Thread: 222 vs Fallow

A spooked animal can do remarkable things, even if its been hit several times. But a spooked animal with all the adrenalin in the world that has been properly shot in the brain or spinal column isn’t going to do anything remarkable, it will simply collapse. Adrenalin in an animal shot several times is often matched by the adrenalin in the shooter.

If a red stag is shot once or more in the neck and still hasn’t collapsed, its for the old and/or reason... wrong bullet and/or wrong placement. Calibre has got nothing to do with it. How many cattle beasts are dropped every day in NZ with a .223? Sure its close range, but it doesn’t take much to put them down. No difference in head shooting a cattle beast from 10m or 100m or more with a .222 or .223, we obsess with our 1 MOA rifles after all.

If you are likely to be snap shooting spooked animals in the woods, use a heavy, wide expanding bullet that will hit the animal hard and create a wide wound channel and nasty, fast bleed out. That is not the job for a .22.

If your are shooting open country with a good field of view and the ability to get onto animals within 200m or so undetected, the .22 can be an awesome weapon. Low recoiling, deadly accurate. Use the right bullet - the most important part of the .22 equation - and take out the CNS. Job done.

My brother used a 222 for years on reds bush hunting, he is the shoot them in the head or neck kind of fella, you do that and the animal will drop like water.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

How many cattle beasts are dropped every day in NZ with a .223? Sure its close range, but it doesn’t take much to put them down.

Done that a few times including once when one had decided to run me over. Amazing how the threat of hoof prints to the face focuses the mind.

Originally Posted by Bill999

A friend that has shot hundreds if not thousands of deer with a treble two told me to go with at least 55gr or heavier
it gives you a great deal more margin for error

but yes if there is a lot of fallow on the farm theres no excuse to not shoot them in the neck

There is no margin for error with a .222 or .223.

Originally Posted by tetawa

There is no margin for error with a .222 or .223.

There must be some margin for error because there must be less with a 22magnum and my dad shot very many fallow and few reds with it, he also had a 223 and 30-06 but very often took the mag for Fallow and Pigs.
I dont necessarily agree with it or recommend it but there ya go, also witnessed some astounding Kentucky windage 223 shots on Fallow from the old bloke...I wont post the range of one memorable 223 shot here.I ranged it 10 years later when I got my first range finder but it would be considered long range even today and it only took 5 or 6 steps shoulder shot.

There is a margin of error with the .222
Hit anywhere in the hillar zone with a decent 50 grn bullet a deer will drop. Crease, a bit slower. But still dead. I always used a lung/crease shot where its soft and there are lots of working parts, and the .222 worked fine.

As a shearer said to me once when I ridiculed his 30-30 "if you think its so gutless and useless mate, walk up that hill 100 yards and bare your white arse at me and I will see if I can hit it". It was quite a convincing argument.

Originally Posted by Tahr

As a shearer said to me once when I ridiculed his 30-30 "if you think its so gutless and useless mate, walk up that hill 100 yards and bare your white arse at me and I will see if I can hit it". It was quite a convincing argument.

Brilliant. This should be the forum gold standard for resolving all pisstakes about other people's favourite calibers.

Originally Posted by ZG47

It is my understanding that the NZFS started out with .222 Norma ammunition only and then mixed it up with cheaper ammo buys. When that happened the headmen got first dibs on the Norma ammo and their juniors had to make do with Yank ammo that was not necessarily fit for purpose.

When I started in Forest service we were issued Sako 50 gr good round too, later we got Hertinburg which was ok for goats but a bit light on deer but still worked with good shots, one thing about the 222 or 223 is they are accurate and you would always expect your shot in the right place so long as you did your bit.

@Mooseman I remember the Hertinburg .222 and I used it right into the 1970's for the chillers until I started hand loading.

Many years ago I picked up a .270 case up the Urchin with NZFS stamped on it. I guess CAC made them for the old Forrest Service.


ps. I just looked them up on the inter-web. Its "Hertinburger". They stopped ammo production about 20 years ago. Apparently there's tons of their 7.62 mil serp still around that the target guys in the States use.

I have only one objection to this thread. You can't ridicule a .30-30.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

I have only one objection to this thread. You can't ridicule a .30-30.

I apologise and retract

Brno .222 meat & velvet hunting in Tararuas 1968-ish ...got 2 that day.





Ruahine tops. Same rifle.

Originally Posted by Tahr

@Mooseman I remember the Hertinburg .222 and I used it right into the 1970's for the chillers until I started hand loading.

Many years ago I picked up a .270 case up the Urchin with NZFS stamped on it. I guess CAC made them for the old Forrest Service.


ps. I just looked them up on the inter-web. Its "Hertinburger". They stopped ammo production about 20 years ago. Apparently there's tons of their 7.62 mil serp still around that the target guys in the States use.

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.
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

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

I have only one objection to this thread. You can't ridicule a .30-30.

30-30 the hammer of Mini Mouse!



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.