Question:17HMR & NAA new mini

[Bob79]

NAA now sells minis that are the same size & weight as their .22's but chambered for the 17HMR round.

Now, before they only offered this 17HMR round in a larger frame, with larger grips which would lead me to believe the recoil must be significant. Does anyone have any experience with the "old" NAA 17HMR guns? Does anyone think that the recoil with the "new" 17HMR's would just be too much? What's the take ya'll?

I have a .22 mag w/ the short barrel and it ain't too bad. I just bought it one month ago, so I'm kinda disappointed I didn't even get the oppurtunity to choose

 

[Ala Dan]

Hello-

I have yet to see a "mini" in .17 HMR; but I own a 1-1/8" barrel .22
magnum, and I don't find it all that bad. But, it is as loud as a .357
magnum!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Jim March]

I think the 17HMR NAA minirevolvers are the single worst idea the company has ever come up with.



And I'm an NAA fan otherwise.

The deal is, the 17 makes sense as a flat-shooting, long-range-by-rimfire-standards target and small game cartridge in an accurate gun...handgun or rifle.

But at the "across the room or less" ranges the NAAs are good for, the best 22Magnum loads (CCI MaxiMag +V and +V/TNT) are FAR superior manstoppers to any of the 17s. I mean, it ain't even close, OK? And any accuracy improvements in the 17 simply won't matter at that range.

Now, the 4" barrel MiniMaster is "sort of" a target/small game gun, so I guess as a last-ditch-emergency compact survival gun for plinking squirrel/pigeon sized game, it might make some sense in 17HMR. In that caliber, you might extend the practical range for such pursuits another 10 or 20 yards or so over 22Mag (maybe!) and that may be useful for a few people. But that is by far the least common use of an NAA minirevolver, with last-ditch self defense being by far the MOST common.

 

[Bob79]

I don't know how scientific it is, but when I look at the performance comparison under the ballistic section on a few websites, there doesn't look to be much difference in the .22mag and 17HMR. So I guess there really isn't any "advantage" to getting the 17 cal.

 

[Jim March]

The raw ballistic energy numbers in this case don't tell you a very critical thing: penetration in a human body is NOT ADEQUATE with the rimfire 17s. Either of 'em.

The 22Mag 30grain JHPs at 1,200fps or so are right on the ragged edge of being useful. They CAN penetrate to the brain on a frontal face shot. Not 100% of the time, but "usually". Location matters.

The 17s? Trust me, you can't say the same thing.

The situation is just as grim on a chest shot. Actually, it's worse: the shape of most of the 17s is a sort of "mini spitzer" which is fine as long as the velocity is up past 2,200fps or so...in other words, a .17 rifle is gonna sting.

From a handgun? Stopping power will REALLY suck. The round won't be going fast enough to expand or fragment. It'll just drill a small hole.



The hottest 22LRs are an improvement over BOTH of the 17s.