Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Bolt action rifles, lever action, pump action, self loading rifles and other miscellaneous longarms.

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 14 Feb 2020, 8:18 pm

Thanks heaps everyone for their replies. Once again you have proven what a helpful bunch shooters are. I also know that my question would provoke some discussion. There are a few things that draw me to the 17 Hornet. Firstly a theoretically flat trajectory out to 150 to (hopefully) 180 ish or so metres. Enough energy at that range for a decisive kill on a fox. A highly frangible projectile that won’t go right on through a fox and posing a down range risk. An accurate calibre (apparently). And last of all cheap to reload. Cheap to reload is not a hugely high priority, more of a bonus. Plus the calibre is available in a CZ, which is a brand I like. As I live in WA it is always a crapshoot as to whether I will get it Licenced.
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 312
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by SCJ429 » 16 Feb 2020, 8:08 am

bladeracer wrote:Just keep in mind that all calculation can only be as accurate as the data you give it.
You really should confirm the BC of your bullet in the field, in my opinion, rather than rely on published numbers. And do it at longer distances as well, the BC is often velocity-dependent, it changes as the bullet loses velocity.


Very true, the lower the velocity the lower the BC. Very difficult to calculate your BC without making some assumptions. Temperature, altitude, wind direction and speed as well as your average speed over the flight time.

Also out of interest, Isaac Newton is know for three laws of motion. The first law is basically that every object in a state of motion will remain that way unless an external force acts on it. The two things that primarily act on the bullet during its flight is air resistance and gravity.

The second law is that force equals mass times acceleration or speed. Easy peasy.

The third law is that every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Recoil is a good example.

Isaac would say that the heaviest bullet with the most speed and BC will have the most energy, or the bullet that has the best combined figures of those three things.
SCJ429
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2208
New South Wales

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 17 Feb 2020, 11:00 pm

Hi Blokes. I actually found the too and fro about ballistics interesting. So interesting I had a look at the ballistics calculator and concluded that for my purposes a 22 hornet is more suitable than the 17. My initial enquiry was because I shoot at times on properties where my 204 is too much gun and my rimfires not enough. I looked at the data on the Hornady website for factory ammo for the 35 grain vmax .22 hornet, the 20 grain vmax 17 hornet and the 40 grain vmax 204 all with a 200 yard zero. The respective drops at 300 yards are 43cm, 16 cm and 11 cm. Obviously the 22 Hornet pill will hit the deck sooner than the 17. At 400 yards the 22 hornet drops 150cm whereas the 17 drops 52cm. So on a smaller property the 22 will be better for my use. On a bigger block, I would just use my 204 or 243. The blokes who use the 22 hornet on foxes are happy with the round within its limitations. So that is the choice I would like to make.

I am aware the figures above are ballpark. For the comparison between the calibres the figures are useful for me for this exercise. If I lived in a different state, I would probably just get both the 17 and 22 hornets.
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 312
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 17 Feb 2020, 11:05 pm

:thumbsup: Hornet is bloody popular, probably for good reason. No personal experience but i understand the 17s can be a pain when it comes to cleaning too.

Good luck
Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: Better to load on the mild side. :o The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5541
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 18 Feb 2020, 12:10 am

Thanks. I owned a Brno Hornet 20 odd years ago which I regret ever selling. I do like the calibre and feel I have a genuine need for it. I am sure the local fox population would agree.
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 312
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by duncan61 » 18 Feb 2020, 4:46 pm

I had a 17 HMR when they first come out and was impressed with it.If you have genuine need there is no issue with getting firearms in W.A.We all love Hornet never heard a bad word about it
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1746
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Flyer » 18 Feb 2020, 8:19 pm

Bruiser64 wrote:Thanks. I owned a Brno Hornet 20 odd years ago which I regret ever selling. I do like the calibre and feel I have a genuine need for it. I am sure the local fox population would agree.

duncan61 wrote:I had a 17 HMR when they first come out and was impressed with it.If you have genuine need there is no issue with getting firearms in W.A.We all love Hornet never heard a bad word about it

You guys in WA have probably already seen this, but you shouldn't have any trouble getting a hornet if you already have 204/223 because WAPOL's suggested range and property size is much smaller.

property size for firearms.jpg
property size for firearms.jpg (86.33 KiB) Viewed 429 times
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 333
-

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by TassieTiger » 21 Feb 2020, 8:04 am

Just read this thread - very interesting...pretty clear so I'll just add...
Every day, I work with highly educated and recently schooled engineers who know theory like they know their pubic hair...it's highly amusing and gratifying to watch the colour drain from their faces at opportune times, when their applied theory comes completely undone in the "real world" and they sit their wondering WTF just happened..and the universities keep spitting them out at us and then we keep educating them properly lol.
Tikka .260 (custom)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 28’
Sauer 30-06
Howa 300 win mag.
TassieTiger
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2187
Tasmania

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 21 Feb 2020, 7:11 pm

TassieTiger wrote:Just read this thread - very interesting...pretty clear so I'll just add...
Every day, I work with highly educated and recently schooled engineers who know theory like they know their pubic hair...it's highly amusing and gratifying to watch the colour drain from their faces at opportune times, when their applied theory comes completely undone in the "real world" and they sit their wondering WTF just happened..and the universities keep spitting them out at us and then we keep educating them properly lol.


It’s a funny thing when theory meets reality. Facts don’t care what your uni lecturer thinks.
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 312
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Stix » 21 Feb 2020, 7:51 pm

See what i mean... :)

Good to see its getting a little better balanced... :thumbsup:

But still, its a shame some good info has to be lost... :unknown: :roll:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3444
South Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 21 Feb 2020, 8:18 pm

Stix wrote:See what i mean... :)

Good to see its getting a little better balanced... :thumbsup:

But still, its a shame some good info has to be lost... :unknown: :roll:


No not lost. Here is the link mate. V :thumbsup:

https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ba ... !/standard
Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: Better to load on the mild side. :o The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5541
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by TassieTiger » 21 Feb 2020, 8:52 pm

Look at the humongous amount of uncontrollable variables old bloke, that table is useful in a perfect world or as a starting point only.
Tikka .260 (custom)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 28’
Sauer 30-06
Howa 300 win mag.
TassieTiger
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2187
Tasmania

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 21 Feb 2020, 9:21 pm

TassieTiger wrote:Look at the humongous amount of uncontrollable variables old bloke, that table is useful in a perfect world or as a starting point only.


Of course its a starting point. If you add human error or changes to humidity or atmos pressure for example results will change. But if I recall correctly they can be included in the calculation.

Same as if you are target shooting at long range, (not that i do that,) you must allow for the wind etc.
Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: Better to load on the mild side. :o The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5541
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by marksman » 22 Feb 2020, 9:45 am

the 4dof is a complicated program if you are to use it at its best and although you can make changes in the calculation it is not as easy as you would think

eg... from the manual
"Custom Temperature Sensitivity Coefficient
To achieve the most accurate muzzle velocity prediction, the user should test their load at two widely different temperatures as well as a baseline temperature and accurately record the velocities. An example temperature range would be 20 deg for below baseline, 70 deg for baseline, and 100 deg for above baseline. The temperature range of the environment you will be shooting in should dictate your tested temperatures. When conducting testing, it is important to make sure the ammunition has enough soak time to reach the actual temperature being tested. Velocity and temperature recordings can be entered into The Temperature Sensitivity Coefficient Calculator to determine the custom TSC’s that will be entered into the 4DOF. Manual calculation can be conducted by dividing the difference in velocity by the difference in temperature between two test temperatures"

and another example

"The use of the axial force form factor to true your specific rifle should only be used after eliminating other possible variables that can account for an error in point of impact. The user should check the list in Table 3. to ensure none of the listed variables are contributing to an observed vertical point of impact difference between live fire data and 4 DOF prediction.

Table 3. Point of Impact Error Accountability Checklist
Incorrect Muzzle Velocity
Error in Zero Range
Error in Sight Height
Accounted for Aiming Error at Range
Error in Parallax Setting
Uncalibrated Turret Adjustments
Unaccounted for Wind Speed and Direction
Inaccurate Atmospheric Data

https://press.hornady.com/assets/site/h ... per-v2.pdf

dont kid yourself, it isn't a toy and is not as simple as you would think to use at its best and precisely
but l am not knocking the 4dof, although it is not for me
just do your real world testing and get familiar with it, use it as intended
and practice, practice, practice, in all the different conditions and ranges :drinks:

live in Victoria because you get 4 seasons in one day :lol:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2827
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 22 Feb 2020, 11:41 am

I think the calculators are useful tools as a starting point. As an example I ran the comparisons between the 17 hornet, 22 hornet and the 204. I know that all objects fall to earth at 9.8 metres per second squared. The issue for me, is how far will the projectile travel along my shooting line before it hits the dirt? The Hornady data was useful in that I was able to compare information using the same assumptions. The variable being the projectiles and muzzle velocity. I was able to clearly establish that for my purpose, the 22 hornet is most useful for one aspect my intended purpose. I.e shooting foxes on smaller blocks where the 204 would be too much.

Having said all that, theory is useful to guide me in the right direction. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. How will a particular calibre, load and rifle perform in the field? At the end of the day all I am trying to do is determine what the right tool for a particular job is. I am after an outcome: a dead fox who never knew what happened. A quick humane kill. We can all go through the ins and outs of a duck’s arse about the technical aspects of ballistics. Whatever floats your boat. If I was like Mark Ripley (260 Rips a.k.a Legend) shooting foxes at 500 metres I would have to know what I was doing. At under 200, I would be over thinking things.
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 312
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by marksman » 22 Feb 2020, 12:22 pm

"I think the calculators are useful tools as a starting point."
that is the point, nothing is written in stone, dont take anything for granted
IMHO you should be looking more at what your projectile will be doing than where its comes down to earth,
that means nothing if it still goes over your boundary after the shot
eg... what does the projectile do after it makes contact? will it travel through? it is desirable to use up all its energy inside the fox ect... no exit

that reminds me about a time at ssaa eagle park when a shooter put his target at around 505m just up the hill at the end of the range
the RO at the time came up and scolded the guy telling him the range was only a 500m range
the shooter scoffed at him and said so when l hit the target at 500m the bullets just stop :lol:
the RO walked off and nothing more was said :lol:

l legally shoot sambar with a 30-06 on house blocks using a populous place permit
usually around 120-200y and no problems with the bullet going where it shouldn't
l also work for a pro culling pests and some of the shots are in a suburban area, very close to houses, some within 30y
this is where l got into this type of thing, learning all the time and this is a proven capability before the ok is granted and we get the job

you may find with the right projectile your 204 is all you need but you need to test it and on animals before you decide
l know what l have tested that works for me on foxes but l cannot advise you for a 204,
but IMHO it would be worth a thought :drinks:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2827
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Stix » 22 Feb 2020, 1:32 pm

Bruiser64 wrote:I think the calculators are useful tools as a starting point. As an example I ran the comparisons between the 17 hornet, 22 hornet and the 204. I know that all objects fall to earth at 9.8 metres per second squared. The issue for me, is how far will the projectile travel along my shooting line before it hits the dirt? The Hornady data was useful in that I was able to compare information using the same assumptions. The variable being the projectiles and muzzle velocity. I was able to clearly establish that for my purpose, the 22 hornet is most useful for one aspect my intended purpose. I.e shooting foxes on smaller blocks where the 204 would be too much.

Having said all that, theory is useful to guide me in the right direction. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. How will a particular calibre, load and rifle perform in the field? At the end of the day all I am trying to do is determine what the right tool for a particular job is. I am after an outcome: a dead fox who never knew what happened. A quick humane kill. We can all go through the ins and outs of a duck’s arse about the technical aspects of ballistics. Whatever floats your boat. If I was like Mark Ripley (260 Rips a.k.a Legend) shooting foxes at 500 metres I would have to know what I was doing. At under 200, I would be over thinking things.


Hey Bruiser...
My first look at this page & the few recent posts was a quick skim over...you know where you just see a few sentences to get a gist of whats going on...

Where i highlighted your text above is what i first saw in my skimming... :lol: :lol:

WTF.. :wtf: ....eating Fox puddings... :shock: ...where is this guy from... :?

So i had to go back & re read it... :lol:

I know ive already annoyed you with my thoughts on the scenario...but i cant help and agree with marksman when he says ...
"that is the point, nothing is written in stone, dont take anything for granted
IMHO you should be looking more at what your projectile will be doing than where its comes down to earth,
that means nothing if it still goes over your boundary after the shot
eg... what does the projectile do after it makes contact? will it travel through? it is desirable to use up all its energy inside the fox ect... no exit".


This is the most critical point you should be taking into account, & obviously was the one i was trying to make earlier, despite the fact someone else deemed it completely irrelevant. :crazy:

If i remember correctly, youve bought a 22 hornet...thats great--wish i had one---id really love a 17 & a 22 to be honest.

But you could definately make use of the 204 in the situation you require, by way of loading lighter bullets at slower speeds...thus mimicking the hornets good virtues...
Those smaller bullets still have dramatic expansion at slower speeds (by slower, i mean relative to normal speeds for the 204, where normal is 4000ish f/s, & slower could be anywhere from 2000 f/s-3500f/s...).

Being a fox sized target, you can also get away with a drop in accuracy too, which will/would make finding a suitable load a little more forgiving...
My 204 with my reduced load with Trailboss that i plagerised from Blade is only good for an inch, but thats plenty good enough for a fox's chest out to 200... :thumbsup:
There are other logistics to reduced loads, most obvious being POI--ideally you want something that only differs with a known value in elevation from your full/normal load.

A couple of farmers that i shoot for/on, are all for me using my 22-250 or 204 around the infrastructure, all because of what happens to the bullet on & after impact.
i have reduced loads for both of them (they are my poor mans Hornets... :lol: )...the load i use in the 22-250 is a cheap as chips inconsistant 45g HP that still comfortably holds an inch out to 100 (i dont shoot it further than 150), & i can tell you there is nothing left of either a rabbits head or the bullet after impact, & the heads of larger animals are just a bag of marbles with popped eyes & no exit after impact, & given its pushed by around 9-10 grains of Trailboss, its not going all that quick.
The only thing with making a hornet out of a 204 is that it is an inefficient means to getting a bullet to do that, when you already have a hornet... :)


Ive even done the experiment with one farmer on soft drink/beer cans full of water...& his confidence in me shooting around his infrastructure went up in leaps & bounds--all from having a better real world experience in what happens to the various bullets used in various cartridges & velocities.

Im not knocking all that ballistic calculator stuff at all, but i rekon for fox shooting you might be overthinking it a little...

All shooting is fun, & so to try reactive targets & different bullets at different speeds into some water filled cans, & maybe if real keen, do it where the bullet can be contained on the follow through, can be fun too...
Sometimes you get through n throughs, sometimes the bulk of the bullet is retained, or fragments of the jacket in the bottom of the can, sometimes you see the shrapnel exits, & sometimes it completely vanishes with no trace...
For me anyway, i find this kind of thing more practical & interesting, over & above how soon a bullet will hit the ground...

:drinks:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3444
South Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Flyer » 22 Feb 2020, 9:13 pm

Because everybody knows that when a bullet misses an animal it stops dead in its tracks and doesn't go any further. That's why it is so important to take into account what happens when the bullet hits the animal and not when it misses. Because no-one here ever misses their shots ;)

Trajectory clearly means nothing when the laws of physics don't apply to a stray bullet.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 333
-

PreviousNext

Back to top
 
Return to Centerfire rifles