fox rifle

[mitchellchandler_au]

Hi all,

I have been toying with the idea of making a rifle just for shooting foxes when the price of the skins are worth the stink of skinning the little buggers. I have a BSA hunter in 222 or an Omark Fclass rifle in 308 as the donor rifle for the project. My main problem is what cartridge to build it on? I was thinking the 17-222 or the 17 fireball. Any other suggestions are most appreciated.

Thankyou,

[Stalker]

Mate, just get a .204. They deserve the hype they get. They are not the answer to everything, but they sure are the answer to foxes!!

[HiWall]

Pro shooters fox rifle of choice was the .17 Rem, plenty of grunt and little fur damage. Nothing has changed!!

[Stalker]

Yeah it has, quite a lot.

[fox shooter]

I use 22-250 and 223 i have used 17 rem but as soon as i can i will be buying a 204ruger or rebarreling my 223 from what i read i think the 204 is the ultimate fox gun

[macca]

The 17 will,as Hiwall said give little pelt damage if your are skinning,which is was intended in the original post.
STalker, what projectile will you use in a 204 for minimal damage?
I paid for a lot of barrels and a few utes out of foxes with a 17 and they will still do the job.
Have a good one,
Macca

[trevort]

Stalker I agree with you on the 204 as the ultimate factory fox round. I wouldnt use one if skins were important. I've shot a few where no pelt damage was visible but mostly they look like they were attacked with a chainsaw

[Brad Y]

I would go with the 17 fireball. I have seen it work and very impressed in the non exiting capability of it for foxes. Saying that I would probably load 20gr vmax and shoot them around the 3800fps mark.

[Whitty]

The 17 rem certainly has a good reputation for producing quality pelts, but the 17 rem will occasionlly make a mess of a skin. A couple of fox shooters told me many years ago that if you reduced your loads back to around 3800fps the 17rem performs at its best. More consistant accuracy(less fouling) and less chance of skin damage. The only problems I see with the 17 rem is the cost and availability of ammo. The cost of 17 rem ammo and cases is scary and can be hard to obtain. Plus you are stuck with Remington brass.

Personally, I think the a 17/222 or 17 Fireball would be perfect for taking skins. The smaller 20 cals may go alright as well. The 204 does seem to be a good option for foxes, but from what I have seen skin damage can be issue. Does any one have a good load that produces minimal/zero skin damage consistantly?

Another option is to leave the BSA as a 222. The 222 has taken it's fair share of good skins. Or do a 20/222 and let me know how it goes.

[kjd]

Yeah it has, quite a lot.

17rem pretty much matches ballistic performance of the 204 anyways so whats the difference really?

[GriMo]

Yeah it has, quite a lot.

What has changed? Fox skins have suddenly become much thicker and require more energy to kill them? or gravity has somehow become stronger, the air more dense and need a higher BC? if you want to reliably keep skins the .204 is not a good choice. unless you massively underload it in which case you may aswell be using a hornet etc as you will lose the ballistic advantage of the .204 anyway.

Quite simply the .17rem deserves the many years its been used for foxes. Brass/projectiles arent cheap i will grant you that but if your goal is to keep skins why pick the caliber everyone says is the most explosive they have seen etc etc.

Some very basic balistics show within 300 the .17 rem is flatter, and has less energy. By default we know it will leave a smaller hole, and given the smaller projectile wont displace as much material as a .204. Anyone who is seriously recommending the .204 as the perfect fox gun for keeping skins is off their rocker IMO.

.287 39 BK 3800 fps 6.7 inches at 300 Energy = 642 @300
.230 25 vmax 4000 fps 6.4 inches at 300 Energy = 386 @300

[Rick1970]

I have two 17Remingtons, and if its skins your after their reputation is well deserved. 9 times outta 10, when you go and collect your (dead) fox there is no visible damage with a chest shot. No exit wound and you usually have to push on the chest to get a tell tale spot of blood to find the entry wound. The classic head shot can leave a small trickle of blood and both eyes poped outta their sockets, but usually no exit wound. Good stuff if skins are what you are after.

I have problems with Remington cases, but think it can be mostly be traced back to factory chambers with oversized necks and std type sizing dies overworking the brass.

With a bit of dicking around, you can make 17Rem cases from 204R (or 222mag) brass.

[tikka]

Who keeps skins.

I thought it was about blowing the shit out of them

[trevort]

Who keeps skins.

I thought it was about blowing the shit out of them

I'm with you Tikka hence I love the 204 but the OP wants the skins.

I havent had the pleasure of hitting a fox with my 17M4 but its max load with the 25 vmax is at 3850 so in your perfect range there Whitty

[ogre6br]

try your 222 with a 40 NBT or 35 V-max downloaded a bit

see how that goes

P