.17 mach 2 problems

[walking arsenal]

I got this E-mail from AGI. I'm not sure if it's true or not but it sounds like it'd be worth checking into.



I wanted to make you aware of a potentially damaging and maybe even dangerous situation with regards to converting the Ruger 10/22 to .17HM2 (Mach 2).

It has come to our attention that some 10/22s that have only had a barrel change to .17HM2 are experiencing Cracked Receivers after only a box or so of ammo!!

Do Not Just Change the Barrel on your 10/22 to .17HM2 .

You must also increase the weight of the bolt to delay the blow back and reduce bolt velocity. It is my understanding that Ruger is putting out a factory built 10/22 in .17HM2 with a heavier bolt. However Ruger seldom sells parts like bolts.

The manufacturer of our soon to be available .17HM2 barrels informed me of this problem and they have a solution. Instead of adding weight to the bolt they have developed a heavier operating handle and spring assembly that provides the same level of weight and blow back retardation to work flawlessly in a standard 10/22 as long as the new .17HM2 barrel and Heavy Bolt Handle & Spring Assembly are both installed correctly. This is a drop-in part and a very clever fix for the problem.

 

[Cindog]

See this thread. It appears to be true.

 

[OpenRoad]

What a surprise. Ruger doesn't even use the same setup for their .22 mag rifle, why did anybody think it would work with .17 MKII. Saw this coming a million miles away.

 

[RugerNo]

The 17 MachII is based on the 22LR case and is not the same as the 17Hornady Rimfire Mag. Some people may not understand this. The conversion kits in question were for the 10-22 and it was assumed that the MachII was operating in close pressure ranges of the 22LR cartridge. Apparently it isn't. we have to keep the record straight for the uninformed.

 

[OpenRoad]

and it was assumed that the MachII was operating in close pressure ranges of the 22LR cartridge.

The jist of the problem is that the 10/22 receiver is just not that durable and is prone to cracking among other things. Alot of people have these problems with hot .22lr so it doesn't take a leap of logic to assume that .17MKII would cause problems.

IMO Ruger needs to do a giant revamp of their 10/22 and Mini lines. But as long as people are uninformed enough to keep buying them, and willing to put $500 of aftermarket parts on them + pay the already too high stock price, they won't do a thing.

Now I'm gonna go on gunbroker and look at some 10/22's, because I can't find any other .22lr's that have 50 round magazines..

 

[joebogey]

I think Eabco is selling the conversion barrels and heavier bolts as a package for somwhere around $169.00.

 

[BlkHawk73]

The 17 MachII is based on the 22LR case and is not the same as the 17Hornady Rimfire Mag. Some people may not understand this. The conversion kits in question were for the 10-22 and it was assumed that the MachII was operating in close pressure ranges of the 22LR cartridge. Apparently it isn't. we have to keep the record straight for the uninformed.

Well, actually, the .17HM@ is not based on the .22lr case. The.17HM2 cases are actually a very little bit longer. It's more closely a kin to the .22 Stinger case. es, the Stinger is a .22LR but it does use a longer case than the common .22 lr uses.
Ruger isn't the only company needing a re-think on this new .17 cartridge. I believe Browning also intended on having .17M2 buckmarks but needed to redesign due to the different power curve involved with the .17M2