Lets see your Guns.

[Johnsond]

I think if you shoot for long enough you will get the exotic calibre bug. Been there done it right up to 338lap mag and spent plenty for the privilege. Nowadays I’m down to 22lr, 223 and 308 which suits me fine. Good ammo for pest work mil surp if it’s a day of making brass. 
I also keep my shots on live targets to 150m-175m, the fieldcraft aspect of getting close is every bit as important if not more for me than calibre or optics. 

[BillQ]

11 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

getting close is every bit as important if not more for me than calibre or optics

Hell yeah! Close enough to whisper in their ear.

Edited Monday at 07:13 by BillQ

[AHPP]

4 hours ago, Mike Hill said:

Different strokes for different folks.

 

.22 Hornet is as quiet as anything if moderated ,very cheap to reload for and bloody accurate. You cant really compare it to a 223,that would be like comparing a mini cooper to a Ford Mustang.

 

If you want somthing even more obscure,try a 218 Bee or 219 Donaldson wasp. I had a .218 in a Martini Cadet action,cool little gun.I had it chambered in .218 because it was originally .222 rimmed and it ran out of barrel threads after cutting the chamber off. If you reload ,then you may as well get something fun. Brass lasts for ever and everthing else is the same as .22 hornet.

Quite. I fancied a Donaldson Wasp for a while but that, probably the Bee (and maybe even Hornets now I think about it) need .223 rather than .224 bullets. Enough to put me off. 

Edited Monday at 10:00 by AHPP

[Peter 1955]

22 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

 

The current guidance states you can be granted 17HMR for fox. I know some forces may be reluctant but you could argue your case...

 

 

Can you still get cheap .223 milsurp? Down here it isn't cheap any more, and I wouldnt use it on foxes.

As everyone else has stated, with 17HMR, you're usually requiring the bullet to break apart to stop fox sized quarry. I always fancied a .17 Remington, but sanity prevailed and the .223 was acquired. 

Military Surplus ammo?  I knew a RFD who was " a character ". I think some 5.56 may be loaded to higher pressures, and isn't recommended for use in .223 rifles. I do know that tracer rounds can be wildly inaccurate as they lose mass, and that ball ammo can go through seasoned oak posts leaving the same size exit hole as entry! 

Edited Monday at 18:29 by Peter 1955

[Paul in the woods]

29 minutes ago, Peter 1955 said:

As everyone else has stated, with 17HMR, you're usually requiring the bullet to break apart to stop fox sized quarry. I always fancied a .17 Remington, but sanity prevailed and the .223 was acquired. 

Military Surplus ammo?  I knew a RFD who was " a character ". I think some 5.56 may be loaded to higher pressures, and isn't recommended for use in .223 rifles. I do know that tracer rounds can be wildly inaccurate as they lose mass, and that ball ammo can go through seasoned oak posts leaving the same size exit hole as entry! 

 

I deliberately didn't mention ethics, the link from the SD shows some are happy with it whilst others hate it. I've seen enough people shoot over the years to know it's not just a simple matter of calibre. 

 

My comment on surplus ammo was in regards to the cheapness as there's not much cheap stuff about any more. I load my own so it's not an issue for me, well not until I need to buy some more primers and powder. I'm aware of the differences between .223 and 5.56 and that's another area where  FEOs and forces will differ, some will list .223 & 5.56 in your ammo table, others will only allow what the rifle is listed as. You can buy 5.56 that is sold as safe in a .223 but not all is.