Is my logic flawed?


wild billz
March 30, 2006, 06:58 AM
Iím in the market for a new .22, as seen by some of my previous posts. By the way I believe I am settled on the CZ 452, probably the trainer version. Here is my logic: I want a decent rifle, thus the CZ, it has adjustable sights, and trigger, nice iron sights, and still can be scoped. My range I shoot at only goes out to 100 yards. I shoot mainly at 50 yards right now. I donít hunt.

Anyhow my brother in law and best friend both say get a .17M2, better ballistics and more range than a .22. I agree, but itís a way more expensive caliber. Again I donít hunt, and I wonít be shooting out to moire than 100 yards. If I did hunt with the .22, it would be fine for anything that I would shoot and at the distance I am likely to shoot at. I donít live out on a prairie.

My brother in law says get an AR15 and a converter so it can shoot .22, wouldnít you rather have an AR? I say yes, Iíd like an AR, but why get a converter for it to shoot .22, buy the .22, and then get an AR for when you want an AR. Then I have 2 dedicated platforms instead of changing one thing into another, and for probably the same price.

Am I missing some virtue about the .17 or an AR? Other rifles to research comparable to the CZ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is my logic flawed?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
March 30, 2006, 07:05 AM
.17s are great and accurate little rifles.
I'm with you on not getting the AR with conversion, doesn't make sense.
Two rifles are better than one.
I'm afraid, however, that I can't recommend a .17 rifle, hopefully someone else will chime in (and I'm sure someone will =D).
March 30, 2006, 02:30 PM
I'd have to say that the adapter for the AR is not such a great idea for someone looking for great precision. It would seem to me that the twist rate of the barrel will favor the heavier projectiles of the .223 thus leaving you with an inaccurate expensive rifle. As to the .17 question. I have to say that for most of us, shooting a .22Lr at 100yds represents a significant challenge. The .22LR will never cease to exist. I doubt the .17's future is so certain. When I hear comparisons about the .17/.22 I think of the entire Weatherby line of cartridges. Sure they have more velocity than other cartridges, sure they work great on game. BUT they cost way more and when you consider the rare instance where you'd truly notice the difference:
1.You're probably shooting from too far away
2.Shooting with crazy cross wind
3.If you had practiced more with cheaper ammo, you could still make the shot with a more common caliber.

I'd suggest that you get a .22LR

March 30, 2006, 03:08 PM
You sound like you already have your choice made; go with what you'll be happiest with. After all, it's YOUR rifle!

wild billz
March 30, 2006, 03:17 PM
I do believe, for my purposes and intents, the .22lr is great. I’m just presenting my arguments to another crowd since I was presented with differing views and they thought my choice was anemic, and was curious if there were greater virtues to the other rifle platform or caliber that I was not considering.

March 30, 2006, 03:27 PM
.22LR MATCHES are shot at 50 yards. I'm talking about accuracy matches with dime-sized scoring rings and 36X scopes. 1/4 MOA rifles MINIMUM to be truly competitive, with factory ammo. I've tried it, and I've seen it done. .22LR is a pretty amazing round. It's used in both the Summer and Winter Olympics, too.

There is NO REASON to abandon the .22LR round for your purposes. If the .17M2 comes down to anywhere near the price of .22LR, then yes, it's a great round. But it's 5 times as expensive as good .22LR ammo, and approaching 10 times as expensive as perfectly-adequate bulk .22LR ammo. And it burns barrels a lot faster due to much higher velocity. You'll probably be 6 feet under before you wear out a barrel with standard velocity .22LR ammo and a bolt gun.

A tip: For 2006, Savage started putting the Accu-trigger on their rimfire rifles. They're still cheap and very accurate. You can get BOTH a .22 and a .17M2 for the price of a CZ, though the CZ sure is pretty and a damn good gun.

March 30, 2006, 03:32 PM
BTW an AR is a versatile platform with a caveat.

Remember the old fairy tale, "Soup from a Stone?" An AR lower can be fitted with any number of upper halves. But each upper half costs as much as most production rifles.:uhoh:

March 30, 2006, 03:46 PM
wild- nope, your logic is fine. start w/ your 22 lr, and get an ar-15 later.

btw, i do hunt, and i do live on the prairie, and i have yet to have any trouble w/ rabbits, cats, and skunks to 125 yards or so...

wild billz
March 30, 2006, 04:04 PM
thanks all

thanks dakotasin, so more of their arguments fall through, a .22lr is fine for hunting too

what a great little cartridge!

Now to save the money to get a nice rifle!

March 30, 2006, 04:51 PM
BTW, if you want an AR, might as well get it in 5.56/.223. Good American-made milsurp ammo is only slightly more expensive than .17M2 and no more than .17HMR, if you look around.

Vern Humphrey
March 30, 2006, 05:40 PM
Your choices are correct.

First of all, a CZ will cost less than a conversion kit for an AR. And it will be a more satisfactory rifle in many ways.

Secondly, between the .22 LR and the .17HM2, the .22 is the best choice. If you want a more powerful (and expensive) rimfire round, go to the .17 HMR.

March 30, 2006, 06:29 PM
And the holes are bigger and easier to see. JT

March 30, 2006, 07:37 PM
Remember, 22lr bullet and 223 bullet are NOT the same diameter. AR's with the 22 conversion do shoot OK but are NOT noted for their accuracy. That why they make dedicated 22lr uppers for AR's.

Vern Humphrey
March 30, 2006, 08:05 PM
Remember, 22lr bullet and 223 bullet are NOT the same diameter. AR's with the 22 conversion do shoot OK but are NOT noted for their accuracy. That why they make dedicated 22lr uppers for AR's.

I would not recommend a conversion kit for an AR -- a .22 LR upper is the only way to go.

March 30, 2006, 08:12 PM
I say yes, Iíd like an AR, but why get a converter for it to shoot .22, buy the .22, and then get an AR for when you want an AR. Then I have 2 dedicated platforms instead of changing one thing into another, and for probably the same price.

I like your logic.

wild billz
March 30, 2006, 08:41 PM
hksw, thanks, good to know I'm not nuts, or am I? The painful part of all of this is that my funds won't allow me to satiate my desires immediately.

March 30, 2006, 11:00 PM
The CZ452 trainer is an excellent choice and a darned fine rifle. That's why I bought one. Ranks up there with the $$$ big name rifles for a fraction of the price. If you ain't got nothin else, you might as well have a .22.:)

March 30, 2006, 11:04 PM
Go with the .22. I own a TC Classic .22lr and it is very accurate, even with Federal bulk ammo. You couldn't pay me to trade it in for something in .17.

March 30, 2006, 11:42 PM
go with a .22.

I personally see no need for the .17 calibers. Sure they are nice, but there is no actual need.

Within a hundred yards the .22 can do what the .17's can. What the LR cant do the Mag can do. Past that the .22hornet can do everything just as well or better as the 17's. Also the 17's are rediculesly expensive for such a small round IMO. Also being so small they are very at the mercy of cross wind even more so then the .22lr.

Get the .22, and you can have a days worth of fun very cheaply. For a little under thirty bucks ((not includding gas or the paper to print out my targets on the printer)) I can buy a day at the range and 1100 rounds of ammo. 10 for the range and 8.95 a box for rem or federal wally world bulk packs of 550 rounds. How much would it cost you to buy 1100 rounds of any of the 17's?

Agian they are nice and here to stay but I would go with a .22 anytime and to me the 17's stay in the land of novilty when I have some money to play with for something new I'd like to play with....or when I want to buy an air gun.

As for the AR....why the hell would you do that? Sounds like tactiCOOL thinking to me. One, you aren't going to get as much accuracy. Two, you are going to spend a heck of a lot more for the AR then a good .22lr rifle.

March 30, 2006, 11:50 PM
22's. get 50 rounds for a buck. nuf sed. then if you want to, get other stuff. if you were a hunter, i would say that the 17m2 maybe te best ever , at the small furries and featheries, out to 100 yds ever made. but since you dont hunt , the 22 is the way to go.

March 31, 2006, 12:01 AM
CZ 452 trainer.......$209 from Whittaker guns

AR15 Kit gun.........$515 (Stag lower from Eagle Firearms and kit from Model 1)

I have both...but my 452 is a Lux........


March 31, 2006, 12:21 AM
Look at a TC Classic or Benchmark if you are interested in a semi auto. I'm a lefty so an auto was a good choice for me. I'm not sure that .17 is all that great for hunting, I've read a few articles onl line and in magazines where the tiny .17s just bounced off a varmint at longer ranges(of course, I tend to distrust anything new). I was able to hit a soda bottle at about 120 yards with my Classic, more than once, using Federal bulk ammo. I've also hit clay pigeons further out than that.

March 31, 2006, 12:56 AM
this got me to thinking, dangerouse activity for me :neener:

Would anyone else be interested in an AR in .17HMR :evil:

I know i would

March 31, 2006, 12:57 AM


dear god no...

that is just disturbing...

wild billz
March 31, 2006, 06:48 AM
Thanks for all, you reinforce my train of thought. I am very interested in the CZ Trainer. I was leaning towards a semi auto, but when I get frustrated or bored I waste ammo by rattling them off. I am out to increase my precision and discipline, and constancy, so a bolt gun is for me.

I heard that Whittakerís has them for $209. I asked at one of my local shops and they said $269 for a CZ Trainer. They charge about 50 bucks to do a transfer anyhow, so add shipping on there and it can be even more. Iíll have to ask if they can do better, or go to another shop. I can probably do a trade to get the price down, but Iíd prefer to get a low price then sweeten the deal with a trade. I know Wal-Mart can order one for me for $221.

I went to the gun show this weekend looking for one, and the only CZ they had was a .17 varmint. Getting one may not be as easy as I hoped.

March 31, 2006, 12:16 PM
I have a CZ 452 Varmint in .17 HMR that has shot pretty well. Unfortunately, I had bought it late last year and haven't had the opportunity to see it's real accuracy/precision. Compared to the Marlin 917V I bought not long after the CZ, the CZ is the better shooter. Judging by the limited number of groups I shot, 0.50" @ 50 yds (5 shots) should not be a problem. The Marlin was between 0.60" and 0.80". Both, however, are still far from a modded 10/22M in .17 HMR I have. which will shoot well under 0.50" regularly.

I had also bought a 452 Varmint in .22lr even later last year and have yet to shoot it. It will be interesting to see how well it does.

For the CZs, however, expect the bolt travel to be a little rough at first. The barrel, at least for the Varmint, is suppose to be free floated but mine (and many others) were not out of the box. This is not to say that free floating will improve the groups right off the bat as some have had very good groups without it. A very minor point but one I really like is the mag release. Easiest of any of the rimfire rifles I have. The wood used for the stock is also well above any ofthe regular low cost rimfires.

On the side note, what I'd like to see is a PS90 in .17 HMR. That pesky rim, though, hard to work around.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is my logic flawed?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!