.17 HMR Question

mmattockx

mmattockx

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
100   0   0
Location
Done with sheeple
I see lots of people that have the above caliber. I'm trying to figure out what the attraction is about it. Yes, it's a hot rimfire and shoots nice and flat out to beyond 100yds. But ammo is expensive and a no-reload proposition. If you wanted a 200 yd gopher gun, wouldn't a lightly loaded .222 or .223 (or even a .204) do the same job with comparable or cheaper ammo costs and far more versatility?

I'm not dumping on the .17HMR, I'm just curious why it is so popular when I don't see a clear advantage over other choices. It is a good excuse to buy another rifle, though. A Savage 93BTVS (however they designate the thumbhole stock version) would be a sweet rifle to add to my safe. But why?

Thanks,
Mark
 
On the surface, the cost of 17 HMR seems almost stupid for the performance. Like you said, if you want to go long on a gopher, the .222/.223/.204 are all good choices. Why I choose the 17 is I can carry around a couple hundred rounds without a huge pack, the recoil and noise are much more tolerable to you and maybe the landowner, and I don't have to scour the grass looking for brass after a roaming shooting session (yes, I'm a brass whore).

(E) :cool:
 
(((Echo))) said:
On the surface, the cost of 17 HMR seems almost stupid for the performance. Like you said, if you want to go long on a gopher, the .222/.223/.204 are all good choices. Why I choose the 17 is I can carry around a couple hundred rounds without a huge pack, the recoil and noise are much more tolerable to you and maybe the landowner, and I don't have to scour the grass looking for brass after a roaming shooting session (yes, I'm a brass whore).

(E) :cool:
Click to expand...

Good point on the ammo, even the small centerfire rounds take quite a bit of space compared to rimfire if you are carrying a bunch. On the noise and recoil front, I have seen light loads in a .223 that were remarkably tame and I am sure that even better could be achieved if that was the goal. Still had a louder bang than a .17, but not the usual throaty boom of full house loads.

Mark
 
Used with proper ammunition, the .17 HMR has an advantage in velocity, trajectory, and accuracy. The .22 WMR has an advantage in energy, bullet frontal area, sectional density, and consequently killing power.

I have reached a conclusion about these two cartridges. I would favor the .22 WMR for shooting small game and varmints within 100 yards, and the .17 HMR if shots often run much beyond that distance.

hope that helps
 
when it was 10 buck's a box it was great, but not so great at 20 buck's. both my 17hmr
(marlin laminate stainless), and my wife's 452 varmit are are crazy accurate.but at the
price now i'd sooner have a 204 ruger. the main reason we bought them, was because
where we shoot gopher's the land owners would only allow rimfire's.
 
mmattockx said:
I see lots of people that have the above caliber. I'm trying to figure out what the attraction is about it. Yes, it's a hot rimfire and shoots nice and flat out to beyond 100yds. But ammo is expensive and a no-reload proposition. If you wanted a 200 yd gopher gun, wouldn't a lightly loaded .222 or .223 (or even a .204) do the same job with comparable or cheaper ammo costs and far more versatility?

I'm not dumping on the .17HMR, I'm just curious why it is so popular when I don't see a clear advantage over other choices. It is a good excuse to buy another rifle, though. A Savage 93BTVS (however they designate the thumbhole stock version) would be a sweet rifle to add to my safe. But why?

Thanks,
Mark
Click to expand...

Hey Mark
There are plenty of folks in the world that can easily afford to spend $150.00 for a brick of 17 HMR ammo. There are also plenty of other folks that bought several thousand rounds of 17 HMR when it was $10.00 for 50. Factor in the time it takes to load several hundred rounds of 223. And if you are loading your 223 with components bought in the last year , you aren't loading 50 rounds for very much less than the cost of a box of 17 HMR. Its very much like shooting any other rimfire round, and IMHO, its quite a bit of fun. If you wish to challenge your self you can make some fairly long shots. I have a 22 magnum and a 17 Mach 2 and they get to see some gopher action as well. There is really nothing to get, its just another fun rimfire caliber to shoot.
Regards Greg
 
Greg sums it up pretty well. I put about 1k rounds through a Ruger summer before last. Sold it and bought a 204. For the nonreloader I guess its a good cartridge but no where near the terminal performance of even a 22 hornet. I love the cf's for the blow em up effect.
 
FWIW, I just ordered a Savage MkII TR and I was very tempted to go with .17HMR until I was told the ammo was $15-16 for 50. I can buy American Eagle 223 for $10/20 and that isn't even a good deal. (I also reload and enjoy reloading.. which is important)

My plan is to have a .22LR and a 223 Savage. A bit more expensive but I figure the .22 will be inexpensive to use and the 223 will be much more versatile and cost about the same as the .17 HMR.

My 2 cents....
 
17HMR is not for everyone but I don't mind the cost of the ammo - I reload and it is still cheaper to shoot 17HMR then it is to reload 50 rounds of VMAX 223. It has a nice report, it is incredibly accurate and frankly I enjoy shooting it. It is like the 221 Fireball - not very practical but incredibly fun to shoot. If you see value in it then you do... if you don't nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. I do recommend that you try everything at least once before you say no though...
 
I think .17hmr is a nice step between .22lr and a centerfire like .223.

Fits right in the middle for speed, noise, recoil, cost, weight etc.

I'm paying $15/box 50 at the local TSC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom