What are the advantages/disadvantages of .17hmr vs .22lr?


PDA






Lightsped
January 4, 2010, 04:20 PM
I know the .17hmr is signifigantly more expensive than .22lr. Why does .17hmr cost so much? Is .17hmr really that much better than .22lr? Pros? Cons? My best friend just bought a new Marlin 917vs (stainless), and I am wondering if I am gonna be outgunned with my CZ-452 Silhouette.... Thanks for any info.

If you enjoyed reading about "What are the advantages/disadvantages of .17hmr vs .22lr?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dak0ta
January 4, 2010, 04:22 PM
The 17 HMR shoot straighter, farther, and is more destructive down range. Stuff tends to explode.

22 LR is cheaper, not as straight and cannot shoot as far. Hollow points can cause stuff to explode at closer ranges.

It really depends on what you want to do. 22 LR is easy on the wallet and can get the job done if used in it's range. 17 HMR is fun to shoot but more expensive.

rcmodel
January 4, 2010, 04:24 PM
The .17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire, or HMR is a true rim-fire Magnum round like the .22 WMR or .22 Magnum.
It gives much higher velocity, shoots much flatter, and in general is a better longer range caliber for small pest / varmint shooting.

The .22 RF uses a lead bullet, as opposed to the jacketed bullet used in the .17 HMR.
It is also generally held to much higher quality standards then run of the mill .22 RF ammo.

That's why it costs more.

rc

desidog
January 4, 2010, 04:27 PM
The .17 rimfires are a novelty/gimmick that won't stand the test of time, IMHO, because there is not a big enough difference with the .22lr; although there is in price. Thats not to say they don't do anything better, but just not significantly enough to merit the price increase for Joe End-user...and many of the guns chambered in .17HMR are pricy as well - so at that price point, I don't understand why you wouldn't just get a .22 or .204, or .223

Vern Humphrey
January 4, 2010, 04:29 PM
One thing that holds down the .22 LR cost is economy of scale. The .17 HMR doesn't sell more than a tiny fraction of the billions and billions of .22 LR rounds sold each year.

GunsAmerica Fan
January 4, 2010, 04:33 PM
Wow desidog that is a gutsy proclamation. I haven't ever heard a negative word from people who shoot the .17 so I don't know why it would disappear. I think it is really just a choice between whether you want a traditional plinking gun or a sexy hot modern caliber that takes advantage of improved metallurgy and advanced gun powder technology. Different strokes for different folks.

http://photos.gunsamerica.com/d/1665-1/martin+with+ga+logo.jpg

rcmodel
January 4, 2010, 04:39 PM
I agree.

There are a lot of uses for the .17 HMR that cannot be served with a bigger center-fire caliber.

Noise may be an issue in some areas of the country.
And you don't need a .204 Ruger at .75 cents a shot to shoot ground squirrels at 125 yards when you can do it just as well at 1/3 the cost with a .17 RF.!

rc

ArmedBear
January 4, 2010, 04:42 PM
at that price point, I don't understand why you wouldn't just get a .22 or .204, or .223

Depending on the state or location, some game or varmints are rimfire-only by law. And for shooting ground squirrels, it can be nice to just buy boxes of (relatively) cheap ammo. The .17HMR groups so nicely from a good off-the-shelf rifle like a CZ, that it would take careful load development to get the same groups from .204 Ruger.

What desidog says does appear to be happening to the .17M2 as we speak (after the top two rimfire rifle sellers, Marlin and Ruger, CZ was the next to go, with no more .17M2 for 2010). Weatherby never did offer its nice Anschutz bolt rimfire in .17M2, but does sell it in .17HMR and .22LR. I'm not sure if Remington ever did sell a .17M2 but, again, it doesn't offer one now.

I believe the .17HMR will survive and thrive, in its context. It's not, and was never meant to be, a .22LR competitor. If anything, it competes with the .22WMR, which also has a fraction of the sales of .22LR.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 4, 2010, 04:50 PM
.22 rimfires (.22lr and .22 mag) are for hunting small game, as they don't destroy as much meat, and offer better penetration. They are also good for target shooting.

.17 HMR is for target shooting (primarily, IMO), and destroying small varmints, where you don't care if you save meat, because you won't save much.

Two different purposes. What's YOUR purpose? You didn't say.

.17 Mach 2 - well I'm not so sure there IS a purpose for it. But it's kindof a jack of all trades, pretty good for small game hunting, I guess(not TOO much meat damage, although some), and a little more range than .22lr, but not quite as good as .22 mag for longer range small game hunting, IMO. Pretty good for target shooting, although not as good as .17 Hummer past 50 or 75 yards. Cheaper than .17 hummer, that's for sure.

Vern Humphrey
January 4, 2010, 05:04 PM
Here in Arkansas, there is a "nothing larger than .22 rimfire" rule for some critters like crows. But there is a loophole; "Except when a modern gun season for deer, bear, or coyotes is in effect."

Coyote season runs from 1 July to 28 February, then starts again on the first day of Spring Turkey season (usually around 7 March) and runs through the end of Spring Squirrel season, 13 June. So for 49 1/2 weeks, my .22 Hornet is perfectly legal.

Fred Fuller
January 4, 2010, 05:23 PM
Shoot a decent .17HMR, and you'll see for yourself. I only have about 25 rounds through one so far, in my case a bottom of the line Savage that I mounted a scope on and zeroed, and it sure has made a believer out of me. The only disadvantage is the cost of ammunition, everything else I can see is an advantage.

I'll be getting my own before the month is out, I think...

lpl

skidooman603
January 4, 2010, 05:43 PM
This cool little .17 has me rather smitten. Think I will have to own one just for novelty sake if nothing else ;)

demonseed34
January 4, 2010, 05:47 PM
the 17 hmr will be affected mor by the wind than a 22 LR ro 22 Mag. The 17 is only a fair weather round when the 22 is an any weather gun.

RonE
January 4, 2010, 06:35 PM
The 17 HMR seems to ricochet less than the .22 long rifle cartridge. This is perhaps due to the smaller bullet exploding or disintegrating because of about twice the velocity of the .22lr.

ArmedBear
January 4, 2010, 07:02 PM
the 17 hmr will be affected mor by the wind than a 22 LR

Have you ever shot a .22LR in the wind?

The .17HMR will be more affected by the wind at 100 yards than a .22LR will be at 20 yards, but, well, so what?:)

colonelhogan44
January 4, 2010, 08:10 PM
I own (and love) a savage rifle in .17 hm2. I used to always hunt squirrels with a .22 lr, but the frequent ricochets made me nervous. I have yet to hear a ricochet with the 17 (which doesn't mean it's never happening) and it really puts the squirrels down like a sack of bricks within 200 yards.

$5 for a box of quality shells vs. 11-15 for hmr...what's not to love? My buddy owns a savage in 17 hmr, and we frequently participate in "population control" on ground squirrels, so I have shot both quite extensively. The HMR shoots flatter and hits harder (read explosive), but the hm2 keeps up well, and the squirrels are DRT with both. There is little performance difference for a huge price difference.

Bottom line:
-the hm2 is awesome, despite all the talk that it is going away tomorrow.
-I'll take one over an hmr any day for varmints or plinking.
-The .22 falls far short (no pun intended) of both 17s for hunting purposes.
-if you have an hm2, .22 lr and hmr in the safe, 90% of the time you'll reach for the hm2 when something needs dispatching.

KzoneAL
January 4, 2010, 10:02 PM
+1 for the 17M2 its just plain awesome to shoot and hunt with and it isnt going anywhere.IMO 22's are fun and have done thier job for along time but they don't compare to the 17's in overall performance.People who talk about the M2's without shooting one need to stop talkin and start shootin one then maybe thier outlook may change.

SGR
January 4, 2010, 11:31 PM
I cannot believe all the B.S. you read about the .17 HMR round. First of all, you cannot even compare a .22 LR with a .17, maybe a .22 mag, but not a .22 LR. I have all three rounds, and they each have their place, but for varmit shooting out to 150 yards, the other two rounds just don't compare. I also have 2 .223s for varmit shooting, but I don't use it unless the targets are over 150+ yards out. The .223 is more expendsive to shoot, and scares the prairie dogs much quicker then the .17. Everybody that I have taken prairie dog hunting that brings a .22 mag goes home after shooting my CZ 452 .17 HMR, goes out and buys a .17 HMR. It is simply a wonderful, accurate rounds that far outshines either the .22 LR or .22 mag.

rangerruck
January 4, 2010, 11:53 PM
all you need to know is right here;
the 17 hmr bullet is a prime piece of multiple engineering , by the way, which is the main reason of it's high cost.
http://www.varmintal.com/17hmr.htm

a 17m2 rifle is better than both anyway; it can also shoot 17aguila rounds, and is 1/3 the cost
of hmr ammo.

One more thing; if I am reading right, and someone above is saying a 22lr round moves less in the wind than an hmr round, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You also need to read my link above; and just as a quick aside, a 17hmr round is moving faster at 150 yds, than a 22lr is at the muzzle.

demonseed34
January 5, 2010, 08:04 AM
i work at a huntin and fishing club that dose sight in for the public. on windy days people brought 17 hmrs in and they were shooting either towards the left or the right depending on the way the wind was coming from. i brought out my .22 lr marlin mod. 60 and it was shooting where i had sighted it in at.

HunterBear71
January 5, 2010, 09:00 AM
It is funny that folks keep claiming that the 17hmr is useless in the wind compared to a .22mag. According to my ballistic chart, that is simply not the case. It is accepted as fact on internet forums.

jmorris
January 5, 2010, 10:07 AM
I thought about getting one but the price of ammunition drove me away. I shoot .223 cheaper and can reload the cases. Noise is not a factor once you have a suppressor.

ArmedBear
January 5, 2010, 12:02 PM
the hm2 is awesome, despite all the talk that it is going away tomorrow.

I didn't say it isn't awesome. It may be, or it may not be, for all I know.

It is a fact, for better or worse, that one major rifle maker after another has dropped it from their product line, if it was ever in it. Take a look at Remington, Marlin, Ruger, H&R, CZ, Browning, Winchester, Weatherby websites. Of all the rifle manufacturers with a significant footprint in the US market, AFAIK only Savage still offers the .17M2 chambering, in two rifles. Buy one now, if you want one...

Lightsped
January 5, 2010, 12:10 PM
The range we go to is a max of 100 yards. I can easily hit small targets with my .22lr CZ 452. I never hunt or anything like that as I live in the city. I also enjoy the "low" cost of .22lr ammo. So for me, would it be worth buying a .17 hmr rifle?

Vern Humphrey
January 5, 2010, 12:19 PM
The range we go to is a max of 100 yards. I can easily hit small targets with my .22lr CZ 452. I never hunt or anything like that as I live in the city. I also enjoy the "low" cost of .22lr ammo. So for me, would it be worth buying a .17 hmr rifle?
No. Unless you want a .17HMR.

I have a bunch of .22 LRs, including a super-accurate Kimber M82, an M1922 Springfield and a Remington 541X. I also have a Ruger 77/22M in .22 WMR. And another Kimber M82 in .22 Hornet. So as I see it, neither the .17 HMR nor the .17 HM2 is in my future.

ArmedBear
January 5, 2010, 12:25 PM
So for me, would it be worth buying a .17 hmr rifle?

I'll assume you're asking for practical feedback. Obviously, if you want a .50 BMG, I'm not telling you not to buy one.:)

The cost of the .17 rimfire ammo is way too high for targets and plinking inside 100 yards IMO. The ammo makers have you over a barrel, too, with rimfire. As others have said, .223 with a reloading press makes for a better longer-range target round, and cheaper, too.

Hell, I have ground squirrel varmint hunting down the road from me, and I still just use a .22LR Marlin 60 with a scope. I've thought about getting a CZ in .17HMR, but if not for the ground squirrels, I would just get a .22LR like you have (nice gun!).

BTW is Big Shanty the city now?:D

colonelhogan44
January 5, 2010, 01:10 PM
The 17s are definitely hunting rounds. Every time I shoot paper I can't help but think about all those nice ballistic tips that are being wasted in that dirt berm.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 5, 2010, 01:38 PM
The cost of the .17 rimfire ammo is way too high for targets and plinking inside 100 yards IMO. The ammo makers have you over a barrel, too, with rimfire. As others have said, .223 with a reloading press makes for a better longer-range target round, and cheaper, too.

I have to *generally* respectfully but strongly disagree, UNLESS you are reloading (as you indicate). I would agree if you had said 50 or 60 or maybe even 70 yards.

.17 Hummer is actually THE PERFECT plinking & fun-target-shooting round for inside 100 and even inside 125-150 yards, if shooting with factory ammo (comparing apples to apples with the .223).

.17 HMR ammo in quantity (500 at a time) costs around 25.4 cents per round. Some of the cheapest .223 rem ammo in quantity (1000 at a time) costs roughly 2 TIMES as much, at around 47.9 cents per round. [[EDIT: Wait a sec - I misspoke slightly here, IF if you're willing to go for the cheapest FMJ - cheapie Wolf FMJ is only 29 cents per round in quantity, but that's STILL *more than* what cheap .17 HMR costs, and the .17 is explosive HP ammo]].So I never understood why people say the .17 HMR is expensive to shoot - it just isn't - not at all when compared to a round with similar short-range (under 125-150 yard) trajectories, such as the .223 or .22 hornet or .221 fireball, etc. Reloading, I'd guess you ought to be able to match or best the cost of .17 HMR with .223 components plus your time (whatever that's worth). Sure, compared to .22lr, it's very expensive, but that's not really apples to apples, since it can do a lot more than .22, espec. in the wind. It's usually very windy here, and I've had numerous occasions where I've taken noobs/kids to the range under windy conditions, and the .17 Hummers slap a smile on their faces when they hit a charcoal briquet at 75 or 80 yards or more with virtually no skill, first time out, within a couple/three shots. A .22lr just would not do that - it's not as impressive to do it at 25 or 50 yards as you can with a .22lr.

Compared with .22 rimfires, the wind can blow your .22lr round off a lot past 50-60 yards, whereas the wind affects .17 HMR to a much lesser degree, since it has less than half the time to "work on" the bullet, since flight time is less than half under 125 yards. This increases practical accuracy past 50 yards give or take. Most people claim that the .17 Hummer is even slightly less affected by wind than the .22 magnum under 100 yards, due to reduced flight time. And accuracy is the main ingredient in making plinking fun (to me).

Going back to comparing to .22 cal centerfires.....Beyond cost, .17 HMR is quieter, less recoil, and generally more pleasant to shoot than .223 - great for taking newbies to the range. This is the second big factor in making plinking fun. The rifles that chamber it are also typically quite accurate, and the round itself is more inherently accurate than non-bottlenecked rimfires, in my understanding and belief.

.17 HMR is THE fun range round, IMO, right alongside the .22lr (unless you're just so dirt broke that .22 is all you can afford - and there's nothing wrong with that - believe me, I've BTDT). But let's not pretend that .223 is any less expensive to shoot, and certainly can in no way be said to be significantly less expensive.

As for shooting actual critters with it, the .17 HMR just ain't for hunting, in my view - it's for *eliminating pests*. It's the perfect short-range (to middish-range) blower-upper of turtles, crows, prairie dogs, and similar, if that's your thang. Turtles espec., since these are legitimate pests in ponds, and the hummer easily penetrates then hard outer shell, then gives you a show, then sends them on their way to the bottom. :)

ArmedBear
January 5, 2010, 01:50 PM
UNLESS you are reloading

If you're plinking with rounds that cost over a quarter per trigger pull, and you're not reloading, it's time to start. Nobody comes out of the womb with a reloading press -- or a .17HMR rifle. These are all purchasing decisions to be made.:)

The fact is, if you're plinking or target shooting, just use smaller targets at 50 yards with .22LR. Even pretty good .22LR ammo is 1/4 the price of .17HMR. The practice you get is the same. The most serious rimfire accuracy matches (ARA Benchrest) are shot with .22LR -- at tiny targets, 50 yards out.

I see no sense whatsoever in using .17HMR for high-volume paper punching.

the .17 Hummers slap a smile on their faces when they hit a charcoal briquet at 75 or 80 yards or more with virtually no skill, first time out, within a couple/three shots. A .22lr just would not do that - it's not as impressive to do it at 25 or 50 yards as you can with a .22lr.


A .22LR HP with a scope will break an egg at 50 yards, and that's perfectly impressive to a new shooter.:) Again, it's all about choosing the target.

I'm not saying that .17HMR can't be used on charcoal briquets, of course. But if you want a new shooter to grin, hand 'em a .22LR AR.:D

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 5, 2010, 02:01 PM
But if you want a new shooter to grin, hand 'em a .22LR AR.

Well taken under advisement! :D

Wildfire
January 5, 2010, 02:46 PM
Hey There:
I bought 2 of the Savage 17HMRs. I also put of Cabels scopes on them and they are right on. These scopes are geared for the .17HMRs and work right.

My very first shot at an animal was a Coon at 180 yards in a filed. dumped him . The .17HMR will blow squirrels up way to much to eat. But works very well on Coytee's , Fox and such.

I have hunted with .22s for many years and still do , but this .17HMR has brought us a whole new world of varmint hunting. The cost is not a factor for me. It may be for some.
Works very nice on Crows . I did not want the Savage but must say they worked good after some smoothing of parts.

ArmedBear
January 5, 2010, 02:51 PM
this .17HMR has brought us a whole new world of varmint hunting.

Exactly.

I'd like to try it on crows. I wonder if that's legal in my state...:D

Wildfire
January 6, 2010, 12:22 PM
Hey :
I do not hunt nor target shoot and worry about cost. I am not being a smart butt here . I may have been blessed with the ability and money to do so when some have not. No matter , I never consider the cost. I care more about how it shoots and what I can do with it.
In SW lower Michigan we have a lot of people and houses close together.
My .223s are at times a bit much for Varmint hunting. That .17HMR just plain works.

Those tiny bullets reall get the job done yet I do not have to worry about dropping one in on a neighbor.
They do blow up meat really bad. But yet do very little damage to hides.
They for some reason have a lot of range and I mean way more than you can get from any .22 rimfire.

They can aslo be very accurate. I get 3/8" at 100 yards.

shootr
January 6, 2010, 12:31 PM
+1 on all the good things said about 17HMR. All I can say to anyone is, "Go shoot one."

I did and was hooked. Got a constant smile whenever I'm out with it.

Lightsped
January 11, 2010, 01:58 PM
I saw some CCI .17hmr called "TNT". What is the deal with these rounds? How do they differ from regular 17hmr?

minutemen1776
January 11, 2010, 02:49 PM
If you're plinking with rounds that cost over a quarter per trigger pull, and you're not reloading, it's time to start. Nobody comes out of the womb with a reloading press -- or a .17HMR rifle. These are all purchasing decisions to be made.

Yes, it's a purchasing decision, but it's one that I get to make. I was once a reloader, but I'm not any more. And I don't care to restart that endeavor. Though I can appreciate the benefits of reloading, I am at a point in my life where I'd much rather buy good factory rounds than spend my time pulling on a press. That's why I like the .17 HMR. It may be a quarter a pop, but it's the cheapest factory-loaded cartridge I know of that has premium bullets and sub-MOA accuracy at 100 yards. I like it. My quarters, my time, my decision. :)

alfack
January 11, 2010, 05:06 PM
I like my .17, too, but I think the price of the ammo is ridiculous. Good thing they don't make any more semi-autos for it. Unfortunately, the ammo makers do have you over a barrel on this one.

Daizee
January 11, 2010, 05:09 PM
I think one "problem" with the .17HMR is that all the available ammo is effectively premium hunting ammo. If you compare .17HMR ammo to premium .22LR hunting or match ammo, you're only at about twice the price, maybe 2.5x.

HOWEVER: if you want to practice a lot, just generally plink at low cost, the .17HMR can't hold a candle, cost-wise, to the higher-quality bulk packs in .22LR. At a 50yd pistol range, I might as well be tacking dollar bills to the target.

.17HMR now costs what a box of factory pistol ammo used to cost back when I started reloading for handguns.

I can load a box of .357 for half the cost of the .17's. .22WMR has gotten almost as bad, without any obvious excuse.

I've stopped shooting the .17 and .22WMR regularly because it's just too much money for 90% of MY shooting. It's really disappointing to me that the prices went so high. I think a large portion of the market is being cut out. I wouldn't hesitate to take either into the field, but that's so low-volume for me.

Also, those tiny .17 bores are a bit irritating to clean and seem to foul quickly. But If you like the round it's just a minor inconvenience (or I should get something with smoother rifling).

Lest I seem too negative, let me point out that I REALLY LIKE both the .17HMR and the .22WMR as cartridges, independent of supply issues.

-Daizee

ArmedBear
January 11, 2010, 05:10 PM
minuteman1776, do you often find yourself throwing punches at the air?

I was just answering the guy's question, not questioning your right to do whatever you want with your money, including douse it with kerosene and toss a match into the pile. Whatever you want. I don't care.:)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 11, 2010, 06:33 PM
I like my .17, too, but I think the price of the ammo is ridiculous.


Ridiculous compared to what? I demonstrated earlier in the thread that it's cheaper than THE cheapest kind (Wolf steel cased FMJ) of THE cheapest centerfire there is to shoot, .223, even when purchased in vast quantities with free shipping. Therefore, it's safe to assume that you don't shoot ANY centerfires, do you? Some of us DO shoot centerfires, and the .17 hummer is CHEAP by comparison, and can accomplish certain tasks and substitute for centerfires in certain (albeit limited) situations.


Unfortunately, the ammo makers do have you over a barrel on this one.

They do NOT have you over a barrel if there is competition in the marketplace. There is competition in the marketplace. CCI, Remington, Hornady. The price is a competitive one, based on, yep, competition. Over a barrel is what happens with oligarchies and monopolies - that is not the case here. If there were one or maybe even just two makers of the ammo, I might agree with you. But there are at least 3 that I know of; probably more.

ArmedBear
January 11, 2010, 06:40 PM
it's safe to assume that you don't shoot ANY centerfires, do you?

I know it wasn't my post, but I will chime in... It HAS been a while since I shot a centerfire with ammo I didn't load myself.:)

And I'd much rather shoot any of the available .17HMR ammo than cheap Wolf ammo. The .17HMR available is all premium quality, and accuracy is excellent, even though it is designed as hunting ammo.

I just don't think that .22LR and .17HMR have much in common: ballistics/trajectory, action length, applications, prices are all radically different. Neither really replaces the other, and if I had to pick one rimfire rifle to get, I'd get a .22LR first, and I sure wouldn't want to get rid of it just because a friend got a .17 (per the original question).:)

cz85cmbt
January 11, 2010, 06:51 PM
In regards to cost he was refering to reloading .223 which is cheaper than the hmr especially over the long haul. On disadvantage to the .17 is that you can only get them in single shot, bolt guns, and henry makes a lever. There are no production .17hmr's except magnum research which is something like 700 dollars. It has nothing to do with demand, but that they have trouble making a .17 trouble free in an auto loader. I think it has a place for the occasional varmint hunter, or crow popper that does not reload, the .22 will never be replaced ammo is too cheap and there is a .22 for everyone's style and wants. For me the .17 is too light for coyotes (you have to take head shots) and it is rare to encounter anything too far away I can't take with a .22, except crows maybe and I'll shoot those with the AR15.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 11, 2010, 06:53 PM
OK, my bad, but question: How much per round reloading .223? Even if reloading, even if your time is worth nothing, and even if you don't amortize the cost of the press and other gear, can you really beat 29 cents a round, when you factor in brass, bullets, and powder?

Daizee
January 11, 2010, 06:57 PM
and the .17 hummer is CHEAP by comparison

Only if you don't reload (which yes, is a big commitment), and the .17's can't be reloaded.

Seems to me if cost is an issue, one should reload if possible (not feasible for everyone I know). And at that point the .17's start to look dodgy economically as a plinker.

Personally, my price point for .17hmr was about $10.
At this point I'd swap the .17 for a .22 hornet if I could. More performance at probably half the cost reloaded. The .22WMR covers the intermediate range, and I have a several .22LR's, none of which I'd replace with a magnum rimfire, to get back to the OP's topic.


-Daizee

Vern Humphrey
January 11, 2010, 07:05 PM
I have to admit, every time I'm tempted to buy a .17 HMR, I look at my .22 Hornet and ask myself, "What can the .17 HMR do that my Hornet can't?" And yes, .22 Hornet handloads are cheaper than .17 HMR.

Daizee
January 11, 2010, 07:06 PM
OK, my bad, but question: How much per round reloading .223? Even if reloading, even if your time is worth nothing, and even if you don't amortize the cost of the press and other gear, can you really beat 29 cents a round, when you factor in brass, bullets, and powder?

certainly time is worth something, but in my case, I can't make *enough* more money in my spare time to beat the $5-10/hr I make reloading. I can reload at the time of my own choosing, no bosses, schedules, no on-call etc. Some of that is rationalization, sure, but I enjoy the process in moderation, and DO enjoy the control and the obsession over load optimization. Not everybody will dig it.

The initial equipment investment is amortized across all calibers you reload for (except dies), and you're not merely stuck with the cheapest crappiest ammo - you get a MUCH better product for the time/money invested, even if you merely match the surplus price.

Brass is reloadable - one of the most expensive components. That's the point. So bullets, powder, primers are the consumables.

.22LR's are delightfully disposable. The main difference *in components* btw the .22LR and the .17 is a high-precision jacketed bullet. It seems like an unreasonable margin to pay for that one component, IMO.

-Daizee

MichaelK
January 11, 2010, 07:41 PM
OK, not one single person here has used the word "cleaning". I really was in love with my .17. Accurate, box of 50 fits in your pocket, and ground squirrels were popping like balloons.

Then, I tried cleaning my rifle! That's when I discovered that my standard cleaning rod wouldn't go into the barrel. I bought this skinny little rod that fits the bore, but it's so wimpy that I'm afraid I'll bend it in half. Tried running a solvent patch down the barrel. I couldn't even push a really tight patch down the barrel with that wimpy rod. I ended up balling up a patch, shoving it in with a peice of wire, then pushing it through with the tip of my rod.

Now the .17 sits on the shelf while I reach for the .22. At least I can clean my .22 in about 2.2 minutes. My advice to anyone is not the buy a .17 caliber gun untill someone that already has one lets you clean it for them!

alfack
January 11, 2010, 07:58 PM
Therefore, it's safe to assume that you don't shoot ANY centerfires, do you? Some of us DO shoot centerfires, and the .17 hummer is CHEAP by comparison, and can accomplish certain tasks and substitute for centerfires in certain (albeit limited) situations.

Why does everybody make assumptions around here? I shoot all kinds of centerfire and .17 HMR and still think it's a rip off. A guy can't have an opinion? It's nothing more than a .22 WMR necked down to accept a smaller slug. The price should reflect that.


They do NOT have you over a barrel if there is competition in the marketplace. There is competition in the marketplace. CCI, Remington, Hornady. The price is a competitive one, based on, yep, competition. Over a barrel is what happens with oligarchies and monopolies - that is not the case here. If there were one or maybe even just two makers of the ammo, I might agree with you. But there are at least 3 that I know of; probably more.

So 3 is not an oligopoly, then?

benzy2
January 11, 2010, 09:32 PM
I have a very accurate Marlin 917v. Bad trigger out of the box but rifle basix fixed that. Thing shoots well. That said it is the single least used rifle I own. I have a major problem with the performance for the price. In all honesty the .17hmr rounds made today aren't "match grade". Only one brand shoots under 1.5-2MOA with my rifle, and that one will shoot from 3/4-1 MOA depending on conditions and my abilities that day. That isn't match grade accuracy at any level. Good and certainly hunting good, but not match. It isn't a match rifle either but from my experiences $12-$15 .22lr will shoot just as well, especially at shorter distances where I don't have to judge wind as much. Wind does push the .22lr around a lot, but it pushes the hmr a bit too, just not as much.

The real problem for me comes that I have given up shooting expensive rimfire ammo. The right cheap stuff has been kind to multiple rifles I own, hoovering right around 1 MOA at 25 to 50 yards, with a few more fliers than the expensive stuff.

If I want accurate I go to centerfire. I reload. As such I can't claim my experiences or opinions would be the same as a person who doesn't reload. I can make "budget" .223 rounds fairly cheap. I am still working on 55gr FMJ bought for $7/100. Primers were $30/1000. The comes the call for full power or reduced loads. Using blue dot powder you can run velocity wise, anywhere from .22lr speeds up to and a little past .22 hornet speeds. This uses very little powder and for some reason has been very accurate for me. In the case of blue dot I am looking at about $0.04 for powder. I picked up my .223 brass after the local LE was finished at the range and left. There were 500 cases for free. Again my personal situation, but it is what I am experiencing. So what does that add up to? $0.14 a round? These aren't match rounds but they do shoot decent, a little over an inch at 100 yards. Toss in a Hornady 53gr hp match bullet (bought for $15/100) and the groups shrink to 1/2"-3/4" at 100 yards, though in all honesty it shoots many more 3/4" groups than half inch. Price then goes to $0.22 a shot. Go full power loads and not blue dot and my powder cost jumps a bit to $0.06-8, depending on purchased size and load size. So now costs go to what, $0.26 a shot, yet I am shooting full powered .223 loads. So I can tune velocity and energy to anything from .22lr loads up to full power .223 loads, stay basically at or below the same accuracy I can get from the .17hmr in good conditions, and still be a little cheaper. It isn't worlds different price wise, but I truly enjoy reloading. If I didn't this argument wouldn't work in the slightest. My best shooting loads in the .223 rifles I have are a bit more expensive than this, but they have shown the ability to hold 1/2" at 100 yards through a few shooters. I have yet to see a .17hmr do that on a fairly regular basis, though I am sure someone has a rifle that will.

So my biggest problem with the .17hmr is that I don't hunt with a .22lr at ranges farther than 30 yards, so the hmr is only destroying meat at that range and I gain nothing. If I need more power or a flatter shooter I load .223 up to .22 hornet ranges. If I need more energy or a flatter shooter I load up to full .223. Being able to reload the .223 lets me bridge the gap from .22lr to .223 all while using the .223. There are bullets out there for the .223 that are just as explosive as the little vmax bullets are out of the .17hmr if that's your thing.

The .17hmr for me fits no role better than something else I have. If I were to start from scratch and had no rimfires nor any 22 caliber centerfires, as well as having not started reloading, the .17hmr would look a bit more inviting. But that isn't my case.

When I bought my .17hmr it was right at the boom. Everyone had to have one. I thought such a demand for rifles and ammo was going to drive production up and eventually drive ammo costs to the $5-$7 mark. Instead it has risen and risen. I guessed wrong on those counts and as such have a rifle I don't touch.

noob_shooter
January 11, 2010, 11:07 PM
it's funny... i always hear people tell me the 17hmr is too destructive on small game animals.. Sure, if you decide to use those CCI TNT or Vmax bullets. Stick to FMJ and you should be fine.

The 17HMR is superior to the 22LR in every way possible. Just my opinion here... I always carry a box of FMJ 20grain and 17grain VMAX when out in the woods. The Vmax seems more accurate for long range shooting compare to the FMJ.

i own 2 savage 17hmr's.. awesome.. comparing a 17hmr rifle to a 22LR rifle = FAILED

check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK7Tc7X5Ueo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO_KO9Owmmg

benzy2
January 11, 2010, 11:21 PM
See that "every way possible" is what I can't agree with. I can see how it does many things better but what about an inexpensive plinker? You can't honestly believe it is a better inexpensive plinker can you? "Every way" is a pretty broad claim.

noob_shooter
January 11, 2010, 11:41 PM
okay fine.. hahaha.. the cost is a factor. I owned a 22LR and while it was cheaper to plink with, i didn't enjoy it much. I still plinked with my 17hmr more over my 22LR.. why? i like seeing things blow up. Sure, my wallet blows up too, but it's not making me poor so i'm good :) The 22LR can pop cans at 100 yards, but the 17hmr just does it better and i like that..

chevyforlife21
January 11, 2010, 11:48 PM
id call the 17 almost a pointless caliber, the ammo cost the same price as if you got a .223, so your paying more for a bullet smaller then a cheap .22, i know its a flatter shooting round but wayyy not worth it to me. get a .22 if you want to shoot or hunt

rangerruck
January 12, 2010, 12:22 AM
vern , if you reload for 22 hornet, then the perfect round for you is almost within your grasp allready; the 17machIV, or the 17 fireball. just neck down your 22 hornet case, and you got it.
now you can get some 20 or 25 grain 17's moving out at 4000fps, with reloader 17 powder.

Rob96
January 12, 2010, 05:24 AM
They do NOT have you over a barrel if there is competition in the marketplace. There is competition in the marketplace. CCI, Remington, Hornady. The price is a competitive one, based on, yep, competition. Over a barrel is what happens with oligarchies and monopolies - that is not the case here. If there were one or maybe even just two makers of the ammo, I might agree with you. But there are at least 3 that I know of; probably more.

I think the reason the prices are so competitive is because, depsite the different brands they are ALL loaded by the same ammo maker. Reportedly CCI is the only maker that produces 17HMR ammo.

Davek1977
January 12, 2010, 06:39 AM
I was about to say the ame thing. When one company loads all three brands of ammo, using essentially the same componenets (with different colored plastic tips) its not really "competition".

minutemen1776
January 12, 2010, 01:26 PM
ArmedBear, I just get prickly whenever it's suggested that shooters naturally ought to get into reloading. As I said, I've tried it and don't ever want to go back. Others enjoy it, realize enhanced accuracy, save money, or all three, but my point is that it's just not for everyone. That's all, and I certainly don't want to get into a fuss about it. My apologies if I came across too bluntly.

More importantly, the thing we can certainly agree about is that the .17 HMR does not replace the .22 Long Rifle. Aside from the fact that they're rimfires, they really have little else in common. Personally, I only use the .17 HMR to do things that my .22 LR simply can't do. Unfortunately, I think too many shooters get hung up on the fact that the .17 HMR is a rimfire and thus want to compare its cost to the .22 LR. That's where all the "it's too expensive" fussing and cussing comes from. I think those comments are unfair to the .17 HMR, because it fulfills a unique role for shooters, and for that role it is cost effective. It just seems to be one of those things that you either get it or you don't. Maybe it's like reloading in that respect...:o

hub
January 12, 2010, 05:28 PM
To make a fair comparison the .17hmr should be compared to .22mag ammo not .22lr price wise IMO. The performace of the .22lr compared to the .17hmr is not even close.

Also I really don't see the whole why by a .17hmr when i can get .223 cheaper comparison. It not a fair to say the least because you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the cheapest milsurp bulk crap to premium hunting ammo, instead why don't you compare the same ammo from the same company by different calibers.

From what I have seen Hornady .17hmr goes from $12.00-$15.00 per 50 and the same Hornady ammo in .223 goes for $27.00-$30.00 per 50. That's .24-.30 cents per round for .17hmr and .54-.60 cents per round for .223.

Now I do understand that reloading .223 is a whole new ballgame but still using the same components your looking at about $8.50 for vmax bullets per 50, and $25 per 50 for brass. Sure you can reuse your brass but that's not even counting powder, primers, or the initial cost of a reloading set up if you was to just load .223.

With that being said I do own and shoot both the .17hmr and the .223 rem. I like them both and think they both have there place. Sure I could reload quality .223 just as cheap and I do but sometimes it's just kind of nice to be able to stop by the local store and pick up 200 rds for $50 bucks to have some fun shooting with without trying to find all my brass when I'm done, or worry about when I will able to find primers or the right powder again locally.

I do wish some other makers like Wolf or Aguila would put out some .17hmr do drive the prices down a little or at least make a bargain type bulk ammo fairly cheap. They could also make some match type bullets. That would make the .17hmr a whole lot more appealing to a whole lot more shooters. I don't think anything will ever replace the .22lr in my lifetime but the .17hmr does have it's place and is a fun addition to my collection.

I also would like to see them make a 30gr. ballistic tipped .22lr round like they did for the .22mag. Basically the same as a .17HM2 but without necking it down to .17, just a mini mag with a ballistic tip. I think it would sell pretty good if they kept the cost down to about the same as the .17hm2. It would probably make excellent .22lr hunting ammo and bridge the .17hm2-.22lr performance gap considerable.

bf2wesley
September 21, 2011, 01:35 AM
I like my .17, too, but I think the price of the ammo is ridiculous. Good thing they don't make any more semi-autos for it. Unfortunately, the ammo makers do have you over a barrel on this one.
Actually, Volquartsen (https://www.volquartsen.com/products/1062-tf-rifle) makes a semi-auto .17 HMR

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