223 vs 22-250 for roos

[bladeracer]

The roo shooting regulations are stupid . They want them all head shot but in the code of conduct you can still euthanize a wounded roo with a steel bar . Not many armature shooters can afford to shoot a lot of roos on tags anymore . Ammo is too expensive now .

I don’t see how the rules are stupid for setting a humane level of practice for culling.
Maybe armature shooters who don’t have the skills or money to afford ammo shouldn’t be culling in the first place. I don’t mind culling ferals but I have a certain amount of empathy for them and don’t take “iffy” shots.

While I agree that the Code sets a minimum level of accuracy for practicing your shooting (which all hunters should endeavour to exceed anyway), I don't agree that the Code does anything to enforce humane shooting. How to humanely take an animal should be left to the hunter in the specific situation. We should certainly educate people so they can better make these decisions but we shouldn't be forcing people under legal ramifications to make very specific shots when other choices may be more humane in the circumstances. A whole swathe of "amateurs" were given free reign a couple years ago to take roos on private property without requiring cull tickets (but still adhering to the Code) in NSW to help during the drought - has there been a slew of complaints of inhumane roo shooting as a result? A 150gn .30-06 into the boiler room at 30m will drop a roo emphatically on the spot, but is not legal under the Code. When I was up north the locals were taking roos with LR and WMR every day. In the US many states have "hunter education" which you have to do to be able to get a hunting licence, and it bullies you away from head-shooting by labelling it as "unethical". They try to force hunters to take boiler room shots and track the grievously wounded animal (for hundreds of metres at times) because a head shot that kills in an instant is "not ethical".

Many farmers have serious roo issues and simply don't have money for ammo, regardless of their abilities. I bought a slab of 12ga. and 200rds of .223 a while back for a mate in NSW that was stuck watching birds and pigs destroy his orchards because he couldn't afford ammo - he certainly couldn't pay pro shooters to come in. I would hope other farmers doing it tough on the land with feral pest problems are also getting help from others when they need it.

[JohnV]

You missed my point if it's ok to kill them with a steel bar then is chest shooting all that bad . The regulations have been changed to make it harder for many armature shooters . No other reason .

[animalpest]

I think you also missed my point. Its only acceptable to use an alternative to shooting a wounded roo a second time if shooting is unsafe. Only then can you use your steel bar.

Suggesting that chest shooting is the same as a steel bar is not quite what the Code is requiring. And the Code has chest shooting as unacceptable, as is running around with a steel bar.

The Code is not about making it too tough for amateurs, its about improving animal welfare outcomes. If that is too tough, then I respectfully suggest you improve.

[bigrich]

The Code is not about making it too tough for amateurs, its about improving animal welfare outcomes. If that is too tough, then I respectfully suggest you improve.

agreed . that's where i'm coming from . armatures blazing away like "yosemite sam" .poor shot placement ,using the wrong firearm and or ammo is not a good look . by wrong ammo/firearm , i saw a fella use a 308 with target ammo pencil straight through a roo, nice stream pumping out of it's chest ,while the roo stood there looking back . poor thing suffered . this guy was a armature shooter on his parents property .

i appreciate what your getting at blade , but i think if folks operate outside the code they should keep it to themselves .

what happens on someone's property is their own business , but if any animal libbers/greens find out , it could be trouble .

back onto topic, a 50/55 vmax out of a 222/223 works good out to 200 meters , a 22-250 is faster ,flatter and noisier . theoretically it can reach out much further, but that's outside the code for roo culling . lots of old roo shooters would have gone deaf from the 22-250

[animalpest]

I'm deaf

[bigrich]

I'm deaf

what ?!?

[bladeracer]

i appreciate what your getting at blade , but i think if folks operate outside the code they should keep it to themselves.

I don't suggest anybody operate outside the Code, I just hope the Code gets revoked eventually.

[JohnV]

Their will be just as many wounded roos by demanding head shots only than allowing amateurs to take a chest shot with the right projectile . The head shot only code for professionals was originally about protecting meat quality not the humane aspects as compared to a chest shot . I have seen more roos run off dazed or crippled from a bad head shot from others than from a central chest shot .
I have no problem with head shots I can do it all night long if I want with several rifles I have but there is others that have difficulty and I don't see any good reason to ban a chest shot for armature pest control under tags . It's just anther way to make life harder for amateur shooters . As Blade says , I am not advocating not following the code .

[animalpest]

Their will be just as many wounded roos by demanding head shots only than allowing amateurs to take a chest shot with the right projectile . The head shot only code for professionals was originally about protecting meat quality not the humane aspects as compared to a chest shot . I have seen more roos run off dazed or crippled from a bad head shot from others than from a central chest shot .
I have no problem with head shots I can do it all night long if I want with several rifles I have but there is others that have difficulty and I don't see any good reason to ban a chest shot for armature pest control under tags . It's just anther way to make life harder for amateur shooters . As Blade says , I am not advocating not following the code .

"with right right projectile". And if it's not "the right projectile" ?

A .224 calibre hole through the ribs does very little damage to meat.

With all due respect for those who can't head shoot roos or don't want to, then I suggest you get better.

[bladeracer]

"with right right projectile". And if it's not "the right projectile" ?

A .224 calibre hole through the ribs does very little damage to meat.

With all due respect for those who can't head shoot roos or don't want to, then I suggest you get better.

Do you consider boiler room shots to be less effective on roos than other animals of similar thoracic build, like foxes, dogs and small deer?

I agree that all hunters should hone their shooting/hunting skills to be very capable of head-shots on roos, I don't agree head shots should be a legal requirement though.

[JohnV]

Their will be just as many wounded roos by demanding head shots only than allowing amateurs to take a chest shot with the right projectile . The head shot only code for professionals was originally about protecting meat quality not the humane aspects as compared to a chest shot . I have seen more roos run off dazed or crippled from a bad head shot from others than from a central chest shot .
I have no problem with head shots I can do it all night long if I want with several rifles I have but there is others that have difficulty and I don't see any good reason to ban a chest shot for armature pest control under tags . It's just anther way to make life harder for amateur shooters . As Blade says , I am not advocating not following the code .

"with right right projectile". And if it's not "the right projectile" ?

A .224 calibre hole through the ribs does very little damage to meat.

With all due respect for those who can't head shoot roos or don't want to, then I suggest you get better.

With a projectile that is designed to expand well not a FMJ . I don't follow your comment about meat damage .
It's not just about meat damage it's about carcass contamination and bullets or fragments staying inside the carcass . You can't even use a coated projectile to shoot roos professionally . They just applied the professional standard to amateur pest shooting to be arseholes . It's totally not necessary or anymore humane .

[animalpest]

Should we accept two different standards - one for commercial shooting and a lower standard for amateurs?

Where is it written you can't use coated bullets for roo shooting?

Kangaroos are just as susceptible to chest shots as those species you list.

[Blr243]

While it would. B impossible for everyone to agree on the rules , Having Standards / rules/laws in Place does make it easier to prosecute people when they sre found to be behaving awful in the paddocks eg shotguns. Gut shots , poaching , drunk with gune etc

[bigrich]

While it would. B impossible for everyone to agree on the rules , Having Standards / rules/laws in Place does make it easier to prosecute people when they sre found to be behaving awful in the paddocks eg shotguns. Gut shots , poaching , drunk with gune etc

I’ve come across people over the years who’ve had a really poor attitude to humanly shooting animals and basic safety. This is why we have to have rules. A small percentage of h@lfwits ruining it for the majority of people who do the right thing

[bladeracer]

I’ve come across people over the years who’ve had a really poor attitude to humanly shooting animals and basic safety. This is why we have to have rules. A small percentage of h@lfwits ruining it for the majority of people who do the right thing

I've met a few as well, I doubt such rules matter to them at all. I think the vast majority of hunters want clean kills, it should be left to them in the situation to determine the best way to achieve that. Education is far better than laws when we're dealing with situations often occurring well out of sight of witnesses.

[AussieMadman]

i'd stick to the .223

i don't see much advantage in the 22-250

[animalpest]

I’ve come across people over the years who’ve had a really poor attitude to humanly shooting animals and basic safety. This is why we have to have rules. A small percentage of h@lfwits ruining it for the majority of people who do the right thing

I've met a few as well, I doubt such rules matter to them at all. I think the vast majority of hunters want clean kills, it should be left to them in the situation to determine the best way to achieve that. Education is far better than laws when we're dealing with situations often occurring well out of sight of witnesses.

And therein lies the problem. Some will make "good" decisions and some won't. Some will know what is the right thing to do but because of laziness or whatever, they chose not to. Bit like ethics really.

[JohnV]

Rules are ok as long as they are sensible , practical and based in facts and need not emotions . The harder it is to comply with a rule the more it will be ignored . This all reminds me of my famous twin trunk shot . One time shooting roos with a professional a roo went behind a tree with two trunks . There was just a small gap between the two trunks as he shone the light I could see the glint of his eye through the gap in the scope . The roo was eyeballing us so I said hold the light right there and lined him up with the 22-250 just a bit above the eye glinting and got him in the brain . The pro reckoned I just shot a tree but went behind the tree and retrieved the Roo he was impressed .

[Oldrooshooter]

I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?

its for an instant kill, I believe it is an idea bought in to satisfy the animal libbers
if done correctly it is an instantaneous kill

I have seen way too many head shots not actually kill but tare sides of face and muzzle!!! Not a good thing if just destroying Roos under a legal cull permit !! The vitals chest etc percentages are better option especially under spotlight…. You have to check pouch anyway so a more humane shot at PB makes sure. Rather than a heart still
Pumping and a roo still
Jumping with a head injury!!!
Let’s be honest everyone has trouble at 200m getting their MOA. On a bench in daylight with bipod in perfect conditions!, shots not made out of the darkness , shadows , window frame of Ute etc!!
If your that good every shot with moving breathing generally alert animals then by all means well done!
I like the vitals odds.
My 2 cents worth.

[animalpest]

In the past 4 weeks I have shot 934 roos. All brain shot. Used .223 and a .222.

I have a 22/250 but as this is in the suburbs, the 250 is too loud and unwarranted.

[bigrich]

I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?

its for an instant kill, I believe it is an idea bought in to satisfy the animal libbers
if done correctly it is an instantaneous kill

I have seen way too many head shots not actually kill but tare sides of face and muzzle!!! Not a good thing if just destroying Roos under a legal cull permit !! The vitals chest etc percentages are better option especially under spotlight…. You have to check pouch anyway so a more humane shot at PB makes sure. Rather than a heart still
Pumping and a roo still
Jumping with a head injury!!!
Let’s be honest everyone has trouble at 200m getting their MOA. On a bench in daylight with bipod in perfect conditions!, shots not made out of the darkness , shadows , window frame of Ute etc!!
If your that good every shot with moving breathing generally alert animals then by all means well done!
I like the vitals odds.
My 2 cents worth.

i agree with this statement . i've heard that more satisfactory results are obtained using a larger rifle , say 243 or similar with 87gn , with shots smack in the middle of the chest between the shoulders when their facing you . not everyone is set up for nighttime culling out of a ute , with the roof light , shooting rest on the door , ect. for some roo's are a target of opportunity to clear paddocks for appreciative grazier's during daylight. humane fast kills are the objective, so go with what works i guess . roo's with missing faces are not being humanely put down . so i've been told .....i think back in the day chest shots as i described were the norm with 303-25's for general culling

[Blr243]

I have 223 22250 and 243 with87 v max. If there were no rules the latter In the chest Or the 223 I the chest. The 22250 will sometimes give surface blowups on chest shots with light pill at high speeds …. I think the flatter trajectory of the 22250 is only a advantage on longer shots that are against the current laws .. my22250 is a safe queen. I def prefer the 223

[mchughcb]

In the past 4 weeks I have shot 934 roos. All brain shot. Used .223 and a .222.

I have a 22/250 but as this is in the suburbs, the 250 is too loud and unwarranted.

I heard there's a few getting around kings park

[animalpest]

In the past 4 weeks I have shot 934 roos. All brain shot. Used .223 and a .222.

I have a 22/250 but as this is in the suburbs, the 250 is too loud and unwarranted.

I heard there's a few getting around kings park

Yeah a few. I have been shooting a well overpopulated area. 66 to go and job done.

You shouldn't be shooting roos facing you unless really know where your bullet trajectory is. With .223 and the like you risk blowing their nose or jaw off.

The 22/250 betters the .223 on windy nights

[bigrich]

You shouldn't be shooting roos facing you unless really know where your bullet trajectory is. With .223 and the like you risk blowing their nose or jaw off.

that's why i would advocate for a chest shot in a heavier caliber , if i was culling them out during the day as targets of opportunity. not that i would, that would be illegal . roo's are less twitchy at night under light i've noticed . from your current and previous posts on this forum, it's obvious your a professional , with the right gear and experience to do a proper, clinical job . the problem is when guys with no idea or the wrong setup give it a go and fail badly.

[bigrich]

I have 223 22250 and 243 with87 v max. If there were no rules the latter In the chest Or the 223 I the chest. The 22250 will sometimes give surface blowups on chest shots with light pill at high speeds …. I think the flatter trajectory of the 22250 is only a advantage on longer shots that are against the current laws .. my22250 is a safe queen. I def prefer the 223

i hadn't considered bullet blow up with the 22-250 . still , they are going pretty quick . it'd be more expensive, but your 243 would be more emphatic i reckon . i reckon my 250 savage with a 87gn "soft" projectile doing 3000-3100fps would do this job well . supposedly a 75gn vmax is a good thing too . up to 3300fps with that one i think . some fellas i've spoken too like the swede or 260 rem with 120bt's and knock them waaay out . not that i would advocate such things , as that's outside the code

[Blr243]

Hornady put out some super fast 50 grain red poly tipped factory ammo for 22250 .. that’s the stuff that has the blow ups I have heard others bag it out as well. , calling it useless

[animalpest]

I used to shoot roos with my 25/06 with light pills or a 22/250 with 55gr. In the chest and this was before the current Code of Practice. Yep, they were dead.
Now we have a Code and like it or not, we are pretty well stuck with it.

Of the 934 roos shot in the head, I personally haven't wounded one. But yes, I have seen parts of heads blown off and the kangaroo is still alive. Shooters who cannot hit the correct aiming mark at ranges of 150-200m that shouldn't be shooting at roos heads from that distance. In this instance, a 22/250 is better than a .223 as the damage caused by the faster stepping bullet helps.

You dont need a expensive, or extensive set up. Just a decent shooting rifle with a decent shooter. Sure, the target to pass the roo shooters test is about 75mm at 100m. But hitting that doesnt mean brain shooting a roo at 200m. Limit your shots to your honest capabilities.

[bigrich]

Limit your shots to your honest capabilities.

that's where most people come unstuck

[Oldbloke]

Limit your shots to your honest capabilities.

that's where most people come unstuck

Yep.