I figured that they would have to chamber their m77/22 Hornets for the new 17 round..
Check this video clip at 4:35
To all gunmaker critics- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
I am really excited about this little cartridge. However, i am not so enthusiastic about the Ruger rifle. I am hoping some other manufacturers start building rifle for it. The problem that i can see, is that the Ruger is effectively the only 22 Hornet-sized action, and a lot of manufacturers will inevitably just chamber it in full sized rifles, which to me seems to defeat the purpose. I wonder if Browning might try to put it in a centrefire-adapted T-bolt - that would be an exiting development. Or maybe Anschutz might do a small centrefire version of the 54 again?
The factory production of this cartridge has got me wondering if the writing isn't on the wall for all rimfires bar the humble 22lr.
If your dad doesn't have a beard, you've got two mums
I had a .22 Hornet in one of the medium weight stainless barrel 77/22 hornets. It was very ordinary in accuracy, and I found the throat was too long for the magazine length limitation. Sold. Don't want another.
I have never been a Huge Fan of the Ruger m77 mostly due to their Farm Inplement tolerances and in the Hornet, their short Mag length vs their chamber throat lenghts.
Now that the Ruger centerfires cost about $600 hopefully they have enough profit in them to make them to tighter tolerances. From what I have heard of the newer rifles, that is the case. The mag lenght chamber spec issue remains to be seen. I hope the SAMMI spec throats are good and short for the 17 Hornet, because I know the magazine in that Ruger will be the same lengtht as their regular Hornet.
As to the No.1 in the 17 Hornet- HECK YEAH! Perhaps the ideal combination is the No A in EITHER .22 or 17 Hornet. I would buy either of them!
Also, the 17 Hornet in the NEF Handi Rifle would be a low cost winner as well.
Last edited by jim62; 01/19/12.
To all gunmaker critics- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
The 77/22 action does seem to deliver pretty average performance for the price, and this is a cartridge that really warrants a bit more accuracy than the Ruger 77/22 has delivered in the past. I am confident Ruger can make the rifle more accurate, but it is just a matter of whether they will bother.
If your dad doesn't have a beard, you've got two mums
17 Fireball is a better cartridge, but pressure and bolt-thrust is too high for some of the weaker actions - especially those modified from rimfire actions, like the Ruger. The problem with the Fireball is that there isn't really an action available that makes the most of its diminutive proportions - it is dwarfed even by a .223 sized action. And if you are going to use a .223-sized action, you might as well go to the 17 Rem and use up the available length.
Both the 17 Fireball and 17 Hornet would be well suited to a little rear-locking action, but nobody i know is making an appropriate action.
If your dad doesn't have a beard, you've got two mums
Looks like Savage is also in the 17 Hornet business.
Available chamberings: Sku: 19739 New Chamberig for 2012 Caliber: 17 HORNET Handed: Right Rate of Twist: n/a Weight: n/a Overall Length: n/a Barrel Length: 24" Ammo Capacity: 0 MSRP: $754.00
Sku: 18529 Caliber: 204 RUGER Handed: Right Rate of Twist: 12 Weight: 8.25 lbs Overall Length: 43.75" Barrel Length: 24" Ammo Capacity: 4 MSRP: $732.00
The model 25 is a bit ugly, even for a Savage. But I am pretty sure it would outshoot the Ruger 77-22 in any chambering.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
My guess is the .17 Hornet Ruger won't have any magazine-length problems, because the little round was designed from the get-go for the 20-grain V-Max bullet.
The big problem with .22 Hornet bolt-action magazines is that the Hornet overall length was established back when Hornet ammo only came in blunt soft- and hollow-points. Thus there's always a problem with plastic-tips, and often even with streamlined hollow-points.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Having owned neither, what would be the advantage of the .17 Hornet over the .17 Fireball.?
Speaking only from the experience of shooting a couple thousand rounds along side my pard...the Ruger hornet platform , with the detachable mag is easier and quicker to reload, and in some of the shooting we do, that is a definite consideration... Otherwise...I dunno...never shot a Fireball...but JB tells me I need one of them too...
"...the left considers you vermin, and they'll kill you given the chance..." Bristoe
Well, yeah, you need one of everything, not just a dozen .223 AI's.
As far as any advantage of the .17 Hornet over the .17 Fireball, there isn't any except the Goldilocks notion that the .17 Fireball isn't "just right" for a short bolt action. (Back in the old days Winchester used to block off the M70 action for the Hornet, and few people objected.)
But one thing I like about the Hornet case is that a BUNCH can be dumped in a shirt pocket when I go for a gopher or PD walk. And the empties fit in the other shirt pocket! Which is one big reason I own a .22 Hornet, instead of loading down the .223.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
My guess is the .17 Hornet Ruger won't have any magazine-length problems, because the little round was designed from the get-go for the 20-grain V-Max bullet.
I hope you are right about that..
As to the 17Hornet vs 17 Fireball comparisons, besides the more compact size of the loaded Hornet rounds do you feel the Hornet has a slight edge in expense and barrel warming due to the smaller amount of powder it consumes?
To all gunmaker critics- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
Probably--though I've shot the heck out of my .17 Fireball for a couple of years now with little wear of the throat visible through the bore-scope.
Plus, somewhere or other I came up with a spare factory barrel, once the original wears out! I've shot several 700's, and they've all shot minute-of-rodent.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
![[Linked Image]](https://s3.amazonaws.com/savagefiles/firearms/models/900/gQgw49278_N3VP9K9Y4.png)
