17 hmr
- Thread starter gizamo
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Out West
Member
Hey Giz, I see a lot of nice rifles made for this round. The question I have is why do I need it? I haven't been handicapped shooting small game with 22LR or 22mag. What's the benefit? Mind you, I'd love to add one of these to the collection, if the application is there, but right now I just don't get it.
Out
West
Out
West
Based on what I've experienced and observed 17 HMR ammo seems to be better made than commonly available 22 Mag ammo. That's the only explanation I can find for identical rifle shooting 17 better than 22 mag.
I've got a Savage in .17 HMR, and it's a very nice set up for small varmints. It is a very fast, flat shooting round (check ballistic tables, but I believe it outperforms .22 mag in this regard). I've taken prairie dogs out to almost 300 yards with my 17 HMR.
If you already have a .22 mag, I suppose you don't really 'need' the .17 HMR, but if you 'want' one, I think you'll be happy with it.
If you already have a .22 mag, I suppose you don't really 'need' the .17 HMR, but if you 'want' one, I think you'll be happy with it.
I've got a couple of 17 HRM's; one of those NEA single shot top-breaks (all barrel, no frills) and a real nice looking Ruger M77/17. I've been disappointed with the Ruger's accuracy, but it sure is a pretty rifle. The NEA is extremely accurate and it was cheap. I like cheap, accurate guns. I've also got an Anschutz 1502 in 17M2 that out-shoots just about everything else that I own. The Anschutz, however, was not (and is not) cheap, but I still like it anyway. I've not got real good scopes on any of them (Simmons Whitetail 6-18x's). I find cleaning them is a bit of a challenge; the 17 rods are extremely flexible and tend to bend/kink and the 17 bore snakes break too easily and are just a waste of money. I've not shot anything but paper with them, but it's reported that the 17 ballistic tip will vaporize a prairie dog's head at 100 yds. I dunno about that.
Now, all that being said, I shoot probably 10 times more 22LR's than all of the above combined. Did I mention that I am a cheap person? I own an old Brnu Mod-1 22 LR (the earlier CZ 452; an old military trainer). That thing is accurate! I took 2nd place in one of those Rimfire Sporter Competition events with it a couple of years ago; loosing only to a guy shooting a new CZ 452. I recently saw, and put on lay-away a new CZ 452 E2 22 LR; one with the short barrel that's threaded for a suppressor. I can't wait to get my hands on it (..and a suppressor, and a decent scope, and a bi-pod....did I mention that I used to be a cheap person?). Anyways, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the CZ 452; those things are well made, beautiful and accurate. They're not cheap, but I think they are an excellent value.
I'm also a big fan of the Izhmash Basic Biathlon. In fact, the Biathlon 22 LR is without a doubt my favorite rifle. It's ugly, rugged, accurate and cheap. It sort of reminds me of me! I'm pretty sure that they make it in 17HMR, but I've never seen one; probably a good thing for my wallet. I would have shot the Biathlon in Rimfire Sporter, but those things are overweight per the rules for those events.
I think that you're choice of a CZ 452 is a good one. Also, I'm not sure how much longer that Ruger 77/17 will be taking up space in my gun safe. If only it were a bit cheaper to shoot, I might like it more. -S2
Now, all that being said, I shoot probably 10 times more 22LR's than all of the above combined. Did I mention that I am a cheap person? I own an old Brnu Mod-1 22 LR (the earlier CZ 452; an old military trainer). That thing is accurate! I took 2nd place in one of those Rimfire Sporter Competition events with it a couple of years ago; loosing only to a guy shooting a new CZ 452. I recently saw, and put on lay-away a new CZ 452 E2 22 LR; one with the short barrel that's threaded for a suppressor. I can't wait to get my hands on it (..and a suppressor, and a decent scope, and a bi-pod....did I mention that I used to be a cheap person?). Anyways, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the CZ 452; those things are well made, beautiful and accurate. They're not cheap, but I think they are an excellent value.
I'm also a big fan of the Izhmash Basic Biathlon. In fact, the Biathlon 22 LR is without a doubt my favorite rifle. It's ugly, rugged, accurate and cheap. It sort of reminds me of me! I'm pretty sure that they make it in 17HMR, but I've never seen one; probably a good thing for my wallet. I would have shot the Biathlon in Rimfire Sporter, but those things are overweight per the rules for those events.
I think that you're choice of a CZ 452 is a good one. Also, I'm not sure how much longer that Ruger 77/17 will be taking up space in my gun safe. If only it were a bit cheaper to shoot, I might like it more. -S2
Andy Griffith
Member
I really don't know anything about it, but...
Once I get my Remington 591M in 5mm Magnum out of hock, we'll have a match!
Once I get my Remington 591M in 5mm Magnum out of hock, we'll have a match!
HAWKEYE10
Member
I have a friend that bought a new CZ 452 American in 17 HMR on GB today for $365 and $25 shipping. Sounds like a good deal to me. I have the same gun in 22LR so I guess we will find out which is the best gun. Don
madmikeb
SWCA Member
I've got a 647 8-3/8 barrel and if I do my part the gun will easily shoot dime sized groups at 25 yards. It's just a fun gun to shoot.
John F.
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 249
I got to play with a CZ 452 American in .17 HMR a while back. It had a tuned trigger and Leupold 4.5-14X Vari-X III AO scope, but no bedding job or other tuning. With the Hornady 17 gr. V-Max bullet, in calm conditions, it averaged 0.715" for 5, 5-shot groups at 100 yards. Of interest, the rifle WOULD NOT shoot any of the other bullet designs (Speer TNT, Game Point, etc.) well -- only the V-Max or Winchester's equivalent. I've had several HMR shooters and a couple of gun store clerks tell me that their rifles/most rifles seem to strongly prefer the V-Max bullets.
It is insanely flat shooting. When zeroed at 100 yards, these trajectory results were obtained through actual firing:
12 yards (Yes, I have shot squirrels this close on occasion!): -0.96" low
25 yards - 0.53" low
50 yards +0.1" high
65 yards +.39" high
85 yards +.31" high
100 yards - zeroed
125 yards -1.27"
150 yards -2.32"
175 yards -4.77"
200 yards -7.96"
The little bullets seem to run out of steam pretty quickly after about 125 yards and are wind-sensitive, but capable of very fine accuracy. For smaller, lighter varmints, they work very well. On groundhogs, I'd rather have a .22 WMR. Up close, the .17 is VERY explosive. Example: Shooting a water-filled "Red Bull" 8-oz. can at 50 yards -- this is very soft aluminum and only about 2.5" in diameter. The top half was blown skyward and when the bottom half was examined, there was a sizeable chunk of jacket lying in the bottom of it... it had already started disintegrating! I saw a squirrel hit in the chest with one at about 30 yards, and it made a serious mess. Head shots are MANDATORY if you don't want a field-dressing/skinning nightmare on small game at woods ranges. Luckily, in a good rifle, it gives you the accuracy/trajectory to consistently make head shots as far out as you're likely to shoot.
Also, these bullets are not nearly so prone to riccochet as .22LR or WMR's. I did a test where I put a piece of white poster paper behind a still-green tree branch at 100 yds, and fired several shots from the bench, just barely glancing off the branch, and the bullets exploded from even the slightest touch. Thus, anything they hit in the woods is likely to eliminate the possibility of a bullet carrying any distance. The rifle/ammo were so accurate that it was no trick to just skim the bark of the branch or barely hit the branch itself, only 1/4" into the wood. I then did the same test using a flat rock to check for riccochets and got the same results.
Finally, as I started the last day of testing, I needed to foul the bore after cleaning, so I just fired a shot into a blank part of the target at 100 yards. I then aimed at the .17 cal. bullet hole, which was smaller than the intersection of my crosshairs. My next shot missed the first hole by only 0.1"!
Basically, you have top grade Anschutz .22 match rifle accuracy (think $1500 worth,minimum) in a $400 rifle, shooting over-the-counter ammo that, at $11.99/50 gives the accuracy the best Eley Tenex ($18.00/box) can provide at 100 yards, but with a relatively laser-flat trajectory and explosive killing power. If one did not want to take longer shots, the rifle could be zeroed at a shorter range than 100 yards and have a still-flatter trajectory, but basically, this setup gives the ability to hold virtually dead on out to 100 yards and hit with match rifle precision.
By comparison, an Anschutz match rifle using Eley Tenex standard velocity match ammo with a 50 yard zero dropped over 6" at 100 yards... which means you really need to be on your game at range/holdover if you want to use that rifle/ammo much past about 60 yards...
Hope this helps!
John
It is insanely flat shooting. When zeroed at 100 yards, these trajectory results were obtained through actual firing:
12 yards (Yes, I have shot squirrels this close on occasion!): -0.96" low
25 yards - 0.53" low
50 yards +0.1" high
65 yards +.39" high
85 yards +.31" high
100 yards - zeroed
125 yards -1.27"
150 yards -2.32"
175 yards -4.77"
200 yards -7.96"
The little bullets seem to run out of steam pretty quickly after about 125 yards and are wind-sensitive, but capable of very fine accuracy. For smaller, lighter varmints, they work very well. On groundhogs, I'd rather have a .22 WMR. Up close, the .17 is VERY explosive. Example: Shooting a water-filled "Red Bull" 8-oz. can at 50 yards -- this is very soft aluminum and only about 2.5" in diameter. The top half was blown skyward and when the bottom half was examined, there was a sizeable chunk of jacket lying in the bottom of it... it had already started disintegrating! I saw a squirrel hit in the chest with one at about 30 yards, and it made a serious mess. Head shots are MANDATORY if you don't want a field-dressing/skinning nightmare on small game at woods ranges. Luckily, in a good rifle, it gives you the accuracy/trajectory to consistently make head shots as far out as you're likely to shoot.
Also, these bullets are not nearly so prone to riccochet as .22LR or WMR's. I did a test where I put a piece of white poster paper behind a still-green tree branch at 100 yds, and fired several shots from the bench, just barely glancing off the branch, and the bullets exploded from even the slightest touch. Thus, anything they hit in the woods is likely to eliminate the possibility of a bullet carrying any distance. The rifle/ammo were so accurate that it was no trick to just skim the bark of the branch or barely hit the branch itself, only 1/4" into the wood. I then did the same test using a flat rock to check for riccochets and got the same results.
Finally, as I started the last day of testing, I needed to foul the bore after cleaning, so I just fired a shot into a blank part of the target at 100 yards. I then aimed at the .17 cal. bullet hole, which was smaller than the intersection of my crosshairs. My next shot missed the first hole by only 0.1"!
Basically, you have top grade Anschutz .22 match rifle accuracy (think $1500 worth,minimum) in a $400 rifle, shooting over-the-counter ammo that, at $11.99/50 gives the accuracy the best Eley Tenex ($18.00/box) can provide at 100 yards, but with a relatively laser-flat trajectory and explosive killing power. If one did not want to take longer shots, the rifle could be zeroed at a shorter range than 100 yards and have a still-flatter trajectory, but basically, this setup gives the ability to hold virtually dead on out to 100 yards and hit with match rifle precision.
By comparison, an Anschutz match rifle using Eley Tenex standard velocity match ammo with a 50 yard zero dropped over 6" at 100 yards... which means you really need to be on your game at range/holdover if you want to use that rifle/ammo much past about 60 yards...
Hope this helps!
John
Last edited:
m657
Member
I have the Savage and a m647. Fine round for accurate no recoil plinking.
I'm not a varmint hunter but could see heading out with some buddies next them they go.
I have a 100 yard target with 10 shots into less than a half-dime size group. That's way better than my usual, and smaller than just ONE of my usual SASS rounds.
Mine is quite sensitive to winds....then again, any excuse helps ease the annoyance of not having perfect Xs all the time.
I've got a decent hammer barreled Ruger T22, and with comparable scopes at same distance, I'd give the 17 the edge in accuracy.
I'm not a varmint hunter but could see heading out with some buddies next them they go.
I have a 100 yard target with 10 shots into less than a half-dime size group. That's way better than my usual, and smaller than just ONE of my usual SASS rounds.
Mine is quite sensitive to winds....then again, any excuse helps ease the annoyance of not having perfect Xs all the time.
I've got a decent hammer barreled Ruger T22, and with comparable scopes at same distance, I'd give the 17 the edge in accuracy.
Frank237
Absent Comrade
We shoot tons of little ground squirrels out here we affectionately call them GOPHERS. I've used .22 rimfire for most of it but a few years back discovered the .17 HMR. Talk about FLAT SHOOTING out to 100 yds!! WOW.
Pretty handy to use a .22 LR out to fifty or so...then grab the seventeen for the 50-125 yd shots. A good killer too. Not many make it down into their burrows.
FN in MT
Pretty handy to use a .22 LR out to fifty or so...then grab the seventeen for the 50-125 yd shots. A good killer too. Not many make it down into their burrows.
FN in MT
I have alot of experience with the round and here is my take:
1. Biggest reason for it is that it shoots alot flatter and farther than a 22 magnum. 22 mags seem to run out of "flatness" a little past 100 yards, beyond about 110 or so they drop fast. The 17HMR is still clipping along pretty good at 150-160+
2. The smaller lighter bullet just doesn't do as much damage as a 22 mag. I used it for fox hunting at night and while it will kill fox and raccoons it is not quite enough for woodchucks.
3. The 17HMR is much more easily affected by the wind especially at longer ranges. The lightweight bullet moves sideways with little effort.
4. Because it is faster the 17HMR tears up smaller game pretty bad, like squirrels.
My biggest reason to switch back to 22 magnums for hunting fox is that the 17HMR just plain lacks the knockdown of the heavier 22 magnum bullet. Although it never failed to kill a fox or raccoon sized animal we did have to track several. The 22 magnums always dropped 'em dead right there. I had so many woodchucks run back in their dens hit with the 17's that I quickly stopped using it on them. I will say they were very accurate and if target/fun shooting is what you are after then the 17 is probably better. I killed several crows at 180 yards with no wind.
1. Biggest reason for it is that it shoots alot flatter and farther than a 22 magnum. 22 mags seem to run out of "flatness" a little past 100 yards, beyond about 110 or so they drop fast. The 17HMR is still clipping along pretty good at 150-160+
2. The smaller lighter bullet just doesn't do as much damage as a 22 mag. I used it for fox hunting at night and while it will kill fox and raccoons it is not quite enough for woodchucks.
3. The 17HMR is much more easily affected by the wind especially at longer ranges. The lightweight bullet moves sideways with little effort.
4. Because it is faster the 17HMR tears up smaller game pretty bad, like squirrels.
My biggest reason to switch back to 22 magnums for hunting fox is that the 17HMR just plain lacks the knockdown of the heavier 22 magnum bullet. Although it never failed to kill a fox or raccoon sized animal we did have to track several. The 22 magnums always dropped 'em dead right there. I had so many woodchucks run back in their dens hit with the 17's that I quickly stopped using it on them. I will say they were very accurate and if target/fun shooting is what you are after then the 17 is probably better. I killed several crows at 180 yards with no wind.
CH47gunner
US Veteran
They fill the niche.
The niche between the .22lr rimfire (cheap) & the .223 centerfire.
I shoot a bunch of all three and I don't usually shoot any further than maybe 75/100yds. with the .22. The .17HMR is laser accurate at any where out to approx. 150-200yds.
I don't shoot anything edible with the .17 but it certainly does the job on ground squirrels & crows. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a woodchuck or fox but probably not enough gun for coyotes, unless I was absolutely positive of the shot.
And they're a whole bunch of fun to shoot.
Bruce
CZ452 Varmint .17HMR
The niche between the .22lr rimfire (cheap) & the .223 centerfire.
I shoot a bunch of all three and I don't usually shoot any further than maybe 75/100yds. with the .22. The .17HMR is laser accurate at any where out to approx. 150-200yds.
I don't shoot anything edible with the .17 but it certainly does the job on ground squirrels & crows. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a woodchuck or fox but probably not enough gun for coyotes, unless I was absolutely positive of the shot.
And they're a whole bunch of fun to shoot.
Bruce
CZ452 Varmint .17HMR
Similar threads
