Fella's;
I had a Remington 591 5mm magnum. It was great, but Remington didn't support it with proper marketing. Then they didn't support it by continuing to make ammunition. Consequently, I'm not supporting Remington with my money.
The .17's are essentially the same thing as the 5mm with a lighter bullet. But, once bitten, etc. etc. I'd say that it seems like the .17's are being properly marketed & supported. It also seems as though Remington is very thin on the .17 ground.
However, to get to the issue at hand, I'm not in the .17 camp. I do a lot of hunting with the .22lr & am content with my results. I too sight my guns in at 100 yards & use mil-dot scopes for both mid-range and distance corrections. If I want more than the .22lr can give, I go to the .223.
900F
I had a Remington 591 5mm magnum. It was great, but Remington didn't support it with proper marketing. Then they didn't support it by continuing to make ammunition. Consequently, I'm not supporting Remington with my money.
The .17's are essentially the same thing as the 5mm with a lighter bullet. But, once bitten, etc. etc. I'd say that it seems like the .17's are being properly marketed & supported. It also seems as though Remington is very thin on the .17 ground.
However, to get to the issue at hand, I'm not in the .17 camp. I do a lot of hunting with the .22lr & am content with my results. I too sight my guns in at 100 yards & use mil-dot scopes for both mid-range and distance corrections. If I want more than the .22lr can give, I go to the .223.
900F