.22lr vs .17hmr?


PDA






Norton
November 7, 2003, 06:52 PM
Are right guys....help me spend some of my hard earned money

I've been thinking about getting a rimfire rifle over the last last few weeks. I have the SKS already....cheap and fun to shoot....but a rimfire just seems to be calling my name.

A .22lr would be the obvious choice, but I just read an article extolling the virtues of the .17HMR cartridge for it's accuracy, flatter trajectory and essentially longer effective range.

So tonight's 50 cent question: Taking into consideration cost of firearm, cost of ammo and overall performance what would be your choice of rimfire calibers?

What would be your choice of gun in each caliber? I'd probably take some time to trick this gun out as all of my other guns are stock "blue collar" sort of guns....

If I go .22lr, I'm thinking the CZ452.....as far as the .17HMR I'm clueless....

If you enjoyed reading about ".22lr vs .17hmr?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 06:57 PM
Gotta stick with the .22.

The .17s interesting, but the ammo price? Holy hell.

.22 LR is around $120 per 2,500...

.17s $89 per 500.

Those prices from Ammoman.com

Norton
November 7, 2003, 07:01 PM
Wow....hadn't done the research on the .17HMR ammo prices yet.....YIKES! That's serious $$ for ammo.

I suppose that if I were hunting, the .17 would be the choice.....at those prices it would be awfully expensive to plink and target shoot very often. That's a higher cost than shooting my SKS.....

Dave R
November 7, 2003, 07:02 PM
Don't get a .17hmr until you've already got a .22lr. Its one of the unwritten rules of shooting. Ya gotta have a .22lr. Shoot for hours for the price of a burger.

And if it were me, it would be a CZ 452.

farscott
November 7, 2003, 07:07 PM
I have both, and if I could only have one, it would be the .22 LR. There is essentially only one .17 HMR load (a 17-grain bullet at around 2650 fps), and there are several .22 LR (subsonic, standard velocity, high velocity, hyper velocity, pistol match, heavy weight, etc.) loads to meet different needs. In addition, the .22 LR is much less expensive to shoot. I pay somewhere between $7.00 and $9.00 per box of fifty .17 HMR, and I pay $10.96 for five hundred .22 LR. That means the .22 LR is around $60 to $75 cheaper per 500 rounds.

.22 LR is also a lot of fun, and there are a wide variety of firearms chambered for it. I have more firearms to shoot .22 LR than for any other cartridge.

In rimfire rifles, there are a lot of choices. I love my Volquartsen semi-autos, but I also like my Marlin lever actions and T/C Contenders.

Jaegermeister
November 7, 2003, 07:17 PM
To narrow the gap between the .22lr and the .17, use CCI Stingers.

These shoot much flatter than most .22lr.

My Ruger 77/.22 in blue and wood with scope loves them. Extreme accuracy at 50 yards with only a few inches of drop out to 100 yards.

Most small game are taken at relatively close range. I carry a Ruger .22/45 pistol because some rabbit shots are within 10 yards.

Get sneaky

David4516
November 7, 2003, 07:38 PM
Not only does .17 HMR ammo cost you an arm and a leg, but it's also not so easy to find. Lots of places don't stock it, and places that do are often sold out...

If you want a rimfire with more power than .22 LR, then stick with good old .22 WMR (the .17 is just a necked down .22 WMR anyway). You can find .22 WMR just about anywhere, and it is about $2.00 cheaper per box. And I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think it hits harder (.17HMR = 17gr bullet vs .22 WMR = 40 gr bullet)...

JBP
November 7, 2003, 07:57 PM
Well I'll muddy the water for you a bit and suggest if you want something that will go out further than a 22LR and be cheaper to shoot than a 17 HMR than go for a 22 Mag. I normally do not fire my 10/22T (22LR) past 50 yards. With normal high velocity ammo the drop is about 4 inches, with CCI Mini Mags it only drops around a inch. I take my 10/22M (22 Mag) out to 100 yards. Accuracy is almost as good as the 10/22T but just have to work harder to get it. Ammo is around $5.49 per 50 rounds and plentiful. The 17 HMR is an extemely accurate round out to 200 yards (around a 3" drop) as long as there is not much of a wind. I have a Marlin 17VS and I can shoot that rifle all day long since there is absolutely no recoil. Ammo will run you anywhere from $8.99 to $10 per 50 rounds and like others have said it's sometimes hard to get a hold of because of its popularity. How accurate is it? One of the range officers where I shoot was firing his 17HMR NEF Handi Rifle at 100 yards when a fly decided to land on the target. Talk about a 100 yard fly squatter. Splattered it on the target :what: .

David4516
November 7, 2003, 08:06 PM
Those Handi-Rifles are suprisingly accurate. My .22 WMR (aka .22Mag) is a NEF/H&R "Ultra" Handi-Rifle, and is my most accurate gun...

http://www.hr1871.com/firearms/index.php?cat=4&subcat=21

and for about $125 (not counting the scope), they are a good deal...

Dave Markowitz
November 7, 2003, 08:16 PM
For just target shooting, plinking, and small game, a .22 LR is tough to beat. You can get very nice bolt actions from Savage, Marlin, CZ, and Ruger. Marlin and Winchester make nice lever actions. Ammo is cheap and the rifles can be very quiet. Note that in some guns, the really cheap stuff may not be accurate or may cause excessive leading. Winchester XPert .22s, for example.

.17 HMR is apparently very accurate and flat shooting to 200 yards, but the ammo is a lot more expensive and harder to come by. Unless the price of ammo drops a lot, shooting it will be comparable in cost to shooting centerfire ammo. If I was into varmint hunting in populated areas, I'd look long and hard at getting a LH Savage boltgun in .17.

.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire is a great cartridge in my book. I have a Savage 93GL in .22 Mag. It's accurate and will be more so when I do a trigger job on it. The .22 Mag gives you another 50 - 75 yards in effective range compared with a .22 LR, and packs a lot more wallop at closer ranges. I wish I had my Savage with me last week when I had to shoot a rabid racoon. :uhoh:

.22 Mag ammo is a bit more expensive than .22 LR, though. E.g., Natchez Shooters' Supply has CCI Maxi Mags on sale for $5.49/50. .22 LR Mini Mags are about $3.50/100. And .17 HMR will run you closer to $10/50.

bad_dad_brad
November 7, 2003, 09:15 PM
The .22LR is an everyday caliber. Ammo is dirt cheap. The .17HMR is a specialty caliber. A very interesting cartridge, the .17 has some impressive balistics.

All the advise to have a .22LR rifle first is correct. This can take small game, is fun as hell, and cheap. Most .17HMR rifles are based on .22LR and .22Mag rifles anyway. They are all pretty good and inexpensive (except Ruger's - what is with that?)

I have a Marlin .17HMR bolt action with a heavy barrel, just because I wanted one. A great rifle, accurate, simple, and reliable, Hmmm . . . just like their .22 and .22mag rifle's. And it was cheap (less than $200).

I also have a Ruger 10/22 - great little piece. And I have a host of other .22 rifles.

Regarding rimfires, cut your teeth on a .22LR, then get a .17HMR.

kudu
November 7, 2003, 09:20 PM
Got to start with the .22. It's a must have for any shooter period. The .17 HMR is a nice little specialty gun, I have one, but for practice and plinking there is no way it can compete with the .22lr. Plus as has been pointed out there is dozens of different loads for .22s, from CBshorts to Mini-mags and all the promo shells that will keep a .22 fed for a long time. When you want a little niche gun like the .17HMR, it's for something that adds to a collection, not a must have like a .22.

Freightman
November 7, 2003, 09:28 PM
If you live in a high wind area as I do the .17 is useless a lot of the year they blow around a lot.

ojibweindian
November 7, 2003, 10:56 PM
If you want more reach than the .22lr but don't want the expense of buying .17hmr, go with the .22mag. I did, and have not looked back.

hksw
November 7, 2003, 11:08 PM
If your main criteria is price (as stated), no question - .22 lr. Low cost platforms, low cost ammo, high selection of ammo. With .17 HMR, all you have is low cost platforms.

The .17, though, is very accurate (from my experience) with some of the ammo on its short list. About as accurate as some of the match grade ammo which, incidentally, are pretty close in price. Only possibility the .17 has for toppling the .22 is if you're shooting past 100 yds, IMO. I do have to say, though, that I have not shot .17 in any cross wind over 5 mph (est).

[The .17 I'm shooting is Butler Creek's drop in barrel/stock for the 10/22M.]

Norton
November 7, 2003, 11:27 PM
Thanks for all of the well-thought replies, everyone.....it's why we all come here to ask our questions


Given that I have to .22lr pistols, it would make sense for me to keep my rifle caliber common to those guns. Since I'm not a hunter, it sounds like the .22, whether in LR, WMR or .22 Magnum is the way to go.

I'm going to take a hard look at the CZ.....a little more money but sounds like a favorite amongst those who have compared them to others.

To throw one more variable into the mix.....anyone have a good read on how different .22LRs compare as far as size/ergonomics? I'm 6'7" so, as you may imagine, not every firearm works for me size wise......

MeekandMild
November 7, 2003, 11:32 PM
Norton, I love my Marlin model 17 but the truth is it is just a toy for the guy who has everything.

I agree that you should get a .22 first to match your pistols and put 10,000 rounds through it. Then later on when you have money to burn get a .17. :D

CB900F
November 8, 2003, 12:06 AM
Norton;

I noticed one of the other posters suggested the .22 magnum as he didn't use his .22lr much past 50 yards. I routinely use my .22 lr's in the 100 yard range. Mostly for Montana gopher shooting. It's not hard to get reliable hits at that sort of range, just spend a lot of time in ammo evaluation & then practice, practice practice.

Of course, in a situation where it's utterly possible to shoot a brick a day, you can get a lot of very fun practice.

900F

WonderNine
November 8, 2003, 12:29 AM
Honestly I don't see the point of the .22 magnum when there's .223 ammo that's cheaper and of course performs much much better. I like to pop .22 magnums out of a Ruger Single Six for fun, just to make people wonder why the gun that was going plink plink with .22 longs a minute ago is now going BOOM BOOM hehe, but it's really pointless in a rifle.

Jiles111
November 8, 2003, 12:34 AM
I personally prefer the .17hmr. (Mine is the Marlin 17V)

It seems like I get a ton more duds in the 22lr than in the 17hmr.
Out of 400 rounds through the 17.hrm I have had only 1 dud. I just cycled it back through and it fired the 2nd time. My 17 has lots more power than my 22LR. It will cleanly go through a 4X4 at 50 yards, where my 22' will not at 10 yards. The 17 will leave a nail hole on one side and a hole about the size of a quarter on the other. My 17 is also allot more accurate. I have hit bullfrogs at 100 yards with it (While they were in the water. Leaving only a 2" wide by 1/2 inch tall target). I have also taken numberous birds at 150, and even picked off a Cotton tail at 300 yards downhill (aimed about a foot and 1/2 over). Given a good solid rest, and no wind, you can hit dimes at 150 yard. Although its tough to get it in the middle, you can hit the outer rings with no problem.

I mainly use my 22 for Rats, and Cactus Critters. I would use the 17 on rats, but at 3 yards it shoots about 3" low (lol) because it is scoped.

If you have never had a 22LR, then you might want to get one. Or compramise and get a NEF .17HMR and buy a 22LR barrel with it. That way you will have BOTH for under $300

WonderNine
November 8, 2003, 12:42 AM
Hi Jiles, I'm sure the .17HMR is very accurate and I would assume it has more power and much more penetration than a .22lr since it's basically a .22 mag necked down to .17 and goes twice as fast, but even if a brick of .22lr has 5 duds and the .17 has only one, the .22lr is still gonna be tons cheaper.

The .17HMR costs quite a bit MORE to shoot than surplus or cheap .223 Remington and is no more accurate AND in fact will be less accurate than .223 with more bullet drop at ranges up to and especially when exceeding 100 yards or so.

And it can't compete performance wise.

I just don't see the point to .17HMR until they start selling it at Walmart for $12 per 500/550 round brick.

Jiles111
November 8, 2003, 12:56 AM
A brick of the Brass coated Remington 22LR are trash. Thats the 9$ brick. I usually have about 15 to 20 duds out of them. The Federal lightning's arent as bad. You also gotta consider the noise ratio. 22's bieng the quietist, then the 17, then the .223. You also gotta take in concideration of plinking backgrounds (houses, cattle, ppl, etc..). I am not saying that the .223 is not a good round. I think its a wonderfull round, but I dont like to plink with it. It has TOO much power for just venting cans and killing purple cactus buds. =P

Jiles111
November 8, 2003, 01:01 AM
I read in a mag at WalMart (As the wife was shopping for clothes) that there was another company that was working on a .17hmr bullet design. Any words on that? Its been several weeks since I read that and I caint remember. Plus since the wife was shopping for clothes I was able to read most the the articles and put the mag back. There was also a insert about Ruger was in the works on making a 10/22-17 design. Basically a 10/22 in a 17.hrm. I know that have conversion barrels now, but this one is going to be from the factory like this. Any info on that? (release dates?)
Just curious

Mike Irwin
November 8, 2003, 02:49 AM
"Honestly I don't see the point of the .22 magnum when there's .223 ammo that's cheaper and of course performs much much better."

The .22 Mag. was originally designed to bridge the gap between the .22 LR and the smaller centerfire .22s, like the .22 Hornet and the .218 Bee.

The .222 and .223s came along later.

six 4 sure
November 8, 2003, 03:48 AM
I’d suggest buying a CZ in .22lr and not looking back. I have a 452 varmint and at 25 yards five shots through one hole isn’t even a challenge. I probably shot a dozen different kinds of ammo and accuracy was basically the same no matter what I sent downrange. I shot everything from cheap CCI Blazers ($12 per 500) to Eley Tenex ($10 per 50). In fact my best group of the day was while I was shot the CCI Blazers, I put 5 shots through a .25” hole.

My next trip to the range I’m going to back up to 50 yards. I have a feeling that ammo choice will make a difference at that range, but at 25 yards it’s a dead heat for me.

six

David4516
November 8, 2003, 03:49 AM
"Since I'm not a hunter, it sounds like the .22, whether in LR, WMR or .22 Magnum is the way to go."

I think we need to clear something up here: .22 WMR = .22 Magnum

WMR is "Winchester Mag Rimfire"

It is basicly a .22 LR with a much longer case and the bullet goes twice as fast. 40 gr bullets at 2200 FPS if I remember correctly, compared to 1200 FPS for .22 LR.

.22 Mag gives you twice the range of .22 LR, and the ammo is cheaper than .17 HMR. The downside is that it's still $4.00 to $5.00 per box of 50, so .22 LR is still much cheaper...

Here is some info from www.chuckhawks.com

.22 WMR (.22 Magnum):


Winchester introduced the .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire (WMR) in the 1950's. It was the first new .22 rimfire cartridge in decades. Its long case contains a lot more powder than the Long Rifle, and the cartridge operates just about at the pressure limit for rimfire ammunition. Like the Long Rifle, the Magnum is chambered in a variety of rifles and revolvers. For the handgunner, one of the neatest of these is the single action "convertible" revolver that is supplied with two interchangable cylinders, one for .22 LR cartridges and one for .22 Mag. cartridges.

Bullet diameter for the Magnum is .224", the same as for the .22 WRF and most centerfire .22's. Its case is slightly fatter than a Long Rifle case and, as loaded by Winchester-Western, the Magnum's original 40 grain bullet came with a real jacket, not just copper plating. Bullet styles include full metal jacket (non-expanding) and jacketed hollow-point (expanding) types. The SD of the 40 grain bullets is .114. As originally loaded a MV of 2000 fps was claimed from a 22" rifle barrel, and 1550 fps from a 6.5" handgun barrel.

Available bullet weights have expanded to include 30 grain and 50 grain bullets (SD .142) in addition to the original 40 grain bullets. CCI, Federal, Remington, and Winchester all load .22 WMR ammunition. There is also a .22 WMR shot cartridge, loaded with #11 shot.

The standard 40 grain bullet is now advertised to have a muzzle velocity of 1,910 fps in a 22" rifle barrel and carries 324 ft. lbs. of energy. From the 6.5" barrel of a revolver the velocity is 1400 fps with an energy of 174 ft. lbs.

The .22 Magnum is a much more powerful cartridge than the .22 LR. At 100 yards its 40 grain bullet is still carrying 156 ft. lbs. of energy, more than the .22 LR develops at the muzzle (compared in 22" barrels). The flat shooting WMR can be zeroed to hit +0.6" at 100 yards when fired from a scoped rifle, and will give a point-blank range (+/- 1.5") of about 124 yards.

The power of the Magnum, coupled with the violent expansion provided by its JHP bullet, makes it too much cartridge for shooting cottontail rabbits and squirrels at close range unless only head shot are taken. Body shots tend to literally blow these small animals apart.

Used for self defence in a revolver, the .22 WMR has compiled a 42% one shot stop rate according to Marshall and Sanow. This is far superior to the .22 LR and .25 ACP, and makes the .22 WMR the best of the small bore handgun cartridges.

Within its trajectory limitation of about 125 yards, the extra destructive power of the .22 Magnum's JHP bullet moves it into the varmint rifle cartridge class. Its low report makes it one of the best varmint cartridges for shooting on the small ranches and farms typical of semi-populated areas and in the country outside of small to medium sized towns.

For years there were lever, pump, and bolt action rifles chambered for the .22 Magnum, but very few autoloaders. This is because the Magnum operates at pressures above those deemed safe for simple blowback actions (the type of action used for all autoloading .22 LR rifles). The rifle manufacturers seemed to have licked the problem in recent years, however, as there is now a selection of autoloading sporting rifles chambered for the .22 WMR. For the serious small game and varmint hunter there are a number of accurate, high grade .22 Magnum bolt action rifles.

Norton
November 8, 2003, 08:31 AM
David,

Thanks for the excellent post.....that clears up a lot! I've only just started venturing into the rifle world (bought my SKS a couple months ago) and I'm astounded at the number of calibers and loads that are out there. I've observed that compared to handguns, rifle calibers and gun selection is a far more complicated issue.

David4516
November 8, 2003, 11:36 AM
"I've observed that compared to handguns, rifle calibers and gun selection is a far more complicated issue."

There are some who would say that is an understatement :D

hksw
November 8, 2003, 05:29 PM
The drop in conversion for .17 HMR are for the 10/22M (magnum) not the 10/22 (long rifle). Folks have converted the 10/22 to .22 mag and .17 HMR but requires some serious modifcations to the receiver.

Currently, Hornady, CCI, Remington, and Federal are making the ammo for .17 HMR. I'm sure Winchester won't waste too much time getting something out. The CCI and Federal ammo (both V-Max hollow points)appear identical, they are both part of Blount. Hornady and Remington also look alike (including packaging) other than tip color and labels.

CORRECTION : The CCi and Fed are Speer TNTs and the Hron and Rem are V-Max.

DougCxx
November 8, 2003, 07:56 PM
I like the 17hmr, its main shortcoming is the lack of different loads (there's only still one, really) and slightly higher ammo cost. 22WMR has a wider ammo variety, and carries well all the way to 200 yds or so, where the 17hrm drops off rapidly at around 150 and its bullets begin to fail to expand. The 17 suffers less windage than the 22WMR does at distances under 150 yards however, just because it gets there so much faster. Jacketed spitzer bullets was something they should have done to .22LR and 22WMR years ago.
----------
And I don't know how much of an issue the higher 17hmr ammo cost is, because I know from owning .22LR target guns that there's no point in shooting crap ammo when you can't even see how well you're really shooting. The cheapest .22LR ammo I buy now is Green Tag, at $10 for 100. I know that Thunderbolt is $2 for 50, but it shoots all over the target, so what good is it? -->So if the cheaper 22WMR ammo shoots lousy, it won't be "saving you any money" because you won't want to use it anyway.
----------
That said though, there's not a lot of guns in the caliber yet.
Numerous bolt rifles, a few revolvers, at least one semiauto pistol coming out, and the only off-the-shelf semiauto rifle currently available is the Remington 597 in .17hmr. Ruger 10/22 Magnums only need a $200 barrel swap however.
----------
Any gun that's in .22WMR should only need a barrel change, but the main company that made 22WMR semiauto rifles and semiauto pistols in 22WMR was AMT, who went out of business several years ago.
~

twoblink
November 9, 2003, 09:32 PM
I don't know of a store that doesn't sell .22LR. That said, I only know of 2 stores that sell .17's..

Also, when you get right down to it, I'll echo what everbody else has said. When you have 100+ guns, you will still find the .22LR fun as all hell to shoot; I don't know if the same can be said for the .17's.. Also, the ammo cost alone reduce your practice if you go .17's.

Get a .22LR, and if it still doesn't fill your small game needs, then buy a .17..

9 m&m
January 27, 2004, 03:46 PM
Get the best of both worlds with a .22 mag, accurate, long range, and hard hitting.:)

Mike Irwin
January 27, 2004, 04:06 PM
9,

Unfortunately, .22 Mag. isn't much cheaper than .17.

Mulliga
January 27, 2004, 04:06 PM
.22LR is the cheapest choice. While it's true there are duds in the average brick, they are so cheap it's hardly worth talking about.

.22 mag is a decent choice. Much better for self-defense, obviously, and sometimes making a nice loud BANG! is part of the fun of plinking.

.17 HMR has been the Big ThingTM for many years, though I suspect the new Ruger .204 will take away some of its luster (4000 fps is pretty goldarn fast :) ).

Surely
January 27, 2004, 09:03 PM
get a 10/22 laminate with SS from walmart for under 200 bucks, its a walmart exclusive version, very nice looking and you can modify it to you hearts content, it will only get better.

DougCxx
January 28, 2004, 02:51 AM
... .17 HMR has been the Big Thing for many years, though I suspect the new Ruger .204 will take away some of its luster (4000 fps is pretty goldarn fast ).... - Mulliga
-Ehhhh,,,,, I dunno about that. First of all the 17hmr is a rimfire and since rimfires cannot be reloaded, people expect them to be relatively inexpensive to buy.
-Secondly, (it would seem that) many shooters don't see how a 204 is radically different from a 17 Remington. You can load a 17 Rem to 4000 fps but the barrel is toasted in only a couple thousand shots. Ruger claims that the 204 lets barrels last far longer but the shooting community didn't seem to swallow that. My bet is that the Ruger 204 will end up where the other Ruger-invented calibers went.
---------
Now, .27 rimfire on the other hand....
~

JohnBT
January 28, 2004, 08:56 AM
Sako is coming out with a 3-in-1 rifle with a plastic stock and IIRC a stainless barrel. By purchasing extra barrels you can shoot .22LR, .22WMR and .17HMR. I haven't seen any word on the cost, but I assume it will be reasonably expensive considering that a Finnfire goes for about $700.

John

Smoke
January 28, 2004, 10:59 AM
AS much as I absolutley love the .17hmr, get a .22 first. Mainly economics.

I had 5 .22 rifles and 2 pistols, before I got a .17
I had all these before the .17 even came into existance but if I had to do it over again, I'd probably do about the same.

.22 is cheap and fun.

.17 is for fun, but it ain't cheap.

Smoke

Surely
January 28, 2004, 11:04 AM
prices are dropping at least, its actually cheaper than some of the higher quality 22mag cartridges. Cabelas has Hornady 17 HMR for 7.50 a box, not too bad, I think its around 8 bucks if you order like 2 bricks after shipping.

Mike Irwin
January 28, 2004, 12:41 PM
I saw it at a gunshow this past weekend for $6.95 a box of 50 as a table special.

If the price goes much lower, I'm going to seriously consider getting one.

WhiteKnight
January 28, 2004, 01:46 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but a .22LR is the best choice in your situation. ;)

Vern Humphrey
January 28, 2004, 05:39 PM
I have two walls full of rifles, and the one that I shoot more than all the others combined is a .22 LR. And it isn't that I don't have a place to shoot -- I have 185 acres in a valley of more than 2,000 acres that has only one or two other houses. I have my own bench rest and shooting range, too.

The reason I like the .22LR is low cost. You can buy 500 or 550 rounds at Wal Mart for around $9.00 -- which is less than $.02 a round.

While others may say premium ammo is better, I do a lot of shooting at a standard NRA 11-bull 50 foot target. I shoot from the standing, unsupported position only, and work the bolt from the shoulder. I put 10 rounds on each bull, and try to hold all shots to the 8-ring or better.

That cheap ammo does very well for this kind of shooting, and really makes a rifleman out of you. For hunting, a brick of premium ammo will last a long time, and will make all that practice pay off.

superbeebaby
December 7, 2005, 01:13 AM
wow wut a little zipper , i hit a coyote at 150yrds with the 17gr v max , he jumped 4 ft in the air spun around 5 times and fell over dead dead dead. upon closer inspection it was a heart shot granted a 22 wouldve done the same thing . I just didnt have to aim a foot high. Ive had 22 mags before , I thought they ruled till i got my 17, its my new best freind

Oldtimer
December 7, 2005, 11:19 AM
A few things come to mind: The .22 WMR is an excellent round, but due to the low "demand", the prices have remained very high. If it had become more popular, the prices would have dropped to slightly more than the venerable .22LR.

The .17 HMR is still fairly new, so the "demand" aspect has yet to be revealed. If it does become more popular, the ammo prices MAY become at least "competitive" with the long-standing "king" of rim-fires.

On the "new" aspect of the .17 HMR, I've heard numerous opinions about what to expect. Many seem to think that, long-term, the .17 will eventually fade from existence. I've also HEARD that many so-called "experts" seem to think that the .17 HMR generates too much chamber heat....and will cause severe throat erosion.

All I know is that my first-ever rifle (a Winchester model 69A) is now 53 years old, but it shoots like it was "born" yesterday! It has been fired (guess-timated) 10,000 times, with nary a malfunction or misfire! Original cost: $11.50!

If you enjoyed reading about ".22lr vs .17hmr?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!