Calibre Choice for Deer WARNING - GRAPHIC IMAGES
- Thread starter Cael Nu Mara
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Having an open mind isn't the same thing as being gullible.
If you can find something on Google, please post it for the rest of us.
I don't know where in Africa you've been, but at least in South Africa and Zimbabwe .22's are very common.
A razor-sharp broadhead driven in a few feet has awesome killing power. Even so, most modern archers have a guide with a big rifle standing right behind them.
If you ever actually got close to an elephant in the wild, I bet you'd change your mind in a hurry about shooting it with a .22. A .458 felt completely inadequate, I wanted a bazooka when that bull I mentioned turned towards me.
Tunisia, Morrocco, Egypt only saw AK's there perhaps they where .22LR versions of AK's...?
Seems hardly sport does it...? but she did it for the right reasons... £,$, yen, euro's and fame good on her!
I was thinking of going to the zoo, pretty handy place for animals, there's a map and everything bit like a supermarket/ shooting gallery all in one....
Last edited:
scaramaga I think claimed to have killed an elephant with a .22LR pistol, in Africa there's not many small bore rifles kicking about in my opinion, plenty of AK's, FN's and other old war crap. but not many .22LR, so I would say urban myth.
I don't want to say it not true after all, them little tiny umpaloompa's use kill elephants with blow darts. Poachers use poisonous arrows so I'm sure you can kill anything with just about anything.
depends how keen you are I guess.
as for killing something big with a small calibre rifle, read "into the wild" I think it's 20 odd shots with a .22LR to kill a moose.
as for killing a Bear lets say any bear not a particular brand other other... well that lady serial killer us to shoot her victims with a .22LR revolver and the autopsy showed they'ed been shot loads of times.
perhaps it could have been a Mini Mag .22LR it's very high power but again it's still unlikely, if you close enough to shoot a bear in the mouth when it falls down dead it'll probably squash you as it falls on top of you.
I don't want to say it not true after all, them little tiny umpaloompa's use kill elephants with blow darts. Poachers use poisonous arrows so I'm sure you can kill anything with just about anything.
depends how keen you are I guess.
as for killing something big with a small calibre rifle, read "into the wild" I think it's 20 odd shots with a .22LR to kill a moose.
as for killing a Bear lets say any bear not a particular brand other other... well that lady serial killer us to shoot her victims with a .22LR revolver and the autopsy showed they'ed been shot loads of times.
perhaps it could have been a Mini Mag .22LR it's very high power but again it's still unlikely, if you close enough to shoot a bear in the mouth when it falls down dead it'll probably squash you as it falls on top of you.
Last edited:
... I just don't see how it can take an elephant.
Mind you, I love the .22lr and I consider it probably the finest all around survival round (in part because of the volume of ammo you can carry.) I've got a couple of .22lr rifles and a .22lr revolver (the S&W 63) that I wouldn't hesitate to rely on to put food in the pot in a pinch.
Annie Oakley was a .22lr hunter before becoming one of the most renowned trick shooters ever. If it's good enough for Annie, it's good enough for me. (And I've got a Marlin 39a, like Annie's
However, as a hunter, I wouldn't willingly go after even deer-sized prey with a .22lr.
The "Into the Wild" account of taking moose with .22lr has been convincingly challenged. The general belief is McCandless shot a caribou and he was so clueless (and my god, he was TOTALLY clueless) that he thought it was a moose.
Even taking a caribou with a .22lr is a feat if it was mature. There isn't any evidence that he even took a mature caribou for that matter. The only bones found near the site, as near as I can tell from external accounts, where that of an immature caribou.
I've taken moose on many occasions when I lived in Alaska and I promise you that hunting one with a .22lr would be tantamount to suicide. Moose are *very* dangerous animals. Take them down fast and don't get a bull moose angry at you. Ever. Until you've been close to one, you can't comprehend how big they are.
Bears are another matter. Yes, you *could* take a small black bear with a .22lr -- it's a stretch, but it's possible because small blackies are only 80 lbs or so. But you can also club a small black bear to death too. Black bears are tricky animals with lots of variation. A grizz with a .22lr? Again, only if you have a suicidal impulse.
An elephant? I just don't buy it. Now if you want to talk about taking one with atlatl darts, that's another matter. We know ancient humans hunted the mammoth to extinction with atlatls. But what we don't know for sure was the technique they used to take them down, how long it took and how many darts were involved.
Mind you, I love the .22lr and I consider it probably the finest all around survival round (in part because of the volume of ammo you can carry.) I've got a couple of .22lr rifles and a .22lr revolver (the S&W 63) that I wouldn't hesitate to rely on to put food in the pot in a pinch.
Annie Oakley was a .22lr hunter before becoming one of the most renowned trick shooters ever. If it's good enough for Annie, it's good enough for me. (And I've got a Marlin 39a, like Annie's
However, as a hunter, I wouldn't willingly go after even deer-sized prey with a .22lr.
The "Into the Wild" account of taking moose with .22lr has been convincingly challenged. The general belief is McCandless shot a caribou and he was so clueless (and my god, he was TOTALLY clueless) that he thought it was a moose.
Even taking a caribou with a .22lr is a feat if it was mature. There isn't any evidence that he even took a mature caribou for that matter. The only bones found near the site, as near as I can tell from external accounts, where that of an immature caribou.
I've taken moose on many occasions when I lived in Alaska and I promise you that hunting one with a .22lr would be tantamount to suicide. Moose are *very* dangerous animals. Take them down fast and don't get a bull moose angry at you. Ever. Until you've been close to one, you can't comprehend how big they are.
Bears are another matter. Yes, you *could* take a small black bear with a .22lr -- it's a stretch, but it's possible because small blackies are only 80 lbs or so. But you can also club a small black bear to death too. Black bears are tricky animals with lots of variation. A grizz with a .22lr? Again, only if you have a suicidal impulse.
An elephant? I just don't buy it. Now if you want to talk about taking one with atlatl darts, that's another matter. We know ancient humans hunted the mammoth to extinction with atlatls. But what we don't know for sure was the technique they used to take them down, how long it took and how many darts were involved.
...or how many lives it cost. Their values were somewhat different to ours, as were the risks they were prepared to and forced, by circumstance, to take.
Just because something is possible, however remotely, doesn't make it sensible, or ethical.
Who ever said about "hunting" ele with a 22?
All i said was that ele have been taken with the 22 by farmers in Africa by accident, yes it DOES happen and HAS happened. if your to narrow minded or lazy to look it up fine,im just the messenger.
All i said was that ele have been taken with the 22 by farmers in Africa by accident, yes it DOES happen and HAS happened. if your to narrow minded or lazy to look it up fine,im just the messenger.
if it was not the purpose to hunt and kill'em? Then what was the purpose in shooting at them? Seems a waste of money to me. An elephant would make one hell of a roast, I've seen these farmer types on the TV hardly any food or clothes but they can still waste money on guns, and shooting stuff they don't want to eat. A Very poor show indeed, I mean it's both irresponsible from their point of view as fat westerners are hardly likely to go there and look at dead animals for a holiday. Worse it's a bad example to the children who after all are the future.
A lot of people in the UK don't 'get'/understand the role of guns. In a lot of the world a gun is a tool used for defending the family -- from burglars, four-legged predators or marauding pachyderms. Guns turn up like hens' eggs in a lot of African countries, left behind by a very long nd continuing history of warfare and hunting. Guns don't need water to grow or grass to eat. Swapping a few baskets for an AK clone isn't 'wasting', it's making a relatively inexpensive investment in a tool that will likely save the family from being eaten, stabbed, shot or starved by all their crops being eaten.
This thread has the potential to be not only interesting but very informative.
I have edited out those posts that appeared designed simply to stir, and in doing so made some responses irrelevant, and have edited them too.
If your post is one that I have Modded then your understanding would be appreciated.
Trolling is not permitted, insulting other members is not acceptable and defamation is not on.
If you have problems accepting this please re read the posting guidelines.
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45
cheers,
Toddy
I have edited out those posts that appeared designed simply to stir, and in doing so made some responses irrelevant, and have edited them too.
If your post is one that I have Modded then your understanding would be appreciated.
Trolling is not permitted, insulting other members is not acceptable and defamation is not on.
If you have problems accepting this please re read the posting guidelines.
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45
cheers,
Toddy
What are you basing this claim on? My narrow, lazy mind can't find anything at all on Google.
Last edited:
I found it without problem,maybe you have different Google?.
I`m basing MY assumption on the basis that anything can happen with pretty much anything. I don't say "no that cannot happen".
LO-IQ
This may be of interest to you.
Contrary to popular belief it is still/was possible to hunt Polar Bear.Whilst this may sound abhorrent to some it makes Very good sense to those that live in that area.Each community will given a certain amount of Subsidence permits which allow them to shoot a certain amount of bears which they can eat,what they can also do is sell those permits,so what makes more sense selling those permits for $25,000 each (about the going rate) and still get to eat the animal (dont forget that these communities eat manly subsidence anyway so all that money "should" go to schools etc) or conform to the antis and starve?.This is "generally the same situation as happens in Africa but in Africa there are more eles than the land can sustain (some estimates put this at more than twice as many)since Kenya stop commercial hunting back in 75-80 the land damage has been such that it is claimed that they would have to cull up to 3/4 of the ele population to holt and recover the damage that has been done,this is an astonishing number of animals and this is the same problem that is happening in most African countries that have them.As an example in Botswana they have around 130,000 Tanzania 125,000 Zimbabwe up to 100,000 I could go on but you get the idea.
I don't know how much an ele hunt would cost, but i would think it would be around the low $20,000 mark plus money spent on location with tips and such,then you have the employment that this kind of activity would bring as well as all the meat from the animal once it has been "culled" as this is probably a better name to give it (in context).then and most importantly you have the FACT that the animal has a PRICE which almost INSTANTLY stops poaching as the local poachers will now be employed as game wardens to protect them so the village has a renewable resource and various sources of revenue.
Dave
I`m basing MY assumption on the basis that anything can happen with pretty much anything. I don't say "no that cannot happen".
LO-IQ
This may be of interest to you.
Contrary to popular belief it is still/was possible to hunt Polar Bear.Whilst this may sound abhorrent to some it makes Very good sense to those that live in that area.Each community will given a certain amount of Subsidence permits which allow them to shoot a certain amount of bears which they can eat,what they can also do is sell those permits,so what makes more sense selling those permits for $25,000 each (about the going rate) and still get to eat the animal (dont forget that these communities eat manly subsidence anyway so all that money "should" go to schools etc) or conform to the antis and starve?.This is "generally the same situation as happens in Africa but in Africa there are more eles than the land can sustain (some estimates put this at more than twice as many)since Kenya stop commercial hunting back in 75-80 the land damage has been such that it is claimed that they would have to cull up to 3/4 of the ele population to holt and recover the damage that has been done,this is an astonishing number of animals and this is the same problem that is happening in most African countries that have them.As an example in Botswana they have around 130,000 Tanzania 125,000 Zimbabwe up to 100,000 I could go on but you get the idea.
I don't know how much an ele hunt would cost, but i would think it would be around the low $20,000 mark plus money spent on location with tips and such,then you have the employment that this kind of activity would bring as well as all the meat from the animal once it has been "culled" as this is probably a better name to give it (in context).then and most importantly you have the FACT that the animal has a PRICE which almost INSTANTLY stops poaching as the local poachers will now be employed as game wardens to protect them so the village has a renewable resource and various sources of revenue.
Dave
When someone claims something that doesn't pass the tests of logic, reason and experience, I say "Show me" before I believe it.
So, for the third time: How about those links?
Oblio13, well I have no life I guess
I don't believe this tall tale either, but I took 40 minutes over the weekend to google it.
There are some links out there, but they're all of the "I heard this..." "I read this somewhere..." "I had a friend who said he was told..."
And each time the story changes slightly -- so without confirmed sources and WITH changed stories, it has all the attributes of urban legend.
Here's one link from thehighroad.org http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-171387.html
There are others out there, all with almost the same floating facts, vaguely remembered sources, etc. In other words, unbelievable.
Also, some of the logic presented is goofy -- in one they talk about shooting the elephant where its "skin is worn thin" from body friction. Sounds good at first, except that skin thickens with friction (called callouses...)
In other words, the evidence presented makes it look more like an internet myth than a fact. But what I find charming about it that it this internet myth is spiked with an old Darkest Africa myth; tall tales told to sell books in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Just as I don't believe the dime novels about the Wild West that were popular here -- they always were fabrications -- I don't believe this one.
Yet I love the idea that these canards live on and, indeed, take on fresh life in the internet age. They've thrilled generations of kids hanging out in tree houses and BSing about what they could bring down with their .22s and now they have a fresh life!
And, hey, tall tales are fun to tell! But, in the end, a tall tale is just that. The total outrageousness of a tall tale is part of its charm; they only get dreary when we start digging in and insisting they're true...
Did I tell you the one where I accidentally killed a grey whale by flicking a toothpick through its eye socket.....
Last edited:
HG Selous found the 4 bore to be most efficacious on elephant, not a .22. When I was working, I did a bull at about 90 yards with a .243 from a Parker-Hale bolt action, but, it was a head shot using the rifle I was issued with. If I couldn't guarantee a head shot, I think I'd like a .308 for any decent size deer. That's just a personal preference and not a okenest:.
Nigel.
okenest:.Nigel.
The following link will take you to one man's personal test of .22lr ammo on a turkey. To be as brief as possible, he wrapped the front of the turkey with a t-shirt, then a regular cotton shirt, and lastly a heavy denim jacket.
At 250 yards he experienced heavy penetration and one round penetrated completely through and exited out the back.
At 300 yards he still got good penetration.
In the questions and answers that follow, he states that he only after unwrapping the turkey did he discover it was still frozen on the inside, so undoubtedly, the penetration would have been better.
Keep in mind that this test was conducted beyond the reasonable maximum range of the .22. In fact way beyond. Most people would say about 150 yards is the maximum effective range of the .22. Nevertheless, the penetration was excellent. I believe he states about six inches of meat and bone.
www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=782785&page=1
This is not posted to confirm any belief that a .22 is capable of killing and elephant. Merely, to illustrate that the lowly .22 is by far one of the most underrated cartridges in existence. In my opinion, it is the best "all round" cartridges available. Cheap, accurate, and you could carry 500 rounds easily if you felt the need.
An afterthough: When I was just a kid, and still lived on a farm, we killed a couple of hogs every year for ham, bacon, pork chops, etc. Either my father or I killed the hogs with 1 carefully placed shot between the eyes with a .22 SHORT. Not a long Rifle but a short. Every hog shot this way dropped on the spot and was dead instantly. Interestingly, on a couple of occasions, I deviated from this and used a .22lr. In all cases, the hog did not drop instantly and had to be shot several more times to be put down. We never could come up with a satisfactory explanation of this. I have some theories but I won't bore you with them.
At 250 yards he experienced heavy penetration and one round penetrated completely through and exited out the back.
At 300 yards he still got good penetration.
In the questions and answers that follow, he states that he only after unwrapping the turkey did he discover it was still frozen on the inside, so undoubtedly, the penetration would have been better.
Keep in mind that this test was conducted beyond the reasonable maximum range of the .22. In fact way beyond. Most people would say about 150 yards is the maximum effective range of the .22. Nevertheless, the penetration was excellent. I believe he states about six inches of meat and bone.
www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=782785&page=1
This is not posted to confirm any belief that a .22 is capable of killing and elephant. Merely, to illustrate that the lowly .22 is by far one of the most underrated cartridges in existence. In my opinion, it is the best "all round" cartridges available. Cheap, accurate, and you could carry 500 rounds easily if you felt the need.
An afterthough: When I was just a kid, and still lived on a farm, we killed a couple of hogs every year for ham, bacon, pork chops, etc. Either my father or I killed the hogs with 1 carefully placed shot between the eyes with a .22 SHORT. Not a long Rifle but a short. Every hog shot this way dropped on the spot and was dead instantly. Interestingly, on a couple of occasions, I deviated from this and used a .22lr. In all cases, the hog did not drop instantly and had to be shot several more times to be put down. We never could come up with a satisfactory explanation of this. I have some theories but I won't bore you with them.
I have no doubt that a .22 will kill a well-dressed turkey.
But still not an elephant, even if it was only wearing a bikini.
I crack myself up.
The arguement about which round is best will go on for ever! For my needs these are my guns...
Rabbits and birds on the ground if I need to be quiet - .22lr with subsonic ammo
As above but not needing to be quiet, and also Fox - .17 Ackley Hornet
Deer at reasonable ranges and long range Foxes - 6.5x55 and 7x57R (shotgun/rifle combi)
I've got a slot for a .300 Magnum too but not decided what to get. I want a H&H or Weatherby ideally.
As for elephant with a .22lr, I have no idea. You wouldn't catch me trying though, not even if I was starving!
Rabbits and birds on the ground if I need to be quiet - .22lr with subsonic ammo
As above but not needing to be quiet, and also Fox - .17 Ackley Hornet
Deer at reasonable ranges and long range Foxes - 6.5x55 and 7x57R (shotgun/rifle combi)
I've got a slot for a .300 Magnum too but not decided what to get. I want a H&H or Weatherby ideally.
As for elephant with a .22lr, I have no idea. You wouldn't catch me trying though, not even if I was starving!
LOL Oblio13 LOL, And although I'm positive you understand what I was trying to illustrate, for other readers let me say that there is a considerable body of anecdotal evidence that several heavy layers of clothing can have a significant impact on slowing down a bullet. I failed to mention that the clothing was overlapped on the back side. (He didn't think it would penetrate so, for ease of wrapping he overlapped and held it all tight with duct tape.) The bullet that did penetrate went through 3 layers on the front, then the semifrozen turkey, then 6 layers of the back, plus the duct tape.
Apparently .22lr are not affected much by clothing, even at very long range. I failed to mention earlier that he was using Russian match grade ammunition. Match ammunition is usually subsonic, so these bullets did not leave the barrel very fast. What effect the reduced velocity had on the penetration makes for interesting speculation.
I just can't get that mental image of an elephant in a bikini out of my head!
Apparently .22lr are not affected much by clothing, even at very long range. I failed to mention earlier that he was using Russian match grade ammunition. Match ammunition is usually subsonic, so these bullets did not leave the barrel very fast. What effect the reduced velocity had on the penetration makes for interesting speculation.
I just can't get that mental image of an elephant in a bikini out of my head!
Last edited:
Similar threads
