Which 17?

[andym79]

Hi guys, I am thinking of getting a 17 calibre centrefire for foxes to do minimal damage to pelts, I intend on doing shooting under 200 yards.

Which of these would you go for 17 hornet, 17-218 bee or 17-222? The 17 hornet will work out the cheapest be the most available and having the cheapest dies and components plus maybe being able to get loaded ammo, not that I do. The 17-222 will of course be able to reach out the furthest, and components are off the shelf, dies cost a bit more. I suspect the bee would be the best in power level, in between, I have some bee brass so am not worried about that but the dies cost top dollar.

I would like to hear from those who have experience with any or all of these.

Thanks

 

[GooseGestapo]

Of those you listed, Personally I'd go with the 17Hornet. Hornady makes good brass, Lee has dies. It uses the least amount of powder, least bore erosion.

However, the .17Remington is the oldest and most established.17, and having had experience with it, would be my choice.
A friend had a Sako 75 varminter. It was easily 0.5moa with Hornady 25gr bullets. Remington would go .75" (5-shots).

The .17HRM would likely be the least damaging option, but what fun is that- not being able to reload...
I hope you have small fingers, and good dexterity. .17 bullets are small.

 

[Orcon]

17 Hornet sounds like your huckleberry. Your rifle choices will be somewhat limited, though. I think the only factory chambered models are the Savage 25, CZ 527, and the Ruger 77.

Predator hunting is pretty popular where I live and 17 Hornet ammo is sold at both gun shops here in town and the hardware store, can't say the same for 17 Rem.

 

[Sunray]

It's not about the, distance, cartridge or calibre. It's about the available bullets. To do minimal damage to pelts you need FMJ's(a Speer 90 grain FMJ out of a .243 makes a puncture wound and removes about a quarter size circle of fur. Worked up the load after seeing a fox that didn't know I was there. Naturally, I never saw it again.) or match bullets that don't expand on impact. Don't think anybody makes 'em in .17 calibre.
"...17-218 Bee..." Unless you know how to make the brass forget anything that isn't factory made.
.17-222 Hornady dies run $79.99 with an available rebate at Midway. Still no factory brass or ammo. You can, however, easily get .223/.224" FMJ or Match bullets for hide hunting.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Of those you listed, Personally I'd go with the 17Hornet. Hornady makes good brass, Lee has dies. It uses the least amount of powder, least bore erosion.

However, the .17Remington is the oldest and most established.17, and having had experience with it, would be my choice.
A friend had a Sako 75 varminter. It was easily 0.5moa with Hornady 25gr bullets. Remington would go .75" (5-shots).

The .17HRM would likely be the least damaging option, but what fun is that- not being able to reload...
I hope you have small fingers, and good dexterity. .17 bullets are small.

This. The appeal of the .17 Hornet is that it's very efficient, provides good velocities, and the report is fairly mellow. It does not have the legs or lightning strike destructive capacity of the 4,200-4,400 FPS capable .17 Rem, but still quite effective.

.17 Rem is tied with .204 Ruger for highest velocity production centerfire cartridge, and at close to moderate range, it absolutely destroys varmints. But with any .17, the light bullets shed velocity quickly, so it loses to the .223 and other .204 or .224 caliber rounds at ranges beyond 300 yards.

The .17 HMR obviously has the advantage of being cheaper in factory ammo for those who don't hand load, but offers nowhere near the performance of the .17 Hornet, let alone the larger ones.

I don't think the other two wildcats are even worth consideration. The .17-218 bee doesn't do anything the Hornet won't, and the .17-222 was made obsolete by the standardization of the .17 Rem (basically .17-223)

I have a Remington 700 LVSF in .17 Rem. It produces 4,265 FPS with near-max loads over 20 gr. bullets from a 22" barrel, and averages .67 MOA @ 200 yards (5 shot groups). I use it on prairie rats in conjunction with my .220 Swift, which has far greater reach, but also uses nearly twice the powder and exhibits much more blast. The non-existent recoil of the .17 also allows one to watch the target be destroyed through the scope, even in a lighter rifle like that VLSF.

Do be advised that, if you handload, .17s are kind of a pain. Extruded powders get stuck on the case neck, and the tiny bullets are somewhat difficult to handle. Worth it, but tedious.

 

[Offfhand]

Don't overlook the .17 Rem Fireball. It's a great in-between seventeen and every one I've tested has been nicely accurate with handloads and even factory loads.

 

[someguy2800]

I agree with the 17 caliber bullets being destructive. I would actually pick a 22 hornet with 1:12 twist shooting 50 grain fmj.

If I had to pick a center fire 17 It would be a 17 hornet in a Thompson center contender carbine. Eabco has barrels in stock.

 

[Geno]

+1 on that single-shot Contender, being that the 17 Hornet is a rimmed cartridge.

Making this same decision, I personally went with the 17 HMR. It seemed the best for my needs inside 200 yards.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

The 17 Hornet would be my choice. If Savage or CZ made a lefty I'd probably buy one.
As of now I'm happy with my 17HMR.

 

[Offfhand]

Get a .223, plenty of rifles and bullets to choose from and you can make it do anything you want, from .22 Hornet on up. End of discussion.

 

[Varminterror]

.17 rem can be rough on fox fur, unless it's loaded down to Hornet levels or shot at longer ranges. The 17 FB/Mach IV is just as bad. The .17 Hornet is the cartridge of choice for fox.

The .17 WSM is also a very good option for fox. The Bmag received a bad reputation early upon release, but frankly, undeservedly. I dropped mine into a new stock, it has been a sub-MOA rifle for me, and holds MOA even out to 200yrds.

 

[Bushpilot]

I know the 22 Hornet wasn't included in your options but I agree with someguy2800, the 22 Hornet is just about ideal for the task that you describe. Velocity destroys pelts, a heavier bullet weight (then the .17's) kills cleanly without as much damage. You want just enough velocity to give you the trajectory required to reach out the necessary distance, in this case, "under 200 yards," a 22 Hornet is just about perfect for this... Plus it's widely available, cheap and easy to load. My 77/22 Hornet consistently shoots about .75 - .80 MOA. Of course, a .222 or .223 with a mild load would easily achieve the same result.