Getting an itch for .17 Rimfire

[TruthTellers]

Years ago and even up until last year I had never considered buying anything smaller than .22 because I'm not a competitive shooter and I don't have property infested with varmints. However, I'm always interested in something different and I do appriciate seeing five shots that all touch at 50 yards or are under an inch at 100.

Same thing applies with handguns, but the additional perk of reduced recoil is always one that has my attention.

I will say that due to the lower ammo cost the HM2 interests me more than the HMR, not that I'd be shooting thousands of rounds of either, but for simple paper punching I don't see what would make HMR a better choice; the only benefit it has is it has more ammo choices than .17 HM2 and the omnipresent belief that less popular calibers will forever someday disappear does have a reason to be considered as we're talking about rimfire here.

What are the thoughts on .17 rifles and revolvers? Would you buy a .17 HM2 today even tho its future is uncertain?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

What are the thoughts on .17 rifles and revolvers? Would you buy a .17 HM2 today even tho its future is uncertain?

I looked at both of the .17s when they came out, and didn't see anything there that I wanted or needed.

Still don't.

[ligonierbill]

If your only concern is the uncertainty of the round's future, I'd buy one. As long as enough people are buying it, they'll make it. And you can stock up and store a whole lot of HM2 rounds pretty easily.

Personally, I don't need yet another bore size. But many folks think these rifles are a hoot. Check reviews on the Savage A17.

[TruthTellers]

Considering all the cases for HM2 are formed from .22 LR, I don't see why manufacturers like Hornady, who've been making it for almost 20 years, would drop it. The .17 HMR will be around forevermore.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The 17s can be really nice for specific use cases related to varminting.
However, they're also a bit of a pain regarding cleaning, as your typical "normal" cleaning rod won't even fit down the barrel.
So, you've got to consider buying and storing that new equipment too. Minor annoyance, sure, but considering that the round really serves no purpose for "plinking", in my opinion, it's an annoyance I don't need.

Reduced recoil compared to a centerfire, yes.... but compared to 22LR? Who cares? And 22LR is cheaper and definitely not going away, ever, and you don't need new cleaning gear.

I don't think any of the rounds are going away, certainly not any time soon, but I wouldn't buy one unless I wanted it for varmints.

To each his own though. If you like the idea, do it up! More guns is better guns.

[Spats McGee]

I thought about a .17 of some kind, and still debate it now and again. But if you're looking for cheap paper-punching, have you considered an air rifle? I bought a Hatsan just a little while back and can say that modern air rifles are a far cry from what I grew up with in SmallTown, USA in the 1970s and 80s. I don't have any clue whether the .17 calibers will stick around, but I don't think the .22 pellet is going to die on us.

ETA: I just re-read the OP. If you're wanting to reach out to 50-100 yards, a pellet rifle might not be your best option, on second thought. I'm sure someone makes a 100-yard pellet rifle. I'm equally sure it's out of my price range.

[Mal H]

I got a .17 HMR almost two decades ago, and I love it. Mine is a Marlin SS bolt action (Mod 917). I use it primarily for varmint control from 20 to 100 yds. It is very accurate with the installed 3-9X scope. I have never needed more than one shot - that tiny bullet is always instantly effective. It is standing at the ready all the time.

I loaned it to my neighbor a while back for the same purpose. He liked it so much he bought one also.

I don't think the ammo will go out of style.

[Nathan]

I think you would prefer the 17 HMR. More options for guns and ammo as well as higher performance. I have one in a contender and it is real fun.

[MarkCO]

Are we to assume you have no interest in reloading?

If true, then sure, the 17 HMR is a great little round that IMHO, sits well in the gap between .22LR and .223Rem. I'll shoot my .22LR out to 330 yards, and it is usually practice or a match, where the 17 is not allowed. And moving up from 17, I just go to 223 and reload with smaller charges of fast powders with 30 to 50 grain slugs in the .22 WMR velocity range for a lot less than factory rimfires.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

If true, then sure, the 17 HMR is a great little round that IMHO, sits well in the gap between .22LR and .223Rem.

To my way of thinking, a .17 caliber anything doesn't fit "between" any two .22x cartridges, but I suppose you're talking about what you can do with it rather than strictly numbers.

I would respectfully propose that .22 WMR and .22 Hornet are better fits for "between" .22 LR and .223 Remington.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

To my way of thinking, a .17 caliber anything doesn't fit "between" any two .22x cartridges, but I suppose you're talking about what you can do with it rather than strictly numbers.

I would respectfully propose that .22 WMR and .22 Hornet are better fits for "between" .22 LR and .223 Remington.

Yes, only talking about capabilities. And if he does not reload, the .17 is cheaper than the .22 WMR and .22 Hornet.

[jpx2rk]

IF you don't want to reload another caliber, then the HMR is what i would recommend since that's what I have (Savage 93R17), accurate out of the box, have a 6-18x scope on it. I use it for sage rats out to 100-125 yds and that's it. I try not to use beyond that as then it takes a head shot, and sage rats seldom sit still long enough for that.

Rimfire ammo is rimfire ammo, and can be lot dependent on whether your rifle will like it or not. One lot of brand X may be accurate, the next lot of same brand may not, so...

IF you want to reload, consider the 17 Hornet or maybe the 22 Hornet K, you can control and develop the load for these, but I've read brass is fragile to some extent regarding the necks.

[TruthTellers]

I do reload, but don't do it as much now due to primer and powder shortages/prices. I've also never been into reloading for rifle and wouldn't be interested in reloading for small bore rifles like the Hornets and the thin necks they have. I'm sure pro reloaders on here have reloaded .22 Hornet for decades and never crumpled a neck before, but I'm not as good as they are and don't have an interest to bother anyway.

[jmr40]

For the last 2-3 years I've been stretching things out with 22LR. Other than getting the rifles zeroed I almost never shoot closer than 100 yards anymore and often shoot at 200 and if conditions are right as far as 250.

I ran across a good deal on a Savage in 17HMR a few months ago hoping it would be an economical way to shoot at longer ranges. It shot flatter. But I have cheat sheets showing me where to adjust my scopes for ranges at 50,100, 150, and 200 yards with 22 LR.

Granted it was an example of one, but my 17 wasn't as accurate as my 22 even at 200 yards. I didn't keep it long.

For shooting critters, the 17 would probably be a better choice. A 22 at 200 yards will punch through a paper target or knock paint off a steel plate. But probably wouldn't do much damage to a varmint.

[44 AMP]

A 22 at 200 yards will punch through a paper target or knock paint off a steel plate. But probably wouldn't do much damage to a varmint.

"tin can" rule. Range doesn't matter, if the bullet or pellet will punch through a tin can, it could be lethal.

Best choice? possibly not, but if it has the energy to put a hole in a tin can, it has the energy to reach a vital organ, and the smaller the varmint, the greater the effect possible.

the omnipresent belief that less popular calibers will forever someday disappear does have a reason to be considered as we're talking about rimfire here.

The belief is grounded in actual market performance, observed over the last 150 years or so. Disappear forever? No, nothing does, if there is enough money in making it, but that's the catch. When a centerfire round is dropped from production, it becomes a handloading proposition. IT may eventually reach the point of being a custom or semi custom item, but if the $ is there, someone will make it for you.

Rimfires are worse, in that regard. When the ammo makers drop them, the list of options goes waay down, and even more $$ is needed, IF there even are any available options.

5mm Remington Magnum
a seriously cautionary tale. Actually reached the point where a single box of factory ammo was more valuable on the market than the rifle.

I hear there is some foreign maker producing 5mm Rem now, after what, 40 some years??

Not saying your "fav .17" will go that route, but they COULD, and I think anyone claiming they will be around "forever" is very optimistic.

[Aguila Blanca]

If there was ever a rimfire cartridge that's going to disappear forever, it's the .22 Winchester Automatic, which was developed by Winchester for the Model 1903 semi-automatic carbine. That's the only firearm that ever used the cartridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Winchester_Automatic

Winchester and most other ammunition makers dropped the cartridge decades ago, so owners of 1903s are very stingy about their shooting. But, every once in a while, Aguila runs a batch of it, and the supply typically sells out as soon as it becomes available.

I wouldn't worry about the .17s.

[Shadow9mm]

I scratched that itch years back. had a CZ 452 in 17hmr. Rifle was sub moa. no recoil. Great gun. However when I bought it ammo was something like $9 per 50. With the shortage it shot up to $18 per 50 and I could not justify those kinda prices for a rimfire. If you have the money its a great little cartridge.

[44 AMP]

I could not justify those kinda prices for a rimfire.

This was where I always had my biggest gripe with the .22WMR.

decades ago, when .22LR was $1 a box (or LESS) the .22 WMR was $6!

Thank you, but no. It wasn't 6x more material, or 6x more performance, not even close. 2x or even 3x more cost, I could understand but not six times the cost. SO, I never took to the .22 WMR. Have one, sort of, have a WMR cylinder for my Super Single Six. In about 30 years, I've bought two boxes of WMR shells and never shot either box up completely.

I do load for the .22 Hornet, and yes, I lost some cases before I figured out what needs to be done, and differently from most other brass. For me, if I want something more than a .22LR, my next step is a downloaded Hornet. Downloaded Hornet is actually cheaper than buying .22 WMR, plus reloadable brass.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

This was where I always had my biggest gripe with the .22WMR.

decades ago, when .22LR was $1 a box (or LESS) the .22 WMR was $6!

Thank you, but no. It wasn't 6x more material, or 6x more performance, not even close. 2x or even 3x more cost, I could understand but not six times the cost. SO, I never took to the .22 WMR. Have one, sort of, have a WMR cylinder for my Super Single Six. In about 30 years, I've bought two boxes of WMR shells and never shot either box up completely.

I do load for the .22 Hornet, and yes, I lost some cases before I figured out what needs to be done, and differently from most other brass. For me, if I want something more than a .22LR, my next step is a downloaded Hornet. Downloaded Hornet is actually cheaper than buying .22 WMR, plus reloadable brass.

I've been in that same boat with the .22 Magnum myself. Yeah, it has more power, but in a handgun I can get that with more reliable .32's that I can also reload, with better triggers in a revolver. In a rifle... the only one I have bought is a break action single shot because of how many single action .22's I've bought have been convertible; it just made sense to have at least one rifle and with adapters I will shoot .22 LR from that rifle because chamber adapters work best with break actions.

The .17 tho is a very different animal than the .22's, there's exceptional gain in velocity and flat trajectory.

It surprises me to see on forums where the mentality is quality comes at a price, that those who normally have no issue paying for premium ammo in .22 LR would be upset that premium .17 ammo comes with a higher price tag.

I mean, compared to $40 for a 500 rd brick of cheap bulk junk I can understand, but when you can get .17 Mach 2 for 20 cents a round? That's not exactly breaking the bank.