I apologise and retract :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
Printable View
I apologise and retract :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
Brno .222 meat & velvet hunting in Tararuas 1968-ish ...got 2 that day.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...l/00760004.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...l/00760002.jpg
Ruahine tops. Same rifle.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...l/00760001.jpg
Sl ightly off topic, the first centrefire I owned (apart from a 303) was a sako forrester in 270. It came with 3 boxes of cac soft pioint headstamped nzfs. I couldnt fault the accuracy but a lot of animals from goats to deer walked after being shot at and needed a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
This set me to thinking that the 270 was crap for a long time when it was actually the projectiles that they used some skin popped, others didnt expand and some worked as designed..
So with any cal its the projectile that determines its performance.
BTY the 270 is ok
30-30 the hammer of Mini Mouse!Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
Attachment 93936
Yes, you can.
No, that didn't work. It just makes people wonder why you have such a girly mouse picture so readily to hand.
Not to mention, the recoil from an untamed 30-30 lever would make him cryQuote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
hey !!! i just bought the wife a 30/30 !!!
We have this thing called the interweb. Can find anything pretty quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
A 30-30 lever is on my shopping list.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
gimme call for a 30/30Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
I agree with others here; re .222, If spooked, lung-heart shots can result in lost deer, depending on the country. If they're quiet, they often just sit down and then keel over. And as mentioned, good head and neck shots are dead on the spot. My tikka m55 likes the ppu (privi) 50gr, more accurate than my reloads and just works.
Is it a marlin? Good/bad/indifferent? I've got 100 rounds of 30/30 I can't get rid of so may need to go shopping.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk
Year I started school, old fella.
Great photo's @Tahr brings back old hunting memories, when we meat hunted and in the Forest Service days we didn't have a good camera one of those point and shoot types and bush photo's mostly didn't turn out, wasn't till 83 when I got a decent camera, an Olympus.
@Mooseman Those were taken with a Russian copy of the old 35mm Leica. To post them here, I took photos of the original photos. I never took enough pics either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseman
Bit of a thread hi-jack going on here, but here are a few more:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...Picture682.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...Picture678.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...Picture683.jpg
The camera would be a Zorki or a Fed. Didn't know you were a camera guy Mr Tahr.
Fed. It was a wonderful camera. I bought it my first year out of school. 1966. Always been a camera guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
You must have shot a few deer with your .222 - what do you think?
@ Tahr, hijack away mate, some great old photo's . Cheers for sharing them.
really funny when you look at it...Philip Holden wrote a chapter ".222 the controversial one" waaaaay back when????? not a hell of a lot has changed since then.....the deer are still deer ,sure hunters as a whole are a lot less fit and have better gear,optics are argueable better and rangefinders have taken a lot of guesswork out of things,but at sub 150 yards its still the same ball game its always been.
The .222 does more damage to the deer than my .284 does!!! I shoot them anywhere with it, but I try for the neck. just because if i shoot the deer in the shoulder with the .222 the damage is just crazy!
Attachment 93953
Attachment 93954
Attachment 93955
Attachment 93956
Attachment 93957
Attachment 93958
Yes the damage the 222 inflicts is quite amazing. I remember back when culling we gave a fencer a couple of deer we shot in exchange for fresh vegs and I always remembered his comment when he asked what sort of canon we were using. When we told it was a 222 and showed him the round he couldn't believe the damage to the front shoulders, basically he lost the front end on those deer.
yup marlin 336Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve123
but she just had shoulder surgery so cant use it yet
That's will power. I'd have put at least 100 rounds through it by now.Sent from my SM-G388F using TapatalkQuote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Not nearly as many as others, only a handful, I came to the .222 late. I have had two .222's over the years, a Winchester 70 and a Sako Vixen. The damage the bullet does is way out of proportion. I think Tussock said it once, you open up the chest and pour most of it on the ground.
I decided against the TSX's in the end, as they didn't seem to kill any better than an el cheapo Hornady 55 grain softpoint,
As for there "not being much of a margin with a .222"..."" I dunno. I have shot them in the shoulder and one I got with a liver shot, and he didn't go anywhere either. But I didnt do any rear end shots; but then I hardly do with any rifle. I think truly I was more careful though, more aware. I never did shoot a big stag with one, all young stuff.
I'm intrigued to know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway
cause they are fast and frangible and loose ALL thier energy inside the animal instead of the countryside behind animal.
I grew up with stories of how great the trebly was and fellas talking it up over the .223 so looked at fundemental differences....only thing that stuck out was hard 55grn Vs softer 50 grn which is why I prefer to feed my .223 50-52 grn pills (trying to get same preformance by going lighter and softer)
with ttsx in my .223 it gives VERY SIMILAR results to my .270 using 130grn cup n core except it is reverse....
130grn rem coreloct small damage nearside shoulder....stuffed up internals...big bloody damage far shoulder
50ttsx big damage near shoulder...stuffed up internals..small damage to farside shoulder
Well we must keep it in proportion - a .243 does more damage than a .222.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Headroom
But I am sure it is just sheer velocity and a soft bullet. But I am not a .222 expert like others on this thread.
The smallest amount of damage I see is from my black powder .44-40 - it just punches a .44 calibre hole through everything - its only going 1200 fps at the muzzle and less than the speed of sound when it hits the animal. Actually a soft point .22LR will often do more internal damage to a rabbit for example, than that slow lead slug. The other side of the coin is that I doubt I will ever catch a .44 bullet from it, ten water jugs wouldn't catch one, and that's more than enough to hold a .270. It will always exit a deer, but you may have trouble finding the off side hole.
Theres no such considerations with the fast ones, the .222 and .223 and the .243's. So it's velocity. With the .222 the exit hole would sometimes be hard to find, you would skin it out and find it, but the entrance area and internals would be all bloodshot to hell.
I saw two fallow on the road to work this morning, mum and last years baby, by the look of it. I think my .222 is too much gun for the area I have access to, I bought a .22 Hornet when I first moved here, specifically for the fallow. Does the job and way less noise, but too pretty to knock about, 1974 BRNO Fox with less than 50rds through it ! I used to do ALL my hunting with a .22-hornet, I gave-in to peer-pressure and traded it for a 6.5x55. While I've never lost an animal with the 6.5, I can say the same for that old hornet, including 3 pigs up mangapurua valley, and it accounted for way more game overall than the 6.5 has. Only limit, is range and a good ear-shot, plus you actually have to Hunt;ie; stalk in close, 100 max, unless its little stuff.
Apart from iron-sights, my fox looks identical to Kudus .222..
