.17 HMR @ 100 yds vs. .22 LR @ 50 yds

[minutemen1776]

This may seem to be an odd inquiry, but I'm wondering if there's much appreciable difference between shooting a .17 HMR at 100 yards (with an 8X scope) versus shooting a .22 LR (high velocity) at 50 yards (with a 4X scope). At those respective ranges, it seems that both the energies and bullet drops are similar. Since I can choose between shooting at 50 and 100 yards at my range (and assuming the .17 can shoot under 1 MOA and the .22 can do better than 2 MOA), am I giving up anything (other than cost) by opting for the .22 over the .17? Just be be sure, this is about plinking and punching paper targets, not about harvesting game.

 

[CountryUgly]

If you are not serious about groups/precision you would be better served with the .22lr. If DN consistant accuracy and single hole groups is what you are after then the .17hmr is what you want. I'm not saying extreme accuracy isn't possible with the .22lr it's just that it's easier to do with a .17hmr for less overall money. If you do get into hunting of any kind the .22lr will kill things just as dead as the .17hmr just at shorter distances and in far less spectacular fashion

 

[CraigC]

The .17HMR is really best as a field cartridge. For paper punching and plinking, there is none better than the .22LR.

 

[TonyAngel]

This is kind of a hard question to answer. All of the guys that I know that are interested in the .17, have one in addition to their .22s.

I'd say that the one great advantage in shooting .22 is that you can get ammo dirt cheap for casual plinking at cans and stuff, but you can also opt for the $13 a box and up ammo for stuff that is more formal.

A .22 can be almost as accurate as a .17 at 100, with the right ammo. The problem with the "right" ammo is that it will likely cost more than .17 ammo.

I'm a BIG fan of the .22. I shoot all sorts of matches with them, from 50 yard benchrest to 200 yard F-Class type stuff. It's all a hoot. It's very challenging and you can learn a lot about reading the wind.

When I'm just out to enjoy myself, I usually take my modified 10/22 and a brick or two of CCI SV at about $25 a brick out to a range or field and have blast with it, playing "can you hit that?"

 

[mshootnit]

I like my 17 hmr with 17 gr. ammo. It shoots a hole clean through a cheap steel pot at 100 yds. I mean clean.

 

[steveo452]

My CZ 452 American in .22lr useing $5.00 a box ammo (SK std.+) will shoot with my CZ 452 American .17HMR shooting $12.00 a box ammo at 50yds. At 100yds. It's 1.0"- .9" for the .22 and .8"-.7" for the .17HMR. I shoot the .22 a lot more, But see know need to pick one over the other. 150yds. out past 200yds is where the .17 realy takes over.

 

[helotaxi]

Bullet drop isn't what you need to be looking at. Where the .17HMR shines is that the BC of the .17 bullets is better than the .22LR and is moving faster. The result is that it drifts less in the wind. Significantly less. Drop is consistent and is easy to account for on a known distance range. Wind isn't consistent and even if you're really good at estimating it and making real time corrections, you'll still shoot better when the effects of it are minimized.

That said, I wouldn't be without a .22LR simply because they are super cheap to shoot and you can get ammo anywhere.

 

[CraigC]

Great lookin' pair of CZ's!

 

[TonyAngel]

Just in terms of accuracy, I don't know that I'd say that the .17 is necessarily better than the better .22 ammo.

Where the .17HMR shines is that the BC of the .17 bullets is better than the .22LR and is moving faster.

Unless my memory is failing me, I don't think that this is right. The ballistic coefficients of both are pretty close. I think the BC of the 17gr hornady load is around .12 and the BC of most 40gr .22 is about the same; although the .17 is moving faster so there is less time for the wind to have an effect.

past 200yds is where the .17 realy takes over.

I don't think that I agree with this either. I looked at this a while back when I was toying with the idea of getting into shooting the .17 more seriously. Yes, the .17 is fast coming out of the muzzle and that speed is an advantage; but I only see it as an advantage right up until the bullet goes sub sonic, at which point the bullet will experience a period of instability. This is going to happen I'm guessing at somewhere around 200-250 yards.

The next time I shoot my .22 at 300, I'm going to borrow my friend's Savage .17 and test this theory. That's going to be an expensive rimfire day. $13 a box .22 vs. $12 a box .17.

As it stands now, the only place I see the .17 being a real advantage is between 100 and 200 yards.

 

[finnwolf64]

I use my CZ .22lr & my Sako .17hmr mainly for hunting, & I'd agree that a .17hmr about doubles the effective range of a .22lr. I think my .22 is good for small game upto 75 yards, while 100 yards is starting to stretch it. In my opinion the .17hmr is best with shots on small game upto 150 yards, with 200 yards starting to stretch things.

 

[steveo452]

(Quote) I only see it as an advantage right up until the bullet goes sub sonic, at which point the bullet will experience a period of instability. This is going to happen I'm guessing at somewhere around 200-250 yards.

(Quote) the only place I see the .17 being a real advantage is between 100 and 200 yards.

Tonyangel, Are you sure you disagree with what I said, It sounds like we are in agreement.

 

[mshootnit]

17 hmr bullets are also jacketed and that makes a difference.

 

[TonyAngel]

steve, yes, I do disagree. I interpreted your assertion to mean that the .17 would offer a distinct advantage beyond 200 yards; but I believe that 200 yards is about the point at which the .17 will go sub sonic and therefore not an advantage at 200 and beyond.

 

[minutemen1776]

Thaks for everyone's input. It more or less confirms my gut feeling anyway. Basically, I seldom hunt small game, and I seldom have opportunities to shoot beyond 100 yards. Under those circumstances, I'm not in much of a position to realize the benefits of the .17 HMR versus the .22 LR. I'm thinking of all this principally because I'm looking to sell a long gun to make room for something else. I'll definitely keep my 10/22, but the .17 is a candidate for the gun to be sold. My other options are a Yugo SKS or FN Police Shotgun, neither of which are currently manufactured and both of which share ammo with other firearms I now have. So, the .17 HMR is looking more and more like the odd man out.

 

[helotaxi]

Under your constraints and for your uses, the .17HMR really doesn't have much going for it, then. The .22 is a better trainer simply BECAUSE it doesn't do as well in the wind. It is better for teaching you to judge and compensate for wind effects and that skill directly translates to other rifles at longer ranges.

 

[CraigC]

I have found and seen plenty of second hand reports that 200yds is not the edge of the .17's effective range. I've taken crows and rodents 50yds beyond that point with mine. Also, up to 100-150yds it is much more effective on coyotes than the .22LR is up close.

 

[TonyAngel]

Since the OP said this...

Just be be sure, this is about plinking and punching paper targets, not about harvesting game.

I thought that we were talking more about accuracy than "effective range."

 

[razorback2003]

I have a CZ 22 rifle that will group dime sized groups at 50 yards with subsonic ammo. Of course it will go roughly an inch at 100. Match 22 ammo will of course do a little better.

With off the shelf 17HMR ammo a good rifle will group half inch or under. Of course 17 HMR ammo costs quite a bit more than subsonic 22 ammo.

Both the 17 HMR and the 22 LR have their purposes. I don't care for shooting a 17HMR a lot because the ammo is expensive.

You really learn holdover by shooting out to 100 yards with a 22 rifle.