Suped-Up .22's


PDA






PlayMaker
May 26, 2008, 05:37 PM
I've heard of Ruark's famous saying "use enough gun". I also know shot-placement is more important than bullet mass and power. It's a reality that if you wound an animal even in the vitals without killing it, it'll get a hyper-adrenaline rush and thenyou can blow a whole in it the size of your fist and it'll still have enough oxygen in it's brain to charge you. In theory you could fire a a pin-sized projectile into the brain or spine of an animal and that's all it'll take to drop that animal. So wouldn't a suped-up .22 with enough power for penetration be adequate and ideal(less recoil) for hunting the biggest and most dangerous game? If not why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Suped-Up .22's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
May 26, 2008, 05:45 PM
In theory maybe.
In actual practice, no.

Folks have been playing with your idea on big game since back in the 1920's. Without much success.

Roy Weatherby made a fortune on it in fact. But you don't see anyone hunting Cape Buffalo with a .224 Weatherby.

In actual practice, big and/or dangerous game takes big guns to put them on the ground every time reliably. That is what Ruark was talking about.

.22 bullets or smaller just do not have enough sectional density to penetrate deep, crush bones if necessary, and get inside where the engine room is on 2,000+ pound animals every time.

rcmodel

Colt46
May 26, 2008, 05:50 PM
When convential bullet designs are pushed too fast. They also tend to erode barrels much faster than standard velocity, larger bores.
I think the .22 savage Hi-power was sold as a large game cartridge and even was used to hunt dangerous african game. I think it was only marginally successful.

rockstar.esq
May 26, 2008, 10:28 PM
I'd bet the first .22's with 400-500 grain projectiles running around mach 1 would be prime candidates for what you're after. The 6.5's (.280) are a little unique in that they're commonly far heavier for their caliber. At the end of the day it's less about energy, velocity, or recoil when it comes to a "stopper" rifle. Penetration through heavy bone and muscle isn't just a handy thing, it's a real necessity. This is why even in the big 40-50 caliber African rounds, the bullet is typically a solid.

MachIVshooter
May 26, 2008, 10:50 PM
rcmodel stated the facts. There's just not enough bullet, unless you were able to drive a harder projectile at speeds that exceed the capabilities of nitrocellulose gunpowder (read: magnetic guns, etc).


The 6.5's (.280) are a little unique

6.5=.264" (.268" for Carcano's)

sarduy
May 26, 2008, 10:52 PM
i would use a 30-06 with a 180gr or 200 gr bullet, that will stop an elephant if you got it in the righty spot

mljdeckard
May 26, 2008, 10:57 PM
Because .22s have too little mass. They are too easily deflected by anything including superstitution. Way too unpredictable. I personally witnessed a .22 enter a human directly below the ribs, skim around the outside of the skin, and exit out his back. Of course at the time, we thought it was a through-and-through and said a very naughty word.

.22s are just as deadly as any other bullet. Unfortunately, they are also the least predictable.

Geno
May 26, 2008, 11:01 PM
rcmodel said:

Roy Weatherby made a fortune on it in fact. But you don't see anyone hunting Cape Buffalo with a .224 Weatherby.

You are correct. But, Roy's favorite cape buff round, according to Ed was the .257 Wea. mag with a 120 Gn projectile. Ed shared that fact with me when I purchased my .257 Wea Mag.

All the same, I personally am a big believer in big, slow bullets for big, fast game. Man, can you imagine, a cape buff with a .257 Wea Mag?! No thank-you. Not me.

Doc2005

PlayMaker
May 27, 2008, 12:53 AM
ok, I got it. so you need not just enough power, but enough sectional density/mass to stay intact and carry through. I guess I'll stick to the good ol' 30-06.

Dksimon
May 27, 2008, 01:00 AM
If you could put the muzzle right to the head of your animal a .22 might be able to do the job but on most hunts for big game (atleast around here) your shots will be anywhere from 100-300 yards.

At that range you might as well use a sling shot if you are going to use a .22.

you need to be able to reach out there and "touch" them.

GunTech
May 27, 2008, 10:24 AM
Bell killed over 1000 elephants with a 7x57, but he also perfected the rear quartering shot and was very particular about when and where he fired. Many hunters trying to emulate him got themselves killed.

When dealing with dangerous game, you need to pick caliber based on when things go wrong, not when everything is perfect.

GunTech
May 27, 2008, 10:27 AM
rcmodel stated the facts. There's just not enough bullet, unless you were able to drive a harder projectile at speeds that exceed the capabilities of nitrocellulose gunpowder (read: magnetic guns, etc).

Which is theortically about 6,000 fps and realistically under 5,000. You can reach those velocities with ET and ETC guns as well, as demonstrated by Hughes in the 1980's. That only gains you more velocity, and retardation increases as the square of the velocity, so faster projectiles decelerate more quickly and have less penetration. For the latter, you need high sectional densities.

Dravur
May 27, 2008, 10:53 AM
I would hunt dangerous game with the biggest freaking rifle round I could shoot. I just dont want to take the chance that a bullet would not reliably put down an animal if I did my part.

Now, for Cape buffalo, or Rhino, I prefer a RPG7

If you enjoyed reading about "Suped-Up .22's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!