leveractionjunkie
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Kamloops, BC
.17 Hornet or .22 Hornet....
- Thread starter Bull's-Eye
- Start date
Thanks!I was thinking about this post last night (I should get a life) and I might not be a re-loader right away so from what I have read, the .17 Hornet is the more accurate one with factory ammo which might not be a bad thing. Can't make gopher's flip if I can't hit them.
Last edited:
Ayup.
Once you get away from the 8 thou or so difference between the commercial minimum cartridge and maximum chamber, you have a lot less issues with working the case a bunch. The Ackley conversion adds to the mix, supplying somewhat less case stretching compared to the long tapered case of the factory Hornet.
The .17HH is essentially a variation of the same idea as the Ackley, with enough changes to not have to feel guilty about not putting the old guy's name on it. Cannot recall the name that was tossed around, he was a known wildcatter in his day, but about the same time Ackley was doing his thing with the 17AH, this fella was doing about the same shoulder angles with the Hornet as the 17HH now has.
The supposed problems with Hornet (and several other 'thin' brass cases, and tapered cartridges, seem to start to become less of an issue once you get your dies to be a pretty close match to your chamber and lighten up on working the necks as much as the factory specs do.
Cheers
Trev
I was also considering the .17 Hornet and am kinda shocked at all the positive feedback with the .22 Hornet. Aren't they about a 150 yd gun? I also picked some .22 hornets up at a dealer for $28 and found them hard to locate even at the gun shows. While we're on the topic , what about the .17 super mag? I was thinking of selling my .22 magnum . I find it a stretch past 150 yds. zeroed @ 100 yards.
I have problems with all 17 cal rifles and it has nothing to do with ballistics or cleaning issues. I can NOT manage them little tiny bullets when loading, with my ### large mitts, my 204 is a nightmare as well but 17s are beyond my capabilities. It is a physical impossibility for me to pick them up from a hard flat surface..........had a 17 Rem briefly.......the most frustrating loading I have ever attempted. Had to get a thin sheet of foam rubber to dump the bullets on in order to pick them up...........I'm hoping the new super hot rimfire 17 works out so I can buy one of them and shoot 17s again, without the need to reload for them. That will NOT be until it is available in some rifle besides a Salvage............Hoping Browning puts it in their T-bolt to match my 22 mag and HMR.
Last edited:
Nope, not Kilbourne. IIRC. He's the "K" in the K Hornet. And he liked the steeper shoulder angles too. There was another guy in the day that was working with the shallower shoulder angles at the time. I'll find it and post the name when I do.
Cheers
Trev
Are you referring to the KEH Hornet? This is a Hornet version developed by Dr.Ken Howell... maybe the "K" in Ken is what you are recalling?
There is also the whole "Mink" family of cartridges based on the shortened Hornet case...
Drew a blank there for a few minutes Pete until I realized you are talking about the 17 wsm. Good to know, however until someone redesigns a magazine to fit them we'll be limited to singles like the 1885, or a good bolt single feeding. I'm wondering if it is close enough that one could convert a hornet.......?
Nope. Not a "K" name.
Near as I can recall there was mention of either Niedner or Newton as having done closer to what the HH round is, than the Ackley version. Ackley and Kilbourne both gravitated towards the steeper shoulder angle, 35 -40 degrees, while other guys went shallower.
It was not meant to say that the Hornady bunch copied it directly, but was put in the context that there pretty much ain't a new thing under the sun, and that most things have been tried already by someone, even if they didn't get anywhere with it. Only so many ways you can make changes when you are working off a more or less standardized case to begin with.
Cheers
Trev
