Hi Folks,
can anyone explain to me,why there is a difference between legal calibres for shooting roe in the uk .222 v's .243 in Scotland and England respectively?
I have shot over 80 Roe in the last 5 years with a .222 and can honestly say I have never had any problems,I have also shot several with a .243 and didn't see any noticable difference.
I feel its where you put the bullet that counts,I use a Sako 55gr Gamehead btw,which has proved itself to be devastatingly effective.
Would any Stalkers in England use a .222 given the opportunity?
I think its a great calibre for Roe.
Roll on 1st April.

Cheers Roebuck222

I'll be trying the .222Rem on Roe this year, I have a Remington model 7 that I am trying to get an MOA or better load for, but it hasn't been bedded yet.

For the moment it wasn't doing too bad, the only thing I need to veryfy is MV - it has an 18" barrel which means I maybe be getting quite low speeds. This combined with a heavy bullet or the Barnex 55gn XLC I have on order should mean I won't get the violent bruising some speak of.

Hi Express,
Moa or better...superb!! you will have absolutely no problems knocking down roe deer with that kind of accuracy,providing you are hitting them in the right place,I like a neck shot if I am close enough and shooting for my own freezer,other wise straight into the heart/lung area,incidentally the game dealer who I use has commented on a good few occasions that the roe are not badly damaged,I've seen him shaking his head at the state of some of the deer he gets..but thats another story.
I see you are using Remington,I had thought that most US gun makers had all but dropped the 222,in favour of the 223.
I myself wanted a Sako but at the time couldn't quite stretch to it so Got a new RWS Mod 89 instead,I haven't been disappointed,however I have yet to meet anyone else who has one,or seen one for sale since...hope this is not problematic should I need spares...has anyone any ideas?

I have found that when stalking the difference to shot reaction in a deer really comes about when they have sensed you are there and something isn't quite right,then regardless of gun used,you might have a runner for 30-50 metres,happened once with a .303

cheers
Roebuck222

When it works it works beautifuly when it fails it does so miserably.

I really do not think it is the 'go to' calibre for roe in all situations.

I too shoot a lot of deer and have noticed on a few occasions (I rarely get the chance to go to Scotland) That a marginal hit has a distinctly lesser chance of being recovered with a 22 centre fire than with my 6mm rem, even with a dog.

On the odd occasion I have cocked up with my 6mm rem (90gr 3,200fps) I have recovered my deer with little effort after a wait. With a 22centre fire I have had difficulty recovering deer that have been well hit (as proved by subsequent autopsy of the carcass) I do not necessarily blame this on the calibre so much as bullet choice but once you have watched roe deer teetering around for an age on a shot that would have been 'bang flop' with a 243 with just about any bullet a little bit of the gloss comes off it.

On a lovely spring day in some nice open woodland near to home under little pressure there is nothing nicer than a 222 or similar. On a breezy day on a trip away in front of a friend in a field of rape or on a treeline of a bramble covered wood, at no point would I say 'if only I had my 222rem'

Hi 1894,

I would rather place 1 .222 55gr sako gamehead through the vitals than 100 gr or what ever in a marginal shot on a deer,this begs the questions what is a marginal shot?..should anyone be taking marginal shots?
I believe that as stated no matter what you hit a deer with (barring a spine shot)if it knows you are there and it has its adrenaline pumping,then you are likely to have a runner for a short distance,as I've said this has happened with a .243 and a .303 both well placed shots..essentially the beasts were running dead.
Given the quality of modern rifles, optics, and accessories,bipods etc,not to mention quality ammo,how hard is it realistically to be within a 4inch Dia circle at 100 yards?
The .222 has always worked personally for me,but I agree that shot placement is essential,that is something all stalkers should strive for,consistant accuracy.

Cheers Roebuck

I think that within the next five years England and Wales will come into line with Scotland on the centrefire 22s for roe and muntjac. I look forward to the day I can whip out the 22-250 and go stalking. I still think I would use my 6.5x55 more often than not, it just drops roe so well.

Problems may occur when someone out foxing will shoot hollowpoint at deer with unpleasant consequences, and meat damage at best.

There are so many good .224 bullets around now, so I think the .222Rem has become the roe deer gun it originally wasn't. With the right bullet, it feels like a full-grown roe deer gun.

I have shot maybe 8-10 roe deers with .222 and always with Norma's 62gr SP. All shots have gone for the boiler room, so I have no experieces with how the roe deers react to 2:d shots with such a sissy calibre, or how they react if wounded. Still, the bullet has behaved wonderfully and very consistent wherever the bullet has hit. Always an exit wound of 1", from spine shots to shots in the rib cage, ranges 30 to 160 meters.

On a windy day, or if I'll be hunting in the woods, I'll bring the .308Win but in open fields in May the .222Rem is my prime choice.

Regards,
/HerrBerg

I normally use my .308 for all my stalking, but did go through a period of using my .223Rem on Roe up in Scotland.

It actually did a very good job, but I can't help thinking that there is not much margin between success and failure.

What I don't understand is why some people "love" the 22CF for Roe? If I lived in Scotland and wanted a rifle exclusively for Roe the last thing I would buy is a .22CF...A little stutzen in 6.5x55mm with a 3-9x36 scope would be a wonderfully light handy package and have much more authority than any .22CF. And I can't imagine anybody finding the recoil of the 6.5x55mm excessive enough to cause accuracy problems. If you shoot mostly Charlie and the odd Roe, i can understand someone choosing a .22CF or as a second rifle that makes sense too, but not as a primary stalking rifle, at least not to me anyway.

Regards,

Pete

Interesting thread. Although Defra is looking at the option of harmonizing calibres - I was personally surprised to get the distict impression that the 'expert advisers' like BDS and BASC are likely to recommend AGAINST this from a deer welfare standpoint.

The reasons being tossed around seem to be (a) Fox licensed shooters going on a spree with newly legalized CF .22s and unsuitable ammunition (b) lack of measureable benefit regarding more humane despatch.

I can see both points (but dont necessarily agee with) of the arguement but would love the option of using my .223 on the smaller species.

Somehow seems foolish that the military recognise the cf .22 as sufficient for a 14 stone human to 300 yds - but with the mentioned improved bullets now available - the same round is not considered suitable for a 40lb Muntjac, Roe or Chinese.

Rgds Ian

Allow smaller calibres as deer legal and there will be more deer killed/wounded in the dark than in the daylight.
Now whether that is part of the game plan for a more effective cull figure.....
They say the military prefers to wound the enemy infantry...

Firstly, I am not so sure that the .223Rem is so universally accepted with in the Military as being effective on humans up to 300yards. Many,many soldiers would actually prefer the old 7.62 Nato, but thats a different issue!



I would say that you simply can't compare humans and deer in terms of bullet trauma and physiology. I regret to say I have seen roe "hop" for a considerable distance after a low "shoulder shot" had broken both front legs below the shoulder (bullet in effect passed under the brisket) and that was with a .308! Can you imagine a human hobbling off after being hit by a .308 soft point in the thigh?



In this case calibre is largley immaterial but I do believe that more wide spread use of the the .22CF is going to cause more lost beasts. And nobody has actually given me a good reason for choosing a .222Rem over a 6.5x55mm as their primary stalking rifle....



Regards,



Pete

In my experience, the chambering for stalking rifles is more or less irrelevant. One usually has the time to select one's shots, the broadside shot is more or less the norm at least where I hunt. One shoots at undisturbed animals and one has plenty of time to take the shots. Roe deer have a tendency to die if shot through the lungs, regardless of what chambering used.



Driven hunts are a whole different ballgame. Quick decisions, shorter distances, moving animals, trees and obstacles to shoot between. This calls for heavier and slower bullets than what the .22CF can offer.



I use my .222Rem and a 62gr Norma SP for stalking roe deer, without a second of hesitation. I still have to see what happens with a bad shot with such a small calibre, but if I compare it with a 180gr Oryx bullet from my .308Win, the roe deer runs a longer distance for a 308 shot broadside shot through both lungs. Then again, this is a moose bullet and with a 150gr Hornady SpirePoint or Nosler BT one might get better results with the .308 than what the .222Rem may offer.



But on the other hand, I don't consider it a problem if the roe deer goes away as long as it's been fatally hit. If it dies within 20 seconds, that's not a problem even though this may equal a long distance tracking session. One has to go get a tracking dog, or bring one to start with, that's all.



regards,

/Bengt Berg

Pete

It so happens I agree with all of your points - certainly the one regarding the calibre preference of the front line soldiers (with relevent experience)rings very true.

Regarding the ability to react to trauma - I'm sorry to say that I have seen humans do similarly amazing things when hit by various projectiles. At the end of the day we are all animals!

Rgds Ian

I have a 222 and I used it on several Roe in Germany. The only problem I had was in an area with tall grass, it doesn't work well in bushy areas. As for others on this thread that think a 22CF isn't much of a round, I shot a Caribou in the neck last month with my 22-250 (209 yards w/rangefinder) and it dropped dead where it stood. So with good shot placement, don't under estimate the 22 family line.

The .222 Rem loaded with 50 grs Barnes X and 20.5 grains Norma 200 is an excellent roe killer. The proper bullet choice is essential if you want the best of this rather small but efficient cartridge.

Best regards,

Fritz

99% of 22 hollowpoints are designed to explode on impact with foxes. The 60gr hornady hollow point is probably the sole exception being tougher I gather than the 60gr sp which I have used with excellent effect on roe.

I think Deerdogs was applying the term HP meaning bullets for foxes which in general would be disastrous.

I think that what we have to do here is stop grouping the 222 with the 223 and the 22-250. It would be like comparing the hornet with a 222.There is no doubting that the 222 kills deer,but there is also no doubt that it does not have the knock down power that its larger cousins have.
the 223/22-250 have more dramatic upset than the 222 and it is that which kills deer.

Griff

roebuck222, you are obviously an experienced stalker and for you .222 is sufficient for Roe. The problem is that legislation is for the masses, and with that in mind I feel .243 should be the minimum calibre for all deer shot in England, Wales and Scotland.

I cannot comment on the bullets you mention, but simply wanted to point out that the vast majority of HP bullets are designed to expand explosivly on impacting vermin, as opposed to a soft point bullet designed with controlled expansion in mind to enable penetration of the target animal with obvious meat-saving qualities.