Vince Green Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 My friend in Wales tells me that because of the problems in their area getting reloading components without having to drive ridiculous distances and then having to put up with overcharging and or no stock, he and his friends have started using FMJ bullets in their .223s for foxes. They have been doing it now for well over a year, probably two, and he reports it apparantly makes no noticable difference. The foxes go down in the same way and the wounds look very similar. The .223 is a high velocity calibre so I can see how the impact could be pretty explosive on flesh anyway. The only thing I would point out is that the area where he shoots is very rural. Now I am not pushing the idea, just reporting it but as Christmas is almost upon us I thought a few of you might have some time to air a few opinions on the subject from the comfort of your armchairs. New thinking or bad idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesbach Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Detrimental to barrel life?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I think we all know its not a good idea, the fact its .223 makes no difference at all. FMJ is designed to make small holes in things and not expand violently so you far increase the odds on just wounding, then you have the fact they are far more prone to ricochets. Personally if they really can't get to a shop to buy some decent bullets the best alternative is A-max which I would suggest will do the job far better and is postable due to dubious product description on the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Where in Wales is your friend from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I think we all know its not a good idea, the fact its .223 makes no difference at all. FMJ is designed to make small holes in things and not expand violently so you far increase the odds on just wounding, then you have the fact they are far more prone to ricochets. Personally if they really can't get to a shop to buy some decent bullets the best alternative is A-max which I would suggest will do the job far better and is postable due to dubious product description on the box. I doubt there will be a problem in using military FMJ bullets to shoot foxes as they don't actually punch straight though things and come out the other side like .308 or .303 FMJ's do. They tumble on impact, shear at the cannelure and fragment. J. Why would it increase barrel wear? I wondered that too. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted December 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Here is a FMJ 5.56 on simulated flesh. If it does the same to a fox (as my mate reckons it does) then its interesting . I don't know if it proves anything except to open up an armchair discussion.I'm not suggesting people should stop using expanding ammo on foxes. Its just challenging a few assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZshooter Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 i would assume that a 55gr fmj american eagle is not the same as a 62gr green tip military round which is designed to tumble when its hits. but it could behave similar on impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rem223 Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 i would assume that a 55gr fmj american eagle is not the same as a 62gr green tip military round which is designed to tumble when its hits. but it could behave similar on impact There were stories published in the US during the early stages of the Vietnam war that the .223 was tumbling on impact and causing "buzz saw" injuries. Whilst there was some speculation that the bullets were insufficiently stabilised either because of a lack of twist, or because the barrel was fouled/worn out. I don't think it was ever proved that this was anything but a random occurence. Military bullets are not designed to tumble on impact. If they did they would contravene the Geneva convention. The .223 is a high velocity round and expanding ammunition or not the hydraulic shock effect will cause substantial injuries. Whilst I wouldn't personally use non expanding ammo. I see no problem with people using them on foxes under the conditions you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 It's what is known as a hole in one 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.