.17 HMR, just how good is it?


March 21, 2008, 11:44 PM
i have been shooting the good 'ol .22lr ever since i was 2 years old,
been shooting the .22 magnum for years also,
and i must admit that i have very little expirence with the .17hmr round, it seems to me that the light weight bullet moving at extremely hihg velocity, although devastating on small game, would be more adversley affected by wind, than a heavier 40 grain .22 magnum round.

i managed to catch a glimpse of the new thumbhole stocked version of the marlin 917 rifle. does anyone have any expirence with marlin rifles?
i have put thousands of rounds through the faithful model 60, but just how accurate is the bolt actions? i was thinking about buying this.

if you are a marlin owner check this out... http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/17HMRMagnum/917vst.aspx

any unput yould be appreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about ".17 HMR, just how good is it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 22, 2008, 12:14 AM
it is far better than a 22mag, and the mach 2 is far better than a 22lr. now then, the hmr is 15 bucks a box, and the mach 2 is about 4 to 6 bucks a box.
Plus a mach 2 rifle can also fire 17aguila/pmc/hi standard rounds. Just as a quick thought, the 17hmr is faster at 100 yds, than a 22 mag is at the muzzle, so there is no way in satan's bathroom that a hmr moves more in the wind than a 22 mag. check these sights out. Oh yeah, I have 2 marlin bolt actions, and both are severely accurate, one of them is a stainless lamm in 17mach 2.

March 22, 2008, 12:45 AM
thanks a bunch man...

severly accurate? sounds good...

i have a customized 10/22 that could be converted to 17 mach 2. just need a new barrel and heavier weight bolt handle...

by the way, if you dont mind me askin, whereabouts do you live in texas?
im goin to be stationed at lackland AFB for the next few years,

March 22, 2008, 12:47 AM
checked out those sites, so there bringing back the 5mm remington rimfire?


on another side note...

i was lookin at the new varmit version of the remington 700sps in .223 or .308winchester. looks like a good rifle for coyote and deer, and to vaporize water filled milk jugs at 300 yards with. good buy for the money or no.

March 22, 2008, 01:49 AM
In my understanding, despite the fact that the .17 is faster, the .22 does better in the wind because of its substantially higher weight. Maybe it really doesnt matter, but I remember from physics a while back that it takes more force (wind) to change the path of a heavier object. IS the reduced flight time of the .17 really going to make up for the double-ish weight of a .22mag bullet?

March 22, 2008, 01:56 AM
it seems to me that the light weight bullet moving at extremely hihg velocity, although devastating on small game, would be more adversley affected by wind, than a heavier 40 grain .22 magnum round.

Not true. Wind drift is affected by ballistic coefficients and velocity, not bullet weight. The 17 grain HMR has a higher BC and velocity than the 40gr WMR so the HMR is going to drift less than the WMR in pretty much every situation. .17 HMR is also going to shoot flatter because of the higher velocity so unless you have a need for the heavier bullet (for larger game) then I'd go with the HMR.

I had a Marlin 917V in .17 HMR. It was accurate and easy to shoot with very little recoil and noise compared to a centerfire. I did have to put an aftermarket trigger in it to get a decent pull. Ammo has gotten expensive recently though.

March 22, 2008, 02:09 AM
Matt is correct that the .17 shoots flatter than the .22 WMR. His explanation for this goes beyond the simpler reason I have stated on previous threads. Yet, I prefer the heavier .22 Magnum round for hunting or self-defense since it is more likely to penetrate than the more frangible .17. If you desire a rimfire rifle for purely target purposes, then the .17 has an advantage. Otherwise, I would favor the .22 Magnum for the reason stated above. The recently reintroduced 5mm Remington Magnum may prove superior to all these cartridges, but I have no experience with this cartridge. Hopefully, we will read more about it soon. I hope my opinions will prove useful to you.


March 22, 2008, 02:27 AM
ballistic coefficient is a number that relates to the ammount of drag a bullet creates and the bullets ability to overcome drag in flight.

BC is a function that is derived by the mass, sectional density and volume of the bullet. it has nothing to due with surface area...

and surface area is what determines how much a bullet will be affected by cross wind.

in short a bullet with a high BC is low drag, and will travel farther with a flatter trajectory regardless of cross wind.

to BC has nothing to do with wind drift...

---but compare bullets to cars, something sleek and streamlined, like a camaro, for example is streamlined when compared to say, a school bus.

the camaro will of corse have less drag (and a higher BC), but due to its smaller surface area, it will be less affected by crosswind, than the school bus which has a much larger surface area.

just trying to simplify a complicated subject. hope that didnt confuse some of you.

but anyway thanks for the info...

March 22, 2008, 02:50 AM
I'm in Houston, and that last explanation was nice, and the b.c. explanation was nice/ so if you look at some of those tables, because the 22 mag has a lower b.c., you will see that some of these 22 mag rounds lose almost fully half of their speed by the time they get to 100 yds, and that is with no wind or crosswind at all. Why? because of their terrible b.c., they cannot slip through the atmosphere as easily as a 17hmr. So this huge deceleration, also allows a crosswind to have a great effect on it's surface area, which is why the 17hmr also moves less in a crosswind, less surface area, less time to act on it.
A lot of dudes have gotten excellent results doing a 10.22 conversion, and it is so fast and easy, you can easily put it back to 22lr, if you wanna, but most dudes, once they shoot the mach 2 , never go back.

March 22, 2008, 08:17 AM
I too have been looking at getting a 17 HMR or or 17 Mach 2. I will probably go with the 17 HMR despite the higher cost of ammo. Anyway, the rifle that you are looking at is one of three I have considered. It truly is a good looking rifle and, if my buddies Marlin 17 is any indication, it will be scary accurate. I especially like the model with the thumbhole stock and the fluted barrel. The only drawback to these rifles is their factory trigger. Not the best trigger out there by far. This can be replaced however, and that is the good news. I guess rifle basix amakes a trigger for these and that should do the trick as they say.:D

The second rifle that I am looking at is the Savage BTVS. It has the thumbhole stock just like the Marlin, probably made by the same company. It too has a reputation for being extremely accurate like all of its big brothers. I will say right now that I am a big Savage fan. I have 5 BVSS's and two VLP's and the 17 BTVS would fit in wonderfully. Probably the biggest thing going for the Savage over the Marlin is its trigger. The accu-trigger is just plain sweet. The price of these two rifles is virtually identical. The only problem that I have with either of them is the way that their actions feel. Neither of them feel like a quality rifle. They both perform like a quality rifle, so maybe feel doesn't matter. That is exactly what I am trying to decide right now. Enter rifle number three.

Rifle number three is the CZ452 Varmint. I have not handled one of these yet though I have handled the 22 version a few years back. If memory serves, they feel as good as they look. They look great.:D Several of the ones I have seen had very nice Walnut on them. Walnut, like American guns used to have, not the plain old striaght grained stuff you see nowadays. I was in a shop last Saturday that had the Savage, I almost bought it but decided to wait. When I got home I started thinking more about it and called them back to find out if they had the CZ Varmint as well. They did. Unfortunately that shop is 160 miles round trip and my truck get about 12 MPG.:banghead: so I havent been back yet. The CZ is about $60 more than the other 2 guns but it just might be worth it to me. It might be nice to have something a little different from all my Savages.:D Anyway, this might give you a little more food for thought.

March 22, 2008, 09:08 AM
The CZ 452 is by far the best of the 3 choices IMO. If you can swing a 452 American in 17 HMR you won't be dissapointed. The HMR has a lot more real world lethality than the 22 mag too. If you don't believe me take one of each out and shoot some apples or melons. The 17 HMR will totally vaporize an apple and all you have is a ball of mist about 20' in diameter. The 22 mag doesn't do that, and the 22 LR doesn't even come close. The HMR is respectable on prairie dogs inside 200yds. too.

March 22, 2008, 11:25 AM
I shot a .287" 5 shot group with my Savage 17 @ 50 yards, so don't fall into the price = more accuracy pit. That's not really true for 17s. It is the funnest gun I've ever owned though, deadly on big jackrabbits @ 100-150. If I had a 22 mag, I'd want to try some of the new ballistic tip ammo in it. And Marlin usually has the stinkiest trigger.

Vern Humphrey
March 22, 2008, 11:38 AM
BC has nothing to do with wind drift...
Actually, it does.

To calculate wind drift, subtract the theoritical time of flight in a vaccuum from the actual time of flight. Then multiply the results by wind velocity.

The higher the ballistic coefficient, the lower the difference between time of flight in a vaccuum and in the atmosphere.

March 22, 2008, 01:37 PM
if you like a good factory trigger, then the cz, in set trigger mode, is pretty
butta. If that is not good for you, and you can go another 100 bucks or so higher, look for a Anschutz; their trigger lets you know that there is a God.

March 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
I have one of the .17HMR Savage thumb hole laminates and a Sweet 17 on top. Its a great shooter and has been impressive on everything I've shot with it.

Shot through the shoulder blades from behind at about 25 yards.

Blood and guts inside.... :)


March 23, 2008, 01:31 AM
what would one of the bull-barrel marlin .17hmr rifles cost?

marling website doent list the price.

also, how good is the marlin trigger out of the box?

if your planning on eating small game, the .17 is just a little too destructive, especially on rabbits and small stuff, unless at very long range, and to the best of my knowlege the .17 dosent come in FMJ rounds. or do they...

March 23, 2008, 09:29 AM
I always use www.gunbroker.com to check prices. Right now there is only one thumbhole stocked Marlin model available. You can probably get it for about $360 though his buy it now price is $409. Average on these appears to be about $360 and that is the same for the Savage. The CZ 452 Varmints go for about $420 though a couple are asking more. The CZ American is just under $400. Frankly, the trigger on the Marlin pretty bad. The Savage Accu-trigger is head and shoulders above the Marlin and the accuracy is there too. As much a fan as I am of the Savage rifles, I am really leaning towards getting the CZ. Besides it already has my initials on it.:D

March 23, 2008, 12:42 PM
there is two solid type rounds for the 17, a hollow point which is in either 17 or 20 grains(don't remember which) and a 20 grainer, in fmj and xtp. both are good expanders and penetrators.
the plain jane heavy bbl marlins , you can find as low as 170. once you start going stainless, laminate, etc., it will be 250 and up. Same for Savage.

March 24, 2008, 07:20 PM
a good bull barrel bolt action, capable of nailing a rabbit at over 200 yards for under $300, sweet. i was thinkin they would be like 700 or 800 bucks.

the new marlins really caught my eye because their magazine fed, but they come with a flush-fitting mag. less things to snag and get buried in the dirt when firing from prone.

although most people underestimate the .22 mag, now that the new .17 is out, one of my favorite pastimes is to set about a dozen water filled milk jugs at about 150 yards. using a .22 magnum its just way too easy, as long as you hold over about 6 inches and compensate for the wind. a .22lr is a bit (okay a lot) trickier.

you want a challenge? try this...get a bolt action .22lr with a scope,
use .22 shorts or .22 cb's.

set some water filled bottles and milk jugs at 100-120 yards and fire away. the puny, low velocity round really forces you to think about bullet drop and wind drift. normally i have to aim about 2 feet high to get a center hit on a gallon jug. its the next best thing to long range shooting, for those days when i dont want to burn through all my 7mm mag ammo.

March 24, 2008, 07:42 PM
Yes the 17hmr is more accurate and flatter shooting than the .22mag, but if you are hunting coons, yotes or other critters the .22mag wins plus ammo is cheaper. I have both and I missed a nice gobbler yesterday with my .22mag. He was farther than I thought and must have shot under him. Had I had my cz452 I'm sure I would have hit him, but don't know if it would have resulted in a clean kill. Both rounds have their uses. The 17 is an outstanding crow round.

March 25, 2008, 01:40 AM
/\/\/\ +1 on the crow round. lol

They are annoying as hell.
I think the ones that are left around here now have learned not too land within a 100yds of me.

Vern Humphrey
March 25, 2008, 11:19 AM
Had I had my cz452 I'm sure I would have hit him, but don't know if it would have resulted in a clean kill.
That's why where legal I use the .22 Hornet -- and reloads are cheaper than the hot rimfires.

If you enjoyed reading about ".17 HMR, just how good is it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!