The new .17 HMR


PDA






Zophocles
August 9, 2003, 09:33 PM
Guys, I'm new here, so please bear with me if this has been discussed previously. I read the article in American Rifleman about the new .17 HMR round- am very interested. Went to a gun show today, looked (for a long time) at a Taurus Tracker in this caliber. Looks really neat, thinking about getting one. My question: have any of you (1) tried out this particular revolver, and (2) had any experience with this neat little hot-rod rimfire caliber? Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "The new .17 HMR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bad_dad_brad
August 9, 2003, 09:48 PM
Don't have a revolver in the .17 HMR. I do have the rifle - a Marlin. A tack driver.

Here is a recent thread about the .17 HMR cartridge from the Rifle forum:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32084

In a handgun, just my two cents, I think the .17 HMR does not buy that much over the .22 magnum, and ammo is currently expensive.

Zophocles
August 9, 2003, 10:37 PM
Thanks- bunch of excellent info.

dav
August 9, 2003, 11:10 PM
My local gun store manager talked me out of a .17 handgun, just due to the expense of the ammo, and the small edge it holds over plain .22.

Since the fun comes in shooting (okay, some fun just in having!) then ammo expense really can become quite a consideration.

Tried a Thompson in .17, though. Really is fun to shoot. It is hard to tell when you have fired it, no recoil, no noise (comparatively, of course). And every shot in the black at 25 yards from a gun I had never seen or held before. At 25 yards I'm lucky to hit the target with my Kimber .45, since I can't even SEE the target at that distance. I think the Thompson aims itself.

mec
August 9, 2003, 11:43 PM
If I were to bet on one, it would be the Taurus. I got one of the first that hit the country for t&e. Shot much better and produced higher velocity than the magazine reports that are now coming out on Rugers and S&Ws as well as one custom gun that the maker rushed to one of the gun magazines. Quinn at www.gunblast.com had about the same results I had with the 65" Tracker.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=383120

I later mounted a Weaver 1.5x4 and reduced the 25 yard groups with the smallest going .49"

the custom smith said that he had used a less than optimum barrel twist accounting for the 3" 25 yard groups with his long barreled Ruger-based revolver.

Zophocles
August 11, 2003, 08:44 PM
Thanks for all the helpful info.- mec, you really helped make my mind up. When I was at the show, looking at the choices, I also looked at a S&W revolver that is configured like the Taurus 17. Its a bit prettier, but I sure don't see $200.00 worth of difference.

mec
August 11, 2003, 11:25 PM
no guarantees on individual revolvers but the above mentioned two taurus examples show that they can make a good, accurate .17.

digex
August 13, 2003, 09:32 PM
I held one of the Taurus Trackers and found that it had a nice heft to it. I had sort of expected it to be a lightwieght, somewhat rinky-dink little contraption and was surprised by it's nice feel.

mec
August 14, 2003, 06:51 PM
the new American Rifleman is out with their review of the Ruger .17 Single Six. Group average at 25 yards was 1.8" and velocity averaged out at 1925fps. this is the best result I've seen reported yet except for the two Taurus Revolvers above. It might be expected that their groups would be a bit smaller had they used optical sights.

DougCxx
September 16, 2003, 06:04 AM
I have the S&W 8-3/8" barrel 647.
I splurged on it when I went looking for semiauto pistols and semiauto rifles in 17HMR, and didn't see any (semiauto pistols) or any I liked (Rem 597, I want a heavier barrel than that). I had wanted a 22 mag revolver for a while anyway, and the 17 is the same power. The Taurus was $200 cheaper, but I liked the longer full-lug S&W barrel. And I figured that even if I didn't like it, it's the first-year of a totally new caliber, so it should hold its value well (I am guessing?).....
-I am probably hitting around an inch at 25 yards off a rest and with a (cheap+lousy) BSA 2X scope. I say "probably an inch" because I am badly out of practice and can see I'm pulling many shots off-target. I only shoot paper so terminal performance isn't real important to me, but there's an online test of this gun somewhere clocking right around 2000 FPS.
Most others I meet and read online are getting the Taurus revolvers. I do see lots of different rifles though.
......
-And if you have the need to thump animals regularly, I still say you'd do better with a 22 mag, just for the different power and bullet choices available. At the time of this posting, there is only one .17HMR load out now (packaged under three different names), it's 16.7 gr at 2500 FPS from a 20" bbl.
~

mec
September 16, 2003, 07:54 AM
The gunblast.com review is the one that records 2100+fps. I'm not sure of quinn's climatic conditions but I got the same velocities here in 90+ degree temperatures. There is a review out in G&A handguns with another taurus tracker 17 showing very fine accuracy but lower velocities than the above. Phil W. Johnso was getting groups of just over an inch with iron sights

John Ross
September 16, 2003, 03:03 PM
My S&W 647 goes 2025 fps avg. and put 12 in .660" @ 25 yards using a Ransom Rest.

Dislike the full lug bull barrel, wish it looked like an older 8 3/8" M17.

JR

mec
September 16, 2003, 05:38 PM
Sounds like a good performer and wouldn't it be nice if they caught on and went back to the classic revolver barrels?

If you enjoyed reading about "The new .17 HMR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!