Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 17 caliber!! Can’t decide?!?

17-222 Mag.

204 Cases work the best with one trip through the die, snug fit without fireforming. The brass can be top flight or run of the mill.

The Fireball is okay, the 17;Hornet is a real PITA to reload with limited brass, rivaled only by the 5.7 FN.

Thanks for affirming your level of dumb fugk. [/quote]

Flave my crepuscular friend. You have got to get over this inhibition thing of being so unctuously tactful to the point of obsequiousness and [bleep] fawning.

I think Jack O'Conner described a campfire discussion on cartridges where in the wee hours of the night the various proponents were about ready to use their favorite round on the other campfire members. Sound familiar?
[/quote]

Try again and use words I understand.

Something Posing As Meat

Given the .22 Hornets, .22/250s, .220 Swifts and the .220 Howell working here, the bias is rather clear and have never seen any local purpose for the .204.
That is mostly driven by the .17 Remington (700 BDL) I've been using for about 30 years. Flat-shooting as they get, just deadly on small game, easy reloading for accuracy and factory stuff is available if you don't. You might be surprised at how much once-fired .17 Rem brass I picked up at a local range in AZ a while back - still reloading it.

The only caution is when shooting coyotes - especially bigger ones. If one strays and hits directly on shoulder or hip areas, at that velocity some of the better shooting .17 bullets readily will disintegrate on contact with sufficient bone mass. A needless mess. Coyotes are tough animals that can soldier on - so you very well may wind up tracking down a painfully maimed coyote. Not much fun for you and none for the coyote.

For a lighter .17, the .17 Hornet has worked nicely here. I think it is better than the .17 rim fire stuff and most other smaller case .17s. With plenty of brass from shooting the .22 Hornet for 55 years, reloading has been snappy and it doesn't use much powder - and use the same 25 grain bullets. I tend to limit the .17 Hornet to about 125 yards.

No recommendations or claims - just a bit of experience.

Travis,

I use both factory and handloads in the .17 Hornet. The factory stuff is excellent, and during sales can often be purchased for so little that it's almost as cheap as handloads. But I probably reload 3/4 of my .17 Hornet ammo, and have had no difficulties cranking out 350-400 an hour on a turret press.

Ingwe, of course, complains that his "fat fingers" don't handle .17 bullets very well, but mine don't drop very many....

CCCC,

The .17 HMR is good to far more than 125 yards in typical prairie dog conditions. In fact the .17 Mach II is good to 125.

Am guessing you're using hollow-points in the .17 Hornet. Using plastic-tipped bullets in the increases both ballistic coefficient and expansion enough to at least double that 125 yard limit.

And I am recommending and claiming from quite a bit of experience.

Back in the ‘80’s when we had plenty of spot and stalk red fox hunting, I tried the 243, the 222, the 22 Magnum, and the 22-250 at various times back then as these different rifles passed through my hands. I landed on a petite, little Kimber 84 in 17 Remington. It had the proportions of a 22 rimfire, perfect for trudging through deep snow, and yet prone on a bipod, it was lights-out on the little dogs to 300-350 yds depending on wind. The little 25-gr HP didn’t mangle fox badly and at 3700 fps (Remington ammo chronographed in my rifle) rarely exited on a solid body hit.

I came to the conclusion that here, for this type of fox hunting, it was nearly perfect. Unfortunately, the fox population has diminished greatly in proportion to the increase in coyotes. I now have a 204 and it is a bit better for coyotes IMO and the 22-250 (and AI version) better yet.

HMR for the small stuff and 17-22/250 for fun.

The Hornady die with the sliding seater helps with loading the 17's.



Mule Deer, could you explain how you achieve such high round counts with a turret press?

Thanks.

Maneuvering those tiny 17 bullets into cases without dropping them or crushing case necks is reason enough to stick with larger centerfire calibers, and only use 17s in rimfire form.

This solved the tiny bullet problem for me. I bought the 17 and 6mm inserts for a 222 Remington Competition seating die. Works great.

Jim,

Have explained it several times in various articles (one of which will appear as a chapter in GUN GACK II), but partly it involves analyzing and then avoiding wasted motion, and doing as much loading on an assembly-line basis as possible.

You can set a turret press up as a "manual indexing progessive," with a powder measure in one hole, though that involves making sure the cases will be short enough after sizing. I do that after the first firing of .17 Hornet brass, by trimming them all slightly short in a Gracey tool, which inside/outside chamfers at the same time, which really helps the bullet-seating process in the small necks. I also neck-size only, with a Redding bushing die, and it doesn't take long to drop 12-13 grains of spherical powder into each little case, despite the small neck.

400 an hour is the best I've ever done. 350 is closer to average. Once in a while the rate drops to 300, usually because I wasted some motion somehow, like forgetting to get enough primers out at the beginning.

Thanks John. I probably average 50 rounds per hour on my single stage.


I was fixing to buy a copy of Gun Gack as well........but I got side tracked!

We still have a few on hand, including the slightly damaged copies.

I imagine you're pretty busy this time of year!

I do not doubt your experience and certainly support your wish to recommend and claim. But, might see a gap between what I wrote and what you assumed. Your post is mostly consumed with what some .17s will do out to or past 125 yards (in "typical" conditions) and your expression of knowledge and bullet recommendations seem based on an assumed problem - that my .17 Hornet is not effective past 125 yards.

But, those are poor assumptions both on which bullets I load and the effective yardage of my Hornet. Please note my opinion that it is better than the .17 rim fire stuff and most other smaller case .17s.

I said that I "tend to limit the .17 Hornet to about 125 yards" but in no way said that mine is not effective beyond that distance. Here, decisions like that often are based on availability of better alternatives and data other than holes in paper and chrono findings.

CCCC,

Thanks for your clarification about the 125 yards.

However, it sounds like you're assuming that I don't have alternatives, or data other than holes in paper and chrono findings. My knowledge of the .17 Hornet's field effectiveness comes from using it for years (along with a bunch of other rifles and cartridges), not from ballistic theory.

Nice reply - thanks - although I thought it clear that my initial comment did not state shortcomings of the .17H. I try very hard to avoid baseless assumptions about folks or their stuff, and made none about you or your alternatives.

Hi MD,

I've just (literally 3 days ago) purchased my first .17 Hornet (a CZ 527 American). Would you mind sharing your favourite handload data for this cartridge? I'm planning on using the 20 gn V Max projectile.

Thanks

Mike

Might need one of these...

I can't believe you typed that.