17 caliber MachII ammo and 22 rifles


PDA






joebogey
November 26, 2004, 06:41 PM
I read an article not long ago about shooting the 17 caliber MachII in your 22s. Anyone with more info on the subject?
Thanks,

If you enjoyed reading about "17 caliber MachII ammo and 22 rifles" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gbran
November 26, 2004, 07:12 PM
You'll need a conversion kit (incl reciever mods, new barrel). EABACO, Volquartsen and others will sell kits to convert 10/22's. I don't know the costs, but it probably ain't real cheap. Bolt actions are much easier to convert (new barrel). But, don't forget that there are more new 17m2 rifles coming on the market almost daily. Many of these are very inexpensive and unbelievably accurate. I just bought a Marlin 917m2 stainless bolt action rifle for around $300. Blue'd would have been around $200.

Inside 100 yds, many people not only call this round a tack driver, but also a finishing nail driver. Haven't been to the range with mine yet. I'm in CA and still in the 10 day wait period.

joebogey
November 26, 2004, 07:24 PM
Is the 17 a necked down version of the 22, or an animal all together different?

gbran
November 26, 2004, 07:48 PM
The 17HMR is a necked down 22 mag. The 17M2 is a necked down 22lr stinger case, which is a tad longer than a standard high velocity 22lr case. Both cartridges use a .17 caliber, 17 gr pointed bullet (boat tail?) I believe there is now a 20 gr bullet for the 17HMR. Just compare the 17HMR to the 22 mag and the 17m2 to the 22lr.

But here's the difference; the 17M2 will run over 2100 fps versus around 1,000 for a fast 22lr. If you have enough scope, you can zero at 100yds and the 17m2 is unbelievably flat. About .5" rise @ 50yds and .7" @ 75yds.

I chose the 17m2 for target, plinking and small varmint work. I'll also shoot and keep some small game, such as tree squirrels. The 17HMR is too fast and too distructive to meat. The 17HMR is expensive ($10-$11/box of 50). The 17m2 are about $5-$6/box. If you want to kill bigger varmints, the 17HMR is great, but maybe marginal for coyotes. If I'm gonna shoot larger and farther varmints, I'll use a .223, which is pretty cheap to shhot and much more powerful than the 17HMR, which I'll probably never buy.

Go to http://www.google.com and type in 17 Mach2 and you'll be overwhelmed with info.

gbran
November 26, 2004, 07:55 PM
http://www.hornady.com/shop/shop_image/product/83177_17_HM2.jpg

rbernie
November 26, 2004, 09:43 PM
But here's the difference; the 17M2 will run over 2100 fps versus around 1,000 for a fast 22lr. Well, not quite.

A standard 40grain 22LR will clock out at around 1100fps-1000fps. A hi-per 22LR uses a 32grain to 36grain bullet to boost this speed up between 1600fps and 1400fps. The 17HMR and 17M2 get an additional boost of speed by further dropping the bullet weight to 17grains.

What the 17's gain over the hi-per 22LR's is that they push the transsonic transition well past 100 yards, whereas the 32-grain 22LR's will likely hit that point at about 75 yards. Of course, the good ol' fashioned 40 grain 22LR doesn't have to worry about that, since it started out life subsonic to begin with.

If you're going to need to shoot small game at ranges greater than 100 yards, I guess that the 17's have some appeal. But most folks shoot small game within 50 yards, so I'm not sure that I quite understand the role of the 17's yet. I'm also NOT hearing great things about the small-game performance of the 17's - too destructive and inconsistent.

More to the point, when I can get any .224-caliber bolt-action rifle for the same cost as one chambered in 17HMR or 17M2, get a much broader performance envelope with the centerfire round, and yet pay LESS for the centerfire ammo - why would I want the .17? I'll jump from my 22LR (loaded either with standard or hi-vel rounds) up to, say, a .223 or a Ruger .204 instead.

gbran
November 26, 2004, 11:00 PM
1. I was referring generically to typical high velocity 22 lr's for comparison purposes.

2. I am jazzed about the 17m2, but can see no use (for me) for the larger (longer case) 17HMR. Like you, I'll fire up a .224 centerfire for anything over 100yds or for bigger game.

I've seen the evidence that the 17HMR and the 17M2 are far more accurate than the .22 rimfires they're derived from. When you're as lousy a shot as I am, you need the most accurate equipment you can get.

joebogey
November 27, 2004, 11:58 AM
I can understand the need for the replacement barrel as the bullet would not be large enough to make full contact of the barrel as it passed through.
But one would think the the receiver of a 10/22 would feed the 17 without modifications. I would think the shape of the bullet would help it to feed better than the flatnose of the 22.
Just goes to show, you can learn something no matter how dumb ya are. LOL

rbernie
November 27, 2004, 12:15 PM
As far as I know, the Ruger 10/22 22LR receiver can be converted to 17M2 without modification. What it *does* require is a heavier bolt (along with the new barrel), since the increased 'snap' of the 17M2 evidently doesn't quite agree with the stock Ruger 22LR bolt...

If you enjoyed reading about "17 caliber MachII ammo and 22 rifles" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!