17 HMR VS Reload 223 Cost

[razorback2003]

Is it cheaper to shoot 17 HMR or reload QUALITY/Accurate 223 ammo. I know 17 HMR runs at cheapest 10 bucks for a box of fifty. What is good 60-75 grain 223 reloaded ammo costing for those who reload at home?

 

[TurtlePhish]

From what I've seen and component prices right now, they're pretty close. Maybe .223 being slightly more expensive for high quality stuff.

 

[Pete D.]

Difference.

The big difference between the two when you consider high quality ammo is performance. Proper loads for the .223 can be accurate out to 1000 yards.
More normal High Power Service Rifle competition starts at 200 yards and ends up at 600.
The cost difference, though, is substantial. The Hornady 75 grain match bthp will run you about $10 just for the 50 bullets. Add another ten to twelve cents a round for powder and primer. So you are up at about $16 per 50. Sorta. Buying components in bulk drops the cost considerably.

 

[TurtlePhish]

The big difference between the two when you consider high quality ammo is performance. Proper loads for the .223 can be accurate out to 1000 yards.More normal High Power Service Rifle competition starts at 200 yards and ends up at 600.

.17HMR was ever only intended for use out to a maximum of around 300yds, so 1000yd performance is sort of a moot point. .17HMR also isn't much of a High Power cartridge, nor are there any service rifles chambered for it.
I think the OP is wondering which it would be cheaper to shoot for fun at the range.

 

[razorback2003]

Yes I am looking for which would be cheaper but accurate shooting at the range.

 

[zxcvbob]

Is it cheaper to shoot 17 HMR or reload QUALITY/Accurate 223 ammo. I know 17 HMR runs at cheapest 10 bucks for a box of fifty. What is good 60-75 grain 223 reloaded ammo costing for those who reload at home?

Why not 50 or 55 grain bullets if you're really going to try to compare the two? Hornady 55 grain plain based soft-points (#2266) are about 10¢ each if you shop around. 8¢ each at Graf's last time I checked if you have a dealer account. That's maybe not a match-grade bullet, I don't know, but it's better than a FMJ. WC844 powder is $85 for 8 pounds, and Wolf SRM primers are $16 per thousand (plus hazmat shipping) It'll take you a while to find the most accurate load with your gun, but those are all quality components.

So if you work at it, you can get .223 down to the same price as 17 HMR but probably not cheaper. It depends on what your time is worth and whether you would find reloading fun or a chore.

 

[razorback2003]

If you can spend 9 cents for a bullet, 3 cents for a primer, whatever powder is, and reuse your brass maybe 223 is cheaper than 17 HMR. 17HMR is at minimum 20 cents a round when you are paying 10 bucks for a box of fifty.

 

[jmorris]

Yep the 17hmr is a looser if you have the equipment to reload 223 and I don't think you'll find 17hmr ammo with bullets that weigh 70g

 

[TurtlePhish]

Yep the 17hmr is a looser if you have the equipment to reload 223 and I don't think you'll find 17hmr ammo with bullets that weigh 70g

Hey, that's not nice. Let's see you find a rimfire going 2500fps+.

 

[Dentite]

I personally think a .223 is much more useful than .17HMR (especially if you already have a .22LR).

That being said I reload for my .223 and using the same bullets (Hornady Vmax) reloading the .223 will cost me a bit more than the .17HMR factory ammo.

Of course you can always buy both!

 

[benzy2]

I find there's more to the question than always is stated. First, we need to define accuracy standards and at what distance. It makes a big difference in bullet selection for the .223. At 100 yards there are some budget bullets that shoot well. Hornady has a 55gr that is inexpensive and accurate. Not match winning accurate but good enough to shoot whatever youre shooting at 100 yards. The shorter flat base bullets are probably a better choice for short range .223 use. If you push the distance out to the edges of .17hmr range, many of the .223 loads will start to outperform the .17 in a paper punching game. If all you want is to shoot tin cans, pulled bullets will be cheaper to shoot than .17hmr. If you want the most accurate 50-75 yard round for the dollar the .17hmr is probably a little cheaper. Go outside that window by much and I think you can either get out cheaper with the .223 or make better performing ammo.

Now that requires your time to reload and if you don't enjoy reloading then the .17 NMR is probably a better option. In the end it really comes down to the exact shooting you plan to do and the exact requirements the ammo must fall into.

 

[razorback2003]

I already reload pistol ammo and have a blast with it on a turret press. If I could get within an inch at 100 yards I would be pretty happy with inexpensive ammo out of a bolt action rifle. I don't reload for my deer rifles yet because I rarely shoot them. I just sight in at 100 yards once a year before deer season.

 

[razorback2003]

I did look at the Hornady 55 grain 223 bullets and it might be cheaper to reload those for accurate 100 yard shooting than 17 HMR. The only downside to a 223 that I can see is the gun and a good scope will cost more than the 17 HMR rifle with comparable scope. But once you get past the initial, you could use the 223 for further shooting past 100 yards, coyotes, and deer with the right bullet.

 

[TonyAngel]

I'd really like to lean you toward the .223, but the little .17 is a kick in the butt to shoot.

It really depends on what you want to do. If all you are doing is poking holes in paper at 100 yards and you don't really need the extra power of the .223, there's no reason not to shoot a .17.

I'll admit that if you reload, you can likely get pretty close, in terms of cost, between the two calibers; but it's mighty convenient to be able to just walk into a store and buy your ammo, rather than having to spend the time reloading.

If you add the time that it takes to resize, tumble and trim the .223 brass, .223 becomes much more expensive to shoot than .17 is.

Of course, my answer to this dilemma would be to get one of each. Both Marlin and Savage have .17s that are pretty low in cost and shoot great.

 

[TurtlePhish]

Both Marlin and Savage have .17s that are pretty low in cost and shoot great.

I absolutely love my Savage .17.

 

[razorback2003]

I have shot a Savage 17 HMR with the accutrigger and it is an amazing gun with a good scope.

 

[Kachok]

The money comes out pretty close, ballisticly the 223 wins bigtime, but with that said the most accurate 100yd rifle I have ever shot was my Savage 17 HMR it's three shot group was one semi smooth hole and with .17 cal bullets that is awful small.

 

[fallout mike]

Shooting 100 yards or less at paper, I would much rather shoot my .17hmr than my AR.

 

[cougar1717]

I went the other way... bought a 22LR rifle after shooting a lot of 223 Rem and got tired of loading for it (at the time). If you're just punching paper, IMHO rimfire is the way to go. Don't get me wrong, 223 Rem is great for varminting, tactical, NATO, etc, but for range fun: buy rimfire, have fun, leave your cases on the ground, walk away smiling, and go home and kiss your wife. No scrounging, cleaning, inspecting, working up, testing, or repeating required.

 

[TonyAngel]

Well, since Cougar went off on the tangent, I'll jump on that band wagon. I had to give my kudos to the .17 because of the choices listed and for the reasons that I stated.

If I was in the position that razorback is in, I'd go for a nice .22 as well. I shoot more .22 than anything else and for punching paper, there's nothing better. It takes a lot of skill to shoot MOA with a .22 at any distance, with any consistency. Decent ammo goes for about half of what .17 goes for, although the best .22 ammo can cost twice as much as that for the .17.

 

[sappyg]

^^^ this. Reloading is a chore and I'd rather not do it just for something to go bang. I saw some Tula ammo in 223 today that was as cheap as the 17 hmr ammo I bought though it's surely not as accurate.

I shoot and enjoy my 22 lr way more and I save a good bit over both 17 and the 223.

 

[razorback2003]

I have a CZ 22 bolt rifle that I shoot all the time. It is a great and accurate gun. 22 LR is just not flat out to 100 yards and you have to hold over a few inches to make good hits. Maybe 17 HMR is the way to go because it is so accurate and fairly cheap for when I want to shoot 100 yards with no hold over. 22 mag is a good round but doesn't seem as accurate as 17HMR.

 

[NCsmitty]

The issue is that when the 17 HMR was introduced, Hornady V-max ammo sold for $6.95. I purchased an NEF Sportster in 17 HMR and found it was easily capable of sub moa. Over time I shot all my 17 ammo, and then discovered that the cost of ammo had nearly doubled.
The 17 NEF now sits idle, and it's true that I can reload either my 222 Rem or 223 with decent loads for the cost of the 17 HMR ammo, and have more performance to boot.


NCsmitty

 

[gbran]

I find that my 17m2 outshines my .22's and my next step up is my .223. The .223 costs me just a little more than the 17hmr, but reaches much further with more punch.

 

[45crittergitter]

Obviously, you have to own both rifles or you're deprived.

To me the primary advantage of a rimfire other than cost is I don't have to chase brass. That's wonderful if you're just out roaming the countryside shooting at dirt clods and random varmints.