17 HMR VS Reload 223 Cost

[Sniper66]

Seems to me that you are comparing apples and oranges. Of course you can use both, as I do, to shoot p-dogs, but to me that's where the similarity ends. I don't think about the difference in ammo cost; I think about the shot I need to make and how much killing power I need at the end of the shot. I never attempt p-dog shots beyond 150 yds. Can the 17 HMR kill dogs out that far...sure, but I like the solid whack that comes with the .223 and I am not thinking of cost differential at that point. Both rounds are relatively cheap when I compare it to larger calibers that can cost $3 each.

 

[2ndtimer]

Of course, the .223 gives a lot more punch and range. What the .17HMR offers is very good accuracy and surprisingly good performance on small varmints while not being noisy enough to annoy people living nearby. Several places I hunted this spring welcomed rimfire shooters to help control the sage rat population, but don't want any centerfires. While the .22 lr is super cheap and fun (especially out of our S&W MP15-22's) but the .17HMR reaches easily out to 150 yards or more with enough pop to anchor critters at that range. That being said, I much prefer the Montana plains where I can turn loose the .223 with the 40 gr ballistic tips or V-Maxes which really give the gophers flying lessons!

 

[doubleh]

Going back to the OP without bringing in the qualities or abilities of the two rounds which wasn't asked for you will find the 17 HMR to cost a little less. I just figuered the cost of of each and just a primer & 60 gr. Sierra bullet cost 2 cents more than one round of 17at the price I have to pay locally. I didn't break down the cost of powder and brass is free. I always find some brass with each range trip.

 

[Ar180shooter]

.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.

I think he was pointing out that what you want to do with it may justify the extra cost.

.17 can be very accurate, but it is a very light bullet, and is thrown around by the wind easily. Heavier VLD .223 bullets buck the wind quite well, and when handloading, you can properly tune the cartridges to your rifle.

 

[baronthered]

Have both, love both, I recommend get both.

 

[Maverick223]

I own both, and like both, but if I could only have one it would be the .223Rem./5.56NATO hands down. It is simply more versatile and as many others have stated just as inexpensive to shoot. If you are limited to either one or the other (at least for the time being) and already own a decent .22LR then the .223Rem. is the clear choice IMO. Then you can get the .17HMR later on to fill that "gap" that doesn't really exist.