(Apostle of Humility)

Sun Jan 27 2008 08:02 AM

17 remington on fox

Hello everyone. I have been browsing this forum for quite some time and just recently registerd as a user and now this is my first post, so please be gentle! My question revolves around the 17 remington for red fox. I bought the 17 remington because, from what I have been reading, I thought it would be a great 2-for-1 gun, coyote and red fox. Where we hunt in Central PA, we shoot mostly red fox, but will sometimes run into a coyote. If we JUST had red fox, I would use the 17 HMR, but I am not comfortable with that caliber on coyote (I know this is a hot topic, but this is my opinion only). My shots in this area are mostly under 100 yards (occasionally we will need to reach out to 150) and we only hunt at night, so all shots are head shots. I purchased the 17 remington 2 weeks ago and worked up several loads using the 25 gr Berger match bullets using IMR4895, remington brass, and Rem 7 1/2 primers. I settled on 22.9 gr of IMR4895 with a COAL of 2.215. Well, last night we went out and I had an opportunity to take a red with the new rifle. I have to tell you, I was disappointed. The male red was 89 paces away when I shot. The shot went exactly where I aimed, just below the glowing eyes. The problem is, it just blew the face off of this fox and it did not die. Granted, it did not move from where it was standing after the shot, but we had to finish it off when we got up to it. I was honestly shocked that the bullet did not penetrate to the neck of the fox and kill it dead. Is my disappointment valid? I have shot 2 other fox with the 17 HMR (about the same distance) in the same place (just below the eyes) and they were dead before we got to them with only a tiny entry hole just above the nose. Is there something wrong with my load or am I simply expecting the impossible with the 17 remington? It seems like I need more penetration since I will be shooting through bone when I shoot them in the head. I was not dissapointed about the damage to the face, it was the fact that the bullet did not penetrate to the neck or head to kill the fox.
I apologize for the long first post. If anyone has any suggestions on a bullet that may penetrate better or a load that my do what I think it should do, that would be great. Or if I am simply out of my mind and the load performed as it should, please do not hesitate to let me know that as well. Thank in advance for you replies.

(Disciple)

Sun Jan 27 2008 08:51 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Don't you think there's something wrong when a bullet thats 8grs heavier and going 1400fps faster than the HMR doesn't get the same penatration? The HMR bullet is flemsey at best compared to the Berger. If you read the posts on this site you have to realize that 90% of the shots taken here are frontal(as in chest area)or behind the shoulder. You will also hear of the "splash" wounds when that Berger hits solid bone. Are you sure you hit the same spot as always?
I'm sure someone else will chime in here, but these are my observations.
I hope you find the answer you'er looking for, because the 17 Rem beats the HMR hands down, no question.
Good Luck

Tim

John-Henry Administrator

Administrator

(King Hell Dictator)

Sun Jan 27 2008 09:50 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Col. Charles Askins, writing about African game and heavy bullets and cartridges, once observed that,

Quote:

"Every bullet/animal interaction is a singular event."

That's patently NOT true for the 25 gr. Berger Match and the .17 Remington, which produces the most monotonously consistent bullet/animal interaction that I've ever seen, but the possibility is always there that something hinky will happen, and it sounds to me as though that's exactly what happened to you.

I've avoided head shots on coyotes ever since I've been shooting coyotes, because the head (in contrast to the chest) is a pretty mobile target, and bad things can and do happen if the coyote decides to move his head as you're breaking the sear, but the coyotes that I have shot in the head normally have a fragmented cranium that's only held together by the scalp, and they go from alive to dead very very quickly.

Shoot a dozen foxes with that rifle and load with the same bullet placement and I'd venture to say that you'll discover that particular instance was a fluke; I'm pretty sure that your "normal" result will be a shattered skull and a dead fox, although if you do have something undesirable happen without the head moving it'll most likely be an exit and a large part of the skull missing.

John-Henry

Administrator

(Administrator / Grand Ayatollah)

Sun Jan 27 2008 10:29 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi,

I know you wrote that your load used the 25gr Berger Match but are you sure that they were not MEF (Maximum Expansion Factor) varmint bullets? If they are that would explain the performance. They have a much lighter jacket designed to explode a 2lb Prairie dog.

(Apostle of Humility)

Sun Jan 27 2008 04:09 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Guys,
Thanks for all of your replies. Tim, I agree 1,000% with everything you said. Hence my confusion with the result of the shot. Let me explain. I know the 17 Remington is bar none superior to the HMR as far as performance. I also have read many times about the shots that are mostly taken on coyotes by users of this site and the occasional "splash" if bone is hit. I guess my confusion comes in when I compare the shoulder bone of a coyote to the bridge of the nose of a red fox. I simply did not think that shooting a fox just above the nose would produce the aforementioned "splash" affect as it would as if hitting the shoulder bone of a coyote. This may very will be simply a product of my inexperience in the anatomy of both of these animals. With all of this said, after re-reading my original post, the more specific question I should have stated was "For the type of hunting that I will be doing and after my experience last night, is the 25 gr. Berger Match bullet the best choice?" I also agree with John-Henry when he reminds me that I am reacting to just one result. I need to do futher field testing before I make a final decision. Thank you John-Henry for pointing that out. And yes, I am using the Berger Match HP bullets and not the MEF varmint bullet.
Again, thank you all for your replies. This is why I visit this site every day and look forward to the information it provides.

(Whirling Dervish)

Sun Jan 27 2008 06:03 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

If you are going to shoot fox in the head you need to aim for an eye or between the eyes. Or wait for fox to turn his head some and shoot in the ear. To me it sounds like youre shot was low and you caught the fox in the nose area. Most don't go far when hit there, but do require a follow up shot.. T.A.

(Dervish)

Sun Jan 27 2008 07:43 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

VJ,
One of the reasons that you (and I) come to this board, and hold it in such high esteem, is that the inhabitants here are do'ers, not talkers. Which is to say, their words are strong because they have spent countless hours in the field seeing what works, and what doesn't work. They are not spouting theory, but are reciting experience...lots and lots of experiences. That's what gives them their great credibility.

So what I would suggest is, emulate them! Take your .17 Remington, and go out calling, and keep using it, and after a while come back and tell us what your experiences are. These guys are a good crew. They can be a little rough around the edges sometimes, and don't suffer fools gladly, but I think that I can safely say that they both respect someone who is earnestly trying, and are generous with their knowledge and wisdom with those who seek it.

We will eagerly await a later report. And good hunting!

(Whirling Dervish)

Tue Feb 05 2008 11:31 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi,
As shooting foxes is my only quarry, I can tell you, that a hit in the mouth of a fox, will result in massive damage and not always a kill. Our foxes are generally much bigger than yours, and as a general rule I never shoot into a foxes head, that’s nothing to do with trophy or pelt care, it is because an animal can move its head 8 times faster, than it can move its shoulders.

I have been building my own loads since 1998 for the .17, and can tell you as will everyone here, that when it is right it is darn right. You quote the powder as IMR 4895 and load to 22.9grns, this is where I took real notice, because you don’t say what speed you are achieving with this load? I have dug into my records and found entries from July 2004, it shows 4895 at 22.5grns running at 3,623fps with the 25grn pill. Now even taking into account the temperature difference between countries, this is too slow! Nothing will induce a splash better, than a slow moving bullet, without enough speed to penetrate.

The speed quote for this bullet is 4,040fps, I settle around the 3,900’s with the 25grn head, they go down and stay down, that is hot enough for me and barrels last longer. I personally don’t reload without chronograph evidence of performance.

(Disciple)

Tue Feb 05 2008 04:40 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

"Nothing will induce splash quicker than a slow moving bullet"
Au contraire!

(Whirling Dervish)

Wed Feb 06 2008 02:19 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

on contrary: used to suggest that the opposite is really the case.

Can you expand why the opposite is really the case with the .17 cal? It would be of great help to VarmintJoe and myself to be put on the right tracks here.

(Apostle of Humility)

Wed Feb 06 2008 07:24 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Dr. Fox,

Unfortunately, I do not have chrono data for the load I listed. I will tell you that it is being shot out of a Remington 700 VS with 26" heavy barrel. I will only be going out one more night before the season ends here in PA, so I plan on doing a lot more testing over the remaining winter and summer months (which will include chrono data). As for your understanding that a slow bullet results in a greater chance of splash, I must tell you that I always thought the opposite, that the faster the bullet the greater chance of splash. I may be wrong and hopefully someone can chime in with better information. To be honest, I have always reloaded for accuracy in my 7mm mag and did not pay a whole lot attention to speed of the bullet. As long as there were no pressure issues with the load, I went with what shot best out of the rifle. It appears as though I will need to pay more attention to this issue when loading the 17 rem for my intended use of fox hunting. Please understand that I am new to predator hunting and still have a lot to learn. Thanks for your replies and I look forward to all your help!!

(Disciple)

Wed Feb 06 2008 07:33 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

The faster a bullet is going regardless of caliber the more resistance it encounters. Pentration is reduced and the bullet breaks up faster than if it was going at a reduced velocity. Basically the deformation of a bullet regardless of it's construction is what impedes penetration. Speed only accelerates bullet deformation. Thats why a hunting ballistic tip type bullet work great say out of a .30-06 Springfield at 100yds. and why it may fail to penetrate as deeply out of a .30-.378 Weatherby at the same yardage.

(Whirling Dervish)

Wed Feb 06 2008 11:04 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Many thanks for your reply, constructive discussion is always a benefit to all, in my posting the references were to the .17 Rem. I have always regarded the 17 as a different beast to other calibres, due to its velocity and barrel twist, both these criteria are needed for this bullet to perform as designed.
The total sum of 25grns in a bullet head is tiny in comparison to the bullet weights you compare in your reply. It also is the key as how the 17 works, it kills by hydrostatic shock – the violent expansion of an animal’s body fluids and tissues, when struck by this extremely fast bullet. Bullet velocity alone isn’t responsible for hydrostatic shock. Rotational speed of the bullet is a contributing factor. In a barrel with a twist of say 1-10, a bullet moving at 3,500fps rotates far more rapidly than one at 2,500fps.
The Rem 17 has a quoted speed of 4,040fps out of a barrel with a 1-9 twist compare this to your quoted calibres and there is a noticeable difference. Should you not achieve velocity in these small bullets, you will also lose rotational energy, and as a consequence penetration will suffer.
Any member of this board will tell you, a 17 bullet properly constructed will enter, will not exit, and will destroy itself inside fox. The only exception to this is when the round is giving away velocity, and massive entry wounds result. I have just cured a friends 204cal Ruger of the very problem, he was blowing legs off foxes and several were not killed. A quick chrono showed he was not achieving, any where near expectations for this bullet. A few reloads later, more speed, and he tells me his foxes are dead and unmarked.

(Disciple)

Wed Feb 06 2008 05:26 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

O.K. first the weight or the caliber of the bullet has nothing to do with it. Or the bullet construction has no bearing on anything. I'll start over. One 25 gr. Berger match bullet going 3600 fps., one Berger match bullet going 4,000 fps. The one going faster is always going to deform faster resulting in less penetration. Also a bullets axial rotation IMHO probably is not that important to energy or killing power. I have seen spin rates of 3/4 of a million revolutions a minute bandied about. While true remember that is one revolution in nine inches. How thick is a coyote. I know I have sited no references here, but I can if no others back me up.

Administrator

(Administrator)

Wed Feb 06 2008 06:01 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

I understand what Dr Fox is saying and it does make sense. It's not penetration per se, as in the bullet isn't entering the animal deeper and then fragmenting, but rather the bullet is only fragmenting properly corresponding with the bullet design and target animal at specific velocities.

I'm running a slow .17 MachIV. I've gotten many more coyotes that have done the spin dance than when I was using a .17 rem at higher velocity. Both chamberings can do the same it's just how these are particularly loaded. There is a sweet spot with these little pills. Too slow and they don't have that 'bang flop' feature.

Which is where those 30gr bullets likely come in handy. Not only the higher BC, but also that wee bit more energy that can be deposited as the bullets is slowed down by longer ranges.

With these tiny bullets it's really a game of inches. If a bullet penetrates 1/4-1/2 and directs it's disintegration forward no more than 3", then that's a dead coyote and likely little to no fur damage. It has to have enough energy as it comes apart to not be directed back towards the entrance, but not so much that it will travel out the other side.

(Disciple)

Wed Feb 06 2008 07:35 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Mark I understand Dr. Fox to be saying faster bullet means less splash. He seems to be saying an addition 400 fps. will get the bullet deeper before it explodes meaning no big hole going in. To me that theory goes against every thing I have ever read. I just don't understand how speeding a bullet up will cut down on the splash effect. I agree with you that an extra 400 fps. might give more bang flops. I have been shooting my 18 1/2 inch barrel running bullets at 3600-3700 fps. Never ever had a splash with Berger match hp's. I can say that I have mostly bang flops and a few biting at the side. I never had a runner yet on a good frontal chest or broadside shot at the slower velocity I am getting. If I never get a splash I don't see why anyone else would unless a batch of bullets were bad. I don't think the .17 Rem. is more magical than anything else. I don't think it's bullets do stuff that a scaled up caliber won't do at the same velocities.

Several years ago someone linked to the site below. I think it explains this topic well and is where most of my understanding of this topic comes from. "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories"

Administrator

(Administrator)

Wed Feb 06 2008 08:23 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

bw,

I think everyone is right on this one. At least how I read it. Just looking from various directions. I don't pretend to understand all of the physics behind it, but what you're saying is correct as far as I understand things. My experience says that velocity does effect things like Dr. Fox is saying as well. There is some scientific explanation, but damned if I know it.

I don't think the trick is with penetration versus splash, but rather as John-Henry eluded to that if you send X projectile at Y speed into Z animal the result is relatively predictable. At least as much as the Red Gods allow.

John-Henry Administrator

Administrator

(King Hell Dictator)

Wed Feb 06 2008 09:28 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Quote:

I don't think the .17 Rem. is more magical than anything else. I don't think it's bullets do stuff that a scaled up caliber won't do at the same velocities.

Then why aren't the results comparable to anything else? I hacked my way through "Shooting holes in wounding theories," and I didn't see much of anything to support what you're saying except part of the discussion on page IV that references an article by Gary Sciuchetti on penetration tests, and declares that,

Quote:

Perhaps the most striking observation from this penetration data is that increasing velocity has a detrimental effect on nearly all bullets over the entire velocity range of interest. This result surprised me because, while I knew from anecdotal evidence that very high velocities caused even heavy jacketed bullets to fragment or overexpand, I expected that this falloff in penetration performance would only occur at velocities above 2800 fps and, that for any given design, there would be a peak in the penetration performance curve (somewhere in the middle 2000s fps), with diminishing penetration following diminishing velocity. In fact, what is observed is that penetration reaches a limiting value rather quickly at the lowest velocity the bullet will deform (a couple of extremely hard designs have an abrupt step function behavior) and that penetration tends to deteriorate steadily at all higher velocities. The very best performers are those (e.g., the Barnes X-Bullet and Nosler Partition) which exhibit essentially constant penetration over the entire range of interest.

Most of us that have fooled with the .17's for a while have seen bullet "splash" that we attributed to "overdriving" the bullet, but in my personal experience that was largely confined to a monstrosity of a rifle that was sporting a tube near 30" and driving a Berger at gawd-knows-what speeds.

I don't pretend to understand in any empirical sense why a 25 gr. Berger Match at .17 Remington velocities does what it does, but there IS in fact some magic going on there compared to anything else that I've ever seen. For some reason or other the bullet penetrates a monotonous few inches and vanishes, accompanied by massive tissue destruction, and it does it again and again and again.

Whether that's a direct result of speed or rotational velocity (Shaun's opinion, among others) or caliber or a combination of all of those things or some altogether different mechanism I don't know, but literally thousands of dead coyotes don't lie. I often tell people that Blaine Eddy and I went to different High Schools together, and Blaine will tell you the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons; he's seen a few thousand coyotes of his own shot with the Berger Match and the .17 centerfires, and it never seems to vary in any meaningful sense.

I'm content to chalk it up to magic, not being a firm empiricist in many ways anyhow; maybe some day someone will quantify it mathematically, but I can tell you that it's real.

John-Henry

(Whirling Dervish)

Wed Feb 06 2008 09:43 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Here is a little tid-bit for you to think about. A friend is useing a 221 F.B with 50 gr. ballistic tips. The bullets are comeing out of barrel around 3000 F.P.S. So far a hand full of coyotes and 3-4 cats have been shot with this cal. Every coyote and cat had a splash entrance hole. Now another friend is useing a 243 with 58 gr. V-max and he was getting very little fur damage with his loads so i chrono'ed them to see how fast they came out. The load was suppose to be comeing out around 3650-3700, but the chrono showed only 3500 and this was with 25 degree temps. So in one cal. the low vel. bullet was badd where in the 243 the lower vel. was actually better for the hides.
On another note i was shooting fox with my fire form loads which are putting out 36-3700 fps in my 17 pred. with 25 degree temps and a 30 gr. bullet. Fur damage was very little to none on the fox. And i do know from exsperiance a 17 rem with 25 gr. bullets going 4000 can tear up the fox.

(Whirling Dervish)

Thu Feb 07 2008 03:00 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi all,
I still can’t get any comfort from comparisons to the 17 Rem and other calibres, and bullet types. It stands alone; it doesn’t borrow from other standards. This cartridge has been around since 1971 and the 17-223 before it.

The Australians went ga-ga on this rifle for the fox fur trade, and nowhere has it been more popular then there. Why I ask? Because it was designed to be specific, with a cartridge and barrel delivering, high velocity, flat trajectory and predictable results on fur.

Remington’s data for this cartridge is 4,040fps, in a lab pressure gun perhaps! I have had several 17’s in the shop, and none of them have strayed far from 3,900 with factory ammo. That said, thousands of shooters have used factory ammo and earned thousands of $. My purpose in home loads, was to emulate the factory round to achieve the same effects. This where I am now, and 600 plus foxes are not here to testify.

I don’t say that 400fps extra will get the bullet deeper, in my crazy way I am saying the loss of that 400fps takes you out of the design criteria for this rifle, velocity + rotation = hydro static shock. Starting a 25grn bullet at 3,600-3,700fps does not work for me! At 3,900fps at muzzle, I get 3,390fps at 100yds and at 200 its 2,781fps, at this point there is a stored energy of 429ft/lb, c’mon that’s not bad for a 25 grn bullet.

All I can rely on is what works for me, what works for you is fine too! My reason is this, the effect of the kill is not at the muzzle, it is out a long way from you, you are asking a 25grain projectile to reach and kill out to 300yds. A tremendous amount of pressure is required, to propel a light projectile a long way! The design is spot on for this calibre, deviate from that and the results are unpredictable.

(Mouse Dipper)

Thu Feb 07 2008 07:16 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Dr. Fox,

Your logic only works if you shoot every fox at 2 feet in front of your muzzle. The .17 remington with a 25 gr. Berger varmint/match bullet will kill foxes at 25 yards or 300 yards with equal efficiency.

Certainly the velocity will be less at 300 yards than at 25, but the fox can't tell the difference.

I sight my guns dead on at 50 yards and they are again dead on at 200 yards. About 6 or 7 inches down at 300 yards. Shot some groups yesterday in about a 10 mile an hour cross wind. The bullets impacted in a little 7/8" group about 1 and a half inches to the right of the bull.

Should work for you as well but then again just my humble opinion. However (comma) I feel that most of the .17 lovers on this board would agree with most of what I said.

Dave

(Whirling Dervish)

Fri Feb 08 2008 12:23 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi Dave,

Can I be bold to suggest you have missed my ramblings here, I do not make any assertions to "point of aim", my thread was on initial velocities! But at to your impact point being true for 150yds, it would be of intrest to know what your initial velocity is? Flat trajectory is the result of high velocity.

(Mouse Dipper)

Fri Feb 08 2008 07:18 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Dr. Fox,

I do not own a chronograph. My friend has one and I have tried some of my loads. 20 grainers at about 4170 fps and 25 grainers at about 3920. 30 grainers at around 3700. this is out of 24" barrel. My favorite load is 21.8 gr. H-322 with 25 grain Berger match/varmint bullet. I am not particularly a good shot but have shot 5 shot group at .290" most hover at around one half to three quarters.

Dave

(Whirling Dervish)

Fri Feb 08 2008 09:09 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi again Dave,

Thanks for your considered reply, it bears out the fact, that you rifle is holding aim points, because of the initial velocity of 3,920fps, this is what floats my boat, as a result of velocity the ‘magic’ of the 17 Rem becomes a reality.

I would like to thank you all, for you patience, understanding and valued input, not only for me but also for VarmintJoe who’s question it was. Before I go I am a firm believer that: A truth no matter how old is still a truth! And to this end I offer a quote which guided me back in 1999 and my new Rem 17. Sorry no prize for guessing the author. Take care.

Quote.

“Once you’ve set up with your camo and managed to call a coyote, the next item on the agenda is to kill him. This can take some doing, for more than one reason, but it sure helps to have a properly set up rifle in an appropriate calibre. Vic and I are sold on the .17 Remington, and haven’t used anything else on coyotes for the past several seasons. The little bullets at hellacious velocities are everything that Roy Weatherby preached, and they usually kill a coyote so quick and so dead that you have to see it to believe it. The other wonderful thing about the .17 Rem is that it almost never exits, and if you are skinning fur that is a major selling point, at least if you sew like I do”

Unquote.

(Mouse Dipper)

Fri Feb 08 2008 08:33 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Dr. Fox

That quote was inspiring. It could come from only one source. That had to be the original King Hell Dictator, The coyote God himownself, None other than John-Henry. "What do I win"????

Dave

(Apostle of Humility)

Sun Feb 10 2008 09:53 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hey guys! I have been following this post since I started it and appreciate all of the input. I wanted to give you all an update from my final night out of the season. We were able to score on one more fox this season with the 17 remington. And the result, in my opinion, was much better. The shot was dead between the eyes with a very small entry hole (hardly noticeable) and no exit. I was very pleased. Now, the head of the fox was absolutely mush. I mean the skull was pulverized under the skin. The shot was about 70 yards. So now I have killed two fox with the 17 remington with two different results due to two different shot placements. I will continue to work with this next season and will continue to browse this site and learn as much as I possibly can. Thanks again for all of your help!! Have a great off season!

Ken (Catskin) Administrator

Administrator

(Universal Rabbi of the House)

Sun Feb 10 2008 10:32 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

I do not think you will be happy taking only head shots on fox or coyotes with the 17. The result you stated in your first post seems to be typical in my experience. I've had that small bullet break apart one the front teeth and not reach the back of the throat also - only broke one tooth then turned to dust. It did knock the coyote cold so ten minutes later a second shoot was needed.

Perhaps a heavier bullet would help - maybe the 30gr golds - I've never tried them on facing head shoots....

Keep us updated on your progress. BTW - From the photos I've seen - those UK fox look like they are about the size of SW US coyotes - huge compared to the red fox I remember from the east coast of the US.

(Dervish)

Sun Feb 10 2008 12:08 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Ive always used 25 gn Hornadys on our Fox (European) and always head shot. The results are most often a mushy head as VarmintJoe experienced.
The reason I used Hornady was due to it being the only readily available bullet. I headshoot because thats what Id been taught , and I do like the instant kill, but we shoot mostly under a spotlight which does seem to hold the Fox's attention in most cases , so quick head movements are not as much of a problem compared to calling (Id imagine).
I have tried 25gn Berger Match , but found accuracy a problem in my rifle , but I plan to try them some more and go for chest shots where possible. Input from the guys here has led me to think this is the way to go , and if I were VarmintJoe , thats what Id do.

CLEM

(Whirling Dervish)

Wed Feb 13 2008 02:45 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi all,
On fox size, I have already said our fox is a bigger species of animal, but ‘how big, is Big?’ I will illustrate that statement, with sizes and images of the typical foxes in my part of the UK. This will allow you to make comparisons to the native species you have there.

I am in one of my busy times, with sheep lambing and foxes coming to supper! I will pop the camera and a measure in my pocket, and send some images for you all to browse.

(Arch Deacon)

Wed Feb 13 2008 09:59 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

I've tried four different bullets in the .17Rem and the bullet was more of a factor than the speed (within reason of course). The Berger 25gr. works like J-H says, the rest don't.

(Dervish)

Sun Feb 24 2008 09:43 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

I got a load for the 17 from S Frame a while ago using 24.9 gr. of 4831 with a 25 gr.,which gives 3000 ft. per sec.This load fills the case to the top so slower speeds than 3000 can be achieved.In my rem. light varmint these slow loads are pinpoint accurate.I think 4831 makes the 17 rem. the ultimate fox gun.The 25 gr. pushing 4000 f.p.s. will totaly explode a foxs head all to often.

(Whirling Dervish)

Tue Feb 26 2008 03:44 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Well there you go, never to old to learn they say, and that now applies to me from your posting. 3,000fps from a Rem .17! I will have to try it, but I have to score knock downs, on point of aim at 250yds plus (English measurements) not sure I will achieve it at 3,000fps! There are many other rifle calibres adequate for the same task at that speed.

And 4831!! Now why would I choose a powder, so slow that I’m not sure my tiny tube will burn it completely, a powder designed, and used to hurl a 500grn bullet from a .460 Weatherby Magnum. I would much prefer to use recommended .17 powders and reduce charges to obtain 3,000fps if that’s where I am happy.

It scares me to use un-documented recipes when reloading, because it’s my face behind the bolt, and I don’t intend to start a new trend in facial piercing.

(Dervish)

Tue Feb 26 2008 07:00 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

All i can say is these loads shoot great for me. No excess pressure and tiny groups. The great thing is in my rem. 17 the point of impact is the same for both loads,so if your in open country shoot the fast loads. If your in woods or you can call a coyote in close use the slow loads. My interest in slowing the 17 down is for fox,and im sure a 300 yard fox wouldnt know what hit him .Fox are pretty fragile.It makes the 17 rem. very versitile as a fur gun. And remember I owe S. Frame for this load.Thanks again Mr. Frame.

(Whirling Dervish)

Wed Feb 27 2008 02:47 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Magic, you have got it worked out for you, that’s what it’s all about, horses for courses. Thanks for the insight.

(Arch Deacon)

Wed Feb 27 2008 12:09 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Doc,

22.3gr of RL15 torpedoed out my (cold) 20in. tube at a whopping 3200fps, may be a good fox load for some (was very accurate).

(Whirling Dervish)

Thu Feb 28 2008 05:58 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hilltop,

I cannot disagree that the .17’s accuracy when downloaded it is something to see, add to that, total loss of recoil, with in-flight entertainment in the scope, its all you could ask for. I have been there and got the T shirt, but my problem was the need for long range kills from one shot! I was just not getting out with accuracy, and stopping power with low velocity ammo, as soon as speed was up 3950fps, trajectory flattened (accuracy) and total penetration ( bang flop) was assured.

With a 100m p.o.i set at 1.25in, the hit is centre at 200m, for day shooting I can play with shot placement, but most of my work is at night, so the shot is into centre of mass. 200m plus at night is not unusual in my line of work, and the .17 Rem is the only rifle that is fit for my task, that’s why it’s the only centre fire I own!

The reference to your rifle was of interest, I use a 24in tube and doing comparisons to your 20in suggested you are not giving a lot away for a loss of 4ins. And I can imagine it’s a dandy to carry, and will be quick to aim.

(Arch Deacon)

Thu Feb 28 2008 06:30 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Doc,

Maybe those Wales reds are quicker than Joe Calzaghe or something; I guess I'm not understanding what your after. I night hunt and actually use a very hot load, not the one I posted (thought that might make a good fox load for someone since people seem to like those slow inny and outy scenarios on fox), and the results are good up close or far with correct shot placement. I don't head shoot unless it's a must, just the same old boiler room shot, night or day.
I guess the main difference would be distance, it's not hard to get them close in the day or night around here, when I say far, 200 yards at night would be far.

What makes it tough to close the gap on those reds in Wales, why are the shots so far, especially at night?

Oh, and the 20 incher is a Sako Vixen in .17/223 which I've managed 3890fps out of with half inch groups. The little baby is a dream to carry, although I don't use her much anymore since the value has been skyrocketing. John-Henry kind of indirectly convinced me to buy her and it was a damn good decision.

(Whirling Dervish)

Fri Feb 29 2008 09:02 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hilltop,
Hi, Like you I place the pill into the body, usually into shoulder or centre of chest, I have made my views on head shots in an earlier post. I can now see how I have not been too clear, as to why I am tuned into shooting long range. Let me try to put that right!

Our foxes are predators, and at this time of year their prey are new born lambs. The ewe does a pretty good job of fending off the fox, but when she has twins or even triplets it’s a no go, especially when two foxes team against her. So help is needed, this is where I fit in.

Here’s the picture: I arrive at night on foot and check out the field area, I could be looking at a flock of 200 to 300 sheep all in various stages of birthing. A scan with the light (fitted with a green filter) and I have to locate my fella by his eyes, try it when you have got 700 eyes looking back. He could be 20m or 250m away it’s the luck of the draw, now here’s the answer to you question, “ What makes it tough to close the gap on those reds in Wales, why are the shots so far, especially at night?”. If I enter the field area, the sheep will move away from me, it causes two problems, 1. The lambs could become separated from the mother, and if they don’t rejoin, those lambs will starve! 2. As the flock moves they could well startle the fox and he is outa there. A loss either way!

So I can’t get in, and he is not coming out! Time for the magic wand, the .17 Rem with its superb accuracy, I can thread that bullet through the flock, and put him down, the sheep don’t move and I will recover the fox the next day, or then if possible. You will I am sure agree, that my .17 is a specialist tool, and I have not found any other rifle that can do the same job. Last night there were two foxes working a few fields apart, same scenario as above but I was able to recover both, and as promised took some piccys for you all to view.

The pregnant vixen is shown against the .17 to give some scale, the dog fox was measured and was 3ft 8ins tip to nose, both foxes had a skull cap width of 5ins (English measure) fine pair of killers. Both unmarked, and in fine condition. The vixen was shot at 174m, the dog at 220m.

So as you can see my fox is on a mission and if not controlled will do immense damage. I hope this will give you an insight, as to where I am, in the scheme of things.
Doc.

(Whirling Dervish)

Fri Feb 29 2008 09:04 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

And

(Whirling Dervish)

Fri Feb 29 2008 09:05 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hang on I will get it right.
Doc

(Whirling Dervish)

Fri Feb 29 2008 09:07 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Head size

Ken (Catskin) Administrator

Administrator

(Universal Rabbi of the House)

Fri Feb 29 2008 12:46 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Big big big - like a TX coyote!

<g>

(Mountian Lion)

Fri Feb 29 2008 03:32 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Been following this thread with interest. I know there are some big foxes in that part of the world. I have a video here that was shot in the UK, England I think. Ken may have seen it when he visited here, don’t remember. Makes the little grays around my place look like pups!

(Arch Deacon)

Sat Mar 01 2008 07:09 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

I'm with Bob, these grays around here gotta stand twice to make a shadow, but then again we have coyotes to make up for it.

A couple more brainpickers Doc:

What can you tell me about the green filter versus the red filter?

And, honestly have you tried any calls or squeakers to divert the fox toward you, and what is there reaction in this senario?

Thanks.

(Whirling Dervish)

Sun Mar 02 2008 07:51 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Hi again Hilltop,

I have been asked about filters and the ‘green’ in particular, see what I’ve said, it’s in this index under “Best Remote Caller and Amber Lights”.

As regards calls, we don’t have a ‘season’ on foxes, it’s a control situation all year round, so calling has to fit with that time of year, i.e. summer evenings, mouse calls and also at this time rabbit distress calls can produce results. When the new foxes are first out of the earth, cub calls will gather cubs and adults to where you are set up. I have known folks use every type of call, no matter what the time of year, in the hope of getting a shot! This I have found causes more warning than attraction.

My idea of a call, is to work on the instincts that the four legged predator has, first the chance that he might have found a food source, second, the biggest cause of his demise curiosity, do you have the saying “curiosity killed the cat”, well its true, it sure does. All this preamble is to help me answer your question “have you tried any calls or squeakers to divert the fox toward you” when a fox is in ‘kill a lamb’ mode, any calling to get its attention, will only give cause for alarm, and alert him to my presence, the only call I think would work, would have to sound and smell like afterbirth!! (Look humour, I can be funny)

You should see some foxes amongst birthing sheep, I have had the light on them and waited until it suits me, many times they are totally unaware they are three steps from heaven. Give my regards to all east of the Pecos.

Doc.

(Arch Deacon)

Mon Mar 03 2008 06:41 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Ok Doc, good insight on the light filter; I was off the board for awhile and missed that thread. I have a friend of a friend who swears by the green filter on his LiteForce which is what prompted my inquiry into your experience.

Quote: " Give my regards to all east of the Pecos."

No no, it's pronounced Pay-cuss.

Thanks much.

(Whirling Dervish)

Sun Apr 27 2008 02:39 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

I hunt Central Pa also. I am right on the line were if I go to the west I get into greys and to the east I get into reds. We have enough coyotes here to make it interesting. I use my calling guns to shoot ground hogs in the summer and use them as bullet testers. We have used the 17mach4, 17 Fireball, 17Ackley Hornet, a 17-222Ai that would do screaming velocites.

I have settled on a 20gr at 3900-400fps. I shoot foxes like I would shoot a deer with the bow. I shoot lungs, off the big bones. Frontal brisket shot is my favorite. Bang flop, no hide damage. Head shots are iffy and can make for a nasty hole and a not so dead animal. My rifles get a 25gr Berger match load or a 30gr Gold worked up also. POI has been so close that when we get a coyote on the hook, or we make a stand for coyote the heavier bullets come out. I prefer Nagle and Bergers in 20s. I have had some Vmaxs splash on ribs not offen but from time to time, so far so good with the match bullets. YMMV

(Whirling Dervish)

Sat Aug 09 2008 06:05 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Now here’s a thing!! I think I may have discovered a truth, the answer to our debate, as to why the penetration results on foxes differ, on either side of the Atlantic.

In a word animal ‘size’.

After posting pictures and sizes of our foxes, I noted your comments like “small coyote” “big foxes”. So with a larger body mass offering more resistance to the round, I formed the opinion, that what works for me may not hold true for you!

Could this theory be tested? I knew of an area that has feral cats, these cats are about the size of a domestic cat, but are nowhere near our average fox size. From my last post until now, I have visited that area to try to account for one of these critters.

At 95m into centre of mass, the fur damage done was very evident, this with the same round I use for fox work! I do not get exit wounds on foxes as a norm, but I have now thinking about it, seen damage on young or undersized foxes.

The debate, velocity x penetration = fur damage is still open, but I’d like to think this is possibly the answer.

(Crown Killer)

Sat Aug 09 2008 07:43 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Dr. Fox,

Kind of funny that you have the same name as our family practitioner (MD) except her first name is Mary. Anyway, just to compare Missouri animals to what you have, here is a quick link to the Missouri Dept. of Conservation and thier animals sizes, etc...

http://www.mdc.mo.gov/hunt/furbear/index.htm#anchor72237

(Mouse Dipper)

Sat Aug 09 2008 10:12 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Dan,

If anyone belongs on the Raw Beginner Post, It's you dude.

Dave

Seriously, am I the only one getting excited about 2009 Rondy?

Seems like last year at this time the board was alive with Roll call and ideas and suggestions.

(Crown Killer)

Sun Aug 10 2008 07:42 AM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Heck yea, I'm getting excited, If not for anything else, but to see what bazaar item your going to put into your mouth.

I heard rumor of a jalepeno laced coyote tar-tar.

(Whirling Dervish)

Sun Aug 10 2008 12:58 PM

Re: 17 remington on fox

Thanks for that link Dan, gave me a good insight in to a lot of species and their sizes, and yes it does appear your red is a lot smaller than ours.
That does lend to ballistic and bullet head design debate, in respect of fur damage on the smaler animal.
Also your badger is much smaller, our beast is a big lump of a creature, and if you hit him in your car, he WILL wreck the front of it!

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Generated in 0.059 seconds in which 0.04 seconds were spent on a total of 4 queries. Zlib compression enabled.