Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Tell us about the new cartridge coming out!

Yeah, you gun writers, and don't act like you dont know what I'm talking about. You know the one that Ruger is coming out with. NO, not the 204. The......drum role please.

17 Long Rifle.

Good by 22's the 17s are taking over.

While cute, I'd rate it in the "zzzz" category. Anything rimfire is a short range afair at best and I can't imagine it unseating the 22lr!

Brad, I believe as the 17 HMR has knocked the 22 mag off it's
pedistal. The 17 LR will do the same to the 22 LR. (for serious
whistle pig and PD shooters.)
Although ammo wont be as cheap at first.

I didn't know it had knocked the Mag off the pedistal, only having to share it.

A little off the subject, but, almost? Please. National champs if we hadn't shown up. But do you really think OU had a chance playing in LSU's back yard? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, Bob, what's left of this old gun writer hadn't heard anything about this gestating fad before your post.

That's half of the matter.

The other half is that such a cartridge grabs absolutely none of my curiosity or interest. IMO, the .22 Long Rifle is the irreducible minimum in practical calibers and cartridges, and it ain't broke.

I didn't go for the Dardick gun or hula hoops or cabbage-patch dolls, either. As far as I'm concerned, recent attempts to "improve" or "modernize" or obsolete the .22 Long Rifle are just attempts to sell shooters thinly disguised pet rocks.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> YEP <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I see where LSU went home early in the B Ball game.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Every dog has his day. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> (Just jokin now neighbor)



And it will be a lot of years before the .17's replace the old trusty Mag.

I, along with a bazillion others, jumped on the 17 HMMR bandwagon.
It's a fun cal. that fills a certan itch that the 22 mag couldn't scratch. It'll never replace it but will stand proudly beside it.
Same for a 17 LR. I can't wait to get ahold of one to go WITH my 22LR's
Virgil B.

Saw some samples at SHOT. It's cuter than a bug's ear, and supposedly will get 2000 fps with the same 17-grain bullet used in the .17 "magnum." In theory it should be cheaper to load, but who knows?

My question: Why do new cartridges always seem to make some of us defend the old ones? Personally, I own rifles chambered for all three rimfires--.22 LR, .22 Magnum, and .17 Hornady--and find uses for all three. (I guess that mkes me a rifle loony.)

As for the .17 shoving the .22 Magnum out the door, when I went to my local shooting emporium to look for a new .22 Magnum, they had exactly one on the shelf--and between 12 or 15 .17's. That was over a month ago and all the .17's have since been sold, with new ones taking their place every day. It is STILL a hot ticket two years after introduction, probably because wistful shooters now find ammo in abundance.

Luckily the one .22 Magnum on the shelf was exactly the model I was looking for, a Winchester 9422.

JB

Well fella's, I know this little 17 will never knock off the 22 LR.
But it sure looks like it will knock off some sage rats in the future. I'm just guessing, but do you think its bottle neck case will make it more inherantly accurate than the 22 LR? If so, there are a lot of target & MS shooters who will give this round some notice.

MD, I have one of those 94/22's too. Wonderful rifles.


USC is #1 in football.

I agree, there is always space for a new cartridge, even if it only fills a very small niche it will please a lot of shooters/hunters. Those who don't see the need, please feel free to purchase the older cartridge which will work as well or as badly as it always did.
Does anyone know why exactly all these new calibers are loaded with 17 grain bullets? Why not 20?
Will larger bullets ever be loaded in the .17 Hornady or the up and coming .17 rimfire??? Would make a lot of sense as people will always stretch the limits of the caliber and use it on foxes etc.

You mean Ruger finally acted on Arthur Langsford's designs of the mid 70's??? And I bet they'll claim it as their own? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> An experimenter in Australia developed a host of 17's on rimfire cases over 30 (maybe 40) years ago, reportedly he approached Ruger to chamber their Ruger 10/22 in 17 Extruder (a swage barrel design that starts the bullet off at 22 calibre and swages it to 17). He'd already developed and benchrest competed with his 17 Vixen (22 Magnum necked down to 17... sound familiar?) and had developed the 17 Minor mite, a 22 calibre ICI rat-shot case necked to .17, and tested at 2300 fps with a 20gr HP. Rumour has it that they were shown to the Ruger engineers. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Good to see someone may have finally perfected a design that a lot of experimenters have chased...

Cheers...

Con

If most people's experience with the .17 Hornady holds up, I wouldn't doubt that the little .17 will prove more accurate than the .22 LR, at least with hunting loads.

The problem here is that the .22 LR is one of the most highly developed rounds available. It would be hard to beat the accuracy of fine .22 LR match ammo, and even some of the .22 LR hunting ammo is VERY accurate. My own Kimber Classic will consistently shoot well under an inch at 100 yards with Winchester Power Points, for example.

The .22 Magnum has always been a hunting cartridge, so never got the accuracy development that the .22 LR did, either in ammo or rifles. As a result it was relatively easy for the .17 to beat it.

Was that because of the .22 Magnum's relative lack of development, or because the .17 was more "inherently" accurate? All I know is that my .17--and most others--will shoot rings around the average .22 Magnum.

That doesn't mean the .22 Magnum isn't accurate enough. My own 9422 will group several factory loads into an inch or so for five shots at 100 yards, plenty good for the larger varmints it shines at--and especially for an out of the box lever gun. But my CZ .17 will shot groups half that size, and 3-shot groups in the 1/4 inch range.

It will be interesting to see how the factory ".17 LR" shoots.

JB

I saw a Hornady add for the cartridge. If I remember correctly it's going to be called the 17 Mach IV.
I think that the point of it is that it's fun to play with something new and different. I've got more than a few 22's so a 17 in the same form factor might be different cheap fun.
I think Mule Deer makes a great point in that the 22lr is so highly refined that it will be tough for any new cartridge will approach it in terms of overall accuracy though..........DJ

I really do not see any 17 cal holding up in the long run. I own a couple rimfires, a ruger 10/22 that the boys have learned to shoot with and a winchester 9422 that I just can not seem to find anything to shoot with. I only keep it as it is such a fine rifle. I think the 17 hmr is cool but for my rimfire needs, I stay away for the mags. Simply do not need a mag rimfire (or the costly ammo) for targets or squirels. I know there is a difference between needs and wants but I do not see the masses going out to buy a 17 cal. for 99% of rimfire needs, the 22 lr does the trick. my nieghbor won a 17hmr at the wild turkey meeting and he informed me that it was perfect for his 6 year old to neck-shoot deer with. I felt obligated to burst his bubble that the caliber was not useful for that purpose. only time will tell on the 17 cal stuff but the 17 rem is a good indicator that the 17 cal is not overly popular in the US.

FWIW:

I don't see a lot of use for the 17 Mach II. But . . . I see that Cabella's offers a 17 HMR barrel that bolts on to the 10/22 magnum with no other changes required.

If they offer a 17 Mach II barrel for the 10/22, I may well buy the barrel and see if I like it. If it is not pleasing, I can always get rid of the barrel to one of the millions of 10/22 owners out there.

Just my 2 cents . . . .

BMT

Word is out its called the .17 mach2. Sends a 17 grain bullet out at 2,100 fps. At 175 yards it matches 22 LR speed at the muzzle. Smokin! Accuracy is phenom at 100 yards out of preprduction guns. This could be a 200 yard rimfire round. This in my little opinion is a quantum leap in sage rat hunting.

Needless to say, I wont be buying anymore 22 LR's.

Hmmmmm, I must be missing something here. Let it be known that I love .17's but the 22lr is simply irreplaceable. If the .17HM2 turns out to more accurate, the ammo will still have to sell for a couple of bucks per box before it will even come close to 22lr in sales. Just my thoughts!

X-VERMINATOR

Okay Guys,
I'll bite. Someone please tell me why a .17 rimfire anything is gonna beat a .22? I guess it's a fun new toy fer y'all and I sure guess it could do the job okay but somehow I jus can't get used to the idea of a 20gr BB gun. NO OFFENCE. It's jus I ain't all that technical and bullet weight is a must around these parts on my critters.

There is an economical side too. I can get .22 LR fer about 2� a shot and these little hummers seem to cost about 20� a shot. Heck fellas, not to rain on your parade, but I can get .223 55gr bullets fer 17.5� a shot and they are a whole lot more effective at any range on any of the critters y'all have mentioned.

Still, I guess it's fun playing with the new toy in town but for me the price of this BB gun ammo would have to come WAY DOWN to even begin to tempt me into retiring my .22LR's. Heck, to 125yds, my .22LR is jus fine and if I need more power / range I get the .223.

However, if you guys keep experimenting and supporting the .17 HMR development it may end up as something a tad more interesting than a parlor gun fer Sunday afternoon target practice. Actually it might be right good fer that since 200yd training with a .30 cal rifle is kinda punishing and expensive after a while.

Practical questions. Does anyone make a spotting scope that can see .17 cal holes at 200yds? And how do you know if you hit or missed a fox, etc. at 200yds? I mean can you see the fur fly or what?

Note: Fellas, I AM PERFECTLY SERIOUS IN THIS INQUIRY as I don't know anything about .17cal except in BB / pellet guns, which I would rather relegate to being childrens toys than serious firearms, and since I am so uninformed I would truly like to know some facts.

Flower Child

SU--yeah, but when it gets there it's still just a BB on steroids. G&A has a story about it--ammo will be MSRP $8 for 50. Heck, I can get a brick of .22s for that. I'll trade 600 fps for twice the bullet weight, twice the frontal area and 1/10 the cost. Look for this little tyke to go the way of the 5mm Rem.

And PS--USC is No.1--in its dreams. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />