.22 Mag enough for big Canadian beavers?

U

Unlicensed Dremel

Moderator
You know, the kind that can weigh half again as much as a lower-48 coyote? (50, 60, 70 lbs). I've found myself in the past recommending .22 hornet / .218 Bee as an ethical minimum for yotes, so if it's half again as heavy of a critter, it seems at least that much gun is in order. But on the other hand, .22 mag intuitively seems enough for any beaver. Certainly it is with head shots, but what about vitals shots?
 
Last edited:
Ditto; 22 mag has ended a few very large raccoons back on the farm with a shot in the vitals. Similarly sized critters.
 
It would seem that beavers would be shot at much shorter ranges than the normal coyote shot. In nuisance control, I've shot beavers with the 17HMR and it works well w/o fur damage. With the right ammo the 17 is capable of head shots @100 yards which is better than I've seen with the 22 mags of the past.
A 22 mag should have more penetration than the 17 HMR so would be more suitable for body shots on large beaver.
 
No, the big beavers I mention weigh 3 to 8 *times* what a raccoon weighs. 6 to 20 lbs, vs. 45 to 70 lbs. Apples & Cantaloupes.

.22lr is plenty for raccoon of any size. This is at least the difference between deer and elk (raccoon vs. beaver). I'm not talking about little southern beavers. They grow 'em BIG up north. They can live up to 24 years, and keep growing throughout their life, like fish. Body weight is the main determinant of how much gun is appropriate.

Google is your friend, mete!

Mobuck, I think you're right - beavers are always shot close, in the woods, where a head shot is easier (especially if they're swimming and the head is all you can see).
 
Last edited:
What is the difference? The heart is probably the same size on both. 20 pounds? I have skinned out a lot of coons in my time. I think you are confusing porcupines and raccoons, although I have seen some massive porcupines in my time.
 
In my Alaska days I met a lot of trappers who would shoot muskrats with 22 shorts.

In the late spring, days got longer and you can set out in the twilight and fill your boat with muskrats.

Often they would get a shot at a beaver and had no problem using the 22 shorts.

They would shoot when they saw the critters swimming and you could only see the head. The shorts worked just fine.

The thing that would concern me is the 22 mag would leave two holes in the hide where most of the time the shorts only left one.

The more holes the less you get for the hide.
 
I would think that the .22 WMR would be enough, however the accuracy and crappy triggers in nearly every .22 Mag I have ever owned would create problems with bullet placement. Something like a .17 HMR with a nice scope and good trigger would work well. Since I have a .22 Hornet and its one of my favorite rifles I like it, but I wouldn't feel undergunned if I was shooting them with a .17HMR or .22 WMR. Does it need to be an "instant kill" so as not to lose them or is that a concern.
 
A 40 grain FMJ at just under 2000FPS should have no problem penetrating deeply enough to get the job done.
 
The 22 lr solid, not hollowpoint, works just fine for our huge beavers.

I did beaver control work for years, along with dam blasting.

Shooting them with shorts is another of those poor ideas where someone actually managed to kill one, but how many were lost?

Dremmel, they usually are not shot "in the woods", they are water animals & very cautious when on land.

Thirty beaver a day was quite good, the heaviest that I got was 80lbs and stretched out at 80 inches (l+w).

Only head shots, between eye & ear, or back of head, frontal slope can cause a glance-off. I have never heard of anyone taking body shots.
Why damage the pelt?
 
Last edited:
I have never shot a Beaver. Although If trapping at point blank or at 100+ yards I am a 22Hornet guy. You can reload with a non fragment bullet and med. vel. And count on a clean kill head shot. If you want to back off a bit use a 17 Hornet. Being remote would drive me to load my own with LilGun powder and # 6 1/2 rem primers. It's easy to load for. I like the Ruger 77 bolt it's light weight to carry. Let us know how your choice works out.
 
Outta curiosity are this hunted only for the pelts? The reason I ask is on a certain Scandinavian cooking show I saw, they showed making stew from beaver meat...

They're protected here so no hunting them at all even if they're damaging your trees...

Tony
 
Outta curiosity are this hunted only for the pelts?
The reason I ask is on a certain Scandinavian cooking show I saw,
they showed making stew from beaver meat...
They're protected here so no hunting them at all even if they're damaging your trees...
Click to expand...

Some families do eat beaver (we prefer elk).

The meat is excellent bait for marten, fisher, wolves etc.

There is nothing that will bring in a bear better than a ripe beaver.

The castors (scent glands) which weigh up to a quarter pound, are used in everything from perfume to tobacco enhancers.

Even the scaly tail covering is made into wallets & hats.

As far as "protecting" the beaver... they must be managed.

Your home state is making a big mistake!
 
I agree with that. I used to bow hunt a place in Maryland that had a small dammed lake loaded with bank beaver. They finally allowed trapping there when the beaver were going over 100 yards from water and dropping trees into the wires along the road. I remember one year they drug off the picnic tables and dropped a couple purple martin houses. They jammed the stuff into little fingers and corners where the water reached in along the bank of the lake. I found it quite humorous, but the Maryland Game Commission did not. Hard working little buggers!
 
What is the difference?
Click to expand...

They're 3 to 8 TIMES the size of raccoons - that's the difference - as I said above. Not half again as big; not even 1.5 or 2 times the size.

The heart is probably the same size on both.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Not even close. Heart size correlates roughly to body size. Making the heart size 3 to 8 times as big.

I have skinned out a lot of coons in my time. I think you are confusing porcupines and raccoons, although I have seen some massive porcupines in my time.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything. You are confusing porcupines with beavers. I was comparing raccoons and beavers (since someone brought up and alleged that coons are the same size - which they're not. I pointed out that they're 3 to 8 times as big - as I said above), not raccoons and porcupines.

Thosw beavers are evil dangerous.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cks-girls-swimming-lake-leaving-injuries.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ound-caused-fisherman-bleed-death-attack.html

There are countless stories of serious injuries from beavers - they are not to be trifled with - and that's including the little one.

But I trust kraigwy who says .22 shorts / .22lr is enough (making .22 mag plenty enough), at least on head shots, since Alaskan beavers are the same size as Canadian - roughly. However, I still doubt that either is ideal ("enough") for a body shot for 60 pounder - that's two coyotes worth of animal with a lot of fat. But I guess that since you'll be shooting them in the water 9 times out of 10, you'll of necessity be taking head shots only, 9 times out of 10, which skews the "needed" round quite a bit (since heck, .22lr is enough to kill a cow with a head shot at close range, let alone a large rodent).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top