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 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.
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5740
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
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3077
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: 328
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
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3077
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
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3683
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: 332
-

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 22 Feb 2020, 10:10 pm

Stix, I know you mean well regarding "poor mans hornet" suggestion but your a few days too late. I suggested right at the start of the thread.

Oldbloke wrote:Slightly off topic. But for small properties i use a "squib load" in my 223. A 55gr SP doing about 2200fps. Good for about 120 yards. It could be an option for your 204.
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5740
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Stix » 23 Feb 2020, 1:30 am

Winner winner chicken dinner...!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Chicki-bow-wow Chicki-chicki-Bow-wow

So.....what would you like me to do OldBloke...

leave my well meaning poor mans hornet post up and publicly grant you a chicken dinner because you are the winner ...?

Or would you rather i take it down, because it sounds like you have a frown... :cry:

:lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:

:clap: :clap: :clap:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3683
South Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 23 Feb 2020, 1:43 am

Hi Stix, I am not annoyed with you at all. I am not annoyed with anything anyone has posted. I have a strong belief in a civil discourse. One of my rules is to communicate in the online world in the same way I would if I was speaking to someone face to face. As I said in my post I think the ballistics calculators are a very useful starting point. I am also a big fan of evidence based decision making. The other point I was making was that I am essentially a lazy person. I only bother doing enough research to solve my problem at hand. Which is why I can’t be arsed looking too deeply into the technical aspects of ballistics beyond my current needs. If I found myself in the situation where I needed to snipe at foxes beyond my rifles point blank range then I would acquire more detailed knowledge.

I also agree that I do have the option of trying a number of different loads in my 204. I could definitely try a reduced load in the 204. My preference, however is to buy another rifle in a different calibre. This is in part because I have no interest in being the richest person in the cemetery. I am happy to save up and get another rifle. it really doesn’t bother me having money tied up in my firearms. I don’t smoke, drink or gamble. Which allows me to acquire consumer durables. For example, I also have a fairly extensive range of fishing gear. Which, I might add my wife just shakes her head at.

I haven’t yet acquired a 22 Hornet but I hope to do so sometime this year. I like the discussions and the to and fro of them. I certainly have no interest in taking myself too seriously. I have learned a lot from this forum and I do appreciate you making recommendations though. In particular the discussion about choice of projectile. My preference is a highly frangible round. My 204 40 grain vmax reloads do leave a big exit wound on foxes. I prefer a projectile that rapidly fragments on the thin skinned animals I shots. It should also be more likely to fragment when it comes to earth rather than ricocheting and travelling further than I want should I miss. Having said that I only take the shot if it is safe. Like all of us on the forum I pass up plenty of shots as safety always comes first.

I have never seen a pig or a deer where I shoot. If they were a target I would probably use my .243 with projectiles that penetrate better and mushroom rather than fragment.
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 328
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 23 Feb 2020, 8:16 am

Stix wrote:Winner winner chicken dinner...!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Chicki-bow-wow Chicki-chicki-Bow-wow

So.....what would you like me to do OldBloke...

leave my well meaning poor mans hornet post up and publicly grant you a chicken dinner because you are the winner ...?

Or would you rather i take it down, because it sounds like you have a frown... :cry:

:lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:

:clap: :clap: :clap:



Just good we see eye to eye. But I think I won the cup cake. :D
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5740
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Stix » 23 Feb 2020, 10:10 am

Hey Bruiser...it would be interesting to see how fast those 24gr bullets travel with Trailboss...
Im not in a position to try them at the moment otherwise id tell you..

But maybe our load encyclopedia Blade might load up a few different charges with trailboss & go shoot em over his chrono if he hasnt already to educate us... :unknown:

I cant imagine they will hold together too well after hitting the ground (or anything) at hornet speeds... :unknown:

Blade mentions them here viewtopic.php?f=73&t=13184
but sends them at lightspeed with normal powder...
Its interesting to note Blade mentions they hit the ground before a bigger 40gr bullet... :? ... ( :lol: )...that combined with highly frangible bullet might be the the ducks nuts until you buy your hornet... :unknown: :)

And OB...i wasnt really stealing your thunder...i was adding to marksmans...by just following on/expanding a little on what marksman said in regard to his 204 possibly being capable of filling the brief...

But you are still the winner... :clap:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3683
South Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 23 Feb 2020, 10:40 am

"little on what marksman said in regard to his 204 possibly being capable of filling the brief..."

I didnt notice that.

Regarding trail boss. I have a feeling you cant get above about 1500fps. A design feature.
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5740
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bruiser64 » 23 Feb 2020, 11:03 am

On a related note, this YouTube video shows what the hornet and science can achieve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQzj8xVA3uU&t=3s
Bruiser64
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 328
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Stix » 23 Feb 2020, 1:24 pm

Oldbloke wrote:"little on what marksman said in regard to his 204 possibly being capable of filling the brief..."

I didnt notice that.

Regarding trail boss. I have a feeling you cant get above about 1500fps. A design feature.


Read the last paragraph of marksmans post immediately preceeding my post that you think just repeats what you've already said...

Despite a wise crack about Bruisers fox puddings...thats what im expanding on....

And i dont know what your on about with a restriction of 1500 fps with trailboss... :unknown:

From memory i get 2300-2400 fps with 8.5gr behind a 32 Zmax...thats around 22 hornet velocity...
So it might be possible to get over 3000 with a 24 gr bullet, thus getting closer to 17 hornet... :unknown:

Note i say might...i really have no idea without loading & shooting them...
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3683
South Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by duncan61 » 23 Feb 2020, 1:42 pm

Great video of the Hornet in action.Notice it was fully floated and had a moderator.
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1697
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Oldbloke » 23 Feb 2020, 2:49 pm

Stix, no drama. I see the comment now. And if trailboss will do the speed he is after thats fine. Like i said just a feeling only for pretty slow speed. I mean, i never checked. sheesh

Some shotgun powders and AR2206H are also options.
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 5740
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bullbarrel033 » 21 Mar 2020, 8:29 pm

My vote is for the 17 AH!
Bullbarrel033
Private
Private
 
Posts: 97
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bill » 22 Mar 2020, 9:11 am

Can 17 hornady hornet brass be used in a17 AH
“When a guy is digging his own grave, you don’t fight him for the shovel.”
User avatar
Bill
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 778
New South Wales

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by marksman » 22 Mar 2020, 9:33 am

Bill wrote:Can 17 hornady hornet brass be used in a17 AH


l would say no because it is 2mm shorter
although it will fit but 17 ackley will not
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3077
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Bill » 22 Mar 2020, 9:41 am

OK but could you fire form with some light loads
“When a guy is digging his own grave, you don’t fight him for the shovel.”
User avatar
Bill
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 778
New South Wales

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by marksman » 22 Mar 2020, 11:35 am

they will be to short at the neck l think
the pressures are the same so you could get away with shooting to fireform with normal loads expecting a bit of velocity loss
the cases are supposed to be thicker in the 17 hornady so if you do this l would be careful when reloading as pressures will be higher than normal 17 ackley
here is a photo showing the difference in size

Image

just found this
"The .17 Hornet is a .17 caliber centerfire rifle cartridge originally offered as a "wildcat cartridge" made by P.O. Ackley in the early 1950s. He created this non-factory (wildcat) offering by simply necking-down the .22 Hornet to .17 caliber and fire-forming the resized cases in his new chamber design. The result was a small quiet cartridge capable of high velocity. Ackley mentions it as one of the most balanced of the .17 cartridges of his time; likely, this is still true.[1]

Sixty years later, the Hornady Manufacturing Company (Grand Island, Nebraska, US) turned Ackley's idea into a commercial product with a similar cartridge; the .17 Hornady Hornet uses a 20 grain (1.3 gram) "Superformance" V-max projectile with a published velocity of 3,650fps (1,113 metres/second). [2]

However, the new standardized ammunition and brass is not built to exactly the same dimensional specifications as the original wildcat or the dimensions listed on this page. Hornady's standard has a shorter body with less taper and shorter overall case length while the overall loaded length remains that of the original .22 Hornet (in order to fit the standard Hornet magazines). Shooters using the .17 Hornady Hornet in a .17 Ackley Hornet chamber experience the bullet jumping to the rifling and losing some of the inherent accuracy for which the cartridge has been known.

It has been reported the .17 Hornady Hornet uses a thicker rim than the original Hornet case. However, the ninth edition of the Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading shows them to be the same (.065 inches); measuring the rims of actual factory cases shows the Hornady handbook to be correct. Moreover, Ackley's Pocket Manual for Shooters and Reloaders shows the rim thickness for his wildcat to range between .069" and .063" which is consistent with the Hornady handbook. Both cartridges head-space on this rim.

While the Ackley cartridge uses a 30-degree shoulder angle and the Hornady is 25 degrees, its longer shoulder is accommodated by Ackley's longer case body. Fireforming moves the Hornady's shoulder forward at the expense of neck length.

There is another size issue: according to Ackley's manual, his wildcat cartridge is only .289" over the shoulder while the Hornady factory round measures .294". This is the reason the Hornady's case capacity is almost identical to that of the Ackley's. Since there is five-thousandths less taper in the case body, the new .17 Hornady Hornet cases may not fit an Ackley chamber without full-length resizing.

Existing rifles chambered for the Ackley wildcat can have their barrels set back one turn and rechambered to the new .17 Hornady Hornet which meets the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) standard for the .17 Hornet. This fixes the bullet jump issue and improves ammunition availability with little risk of diminished performance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.17_Hornet
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3077
Victoria

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by bluehorse » 03 May 2020, 12:53 pm

On the subject of shooting foxes I had a J. G Anschutz hornet I bought to do a mate a favor . It was about market price . I loaded my own and had a couple of problems ejecting and did not have my cleaning rod to get it out .I scratched the chamber with a screwdriver so I took to a gunsmith to make it a K hornet . This was a very accurate rifle. I shot quite a few fox and as they cast a last look into the spotlight under the nose is best aiming point I think as it gives about 4 inches of lethal target maybe more . Judging distance at night with spotlight is a very difficult thing to do to get a good guesstimate so if your point of impact is say the highest point that your bullet will hit this allows a few inches leeway to send off lethal shot and of course no skin damage .
My suggestion is no matter what your choice of caliber is try shooting paper target at measured distances and then see how accurate and or how tight the rifle can perform ,Results might hurt your pride . Practice and practice work up loads if u reload. . Whatever u shoot you need to have a good idea of what and where this will hit or not hit . Then after all of this nailing the fox will be in the realms of possibility . I was in love with my k hornet and it was very lethal on fox but I lost all my rifles via a burglary .Replacing tried and true is not easy . All rifles are not equal . Nor are the ones holding it . Fox at 150 metres is a test .. 200 metres is a harder test . The target is small when then look into a spotlight . and it needs a well tuned rifle . Getting a rifle scope combination off the hook to do the job is wishful thinking until getting down to the real business of getting to know it by shooting it over various ranges in favourable weather .. I have a hornet now with a 3 -9 Sightron scope near new and I would doubt that over 150 m with handloads I would get 90% kill rate . Over measured 100 m with factory ammo maybe 70%. With my handloads maybe 95%. . I use my current hornet on a 70 acre property and it is quieter than 222 and bigger . Also I do not want bullets whizzing around and neighbours getting worried . Shooting hornet from window of landcruiser towards the target dog or fox should be 100% . Long range shots are not my objective . Killing chook thieving dogs or fox is and also not drawing flak from any neighbours . . For my application hornet is an excellent choice .My point is the application of weapon to match the job is paramount . I have bigger that will do job too . Safety and harmony with neighbours is a major point to be considered.
bluehorse
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 3
-

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by bluehorse » 11 May 2020, 8:31 pm

Hello . Further on the accuracy issue if you are not getting as tight a group as u think is fair and reasonable check your scope mounts for movement . I have a small dial gauge accurate to .01mm about 4tenths of a thou is equivalent in plain English so I was able to make a bracket attached to my scope and the probe touching the barrel in a position that it can travel both ways .. I found .01mm movement so I gave it more serious attempt to move scope . and got .04mm (1.6thou) and there is my loose group .. scope mounts were bridge type mounts and dovetail system . I looked at receiver and the scope mounts too for anything unusual .. In due course I put a 45degree dove tail milling cutter against the receiver dovetail and it looked wellmade . The bridge mount was stamped Australia in small writing but no manufacturer had his name on it.. The dovetail when I put my cutter against it did not match , Mounts were cut at 60 degrees !! I then decided to seeif I could cut the mounts to 45 degrees by hand so I ground a file to 45degrees .( I have gauges to check angles )then filed out the mounts and put back on rifle checked against dial gauge then shot a group . I have a 100 m range on my place marked out .. Hoorah at last my hornet was developing some sting . and the group tightened . I later put a shim of brass .002 between mounts and receiver so the mount would be firmer against receiver ,,
There is a moral to my story .Trust nothing and explore until a problem can be found ,. If mounts are moving then nothing will shoot well .. Finding mounts with incompatable angles of dovetail was the last thing I was thinking of . Locating the actual problems is never easy unless something similar has been discovered previously .
I just put this note here because I read so much from so many self styled experts in the net that is very questionable . Experience is the best teacher but many writing in the net have very little .of that , I have my hornet and 222 putting 10 out of 10 in the humane test target that aspiring Roo shooters must be able to get 5 from 5 into to get a licence . It is not so easy to do especially if scope or mounts are moving even a tiny bit ..
Hope somebody gets something useful from this . and by the way my hornet shoots 45 sierra with hornet written on the box better than 35 grains with red tips . And I weigh every load when I am testing .. Also Check scales too !! especially flat bottom tray variety as if the powder charge is not in the centre of the tray precisely there will be a different reading !! I do not want to write a name here .. I modified the flat tray with ball of hammer so centre was spherical shape deep enough to hold about, 40 grains .. It just goes to show that all tools need calibrating and checking thoroughly .. And also I do not use calipers to measure case lengths as I have micrometers that are I think more accurate .. Verners with a dial gauge will jump a thou or 2 or more if there is dirt or foreign matter getting in the workings .. Blowing out with compressed air is about the only way to get them clean !! But then checking readings with known test pieces is the only real check .. So do not trust the readings with your life !! Some cheaper micrometers are available and are accurate too if u check them .. Good measuring equipment is not so cheap but is a lifelong investment in your own safety . I have mikes I bought over 30 years ago and some good ones that are Vernier micrometer about 20 years ago . 0 to 4 inch set are not real expensive . And even if they are in China when they are calibrated the readings are as good as The English or yankee brands .. Good tools will outlast you .
bluehorse
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 3
-

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by Sparkbrook » 07 Jun 2020, 4:12 am

I used to use a std .22 Lithgow hornet for ages for foxes.
Not a problem if you whistle them in within 150mt.
Only changed up to a 22-250 for longer shots and less wind drift.
Sparkbrook
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 12
Western Australia

Re: Anyone foxing with a 17 or 22 Hornet?

Post by flashman » 07 Jun 2020, 8:36 am

No ......but I use a .22wmr ,40gr hollow points .out to 100m,low noise dose the job...…. :mrgreen:
flashman
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
Victoria

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Centerfire rifles