am shaking....I don't go out or I don't take the shot.  If I can only see my game from off-hand and my sights are moving....I don't take the shot, find a more stable shooting position.  I pass on a lot of shots some would take because I am working within the confines of my equipment and skill.

You also went on to mention that this thread is really about finding the right equipment for the job.  To which I find this thread to be somewhat misleading. 

The original topic questions that you posted are, "I've known a few that use calibers like the .223 and .22-250 Remington for deer, but why is it so rare compared to the masses using larger calibers?  Is this a regional thing and I am just unaware?"

The short answer to the above question is probably something to the effect of, the person behind the counter hands them a 30-06 or 308, or their buddy recommends one.

I am just adding my experiences to the forum, since I do use 5.56/.223, and I find it works perfectly well.  It seems like you have a bone to pick with lighter calibers.  Seeing as how you feel the direction of this thread is finding the right caliber for the job, implying that lesser calibers are wrong for the job.

If you only have one rifle, you make it work for the task at hand.

[nelson96]

And with respect to the "all of the conditions hunters experience," again I respectfully disagree.  As a hunter we have the ability to create our own conditions.  If the weather is freezing and I am shaking....I don't go out or I don't take the shot.  If I can only see my game from off-hand and my sights are moving....I don't take the shot, find a more stable shooting position.  I pass on a lot of shots some would take because I am working within the confines of my equipment and skill.

Perfect, that's all part of choosing an ethical shot.

You also went on to mention that this thread is really about finding the right equipment for the job.  To which I find this thread to be somewhat misleading.

The original topic questions that you posted are, "I've known a few that use calibers like the .223 and .22-250 Remington for deer, but why is it so rare compared to the masses using larger calibers?  Is this a regional thing and I am just unaware?"

I'm sorry you find it misleading, that certainly wasn't my intention.  I think maybe you may be getting out of it what you want and not what was intended from my own point of view, and may also be taking more from the OP than what was intended too.  I had hoped that the OP would lead to the type of discussions that have resulted, in which everyone is entitled to their opinions but that we can all take an applicable message from.

I am just adding my experiences to the forum, since I do use 5.56/.223, and I find it works perfectly well.  It seems like you have a bone to pick with lighter calibers.  Seeing as how you feel the direction of this thread is finding the right caliber for the job, implying that lesser calibers are wrong for the job.

If you only have one rifle, you make it work for the task at hand.

If I would have a bone to pick, which I don't, it would be with those that lack experience in hunting large game and make recommendations while not taking in to account all the what-if's that their lack of experience limits.  That's not a dig at you as it appears you know your limitations and take your shots accordingly.  However, I had hoped that these discussions would offer information to the person that hadn’t considered all that he/she should and it is comments like yours that contribute to that.

That said, I too am utilizing my own experiences (an extensive one in successful hunting for many years) and I do believe that there is such a thing as a “lesser caliber” not suited for a given job and simply suggest that that should be taken in to consideration when selecting a firearm, especially if you are going to “only have one rifle”.
.

[iccustoms]

Understood, and agreed.