What's the best CF vermin gun?

[al4x]

Well the replies have been very interesting to read. A lot of variety in answers as expected. I have started googling the .17 remington since this thread started as it's sounds interesting. Also half tempted by a hornet.

 

I know what you mean al4x. Basically if I go around the farms with the rifle I usually take the .22-250 incase I see a crow that's a couple of hundred yards away,(better at that range than the HMR). And it does fox but it's a but noisy for daytime use. Was just curious what other calibers people suggested for this sort of use. You could head shoot a rabbit but in any volume this is impractical. The smaller cf calibers interest me for the longer range vermin. But aside from cost and noise, the .22-250 will do the job anyway.

 

 

I am craving a new rifle like a hornet. Just can't get myself to move on the HMR when it's such a good rabbit gun,(love it compared to the .22). But the .22 is a finnfire so I refuse to sell it

 

 

Dilemmas.

The simple thing in your scenario really for me is you have a fox gun and a rabbit gun, I just don't get the can't get close enough to rabbits idea that you need to use a center fire as lamping or nv you can get close. Really in your situation I'd want something like a 20 cal if I really wanted something different. Personally with a hmr and a .243 I can kill anything I need to, more guns mean more scopes and moderators and to get a decent set up these days isn't cheap unless you want an old Parker hale

[kent]

He he, I admire your courage. In effect, what you're saying is that the number of shooters who use and go to make up the most popular CF rifle for vermin control don't really know what they're doing. Dodgey!

 

In a way I am, it took me a long while to learn rather than listen. If the user / owner says I use a Such and such because its the superior gun for my particular purpose because I need x and don't need y . Then that's worth listening to. If they say 22-250, .223, .204. .22 hornet .243win etc. chances are they haven't realy got a clue and there is every chance there is better out there awaiting their awakening to THIER NEEDS not fashion and peer pressure.

 

For example;

I use .22 Hornet when I don't need a lot of gun. It uses half the powder of .222 or .223 say and is hence very easy to moderate and while it wont be much use at 300 yds in a wind yet I have bigger guns for that as and when required. It wont raid my wallet shooting high numbers of crows etc. in terms of barrel burn and ammo costs and I can even afford to shoot a few hundred a month just for fun / practise on paper

 

I also use .243 win, it shoots flatter than .20 ruger - about the same as 22-250 with a 55 grn bullet yet beats it on wind with the same yet can knock spots off it on wind using 70-87 grn bullets on fox. Its also all deer legal UK wide. It has however downsides noisy, short barrel life and explodes anything edible to mush and gore under say 20 lb in weight

 

For some 22-250, .20 ruger,.223 rem etc etc might be the best BUT notice the lack of reasoning as to why in the posts- some are even mistaken on the ballistic truth they claim- what does that tell you?

 

Don't shoot the messenger

[Gimlet]

I just don't get the can't get close enough to rabbits idea that you need to use a center fire as lamping or nv you can get close.

 

Not always you can't. I've got a couple of spots where from any angle day or night, at rimfire ranges I'd be shooting towards buildings, paths or against the skyline. Retreating to another hill gives me the height to shoot down on them but puts the shot at 200 -250 yards. These rabbits are only there because they've been driven there from other areas which have been shot out. The cover is too dense for ferreting and I know form past experience that if I don't keep on top of these individuals they quickly produce new colonies that are super wary and gun shy.

Also, I'm a great believer in winter shooting for rabbit control. The odd few you see are the fittest adults who kickstart the spring population explosion. Keeping them down pays dividends. A small CF is very useful because it allows you to cover a larger area from one spot when wet fields and young crops prevent vehicle access or frost makes discreet walking up with NV difficult. Its not essential for casual bunny bashing, but if you want to be thorough its efficient. Saves time and leg work.

[wymberley]

 

In a way I am, it took me a long while to learn rather than listen. If the user / owner says I use a Such and such because its the superior gun for my particular purpose because I need x and don't need y . Then that's worth listening to. If they say 22-250, .223, .204. .22 hornet .243win etc. chances are they haven't realy got a clue and there is every chance there is better out there awaiting their awakening to THIER NEEDS not fashion and peer pressure.

 

For example;

I use .22 Hornet when I don't need a lot of gun. It uses half the powder of .222 or .223 say and is hence very easy to moderate and while it wont be much use at 300 yds in a wind yet I have bigger guns for that as and when required. It wont raid my wallet shooting high numbers of crows etc. in terms of barrel burn and ammo costs and I can even afford to shoot a few hundred a month just for fun / practise on paper

 

I also use .243 win, it shoots flatter than .20 ruger - about the same as 22-250 with a 55 grn bullet yet beats it on wind with the same yet can knock spots off it on wind using 70-87 grn bullets on fox. Its also all deer legal UK wide. It has however downsides noisy, short barrel life and explodes anything edible to mush and gore under say 20 lb in weight

 

For some 22-250, .20 ruger,.223 rem etc etc might be the best BUT notice the lack of reasoning as to why in the posts- some are even mistaken on the ballistic truth they claim- what does that tell you?

 

Don't shoot the messenger

Can't fault your reasoning but was just trying to inject a bit of humour into a thread in which the question raised has no possible answer and as such is absolutely pointless but fun never-the-less.

[kent]

Can't fault your reasoning but was just trying to inject a bit of humour into a thread in which the question raised has no possible answer and as such is absolutely pointless but fun never-the-less.

 

Its raised no firm answer because the question changes with the use. I did see the humour and I shall expect 30 replies insulting me for stating what is only fact

[CharlieT]

 

In a way I am, it took me a long while to learn rather than listen. If the user / owner says I use a Such and such because its the superior gun for my particular purpose because I need x and don't need y . Then that's worth listening to. If they say 22-250, .223, .204. .22 hornet .243win etc. chances are they haven't realy got a clue and there is every chance there is better out there awaiting their awakening to THIER NEEDS not fashion and peer pressure.

 

For example;

I use .22 Hornet when I don't need a lot of gun. It uses half the powder of .222 or .223 say and is hence very easy to moderate and while it wont be much use at 300 yds in a wind yet I have bigger guns for that as and when required. It wont raid my wallet shooting high numbers of crows etc. in terms of barrel burn and ammo costs and I can even afford to shoot a few hundred a month just for fun / practise on paper

 

I also use .243 win, it shoots flatter than .20 ruger - about the same as 22-250 with a 55 grn bullet yet beats it on wind with the same yet can knock spots off it on wind using 70-87 grn bullets on fox. Its also all deer legal UK wide. It has however downsides noisy, short barrel life and explodes anything edible to mush and gore under say 20 lb in weight

 

For some 22-250, .20 ruger,.223 rem etc etc might be the best BUT notice the lack of reasoning as to why in the posts- some are even mistaken on the ballistic truth they claim- what does that tell you?

 

Don't shoot the messenger

 

You have, of course, hit the nail on the head when you say horses for courses. Everyones situation is different. As Gimlet quite rightly points out it all depends on ones ground and how seriously one takes vermin control.

 

I carry a rifle with me and use it every day in my constant battle against vermin. My land is a mixture of in bye grass and moorland, much of the moorland is all but inaccessible by vehicle and many shots are therefore taken at long range. My main quarry is crows and of course any fox that appears.

 

I tend to keep my rifles zeroed at 200 yds and I find hardly any difference in trajectory between 204, 22.250 and 243. I gave up the 22.250 a couple of years ago as it offered nothing the 243 didn't and the 204 was just far sweeter to shoot. Unless it's blowing a gale the .204 does the job admirably and does all I ask of it. It accounts for 100's of crows every year and in my experience is very fox capable. All this from a caliber that moderates well, has little recoil and is extremely accurate. The only time I now use the 243 is when there is a gale blowing.

 

However, to sum up there is no ideal caliber, the choice is dependant on terrain, species and more importantly on choosing a caliber you fancy and shoot well.

 

Oh and I love my 17H...................a far, far better caliber than the .22H

[remmyman]

Possibly a can of worms but what is the best centre fire for regularly blatting crows but also good on fox?

 

I've got a .22-250 which is great and no real problems with it. But if you shoot a crow on a field around a farm then you hear the bang for some distance it's nice that it's roe legal up north though. Also have a HMR but it has it's limitations.

 

So what do you think is the best all round CF? This new .17 hornet tick most of the boxes?

 

Have to say I'm starting to think a mix of .22lr, .222 and a deer rifle would have covered me for most bases.

 

 

Interested to hear your views. Is there one that does everything well?

I can only speak from my personal 'real world' experience gathered over the last 25 yrs of rifle shooting.

Started out with a .22 RF, stayed with this for about 3yrs before adding a.222 when asked to take on the fox control over a new permission.

After another few years I was offered the chance to try Deer stalking and as a result when on to buy a .243. Around this time I began to reload for both CF's and so began to really get the best out of both rifles. I found myself taking the .243 out more and more for foxing in preference to the .222, why? simply because I found that the heavier bullets that I was using (70gn Nosler ballistic tip) were more effective if I put a round into the shoulder area on a 'side on' shot. I accept that these occasions were bad bullet placement but I don't proffess to be perfect, ( at this time I was shooting around 70-80 foxes a year over a large acerage) and had to take some shots on around the 250-300yd mark. Day or night this is a long, long way in my book if you want to take such quarry cleanly/humanely, so a little bit of 'leeway' in terms of terminal ballistics was worth having.

Having said this the .222 was still my 'go to' rifle if long range rabbit/hare control was needed, simply because it is such a 'sweet', economical and accurate round.

Remember also that this was long before we were allowed mods on our rifles!

 

Fast foreward till 3yrs ago when a friend introduced me to the 6mm Br wow!! what a fantastically accurate/versatile calibre. My rifle is throated out for the 105gr A-max(it was built as a 1000yd match rifle) but will shoot 55grBT @ 3850fps at sub 1/4 inch groups too! .243 performance,40% less powder depending on which load you work up.

 

Do I need it plus the .243 ? no, do I enjoy it ? yes.

 

So the point I'm trying to make is, the best CF vermin gun is the one that is best for YOU and your situation and if there's a lot of overlap in your holdings then the one that you enjoy using the most!!

 

Regards remmyman

[wildfowler.250]

 

Not a direct answer to the original question, more a response to this post, 200yard crow and the occasional fox, what's wrong with a .204?

I don't load yet..will eventually. I'm quite tempted by a caliber like that. I just got the .250 initially because it is roe legal and does vermin. I had a .223 but found a rifle I liked in .250 so swapped.

 

You a fan of the .204?

[r1steele]

 

In a way I am, it took me a long while to learn rather than listen. If the user / owner says I use a Such and such because its the superior gun for my particular purpose because I need x and don't need y . Then that's worth listening to. If they say 22-250, .223, .204. .22 hornet .243win etc. chances are they haven't realy got a clue and there is every chance there is better out there awaiting their awakening to THIER NEEDS not fashion and peer pressure.

 

For example;

I use .22 Hornet when I don't need a lot of gun. It uses half the powder of .222 or .223 say and is hence very easy to moderate and while it wont be much use at 300 yds in a wind yet I have bigger guns for that as and when required. It wont raid my wallet shooting high numbers of crows etc. in terms of barrel burn and ammo costs and I can even afford to shoot a few hundred a month just for fun / practise on paper

 

I also use .243 win, it shoots flatter than .20 ruger - about the same as 22-250 with a 55 grn bullet yet beats it on wind with the same yet can knock spots off it on wind using 70-87 grn bullets on fox. Its also all deer legal UK wide. It has however downsides noisy, short barrel life and explodes anything edible to mush and gore under say 20 lb in weight

 

For some 22-250, .20 ruger,.223 rem etc etc might be the best BUT notice the lack of reasoning as to why in the posts- some are even mistaken on the ballistic truth they claim- what does that tell you?

 

Don't shoot the messenger

According to Hornady's ballistics charts the .204 Ruger has a flatter trajectory.

[pestcontrol1]

According to Hornady's ballistics charts the .204 Ruger has a flatter trajectory.

I have both and load for them both and maybe with a 55-58gn doing over 4000fps will possibly shoot as flat as the 204 but your barrel would"t last very long

[r1steele]

I have both and load for them both and maybe with a 55-58gn doing over 4000fps will possibly shoot as flat as the 204 but your barrel would"t last very long

To be fair, even at standard factory loads there isn't a great deal in it.

[pestcontrol1]

no not much but the 204 is flatter

[hambone]

no not much but the 204 is flatter

Flatter than a 22/250? (and I don't know the answer, not bothered enough to look). In my previous post I ignored 243 as I was thinking vermin not deer legal but if you want to replicate these sort of trajectory's in 243 you may be shortening the barrel life drastically. No need for high powder loads in 22/250 as they are as near as damit the same as a 243 with larger heads, anyway i regard the powder required and the noise factor as the 22/250 calibre's 2 biggest shortcomings.

[r1steele]

Flatter than a 22/250? (and I don't know the answer, not bothered enough to look). In my previous post I ignored 243 as I was thinking vermin not deer legal but if you want to replicate these sort of trajectory's in 243 you may be shortening the barrel life drastically. No need for high powder loads in 22/250 as they are as near as damit the same as a 243 with larger heads, anyway i regard the powder required and the noise factor as the 22/250 calibre's 2 biggest shortcomings.

Was actually comparing it to the .243 but the .204 is also marginally flatter than the .22-250 as well.

[Alycidon]

Well the replies have been very interesting to read. A lot of variety in answers as expected. I have started googling the .17 remington since this thread started as it's sounds interesting. Also half tempted by a hornet.

 

 

I am craving a new rifle like a hornet. Just can't get myself to move on the HMR when it's such a good rabbit gun,(love it compared to the .22). But the .22 is a finnfire so I refuse to sell it

 

 

 

I have had a 17Ackley Hornet for 3 years now and have used it extensively for pest control work on my trap round. Its a lovely crow/magpie round but unless up close for a head shot its not a reliable fox caliber. My go to fox rifle is a 20 caliber, this also of course does a dramatic number on a magpie.

I had a 22.250 some years ago and have posted here in the past that I did not get on with the caliber, barrel rise (without mod) meant teh bullets arrival was not seen, accuracy was pretty poor. Treebone who posts here has recently changed his 22.250AI to a 22BR for accuracy reasons it now shoots like a house on fire. For a factory caliber with similar ballistics then look at 204/222/223.

Of those three then a lightish 204 shooting 39gr Sierra Blitz Kings at about 3400 fps will do all you want on any fox out to over 300 yards and would be my choice.

A

Edited December 15, 2013 by Alycidon

[Alycidon]

According to Hornady's ballistics charts the .204 Ruger has a flatter trajectory.

 

 

Drops can be dialled out when you know how far, most misses at distance are caused by wind drift, yes it can be measured and dialled out by frequently wind speeds and directions change downrange. Go to a 100BR meeting at Bisley and watch a chain of wind flags downrange, often one 20 yards from the muzzell is showing a far different result than one at 80 yards. Sub 200 yards its not worth getting to exited about unless looking at crows etc.

 

A

[r1steele]

 

 

Drops can be dialled out when you know how far, most misses at distance are caused by wind drift, yes it can be measured and dialled out by frequently wind speeds and directions change downrange. Go to a 100BR meeting at Bisley and watch a chain of wind flags downrange, often one 20 yards from the muzzell is showing a far different result than one at 80 yards. Sub 200 yards its not worth getting to exited about unless looking at crows etc.

 

A

I wasn't arguing the wind drift but only stating that the .204 had the flatter trajectory. Due to the good BC of the .204 round it has marginally less wind drift than the .22-250, not sure about the difference against the .243

[Gimlet]

 

 

I have had a 17Ackley Hornet for 3 years now and have used it extensively for pest control work on my trap round. Its a lovely crow/magpie round but unless up close for a head shot its not a reliable fox caliber. My go to fox rifle is a 20 caliber, this also of course does a dramatic number on a magpie.

I had a 22.250 some years ago and have posted here in the past that I did not get on with the caliber, barrel rise (without mod) meant teh bullets arrival was not seen, accuracy was pretty poor. Treebone who posts here has recently changed his 22.250AI to a 22BR for accuracy reasons it now shoots like a house on fire. For a factory caliber with similar ballistics then look at 204/222/223.

Of those three then a lightish 204 shooting 39gr Sierra Blitz Kings at about 3400 fps will do all you want on any fox out to over 300 yards and would be my choice.

A

 

 

I wouldn't fancy any .17 cal for foxes. As has been said already, even with the triple you need to avoid the shoulder at distance. I nearly went for a .204 before I bought mine but I felt the triple might be easier to live with. Its so easy to load for, never stroppy or overly cleaning sensitive. It just wants to shoot well all the time. I like the idea of the .17 Hornet for rabbits and corvids, though surely it can't be as stable as the .222 in wind beyond 200 yards, and I prefer the convenience of disposable HMR ammo for volume rabbit shooting; but I did wonder when the .17H came out what it could offer that a .17 Rem couldn't. Surely you can replicate with a .17 Rem everything the .17 H can offer with options to spare?

[r1steele]

 

I wouldn't fancy any .17 cal for foxes. As has been said already, even with the triple you need to avoid the shoulder at distance. I nearly went for a .204 before I bought mine but I felt the triple might be easier to live with. Its so easy to load for, never stroppy or overly cleaning sensitive. It just wants to shoot well all the time. I like the idea of the .17 Hornet for rabbits and corvids, though surely it can't be as stable as the .222 in wind beyond 200 yards, and I prefer the convenience of disposable HMR ammo for volume rabbit shooting; but I did wonder when the .17H came out what it could offer that a .17 Rem couldn't. Surely you can replicate with a .17 Rem everything the .17 H can offer with options to spare?

I had a .222 for quite a few years and I liked it a lot and probably would still have it but gave it to a friend on a 'permanent loan'. I'm using a .204 at the moment and absolutely love it. I don't reload so can't comment on the ease etc but for what I want the .204 works well. I never had problems with shoulder shots with my old .222 but I can't remembering shooting out any further that about 250-280 yards and I've had good a few 300yd+ foxes with the .204 and had no problems with that either (next one will go t##ts up). I never used ballistic tips in my .222, just good old hollow points.

Edited December 15, 2013 by r1steele

[CharlieT]

I had a .222 for quite a few years and I liked it a lot and probably would still have it but gave it to a friend on a 'permanent loan'. I'm using a .204 at the moment and absolutely love it. I don't reload so can't comment on the ease etc but for what I want the .204 works well. I never had problems with shoulder shots with my old .222 but I can't remembering shooting out any further that about 250-280 yards and I've had good a few 300yd+ foxes with the .204 and had no problems with that either (next one will go t##ts up). I never used ballistic tips in my .222, just good old hollow points.

 

I can only reiterate exactly what you say. I still have my .222 and .243 for that matter but for for my needs the .204 does it every time, I've never found it lacking.

[r1steele]

 

I can only reiterate exactly what you say. I still have my .222 and .243 for that matter but for for my needs the .204 does it every time, I've never found it lacking.

They all have their uses but like you say for your needs (and mine), .204.