17 hmr?

[Olympus]

I've always flirted with the idea of a 17 HMR, but like many others, I haven't really figured out what I would use it for. My only possibility would be as a plinker, and with 17 HMR ammo priced very similar to steel cased .223 ammo, I always decide against getting one.

I have a 22 Hornet that I can reload for much cheaper than buying 17 HMR ammo.

 

[The_Next_Generation]

17 HMR is just about the same price as .223. .223 is a much better long range varmint round.

My only possibility would be as a plinker, and with 17 HMR ammo priced very similar to steel cased .223 ammo, I always decide against getting one.

I have a 22 Hornet that I can reload for much cheaper than buying 17 HMR ammo.

Gentlemen..to me the advantage of the 17hmr is that, as mentioned previously, you get sub .5MOA accuracy (or better) out to 100 yards (perhaps even more) for very little money. Sure, you could buy steel-cased .223 Tulammo for close to the same price, but will that give you that level of accuracy? To me at least, this is the best argument going for the 17hmr. Sure, you can reload some darn-good ammo on the cheap for 22 Hornet and 223win, I'll give you that. But sometimes you just want to grab a few boxes of ammo and shoot tiny groups for fun, and the 17hmr definitely delivers.

 

[Olympus]

I can shoot better than 0.5MOA at 100 yards with my 22 Hornet also. Less than half the price of 17HMR when shooting reloads.

 

[CraigC]

Gentlemen..to me the advantage of the 17hmr is that, as mentioned previously, you get sub .5MOA accuracy (or better) out to 100 yards (perhaps even more) for very little money. Sure, you could buy steel-cased .223 Tulammo for close to the same price, but will that give you that level of accuracy? To me at least, this is the best argument going for the 17hmr. Sure, you can reload some darn-good ammo on the cheap for 22 Hornet and 223win, I'll give you that. But sometimes you just want to grab a few boxes of ammo and shoot tiny groups for fun, and the 17hmr definitely delivers.

Exactly! Time is money and I always have to factor in my time spent at the loading bench. Which is why I reload for a good many cartridges but still buy 9mm and 5.56.

Not to mention that centerfires typically cost a good bit more than rimfires. One can procure a Ruger American or similar Marlin or Savage for under $300 and it will likely shoot at least MOA, if not as little as half.

 

[The_Next_Generation]

I can shoot better than 0.5MOA at 100 yards with my 22 Hornet also. Less than half the price of 17HMR when shooting reloads.

Where are you getting Hornady 45gr SP bullets that cheap? Everywhere I look theyre $25/100 or so. Plus $.04 of powder, and another $.03ish for the primer, plus the timr to load it up. I dunno, I can buy 17hmr for $12/50 and hit the range. But I do see your point, as I said earlier. If you like spending the time loading you can definitely get in the ballpark. It just always amazes me when I see people talking about how cheap reloading is..I scrounge the internet and local shops for hours and still cant find the deals some folks claim are normal prices.

 

[Olympus]

I'm a dealer, so I buy all my components at cost. So that's how I do it. I can't speak for others though.

 

[CraigC]

How's your dealer price on .17HMR ammo???

 

[Olympus]

Not as cheap as I can reload 22 Hornet for.

 

[CraigC]

What's your time worth? How much did your Hornet cost?

 

[Olympus]

I reload in the winter when it's too nasty to outside and stock up. So it's not like I have a lot of things going on then.

Cost of my Hornet is really an apples to oranges comparison. It's a beautiful wood stock CZ 527. More expensive than a plastic stocked 17HMR. But a lot cheaper than a Cooper 17HMR.

 

[CraigC]

If we're arguing economics, the cost of the rifle is a factor. As is the individual's needs. Not everyone wants to reload everything they shoot. There is real utility in a cartridge that shoots sub-MOA out of a $300 rifle at only $13/50rds, is good for over 200yds on a windless day and doesn't cost me any time at the reloading bench. It's not like we're shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year. Perfect for when you don't need or want the range, blast or reloading time of a centerfire.

 

[WhiteFoot]

After fighting the cheap scope, I finally got it dialed in and I'm really loving this gun. I feel like it can shoot better than I can (hopefully I can catch up to it though) and it is fun to shoot. I'd rather shoot that than a 22lr.

Seeing as to how I have a 22lr, 223/5.56 ar15 and a 22lr/wmr revolver I'm not sure I needed it, but it is fun to shoot. I've only shot the Hornady stuff through it so far, but I can find it locally for $11/50. That's right around the tula 223 steel cased stuff I think, but I don't like shooting tula, so i always shoot the cheapest brass I can find locally, which is like $18/50. But, during the last panic I couldn't find 223 or 22 but almost always saw 17hmr on the shelves.

 

[Olympus]

If we're arguing economics, the cost of the rifle is a factor. As is the individual's needs. Not everyone wants to reload everything they shoot. There is real utility in a cartridge that shoots sub-MOA out of a $300 rifle at only $13/50rds, is good for over 200yds on a windless day and doesn't cost me any time at the reloading bench. It's not like we're shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year. Perfect for when you don't need or want the range, blast or reloading time of a centerfire.

I wasn't trying to argue anything. It seemed to me like that was what you were trying to do.

Sure, if you want to buy a cheap rifle and shoot 17hmr, go for it. I don't have to figure out how many rounds it of 22 Hornet reloads it would take to surpass the price difference in the rifles. Nor do I really care to. I already have a Hornet, it already shoots as good or better than most 17 rifles, I already have reloading components, and I have plenty of time in the winter. So for me, a 17hmr never added up.

 

[CraigC]

"Arguing" in the context of a debate, not an "argument".

Now I'm confused. You state that cost per round is the reason why you choose the Hornet over the .17HMR but now you're saying cost doesn't matter. Which is it? I couldn't care less what it costs, you made the comment about ammo cost compared to reloading a centerfire.

Oh and your CZ Hornet shoots as well as my Savage .17HMR.

 

[Olympus]

I figured this was how things were going to turn into, "arguing" vs "argument". This is getting too ridiculous for me.

I never said cost doesn't matter. I have only been talking about cost to shoot each caliber. You brought up the cost of the actual rifles, which I still think doesn't relate, because you can buy a cheaper gun of one caliber and a more expensive gun of the other. Gun choice is personal. I was saying that even though I paid morw for my Hornet than a plastic stock 17, there will come a time when the cost savings to shoot my Hornet will surpass the price difference between my gun a plastic stock 17.

If you haven't gotten my point, I'm sorry. But I'm done going back and forth with you. Take care and stay safe.

 

[CraigC]

This seems to happen every time the discussion goes to rimfire magnums. Some folks ONLY look at the costs involved and cannot fathom paying more than .22LR prices for rimfire ammo. Other aspects such as the cost of rifles, how we value our time, recoil, blast and effective range never come into play. The centerfire handloader never wants to delve too deep into these things.

The point I'm trying to make is that your argument seems to contradict itself. In one post, you say you prefer the Hornet because it's cheaper to reload for, which makes the discussion about money. Then, once I take a broader view of the economics involved, you say "I don't have to figure out how many rounds it of 22 Hornet reloads it would take to surpass the price difference in the rifles. Nor do I really care to." Which implies cost doesn't matter.

IMHO, the Hornet you already have is your preference, you enjoy handloading and have the free time to do it and you have little reason to consider a .17HMR. The cost of ammo, which you use as justification, really has nothing to do with it.

All of which is moot because the OP has his .17HMR.

 

[basicblur]

Other aspects such as the cost of rifles, how we value our time, recoil, blast and effective range never come into play. The centerfire handloader never wants to delve too deep into these things.

That's what I run into when I pick the serious shooters' brains at our local shop (they're mostly deep into benchrest shooting).

Some of us don't want to reload - actually, I did start reloading around 30 years ago to save money, but it wasn't long after I invested the money in the equipment that prices on ammo seemed to drop, so all my reloading equipment has been in storage for almost 30 years.

AFA .17 HMR...I got the same arguments about all the centerfire options, but I wanted a .17 HMR (smaller round, not as much blast / noise, and use silenced). I got a nice Savage 93R17-BTVS-RJ for $382.05 out the door - not too bad a price, but maybe a little higher since it has a limited edition Boyd's stock (I think it was a Talo edition gun).

Within the last month or so I picked up a .17 WSM, also in a Boyd's stock.

Had the Savage rifles now available for the .17 WSM been available a few years ago, I may have skipped the .17 HMR, but I'm happy with it and do enjoy shooting it.

 

[george burns]

As a layman, the 223 makes more sense to me, It shoots farther, hits harder and costs near the same. Also you can kill a bad guy with it mush easier than a 17. I see the 17 strictly as a hobby round.

 

[CraigC]

Then why not the .22-250, .220Swift or maybe a 6mm-284? They shoot farther and hit harder too. This gets to be ridiculous. The .17 was never meant to replace a centerfire for range of terminal effect.

The cheapest ammo I've ever fed a .223 is $8/20rds. Which comes to $20/50rds and that's for cheap FMJ. All .17HMR ammo is premium quality and it hovers around $13/50rds. That's 35% less for better ammo so it's absurd to even imply that you can feed a .223 factory ammo and save money. Handloading brings this cost down significantly but adds time spent at the loading bench. Time that one may or may not rather use doing something else.

A .223 rifle is going to have a lot more muzzle blast and recoil. This matters to some folks in some circumstances, not so much in others.

If you don't need the range, you don't need more cartridge. Up to this point and until I head west to blast prairie dogs, I have never needed a varmint cartridge that does more than the .17HMR. I've taken crows as far as 250yds with it. So why shoot a more expensive, much louder .223?

 

[win71]

Olympus

That is the best 100 yard group I have ever not only seen but heard of. I too shoot the hornet. A cartridge designed before there were many other than flat/round bullets for.
I started with a Ruger and tried every combination using H-110. I think that was in the 90's. 1.5"@ 100 was about the best I could get. Traded it in for a CZ 527. Immediately group sizes shooting left over Ruger era stuff dropped almost .5". One inch groups! I got it down a tad but nothing like you did.
I may have missed it but what was the load you were using.