Help me decide

[fgr39]

I'm looking for a varmit rifle, something to shoot groundhogs with out to about 200 yards or so. What I can't make up my mind on is a .223 or .17 hmr . I've picked the rifle for each and only $10 differance between them. What I'm looking at is a NEF hani rifle for .223 with bull barrel or marlin 17v. I've been running down the list of differances in my head but maybe someone can help point out something that I am overlooking. any first hand experience with either or both would be great. and please don't say buy both, if that was possible they would already be in my safe.

thanks

 

[YodaVader]

Have heard good things on the accuracy of the Marlin 17HMR rifles. Actually, briefly owned the Marlin 17VS - decided that I wanted a 22 mag more and sold it. Also , 17 ammo is not readily available like the .223 which can be found anywhere in a variety of loadings to inexpensive plinking loads to the "match" loadings. The .223 is definitely a more powerful round than the 17 HMR. The .223 can be reloaded as well. Both of the .223's I have owned - my former TC Super 14 and current Rem 700 VLS - were/are capable of exceptional accuracy as well. Don't know about the accuracy potential of the NEF rifle. My TC is similar in the way the gun operates and is accurate in all calibers I have owned.

I guess I would lean more towards the .223 for 200 yard varminting.

 

[craigz]

I would go for the .223, mostly because of the many loads available for it and its reloadability.

 

[David4516]

I got one of these for Christmas last year:

http://www.hr1871.com/firearms/index.php?cat=4&subcat=21

And have been very impressed with it's accuracy. Of couse this is a .22 Mag, not the .223 version.

I don't understand the appeal of the .17 HMR, it's just a necked down .22 mag that costs alot more. I'd be suprized if this caliber lives very long... I bet that 20 years from now no one will remember it.

The .223 ammo doesn't cost much more than .17 HMR ammo, and is much better ballisticly speaking.

If you want a really cool .17 cal rifle, get one in .17 remington

 

[Mike Irwin]

I'd go for the .223, as well.

There are a lot of Remington 5mm rimfire rifles still in circulation that can't be shot because Remington stopped making the ammo.

I'd wait a few years to make sure that the .17 catches on before being caught with an unfeedable albatross.

 

[cdbeaver]

I second Mike Irwin's opinion on the .17 HMR. It might not be around too long.

However, I've shot the Marlin in that caliber, and it's a tack-driving sucker at 100 yards. Trouble is, cartridges are about $11 for 50, and non-reloadable.

The NEF .223 is inexpensive to own, surplus ammo is readily available and cheap. It, too, can be made to shoot accurately.

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I'd give the .17HMR a few more years to see if it thrives too. I'm old enough to remember the Daisy VL22, the 5mm Remington, .256 Win Mag, .22 Jet, and certainly the .41 Action Express.

I did buy a 357Sig, but only after the Texas Department of Public Safety and Dallas PD signed on with it. I figure they're enough endorsement for me. At least you can reload centerfire ammunition if the well ever runs dry.

Ever price Daisy VL lately?

I'd go with .223 Remington unless you want an overpriced .22; then I'd get the .22mag. I'd even consider a .22 Hornet. You can always feed the .223 a lighter dose of powder and the .22 mag will be around forever from all indications, although not exactly what I'd call 'price-efficient' for what you get. But I'm falling back on my Scot roots and it's showing.

If you absolutely have to have the .17HMR, take a look at the Rossi Matched Pair and see if you can get one with the .223 Remington AND the .17HMR barrels. At least you'll be assured of having something to shoot if .17HMR goes away.

Regards,
Rabbit.