22 Hornet for Deer

[HandgunHTR]

Sorry, corrected to 3-4 MOA at that distance. My mistake.

No flex, it all seems tight.

Do you think it is mainly due to the trigger, or is it just the overall platform that is causing the variability?

As to the comment that you need to limit the shot to head or spine (not the quoted part from the OP), clearly you haven't killed a lot of deer.

 

[PistolPete]

Do you think it is mainly due to the trigger, or is it just the overall platform that is causing the variability?

As to the comment that you need to limit the shot to head or spine (not the quoted part from the OP), clearly you haven't killed a lot of deer.

I'm not sure. I got the trigger cleaned up nicely, so it's kind of a mystery. The barrel appears to be made well also. Will keep playing with it.

 

[Tom-D]

This is pretty cool but i cant help but think it would be easier to just down load a 223

 

[Unckebob]

The OP specified a velocity range which means he is considering distance. There has been a lot of discussion on Rokslide about kinetic energy and bullet diameter with respect to killing efficiency. I get that there is a mathematical formula, but neither is a direct correlation to wound channel volume. The pictures above are evidence of that. There are plenty of 30-35 cal bullet and cartridge combos that would have resulted in smaller wound channels. What matters is bullet construction and whether or not that bullet is within the velocity range needed for the bullet to upset or fragment on impact. Would a 22 hornet be my first choice for deer hunting in the west? No, but the photos show what it can do with the right bullet at reasonable distances.

Edit: Reading comprehension moment… The photos cited above were not from a 22 hornet and I have no personal experience with the hornet.

The velocity range is only important because it is a huge factor in making sure there is enough energy to allow the bullet to perform.

At some point, it is irresponsible to hunt game with bullets that are very small going at marginal speed. The animals are precious and should not be wasted because the hunter does not want to use the proper tool for the job.

OP should just use a .223 or something faster.

 

[ElPollo]

The velocity range is only important because it is a huge factor in making sure there is enough energy to allow the bullet to perform.

This is factually incorrect. Energy has nothing to do with bullet performance or the production of wound channels. That has been well covered in multiple rokslide threads. Two bullets can have the same energy and produce markedly different wound channels. And two bullets of the same construction in different weights or calibers will produce markedly different energies, but may require the same velocity to upset or fragment.

At some point, it is irresponsible to hunt game with bullets that are very small going at marginal speed. The animals are precious and should not be wasted because the hunter does not want to use the proper tool for the job.

On the 22 Hornet, I don’t think anyone here is promoting it as a big game cartridge. But with the right bullet and under the right conditions (i.e. distance and shot selection limitations), I would be confident that it would cleanly and humanely kill deer. What that means is optimizing your bullet construction and impact velocity to produce a wound channel of sufficient depth and diameter to kill a deer.

So how exactly does that sound irresponsible to you? Honestly, I know a lot of people who think they are being responsible by arming themselves with guns they cannot accurately shoot that also fire bullets that are specifically designed to minimize wounding potential. Does that sound irresponsible to you? My definition of a responsible hunter is someone who puts in the time to make sure their equipment and ammunition is well chosen for the game, that it is functional and dependable, that they have practiced with that equipment to be able to use it well and understand its limitations, and that they stay within those limitations. What is your definition?

 

[Unckebob]

This is factually incorrect. Energy has nothing to do with bullet performance or the production of wound channels. That has been well covered in multiple rokslide threads. Two bullets can have the same energy and produce markedly different wound channels. And two bullets of the same construction in different weights or calibers will produce markedly different energies, but may require the same velocity to upset or fragment.




On the 22 Hornet, I don’t think anyone here is promoting it as a big game cartridge. But with the right bullet and under the right conditions (i.e. distance and shot selection limitations), I would be confident that it would cleanly and humanely kill deer. What that means is optimizing your bullet construction and impact velocity to produce a wound channel of sufficient depth and diameter to kill a deer.

So how exactly does that sound irresponsible to you? Honestly, I know a lot of people who think they are being responsible by arming themselves with guns they cannot accurately shoot that also fire bullets that are specifically designed to minimize wounding potential. Does that sound irresponsible to you? My definition of a responsible hunter is someone who puts in the time to make sure their equipment and ammunition is well chosen for the game, that it is functional and dependable, that they have practiced with that equipment to be able to use it well and understand its limitations, and that they stay within those limitations. What is your definition?

You entirely missed the point off my post. I did not state anyone needs a 300PRC (which they cannot shoot accurately) to kill a deer or elk.

My point was targeted at the various 22 caliber available to hunters.

With the exact same bullet:
- The 223 is objectively better than the 22 Hornet.
- The 22-250 and 22CM are objectively better than a 22 Hornet.

I have shot a 223 plenty of times. It barely kicks at all.
I have not shot the 22-250 or 22CM, but they are not known for their massive recoil.

If some cannot accurately shoot a rifle with any of those three cartridges because of recoil, they probably cannot shoot a 22 Hornet effectively either.

 

[ElPollo]

You entirely missed the point off my post. I did not state anyone needs a 300PRC (which they cannot shoot accurately) to kill a deer or elk.

My point was targeted at the various 22 caliber available to hunters.

With the exact same bullet:
- The 223 is objectively better than the 22 Hornet.
- The 22-250 and 22CM are objectively better than a 22 Hornet.

I have shot a 223 plenty of times. It barely kicks at all.
I have not shot the 22-250 or 22CM, but they are not known for their massive recoil.

If some cannot accurately shoot a rifle with any of those three cartridges because of recoil, they probably cannot shoot a 22 Hornet effectively either.

First, I want to start by saying that I am not trying to be argumentative here. And saying something is incorrect is not intended as a personal insult.

Now, I did get your point, and I disagreed with it. I stated that neither I nor any of the others were advocating for the use of 22 Hornet as a big game rifle. But my point (which I believe you didn’t understand) was about how we determine what is “objectively better”. The head stamp on the brass has little if anything to do with that. It’s about bullet construction and speed. A 22 CM with a Sierra match king is not objectively better than a 223 with a Sierra tipped match king. The bullet construction on the former often results in FMJ performance despite the fact that it’s a hollow point going at blistering speeds. While the slower 223 with the TMK will generally result in a hole through the vitals that is bigger than your fist at speeds even below 1800 fps. Therefore your statement that a given cartridge is objectively better is categorically incorrect. It is dogma that the firearms industry has spread for decades. As is the idea that a perfect mushroom with high weight retention is ideal bullet performance for hunting.

I know that your intentions are good. I know that you consider yourself to be an ethical hunter and that you wouldn’t be saying these things if you didn’t care about other hunters and wildlife. And I also know that getting into the details about how bullets destroy tissue with anyone is complicated. But it is also ethical to evaluate the things we think we know are “objectively better” and sometimes the answers aren’t what we expect.

 

[ztc92]

…The head stamp on the brass has little if anything to do with that. It’s about bullet construction and speed. A 22 CM with a Sierra match king is not objectively better than a 223 with a Sierra tipped match king. The bullet construction on the former often results in FMJ performance despite the fact that it’s a hollow point going at blistering speeds. While the slower 223 with the TMK will generally result in a hole through the vitals that is bigger than your fist at speeds even below 1800 fps. Therefore your statement that a given cartridge is objectively better is categorically incorrect. It is dogma that the firearms industry has spread for decades. As is the idea that a perfect mushroom with high weight retention is ideal bullet performance for hunting.

Wanted to highlight the idea behind the bold part for anyone following along, which I first truly understood when someone challenged me on why I would want to buy a 7-mag rather than a 7-08. At that time I thought the magnum was just objectively better but assuming the same bullet is used, the 7-08 at 0 yards is roughly the same as a 7-mag at about 200 yards based on the bullets velocity.

to illustrate this idea with 223 vs 22 hornet, I used shooter with a pre-built 60 grain bullet. Assuming the 223 is 3100 FPS and the hornet is 2300 FPS (as reported earlier with 60 TMK), the data is below. Basically the hornet at 0 yards is the 223 at ~250 yards. So if you beleive the 223 is good with that bullet out to 400 yards (the point where it reaches expansion velocity of 1800 FPS) then you also have to believe the hornet with the same bullet is good to ~175 yards, which is the point where it reaches 1800 FPS.

I hope that makes sense, it was quite a lightbulb moment for me when this finally clicked and I understood the concept of expansion velocity relative to various calibers with the same bore diameter.

 

[Formidilosus]

You entirely missed the point off my post. I did not state anyone needs a 300PRC (which they cannot shoot accurately) to kill a deer or elk.

My point was targeted at the various 22 caliber available to hunters.

With the exact same bullet:
- The 223 is objectively better than the 22 Hornet.
- The 22-250 and 22CM are objectively better than a 22 Hornet.

I have shot a 223 plenty of times. It barely kicks at all.
I have not shot the 22-250 or 22CM, but they are not known for their massive recoil.

If some cannot accurately shoot a rifle with any of those three cartridges because of recoil, they probably cannot shoot a 22 Hornet effectively either.

The reason I will use a 22 Hornet with good bullets is because the 223 with good bullets does too much tissue damage for food deer and antelope. I do not want to neuter the 223 by using a less than optimum bullet so that it damages less meat. I would rather go to a smaller cartridge and use a bullet that is optimized at those speeds.

A 60gr TMK above 1,800fps is going to create very good wounds and kill fine.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Form 5:56

“So do not fear the effects of the TMK, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your projectile. I will strengthen you and help you notch tags; no matter the cartridge, no matter the primer, I will perform with my righteous polymer tip and thin jacket. The steadfast penetration of the TMK never ceases; its mercies never come to an end above 1,800 fps.”

 

[Tom-D]

The reason I will use a 22 Hornet with good bullets is because the 223 with good bullets does too much tissue damage for food deer and antelope. I do not want to neuter the 223 by using a less than optimum bullet so that it damages less meat. I would rather go to a smaller cartridge and use a bullet that is optimized at those speeds.

A 60gr TMK above 1,800fps is going to create very good wounds and kill fine.

Can i ask what cartridge you would pick for small deer only with a maximum shot distance of 150 yards would you go even smaller than the hornet? Iv been using a 22 mag on some small properties i hunt but restrict myself to shoot head shots only, wondering if i should try a vitals shot

 

[Formidilosus]

Can i ask what cartridge you would pick for small deer only with a maximum shot distance of 150 yards would you go even smaller than the hornet? Iv been using a 22 mag on some small properties i hunt but restrict myself to shoot head shots only, wondering if i should try a vitals shot

The 22 mag doesn’t get the velocity to create secondary wounding effects. Of what’s commonly available, 22 Hornet, 221 fireball, and 5.7x28 with certain bullets are about as low as one can go.

 

[Billy Goat]

@PistolPete when playing with that load of Lil gun, put some rounds in a freezer, then let a few sit in the sun.


My experience with Lil gun wasn't great. I'm assuming you have used it a fair amount with pistols, but it can be sensitive.

Nice thing is, right now is when you will go over pressure, but you might see more swing than you expect in a rifle with it.

 

[JBradley500]

If you could get enough tissue damage from the optimal bullets, 221 Fireball is quite a cool little cartridge. I'm just not sure if there's enough/anything gained vs 223. Maybe if there was an ultra micro action or something along those lines.

 

[kyguylal]

Plenty of people in NH use 223 for deer and bear. 22 hornet should be fine.

 

[HandgunHTR]

If you could get enough tissue damage from the optimal bullets, 221 Fireball is quite a cool little cartridge. I'm just not sure if there's enough/anything gained vs 223. Maybe if there was an ultra micro action or something along those lines.

I have taken a couple of GA whitetails with an XP-100 chambered in 221 Fireball. 55gr SPs did just fine.

 

[StupidLightweight]

I'm just not sure if there's enough/anything gained vs 223. Maybe if there was an ultra micro action or something along those lines.

Precisely. I don’t see an advantage in going below .223 when intentionally hunting deer.

Actions don’t get much smaller.

Recoil doesn’t drop off enough to matter.

Weight? You can’t beat a straight-pull AR build for the lightest of light. Even the Stowaway 5.7 is porky compared to these builds.

The last thing I never thought of before was meat damage. If a cup and core bullet ruins too much damage, shoot a mono. Problem solved.

 

[BigNate]

I know my friends uncle uses a TAC 20, (earlier wildcat became 204 Ruger basically) with great success.

I worked on a ranch in my teen years and met an old woman that was in her 90s which made the early 1900s her formidable years. She habitually shot everything with an old Winchester in 22 Hornet. I have no idea when she started using it, but she said she shot it off the horse because the horse didn't flinch. She'd ride within good shooting range, pick one out and shoot the lungs. She'd ride off a bit and watch. She said most of the time they'd either not run or not go far. She took elk the same way.

Does this make a Hornet a big game rifle? It seems to, for her, in those circumstances.
Her husband bought her a "big" rifle. He said she was a Crack shot with it as well, but she'd dismount to shoot it. It was a 257 Roberts.

 

[PistolPete]

Precisely. I don’t see an advantage in going below .223 when intentionally hunting deer.

Actions don’t get much smaller.

Recoil doesn’t drop off enough to matter.

Weight? You can’t beat a straight-pull AR build for the lightest of light. Even the Stowaway 5.7 is porky compared to these builds.

The last thing I never thought of before was meat damage. If a cup and core bullet ruins too much damage, shoot a mono. Problem solved.

You're correct, of course. And maybe it's nitpicking, but, many of the same things that make the RSS 223 so great for elk to ~400 yards, over larger calibers, could likely be said for the 22 Hornet on deer to 200 yards over a 223. The idea of using the smallest ethical cartridge, with a bullet maximizing its performance, still makes sense to me here.

My kids, even my 5-year-old, LOVE shooting the 5.7, but 223 recoil is definitely notable in a 3-lb rifle - I wouldn't let 3/4 of them shoot that just yet. And the Stowaway is much cheaper and more compact than the straight pull 223 (which are also great, and I have one).

I absolutely agree that this is a very niche use case, and that I'm on the fringes (in more ways than one; ask my wife)

 

[StupidLightweight]

I look forward to hearing how it works out. Good luck this fall Hornetizing a few deer!