Lone_Gunman
Member
What are you thoughts on the 17 HMR and what is a good rifle chambered for that round?
Who makes 17 hmr rifles?
Who makes 17 hmr rifles?
Is 17 HMR here to stay, and what rifle do you like it in?
- Thread starter Lone_Gunman
- Start date
- Status
Who makes 17 hmr rifles?
Just about anybody making rimfire rifles is chambering them for .17HMR. There are also revolvers for that round.
The NEF Sportster is an expensive rifle that you could use to try out the cartridge. It runs $150 or less, and it's accurate. Personally I'd get one of the CZ rifles.
jmm
Just about anybody making rimfire rifles is chambering them for .17HMR. There are also revolvers for that round.
The NEF Sportster is an expensive rifle that you could use to try out the cartridge. It runs $150 or less, and it's accurate. Personally I'd get one of the CZ rifles.
jmm
NoahFN
Member
It seems to be more popular than I expected it. I think it'll stay around.
I am itching for a heavy barreled semi-auto version for groundhog hunting. I think that probably means a Remington 597 for me.
I am itching for a heavy barreled semi-auto version for groundhog hunting. I think that probably means a Remington 597 for me.
Clark
Member
I only get rid of 5% of the guns I buy, and the 17HMR will be one of them.
I like the 22 rimfire better for blasting, it is cheaper and faster loading.
I like the 223 handloads better for ground squirrells, it is cheaper, faster loading, and reaches further.
The 17HMR is a ground squirrell gun, for those who do not reload.
I like the 22 rimfire better for blasting, it is cheaper and faster loading.
I like the 223 handloads better for ground squirrells, it is cheaper, faster loading, and reaches further.
The 17HMR is a ground squirrell gun, for those who do not reload.
NavajoNPaleFace
Member
The .17 HMR is an overrated round as far as I am concerned.
Should one study the ballistics and trajectories it would appear, at first, to be an ideal round for varminting.
However the round velocity and energy begins to drop off dramatically after 125 yards or so and a heavy cross wind affects it as well.
I would suggest anyone to go for the higher velocity (good for 300-400 yards) .22-250 round which is far, far superior.
My thoughts are the .17 will die a slow death and go underground and the .22-250 will gain and hold popularity.
Should one study the ballistics and trajectories it would appear, at first, to be an ideal round for varminting.
However the round velocity and energy begins to drop off dramatically after 125 yards or so and a heavy cross wind affects it as well.
I would suggest anyone to go for the higher velocity (good for 300-400 yards) .22-250 round which is far, far superior.
My thoughts are the .17 will die a slow death and go underground and the .22-250 will gain and hold popularity.
pauli
Member
now, i don't particularly care either way, but i would suggest considering that half the country lives east of the mississippi, where 125 yards is often considered "theoretical." where 30-30s and slug guns are fine for deer, 17hmr would seem to have plenty of range for squirrels...
i don't see the round disappearing any time soon. the rimfire makers realized they could do something that not only made them high profits, but did so by catering to a different market than 22 shorts. they'll keep pushing it for a long, long time.
i don't see the round disappearing any time soon. the rimfire makers realized they could do something that not only made them high profits, but did so by catering to a different market than 22 shorts. they'll keep pushing it for a long, long time.
NoahFN
Member
NavajoNPaleFace, I don't see how comparing .17 HMR, a .17 caliber rimfire round to .22-250, a hi velocity .22 caliber centerfire round makes much sense. Seems to me they are different tools intended for different jobs. Obviously the .17 HMR is not intended to be a 400 + yard varmint round.
Comparing the .17 HMR to say .22 WMR or .17 HM2, or plain old .22 LR makes more sense to me, and in that weight class it looks pretty good.
GunNut
Member
IMHO, it's here to stay.
There have been a ton or rifles/handguns sold in 17HMR over the last few years, and people like shooting what they have.
Now, is the HMR ideal in all situations? No, but what round is?
The HMR is no .22-250, but that is not what it was created to compete with. It was designed to shoot a little bit farther than the .22mag w/better trajectory. And at that it does fine.
It also does it being extremeley accurate and very quiet(relatively speaking).
Steve
There have been a ton or rifles/handguns sold in 17HMR over the last few years, and people like shooting what they have.
Now, is the HMR ideal in all situations? No, but what round is?
The HMR is no .22-250, but that is not what it was created to compete with. It was designed to shoot a little bit farther than the .22mag w/better trajectory. And at that it does fine.
It also does it being extremeley accurate and very quiet(relatively speaking).
Steve
Master Blaster
Member
For me its an excellent 100 yard rimfire target round.
I like mine. And yes its here to stay.
I like mine. And yes its here to stay.
IMO, the .17 HMR is here to stay. With the number of makes/models of firearms and loadings (although from only a couple manufacturing sources), it will not die any time soon. There will be a hardcore base for the .22 mag to prevent the .17 HMR from causing that round to go under but it certainly will, if it subjectively hasn't done so already, eclipse it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I looked at ballistics for the .17 HMR and at my .22 Hornet. I can load the Hornet for less than I can buy .17 HMR -- and the Hornet will drive a 35 grain Hornady V-Max over 3,000 fps.
NavajoNPaleFace
Member
NoahFN said:
Noah, I was making a comparison to rounds that, here in Arizona, are considered varmint rounds.
I can't remember the last time I even saw a squirrel, LOL.
Simply, I see comparisons/comments from others about .22 Hornet and .223 which are in the same class, basically, as the .22-250.
It seems to me that comparing and selecting the higher velocity rounds over a .17 for varminting makes a whole LOT of sense.
If you want plinking I say stick with .22 LR or .22 Mag. If you want squirrel shoot what you like...no squirrel here though and my varmints are sometimes out to 300 yards.
I stand by my original thoughts that the .17 since it has no practical applications in my life and I see and hear more and more people around me turning away from the round.
If it's popular in some other area then that's fine but based on what I hear and see in my circle I don't see much popularity.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
I'm torn on the 17HMR...
One one side,
It is an extremely accurate cartridge. It is flat shooting. It is high velocity. It has long range (for a rimfire). Rifles aren't expensive. Ammo is, but that is relative. $9ish per 50. Yes, you can handload .223 cheaper, BUT - factor in the time/energy factor, and cheaper isn't necessarily all that much of a factor. The 17, coupled with most rifles its chambered for offer MOA or better accuracy. We're talking sub-$250 rifles. So for someone that would like to shoot something very accurate, with no recoil, and doesn't want to spend $1,000 on a rifle or handloading set up - this isn't a bad choice. Also, it has plenty of killing power (as the 17 guru's claim) on a number of varmints.
On the other side:
Wind kills its extreme accuracy. You can shoot 1/3moa with no wind, but as soon as a little wind picks up - you're not going to be doing so well. Depending on what you need/want or how you see things, it is expensive. It is NOT a cheap plinker.
Ultimately, comparing it to the .223 is unfair. It was never meant to take over the .223's role. Comparing it to the 22LR is also unfair. It was never meant to be a low-cost plinker. It does compare with the 22mag though. It directly competes with that and does well.
The good outweights the bad imo. I love the accuracy of mine. However, beyond having an accurate, no-need-for-handloading rifle platform...it isn't very useful for anything else -- unless you hunt small to medium sized varmints up to 150 yards. We don't have a varmint scene here in my part of Florida.....
One one side,
It is an extremely accurate cartridge. It is flat shooting. It is high velocity. It has long range (for a rimfire). Rifles aren't expensive. Ammo is, but that is relative. $9ish per 50. Yes, you can handload .223 cheaper, BUT - factor in the time/energy factor, and cheaper isn't necessarily all that much of a factor. The 17, coupled with most rifles its chambered for offer MOA or better accuracy. We're talking sub-$250 rifles. So for someone that would like to shoot something very accurate, with no recoil, and doesn't want to spend $1,000 on a rifle or handloading set up - this isn't a bad choice. Also, it has plenty of killing power (as the 17 guru's claim) on a number of varmints.
On the other side:
Wind kills its extreme accuracy. You can shoot 1/3moa with no wind, but as soon as a little wind picks up - you're not going to be doing so well. Depending on what you need/want or how you see things, it is expensive. It is NOT a cheap plinker.
Ultimately, comparing it to the .223 is unfair. It was never meant to take over the .223's role. Comparing it to the 22LR is also unfair. It was never meant to be a low-cost plinker. It does compare with the 22mag though. It directly competes with that and does well.
The good outweights the bad imo. I love the accuracy of mine. However, beyond having an accurate, no-need-for-handloading rifle platform...it isn't very useful for anything else -- unless you hunt small to medium sized varmints up to 150 yards. We don't have a varmint scene here in my part of Florida.....
I think my Dad likes his for popping crows at about about 125 yards or less though he has shot a couple of crows at 200 yards across the pasture. He can shoot it out front of the house occasionally without disturbing anyone. A .223 or 22-250 would be too loud. He doesn't reload either. I think he mainly likes it for longer range plinking since he can sit a big scope on his Savage rifle.
If you are hard core gunny and reload and all that, the .17 may not be for you, but for the majority of gun owners who don't fit in that category, it might work out just fine.
If you are hard core gunny and reload and all that, the .17 may not be for you, but for the majority of gun owners who don't fit in that category, it might work out just fine.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I think each us can only state what informs his own decision in matters like this. In my case, the .22 LR is the ideal squirrel round. It's cheap and adequate for the purpose -- I have a .22 WMR, but don't use it for squirrels (it's really a turkey gun -- where legal.)
I also have a .22 Hornet -- if I need more than .22 Mag, the Hornet offers a lot more performace for about the same money (handloads, of course.)
I also have a .22 Hornet -- if I need more than .22 Mag, the Hornet offers a lot more performace for about the same money (handloads, of course.)
It works perfectly for what I use it for. I have killed dozens of rock squirrels from my front porch with it, shots ranging from 60 to 150 yards. No need to scramble around for hearing protection (for one shot anyway), just grab the rifle, rest on porch railing and drop the squirrel.
Also, I have a friend with a horse pasture that is infested with prairie dogs. The longest shot offered is about 200 yards. With a centerfire, you're done after 5 or 6 shots. We killed about 60-70 in one afternoon last summer, me using my .17 and my wife using hot .22lr loads (Stingers).
Also, I have a friend with a horse pasture that is infested with prairie dogs. The longest shot offered is about 200 yards. With a centerfire, you're done after 5 or 6 shots. We killed about 60-70 in one afternoon last summer, me using my .17 and my wife using hot .22lr loads (Stingers).
mrmeval
Member
Centerfire .17?
What happened to the small .17 centerfires?
What happened to the small .17 centerfires?
Comparing the 17HMR to a 22-250 is fairly ridiculous. A 22-250 has a WAY shorter barrel life, the noise is much louder, and it can take varmints out to 800 yards (if you are really pushing it, if you don't believe me, check the Varmint Hunter Magazine). The 17HMR seems to be in the same class as a 22-Hornet and a 22Mag. It's an effective jackrabbit killer, and I know from experience that a 22lr won't always put them down, I've had a number that I had to pump 3 rounds in before they stopped. The accuracy of the 17HMR is downright uncanny for a rimfire, and it's just fun to shoot. I don't own one, but if I wasn't a 22-Hornet ( which really isn't, as a previous poster said, in the same class as the 22-250) and 223 shooter/reloader, I'd pick one up immediately.
rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
Silly as it's sounds, I think the 17HMR's popularity would gain more momentum if the major manufacturers would offer kits to convert .22mag's to the .17HMR. PLEASE NOTE I AM REFERING TO RUGER, REMINGTON, WINCHESTER ETC!
Additionally, if the "new" 17 gun's could be made with capacity's exceeding 10 rounds! Man it just drives me nuts that I can't find a rimfire with a high cap mag other than the 10-22 aftermarket. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a market for such a thing.
Additionally, if the "new" 17 gun's could be made with capacity's exceeding 10 rounds! Man it just drives me nuts that I can't find a rimfire with a high cap mag other than the 10-22 aftermarket. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a market for such a thing.
Ridge
Member
I love the 17.HRM I think it's a fine cartridge that rounds out the rimfire world.
And yes I do own one. A Marlin Model 917
And yes I do own one. A Marlin Model 917
- Status
