.17 hmr vs. .22 lr.... Which is better?
- Thread starter tonytuna
- Start date
- Status
Radagast
Member
Just get all three. I did
CZ452 in .22lr, .22WMR & .17HMR.
CZ452 in .22lr, .22WMR & .17HMR.JohnM
Member
That's the spirit
Dr T
Member
Back to the original question:
At that price point, you PROBABLY are not going to get the gilt-edged accuracy of a target gun.
I would go with the Marlin 22.
I have not been particularly impressed with Mossbergs and the 17 HRM is a highly specialized cartridge. If you have a specific need for the 17, fine. But I have been seeing a lot of used 17 HRMs for sale in the Denver area.
At that price point, you PROBABLY are not going to get the gilt-edged accuracy of a target gun.
I would go with the Marlin 22.
I have not been particularly impressed with Mossbergs and the 17 HRM is a highly specialized cartridge. If you have a specific need for the 17, fine. But I have been seeing a lot of used 17 HRMs for sale in the Denver area.
Sav .250
Member
Ok,you asked..........the marlin .22.
I find the .17hmr to have moved into the noise category. I don't see where either the .17hmr or the .223Rem have much blast. For me, that argument holds little value as the .17hmr has stepped into the loud crack range that the .223 fits. I guess that really depends on the shooter though and their definition of noise and blast.
There is a gap between .22lr and .223, but for me, the practical difference in that gap doesn't exist. If I hunt small game, where a more mild round would be of benefit, it's again small game. It also tends to be in a woods where the longest shot I have is maybe 40 yards. At 40 yards and in, the little critters won't know the difference between a .17hmr and a .22lr. If you step into coyote range, I wouldn't be using a .22lr, but at that point, I'd be looking for more than a .17hmr offers as well. That's not to say the right .17hmr bullet isn't a capable coyote round, just that I would take others first for their benefits. I've wanted to buy a hornet and then the 5.7x28 that Savage is offering, but in the end, I lose the justification for one and pass as it really wouldn't be a benefit being between the .22lr and .223.
As for buying the cheapest ammo, that's debatable. You can get 55gr brass cased ammo in the $6/20 range anymore. As you see up in the October centerfire match, some of it can be accurate. You don't need a vmax bullet to have decent performance on small game when you step up to a .223.
.17hmr ammo isn't match ammo. It uses what could be considered premium bullets, but when you look at the guys shooting the top tier rimfire competition, a .17hmr doesn't compete as ammo isn't good enough. So you are paying for at most premium hunting bullets. I also said .223 was close in ammo cost, not that it was always cheaper. The point is for a hunting rifle, where shot counts are low, the price difference is rather insignificant.
You show me a $300 .17hmr that will consistently shoot 1" at 200 yards. You claim it's a 200-250 yard round and that so many are 1/2 MOA shooters. I'd like to see that happen at 200-250 yards. I've shot mine plenty at 100 yards and to be honest, if the wind blows AT ALL, things open up very quick. That wind drift over doubles when you get to 150 yards. At 250 yards a 10mph wind pushes the .17hmr bullet roughly 31". Even a light, 2mph wind is going to push you off target on most small game at that range. In perfect conditions it may shoot well enough, but where I live, it never is calm, at least to the point where I would feel comfortable shooting a .17hmr at something living out at 200-250 yards. For me, I'd place the .17hmr as a 75-100 yard round due to the wind drift and amount of wind in my area. If I lived in a warehouse I might stretch that out a little more, but most days around here I'm fighting gusty 5-15mph winds and a bit more on days that it decides it wants to be windy.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I would have to vehemently disagree on the noise issue. I'd suggest shooting the two side by side. The .17 is slightly louder than the .22Mag but the .223 is a huge step up in noise and blast. That may or may not be important.
.17HMR ammo is all of very high quality. It is almost all loaded by CCI and you don't shoot half MOA at 100yds with ammo that is substandard. You sure as hell don't buy .223 ammo that accurate for $13/50rds.
We haven't even touched on .17HMR rifles being lighter and handier than your average .223.
The individual must decide how to fill those gaps. If you ask me, there is a firm place for rimfire magnums and small centerfires for times and places when the .223 (or larger) would be unnecessary and/or inappropriate.
.17HMR ammo is all of very high quality. It is almost all loaded by CCI and you don't shoot half MOA at 100yds with ammo that is substandard. You sure as hell don't buy .223 ammo that accurate for $13/50rds.
There are certainly other factors at play. One must know 'why'.
Most of them will do half MOA at 100yds. I'm unable to shoot at 200yds but at 230-240yds, it will easily do 1.5" or better on a windless day. Hits on small reactive targets at this range are so boringly easy, it's hardly even fun.
You can't just look at ammo cost alone. You have to look at the big picture. I know if I buy a box or two of 20gr XTP's, they will shoot accurately right to point of aim. No handloading, which would mean dies and all components for I do not reload for .22 centerfires, no load development, no stocking components, no trying different powders, different bullets. Not to mention the cost of the guns. Just buy a couple boxes and shoot for a year.
We haven't even touched on .17HMR rifles being lighter and handier than your average .223.
The individual must decide how to fill those gaps. If you ask me, there is a firm place for rimfire magnums and small centerfires for times and places when the .223 (or larger) would be unnecessary and/or inappropriate.
I've shot the two side by side. I've noticed minimal "blast" with either and have found both to be something unpleasant without hearing protection. Close enough of a wash to not pick one over the other based on this difference.
CCI does NOT make match grade ammo. Never have. Look at where CCI ammo fits in the .22lr world. It's the best of the junk and far from high quality. I've shot my .17hmr at 25 yards and had wonderfully small groups, possibly being in that 1/2MOA range. The second I step out to 100 yards, things are practically always in the 1-3" range because wind exists here. When the wind is present, like in a hunting situation, that 1/2MOA isn't reasonable. At the crack of dawn on a protected range, maybe.
Lack of premium match ammo would certainly be a start.
Most of them won't. The ones I've seen and shot will do around 1 MOA on average on a calm day. Some groups will be better and others a little worse, but the ones I see don't hold consistently less than 1 MOA in good conditions at 100 yards and with any wind are out to 4 MOA. If you have the ability, next time you decide to shoot at 230-240 rounds, toss out a paper target at the end of the day and toss 5 rounds into it. I'd love to see what those look like, good or bad.
Did I mention reloading? You bring up a point that isn't being argued, and for the person who already reloads other calibers you are arguing a point that I feel is backwards. I said the guy in the October centerfire match was getting sub 1/2" groups at 100 yards with ammo that cost $6/20. No reloading. No worrying. It's not expensive if you plan to only shoot a few hundred rounds a year, same with .17hmr. A little expensive to just blast maybe, but not expensive to send 5 rounds at critters a day.
That's probably true but how far are you hiking with your .17hmr? Has it made a difference? I'm not a hiking hunter so the difference is minimal to me.
That's fine. You are certainly free to feel it fits a gap. I think it's a gap that doesn't need filled. Owning one I regret it to this day. It's been fairly accurate, but it doesn't do anything for me better than either a .22lr or a .223, depending on the use.
The barrel for my Handi-Rifle in .22 Hornet was just 149.99 to my door !
nra-for-life
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 39
yep i agree, i think the 17hmr is more comparable to the 22lr in terms of recoil and noise blast... 223 steps it up into another department imho
DM~
Member
Maple_City_Woodsman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 430
I certainly agree that each round has its own separate place, But I certainly do not agree that the 22 will 'do everything a 17 will do'.
The much flatter trajectory of the 17 is far more practical for many real world hunting applications, where one must make shots at unknown distances and various angles Vs. sitting in place and shooting varmints at a known range.
For stationary shooting, sure, you can compensate for the .22's additional drop quite easily... but When you need to take a shot at a bunny or squirrel at distance, an inch of miscalculation results in a clean miss with the .22.
Not only is the 17 more forgiving, but it is more safe to use for hunting in many respects - its energy falls off past a certain range at an extreme rate, much faster even than a .22. Combine this with a fragmentary bullet, and the chances of a miss or a pass though carrying off into the distance and causing an accident are much reduced with the 17 as compared to the .22.
Yes, the .22 is the far superior plinking round - but in my opinion the 17 is far superior for other real world applications.
The much flatter trajectory of the 17 is far more practical for many real world hunting applications, where one must make shots at unknown distances and various angles Vs. sitting in place and shooting varmints at a known range.
For stationary shooting, sure, you can compensate for the .22's additional drop quite easily... but When you need to take a shot at a bunny or squirrel at distance, an inch of miscalculation results in a clean miss with the .22.
Not only is the 17 more forgiving, but it is more safe to use for hunting in many respects - its energy falls off past a certain range at an extreme rate, much faster even than a .22. Combine this with a fragmentary bullet, and the chances of a miss or a pass though carrying off into the distance and causing an accident are much reduced with the 17 as compared to the .22.
Yes, the .22 is the far superior plinking round - but in my opinion the 17 is far superior for other real world applications.
<removed off-topic mud-slinging>
No, offense if TA is a real person, but how can you say a .22 LR cannot shoot MOA? That is the most "ignorant" thing I have ever heard. How big is a golf ball? Last time I went shooting I was hitting golf balls of posts at 100 yards every shot. EVERY SHOT! I believe we have video of that. I will have to check with my shooting buddy. So if I can shoot a golf ball off a post @ 100 yards every shot, and a golf ball is about an inch size target. Am I not shooting MOA with my .22 LR?
Last time I went squirrel hunting I was shooting them out of trees at 100 paces. Head shots that is. So I guess I had to some how guess where my bullet would come out of super-sonic to make these shots. Right? Or did I just setup my gun to hit where I point it, and practice shooting it. Let's see what the experts have to say. I am sure it will be negative, but entertaining nonetheless.
No, offense if TA is a real person, but how can you say a .22 LR cannot shoot MOA? That is the most "ignorant" thing I have ever heard. How big is a golf ball? Last time I went shooting I was hitting golf balls of posts at 100 yards every shot. EVERY SHOT! I believe we have video of that. I will have to check with my shooting buddy. So if I can shoot a golf ball off a post @ 100 yards every shot, and a golf ball is about an inch size target. Am I not shooting MOA with my .22 LR?
Last time I went squirrel hunting I was shooting them out of trees at 100 paces. Head shots that is. So I guess I had to some how guess where my bullet would come out of super-sonic to make these shots. Right? Or did I just setup my gun to hit where I point it, and practice shooting it. Let's see what the experts have to say. I am sure it will be negative, but entertaining nonetheless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
[MOD TALK: I don't know what it is about rimfire rifles that gets folks so worked up, but STOP. Remember to be gentlemen first and passionate defenders of the one true belief (whatever that is) second. Learn to agree to disagree, to present your own beliefs without ridiculing others, and to accept others' viewpoints. Or put down the keyboard and walk away. If you know you have a personality conflict with someone else here -- DO NOT engage them. It's just going to get both of you into trouble. Thank you.]
Eb1, first of all, I am a real person. Personally, I feel that if you feel comfortable making the claims that you do, I don't have a problem with that. Heck, the internet is full of people making claims from being able to increase the length of certain parts of your anatomy to shooting MOA all day long with bulk ammunition and a $125 rifle.
What I do have a problem with is the dissemination of false information in a place where people come to get good information.
Why am I calling BS on your claims? I'll tell you. First, there is the issue of the bullet going transonic. Ask any long range shooter why it is that they always use loads that will stay supersonic to a distance beyond their target range. It is because bullets start to do freaky things when they drop below the transonic barrier. They destabilize. A high velocity .22 round leaves the muzzle at around 1200 fps. By the time it reaches the 100 yard line, it's doing around 1000 fps, so at around the 75 yard line, it goes transonic and is hit with a wobble. How you can predict where a wobbling bullet will land, I just don't know.
The second thing is the ammunition. Getting a rimfire to shoot to a consistent point of impact takes consistency in everything to a larger degree than it does with centerfire. From the way that you hold the rifle to the way that the bolt lands on the rim of the chambered case and the way that the bullet sits in the chamber. With bulk ammunition, there is just too much inconsistency for it to shoot that accurately. Bullet weights and dimensions vary as well as rim thickness. Heck, even Wolf Match Target, which is far from being bulk has a rim thickness variance of 5/1000ths or more just within one box. These are things that handloaders can overcome with centerfire, but with rimfire, you have what you get.
Third, the rifle just isn't a match grade rifle. It's an inexpensive plinker. I'll agree that it is capable of good accuracy, but it is not a magical wand that allows crap ammunition to defy the laws of physics.
Fourth, personal experience. I'm not saying that I am the best shot in the world, but on most days I am a sub MOA shooter, provided that I have the right equipment and ammunition. According to your claim, you should be able to go out, set up a 1" target at 100 yards and sit down with a box of bulk ammunition and then proceed to use your little Marlin to put every single one of those round through that 1" target. Personally, I'd be surprised if half of them went into that 1" hole. I'm not challenging your skill, just your choice of ammunition and rifle to back up your claims.
I'll tell you this. I know a whole bunch of guys that are shooting $2K+ rimfire rifles, burning up $10+ a box ammunition to shoot MOA at 100 that are going to be pretty ticked off when they find out that all they really needed was a Marlin and box of bulk ammo from Walmart.
What I do have a problem with is the dissemination of false information in a place where people come to get good information.
Why am I calling BS on your claims? I'll tell you. First, there is the issue of the bullet going transonic. Ask any long range shooter why it is that they always use loads that will stay supersonic to a distance beyond their target range. It is because bullets start to do freaky things when they drop below the transonic barrier. They destabilize. A high velocity .22 round leaves the muzzle at around 1200 fps. By the time it reaches the 100 yard line, it's doing around 1000 fps, so at around the 75 yard line, it goes transonic and is hit with a wobble. How you can predict where a wobbling bullet will land, I just don't know.
The second thing is the ammunition. Getting a rimfire to shoot to a consistent point of impact takes consistency in everything to a larger degree than it does with centerfire. From the way that you hold the rifle to the way that the bolt lands on the rim of the chambered case and the way that the bullet sits in the chamber. With bulk ammunition, there is just too much inconsistency for it to shoot that accurately. Bullet weights and dimensions vary as well as rim thickness. Heck, even Wolf Match Target, which is far from being bulk has a rim thickness variance of 5/1000ths or more just within one box. These are things that handloaders can overcome with centerfire, but with rimfire, you have what you get.
Third, the rifle just isn't a match grade rifle. It's an inexpensive plinker. I'll agree that it is capable of good accuracy, but it is not a magical wand that allows crap ammunition to defy the laws of physics.
Fourth, personal experience. I'm not saying that I am the best shot in the world, but on most days I am a sub MOA shooter, provided that I have the right equipment and ammunition. According to your claim, you should be able to go out, set up a 1" target at 100 yards and sit down with a box of bulk ammunition and then proceed to use your little Marlin to put every single one of those round through that 1" target. Personally, I'd be surprised if half of them went into that 1" hole. I'm not challenging your skill, just your choice of ammunition and rifle to back up your claims.
I'll tell you this. I know a whole bunch of guys that are shooting $2K+ rimfire rifles, burning up $10+ a box ammunition to shoot MOA at 100 that are going to be pretty ticked off when they find out that all they really needed was a Marlin and box of bulk ammo from Walmart.
It really doesn't matter to me know.
1) I am not stupid, and understand the way sub and super sonic works. I just know that when I pull the trigger the golf ball flies off the pole or the tree rat falls from the tree with a hole in his head.
2) My rifle shoots like crap with any other ammo but the bulk XPert. That is a fact. If you choose to believe it or not. It really doesn't matter to me know.
3) You can belittle all you want with price debates and brands. Truth is the gun shoots very well. If you choose to ignore facts then I don't know what to tell you. I think you put to much belief in brand rather than ability.
4) It doesn't matter. I don't shoot to make you a believer. ( have you ever tried the combination of my gun and ammo? No? Then you cannot make those statements with any truth, but I can.)
5) That is probably true. I swear if I can get to the range soon I will take a video camera and show you the golf balls flying @ 100 yards on every shot. Then maybe you can give some people the respect they deserve before you down their equipment, and their cost of living as far as I am concerned you guys have zero respect for other shooters, and their equipment.
I made a not so "High Road" comment about CraigC, but for you to belittle my equipment and choices is not very "High Road" either.
1) I am not stupid, and understand the way sub and super sonic works. I just know that when I pull the trigger the golf ball flies off the pole or the tree rat falls from the tree with a hole in his head.
2) My rifle shoots like crap with any other ammo but the bulk XPert. That is a fact. If you choose to believe it or not. It really doesn't matter to me know.
3) You can belittle all you want with price debates and brands. Truth is the gun shoots very well. If you choose to ignore facts then I don't know what to tell you. I think you put to much belief in brand rather than ability.
4) It doesn't matter. I don't shoot to make you a believer. ( have you ever tried the combination of my gun and ammo? No? Then you cannot make those statements with any truth, but I can.)
5) That is probably true. I swear if I can get to the range soon I will take a video camera and show you the golf balls flying @ 100 yards on every shot. Then maybe you can give some people the respect they deserve before you down their equipment, and their cost of living as far as I am concerned you guys have zero respect for other shooters, and their equipment.
I made a not so "High Road" comment about CraigC, but for you to belittle my equipment and choices is not very "High Road" either.
Last edited:
Eb1, I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just skeptical, based on my own experience. Anyone that has shot any sort of precision rimfire competition will tell you that rimfire is one area of the shooting sport where equipment really does matter. An excellent shooter can loose to a good shooter simply because the good shooter has better equipment.
I'll tell you this....if your little Marlin really does shoot that well, you should get involved in some sort of ARA match. A rifle shooting 1" at 100 yards should be able to do around .3 or .4" at 50. You would freak a lot of people out doing that with bulk ammunition.
BTW, a golf ball is not MOA at 100. At 1.7" in diameter, it's closer to 2 MOA.
As for the original question of .22 vs. .17, I really think you need both, but get the .22 first. I know that the .17 is a little beast. A friend of mine hit a quarter with his at 300 yards. It took him five tries, but he hit it and it went THROUGH the quarter. I was really surprised that the bullet still had enough energy to do that at that distance.
I do like shooting .22 out as far as I can, because past 100 yards or so, it gets to be a real challenge; but to be honest, when I get past 100 yards and want to be able to reliably hit my target, I'll go for something with a bit more zip. For me, that means grabbing a .223.
I'll tell you this....if your little Marlin really does shoot that well, you should get involved in some sort of ARA match. A rifle shooting 1" at 100 yards should be able to do around .3 or .4" at 50. You would freak a lot of people out doing that with bulk ammunition.
BTW, a golf ball is not MOA at 100. At 1.7" in diameter, it's closer to 2 MOA.
As for the original question of .22 vs. .17, I really think you need both, but get the .22 first. I know that the .17 is a little beast. A friend of mine hit a quarter with his at 300 yards. It took him five tries, but he hit it and it went THROUGH the quarter. I was really surprised that the bullet still had enough energy to do that at that distance.
I do like shooting .22 out as far as I can, because past 100 yards or so, it gets to be a real challenge; but to be honest, when I get past 100 yards and want to be able to reliably hit my target, I'll go for something with a bit more zip. For me, that means grabbing a .223.
Mike1234567
member
I'm not one to "talk" because I often drink too much and post absolute garbage but... it sure seems like an awful lot of needless bickering is happening right now on THR.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Prove it. Simple.
Anyone who claims they can shoot MOA at 100yds with bulk ammo has obviously never shot seriously on paper. Period. You would be hard-pressed to shoot MOA with even the best match rifle with bulk ammo. Problem is most high velocity rounds go transonic around 75yds and accuracy begins to fall apart. Accuracy begins to fall apart by 100yds anyway, even with good match ammo.
I have shot seriously at 100yds. With match ammo. With a high quality 10x optic. With a $900 rifle that shoots teeny tiny little groups at 50yds but only manages 3/4-1MOA at 100yds. I used to think the way you do about my 200yd shooting at inanimate objects. A golf ball is not that difficult to hit at that range either. However, until you shoot it on paper, you have no idea what your rifle and load are really doing. Your MOA rifle at 100yds won't be doing any better than 4" at 200yds. Probably more like 6".
For the record, a Marlin 60 was my first rifle at age 10. I have probably killed more critters with it than any other firearm I own. Some out to 150yds. I know full well what they are capable of. More importantly, I know what they are not capable of.
PS, 1.7" golf balls at 100yds is not MOA. I would be wiling to bet that your rifle shoots closer to 2MOA than 1 and that's a significant difference.
Apples and oranges. I have good uses for both, so I own both.
The 22 rimfire is great for plinking and teaching kids to shoot. It's also great for hunting edible small game like rabbits and blue grouse. It will work for prairie dogs and rock squirrels out to about 100 yards or so with a scope and Stingers or Velociters.
The 17HMR is great out to 200 yards or so on prairie dogs and rock squirrels. My wife and I killed around 70 prarie dogs in a horse pasture one morning, me shooting my 17 and she was using a Marlin 60 with Stingers. I regularly plink rock squirrels off the front porch with the 17, at 50-100 yards.
The best advantage that the 17 has over the 223 is the quieter blast. The aforementioned horse pasture offers shots out to about 250 yards, but any centerfire will put them down for good after a couple of shots. The owner of the pasture regularly shoots at the PDs with a 22, so they tak no notice of the slightly louder 17. I've seen them dive down their holes after one shot from a 22-250.
The 22 rimfire is great for plinking and teaching kids to shoot. It's also great for hunting edible small game like rabbits and blue grouse. It will work for prairie dogs and rock squirrels out to about 100 yards or so with a scope and Stingers or Velociters.
The 17HMR is great out to 200 yards or so on prairie dogs and rock squirrels. My wife and I killed around 70 prarie dogs in a horse pasture one morning, me shooting my 17 and she was using a Marlin 60 with Stingers. I regularly plink rock squirrels off the front porch with the 17, at 50-100 yards.
The best advantage that the 17 has over the 223 is the quieter blast. The aforementioned horse pasture offers shots out to about 250 yards, but any centerfire will put them down for good after a couple of shots. The owner of the pasture regularly shoots at the PDs with a 22, so they tak no notice of the slightly louder 17. I've seen them dive down their holes after one shot from a 22-250.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Now this is a perfectly reasonable request. No need to argue over things when we can verifiably demonstrate the veracity of our claims and put debate to bed.
I agree a golf ball is 1.62 give or take in dia.
@ 50 yards I can shoot 5 shot nickle size groups with my Marlin a 3x9 Simmons and the older XPert labled @ 1220 fps. I haven't tried the newer box labeled 1260. I have put 5 shots in a 1" square pretty much anytime I take the time to go through the fundamentals of shooting. It isn't impossible. I just wish there were not so many none believers of practical firearms being accurate. Yes, I have done a trigger job on my Model 60. It is light. It is as light as I could get it while keeping it safe to carry. Call me the lucky one I guess. I got a rifle, and found cheap ammo that it shoots very, very well.
I am going shooting if work permits Sunday, and I will take some pic and/or movies.
Back to topic:
I would rather have a .22 Magnum over the .17 HMR personally. Even with airguns I like the bigger caliber. I have zero experience with the .17 HMR, but have read that wind is a beast on the little fast bullet.
The .17 HMR really makes a mess of what it hits though.
This I will agree with 100%
@ 50 yards I can shoot 5 shot nickle size groups with my Marlin a 3x9 Simmons and the older XPert labled @ 1220 fps. I haven't tried the newer box labeled 1260. I have put 5 shots in a 1" square pretty much anytime I take the time to go through the fundamentals of shooting. It isn't impossible. I just wish there were not so many none believers of practical firearms being accurate. Yes, I have done a trigger job on my Model 60. It is light. It is as light as I could get it while keeping it safe to carry. Call me the lucky one I guess. I got a rifle, and found cheap ammo that it shoots very, very well.
I am going shooting if work permits Sunday, and I will take some pic and/or movies.
Back to topic:
I would rather have a .22 Magnum over the .17 HMR personally. Even with airguns I like the bigger caliber. I have zero experience with the .17 HMR, but have read that wind is a beast on the little fast bullet.
The .17 HMR really makes a mess of what it hits though.
This I will agree with 100%
- Status
