wymberley Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 The Subject was touched upon in another recent thread and was mentioned (please note, mentioned, no opinion as such of his own was given) by someone who I think just may know a thing or two about rifle shooting. Question: Is the reasoning behind this valid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 optimum game weight for calibre you mean? At best a rough guide, as we know shot placement is the most important bit. one without the other is meaningless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) I would agree one without the other is meaningless but surely you dont mean placement is more important? I could hit a red stags heart and lung area all day with a catapult and it wouldn't do a thing, but I bet it would be dead within an hour if you hit it in anywhere in the same area with say a 308.... Placement of bullet can also greatly depend on the posture, position and behaviour of an animal, for example a roe deer lying down could be neck shot but the commonly known "prime area" is heart/lung usually.... The same can be said with a fox, usually if you hit it anywhere with a centrefire it will be dead within an hour but I have hit them in the chest/head with a 22 at close range (from a high seat for example) and they have jumped about and then run off! As said they go hand in hand but I would personally say either can be more important depending on the situation, it's also the reason most people select a centrefire if foxing and a rimfires for rabbits...(there are a few who will use centrefire for moles etc Neil!) Regards, Gixer Edited August 25, 2011 by gixer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 gixer1, To confirm one WITHOUT the other is meaningless. But a .222 in the right place will kill anything in the UK (not legally but it will) a .375 h&h in the wrong place will only miss or wound, so placement is the overiding factor of the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) I think placement to a point and depending on the target, if you hit a fox in the hind quarter with a 243 9 times out of 10 it will be dead on impact.....shoot a fox in the chest with a 22 and it will not always drop.... The treble two is a hard hitting round and if you look at the OGW it far out weighs what most people use them for (foxing and vermin south of the border) Regards Gixer Edited August 26, 2011 by gixer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) Having a look at this, excluding perhaps when all the variable conditions which affect shot placement can be described as perfect, this would appear valid. Having ploughed all the way through, "www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm", a carefully read final paragraph sums it up and seems to me to be eminently sensible. As the above conditions rarely, if ever, exist, then it could be taken as a practical working guide. Our intention when shooting is not to fatally, but mortally wound our quarry sometimes in conditions when accuracy levels will be good as opposed to perfect. If this helps to overcome this discrepency, it can't be bad. Should anyone want a fiddle, taking fox as 20 and roe as 68 (these figures include the authors recommended 25% to cater for "awkward" [my word] shots) and shouldn't be too far off the mark. I'll "edit" the relevant site for the ballistic table which includes a OGW column. Edit; www.biggameinfo.com/BalCalc.aspx Edited August 26, 2011 by wymberley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peathag Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I think placement to a point and depending on the target, if you hit a fox in the hind quarter with a 243 9 times out of 10 it will be dead on impact.....shoot a fox in the chest with a 22 and it will not always drop.... The treble two is a hard hitting round and if you look at the OGW it far out weighs what most people use them for (foxing and vermin south of the border) Regards Gixer That first statement is complete rubbish and also irresponsible - I simply dont see how hitting a fox in the hind quarters will be dead on impact 9/10. To qualify that statement you must have shot 10 foxes in the hind quarters (which is the rear legs by the way) either by accident or on purpose. If my standard of marksmanship was as poor as yours or my lack of respect for quarry then I would sell my guns and take up origami! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Peathag, Get off your high horse! It was an example of the energy passed through by a high ogw round versus one with a low ogw..... And it is not completely rubbish as most will testify who have shot a reasonable number of foxes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've shot 700kg+ cows instantly dead with both a .22rf and a .410 shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've shot 700kg+ cows instantly dead with both a .22rf and a .410 shotgun. At what range though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 That first statement is complete rubbish and also irresponsible - I simply dont see how hitting a fox in the hind quarters will be dead on impact 9/10. To qualify that statement you must have shot 10 foxes in the hind quarters (which is the rear legs by the way) either by accident or on purpose. If my standard of marksmanship was as poor as yours or my lack of respect for quarry then I would sell my guns and take up origami! I've deliberately taken a texas heart shot on foxes when I've had to and I have to say most have died straight away. But then from the front or rear the .243 takes the same path in one end and out the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've deliberately taken a texas heart shot on foxes when I've had to and I have to say most have died straight away. But then from the front or rear the .243 takes the same path in one end and out the other. Yup, and in a survey of 50 keepers i bet if a foxes harris was the only part showing...it would be "ventilated" by all 50 .....with a centrefire the trauma/damage caused is emmense... Regards, Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peathag Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Yup, and in a survey of 50 keepers i bet if a foxes harris was the only part showing...it would be "ventilated" by all 50 .....with a centrefire the trauma/damage caused is emmense... Regards, Gixer My sincerest apologies Gixer I wrongly assumed you were shooting them broadside in the rear - the texas heartshot is obviously a completely different angle and one of which I have used where the occasion and circumstances warranted it. My high horse was saddled after trailing around the hill to finish off deer that have been shot way back in the hind quarters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've deliberately taken a texas heart shot on foxes when I've had to and I have to The last time I saw this my father had the rifle and I was watching through bino's and I have to say it makes me wince when you see them walking away from you and then the bullet strikes! I know it's the blink of an eye in difference but by god that blink of an eye must feel like a lot longer if you're the fox! Also, on the fox thing, because of thier make up and the fact they are a bit more fragile i would think even side on shots would still be an instant kill with a centrefire, although obviously on Deer it's an extremely bad thing. Regards, Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've done a couple last one was on a fox that had just exited a partridge pen and cleared another pen the day before so it got the only shot going and I winced. With regard to the shooting the back end not tried it side on but I guess if you take out the back legs it won't run off and would expire pretty quickly even if you didn't take a follow up shot. The basic thing though is thats why you use a decent centrefire for most foxing as you can take slightly more risky shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peathag Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've shot 700kg+ cows instantly dead with both a .22rf and a .410 shotgun. I too have shot cows and stags with a .22 but I wouldn't normally - For me it all comes down to bullet placement. I would rather of used my .270 for the cow cos it was in a bit of a radge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvid wings Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I've shot 700kg+ cows instantly dead with both a .22rf and a .410 shotgun. i my self have witnessed cattle attempted to bo shot with a .22rf one shot 8 times each time getting up (head shots) to my great shame i didn't step in earlier ,i finished the animal myself with a captive bolt,on another occasion shot 4 times point blank to the head ,the animal in question a stock bull just flinching,was eventualy shot with a 12g dead instantly,as for the killing of cattle with a .410 i have done it many times point blank head shots only,,,and found the calibre adequate for the job,however ,the humane slaughter assosiation recomends .410 NOT be used for the killing of cattle as in there opinion the penetration,(brain damage )was not sufficient,i my self however do recomend the .410 .any guage shotguns should only be used point blank and to the head,,unless firing a slug then you can have distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 There's a very knowledgeable member on here that was once asked to dispatch a ram....he took a 12g and pointed it at the back of it's head about a foot away and pulled the trigger only for the ram to get up an run!!! :blink: I guess it just depends on the particular animal and what it hits.... There's a good story in sporting rifle this month where a stag took 5 shots....all looked to be well placed with a 308 but it just kept going! The next one could be shot with a 243 and drop on the spot (as hundreds of members will have witnessed) Regards, Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Optimum Game Weight! There is NO such thing! Each calibre/bullet type/quarry/situation needs assessing, and the answer will NOT always be the same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Optimum Game Weight! There is NO such thing! Each calibre/bullet type/quarry/situation needs assessing, and the answer will NOT always be the same! Ah! That's what made me ask. Apparently there's more than one scheme. It's been raining on and off for a few days now and as yet we don't have a single stalk of grain cut yet so I'm bored. I had a fiddle with the scheme that I referenced and indeed for every size and weight of bullet I entered I got a different answer. It does however, base its findings on the assumption that the bullet is deemed fit for the given purpose. I suppose in reality, your answer explains why such discussions are often so volatile. The situation does need assessing but the reference benchmarks on which to base that assessment are as numerous as the shooters themselves - or so it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peathag Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Optimum Game Weight! There is NO such thing! Each calibre/bullet type/quarry/situation needs assessing, and the answer will NOT always be the same! I think that pretty much sums it up for me - I know from my own experiences what will work sometimes but not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I've done a couple last one was on a fox that had just exited a partridge pen and cleared another pen the day before so it got the only shot going and I winced. With regard to the shooting the back end not tried it side on but I guess if you take out the back legs it won't run off and would expire pretty quickly even if you didn't take a follow up shot. The basic thing though is thats why you use a decent centrefire for most foxing as you can take slightly more risky shots. Yep, its also why i prefer to stick to heavier bullets when foxing with the .243". Using 22 centrefires and 55 grn type bullets in the .243 you still need to take the best shot i feel. Not a shot for the hornet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I don't think the Hornet would kill cleanly with a Texas heart shot on an adult Fox. They're surprisingly tough animals. With the bigger rounds though it works a treat. My 6.5 took quite a few that way. I chuckled to myself a while back when I took that shot on a bunny with the Hornet. When the bullet struck, both back legs leapt out straight as if it was thinking "Ooh, I didn't like that much"! - Very comical but I think just a nerve reaction as the spine was severed? I think optimum game weight has some merit. You wouldn't under normal circumstances use a .22lr on Deer or a .308 on Rabbits. Every round or bullet has an "optimum" for which it was designed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I think optimum game weight has some merit. You wouldn't under normal circumstances use a .22lr on Deer or a .308 on Rabbits. Every round or bullet has an "optimum" for which it was designed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) I think optimum game weight has some merit. You wouldn't under normal circumstances use a .22lr on Deer or a .308 on Rabbits. Every round or bullet has an "optimum" for which it was designed. I think it has some merit, but that is lost by the use of the word OPTIMUM! I think we are probably confusing optimum game weight for General guide. Is the same bullet/weight/type/even calibre, ideally suited for a Red deer heart shot at 50 yards and for the same Red Deer Head shot at 250 yards, or vice versa! (and the .22lr with subs is a favorite deer poachers tool, and works!) Yes, ammo is designed for a specific purpose, that is why there are so many types, and calibres, the purpose is actually quite narrow and specific, with a definitive distance and density of target and terminal effect in mind! Hence why one bullet does NOT fit all situations with the same target, therefore by definition, optimum game weight is a misnomer! Optimum for a specific shot at a specific target at a specific distance with a specific entry point, then perhaps yes, optimum game weight for other shots.. NO, just a general guide! Edited August 27, 2011 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.