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...
WTF.. ....eating Fox puddings... ...where is this guy from... So i had to go back & re read it...
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.
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...
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...
)...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...
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...