.17HMR vs. 22LR

[helotaxi]

I've not looked much but every rimfire competition that I've seen specifically calls for .22LR. I would really like to take my Savage .17 to the local rimfire silhouette match but it's .22 only. Same with NRA smallbore.

 

[okiewita40]

I have never had a chance to shoot the .17hmr. I think that if I need more than what a .22lr I would step up too the .22wmr. Also seems like a better comparison since the hmr is a necked down wmr case.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

The .17 will get you more range than the .22, and standard ammo is more accurate that bulk pack .22lr as well. We are only talking about $10/50 rounds...so its not like its going to break the bank.

 

[benzy2]

That depends on how much you shoot and how much you have in the bank. When I pull the rimfires out, I typically will shoot 700-1000 rounds at a time. 1000 rounds at $10/50 is $200. Locally, the best I can find .17hmr is about $13/50 and often it is gone leaving boxes marked at $15-$17. At those prices I could be looking at $300+ per range trip. Now, a lot of that shooting is blasting with bulk ammo, but taking 1 bulk pack box and the rest Wolf, I end up spending $40-$60 a trip. Quite a difference from $200-$300. For a hunting rifle, it certainly isn't enough difference to rule it out, but for a plink/general use rifle, it can get expensive fairly quickly.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

The .17 isn't a plinking round for sure. Targets and hunting are the main advantage. You can't compare the .22lr to the .17 realistically.

By the same comparison you could easily shoot $1400 dollars worth of .308 at the range, but no one will argue it's irrelevance as a target
round.

I typically spend between $150 and $350 on ammo at the range. I like variety and have a tough time not reloading. Who cares though, its not too hard to blow a couple hundred bucks a week on good booze and clothing if you so choose.

 

[benzy2]

I'll give you hunting, but target shooting maybe not. You see the real top tier .22lr shooting in the .1s consistently at 50 yards with a good shooter. I haven't seen that out of .17hmr. I'm not a .1 shooter especially with the rifles I own. That said, I have noticed equal accuracy under mild conditions with both mid/upper grade .22lr and .17hmr. Put much wind into the day and neither is worth spending more than for Federal Champion.

Personally, I'd rather shoot an entire brick of Federal Champion than a box of Vmax. I think the experience found shooting 500 rounds would be more than that of one box of .17hmr, at least at targets out to 50 yards. If you want to stretch out to 100-200 yards, again, I would rather step up to .223. I can load one of a handful of bullets from light flat base close range bullets to the long heavy 600-1000 yard loads and come out around $15/50 or less, which is right what I'm paying for .17hmr. I know everyone doesn't handload. That said, I don't have much reason to shoot .17hmr. At .22lr distances, I'll save the money even if I give up an ever so slight accuracy edge shooting budget/midgrade .22lr. At longer ranges, I'll step up to .223 loads and spend similar money.

I don't have a problem spending money for a reason. To me, outside of hunting or rimfire only competitions that shoot either unknown distance or at longer (100+ yards) distances, I don't see much use for the .17HMR, at the price it costs. I never have. I'll spend equal money/round on more consistent .22lr ammo, a similar amount of money per day and shoot 3-10 times as much ammo, or step up to .223 for equal money/round. If the .17hmr floats your boat, shoot it and enjoy it. For me, it's a round that does little extra to command the price it costs to shoot.

 

[Maverick223]

The .17HMR is the first rimfire that really makes me wish I could handload...I wonder if they will ever start selling dies and brass (which of course would be a one-time use affair). One would have to be very careful with seating (push too hard and you can crush the rim...which would be, uh, bad), but IIRC it has been done in the past. Am I alone in wanting to try this?...crazy idea?

 

[benzy2]

Oh absolutely. I would buy dies in a heart beat. Sure it's a one shot deal with the brass, but I'm fine with that. I would like to see dies for .22mag as well and maybe even .22lr.

 

[K-Rod]

I watched a show last Sun called The High Road on tv. I can't remember the hosts name, "something" Warren?? Anyways he was hunting hogs in S. Texas from a stand with a 17HMR. He was killing full grown sows DRT!! He was saying shot placement was key & he was proving it. He'd place the shot right behind the ear & those hogs were dead before they hit the ground. He even killed two piglets that lined up with one shot.

I have the 92 17 & I'm killing yote's out to 200yrds. I wouldn't even try with a .22lr. Don't get me wrong, I love my .22's but the .17 is a laser gun!!

 

[CraigC]

Personally, I'd rather shoot an entire brick of Federal Champion than a box of Vmax.

As would I but they are different tools with different purposes. I wouldn't burn 500rds of .17HMR in a sitting any more than I would shoot at varmints at 200yds with the .22LR. I shoot tens of thousands of .22LR every year but only a couple hundred .17's. Because it is a field cartridge, not a cheap plinking cartridge. You can't blame the .17 for not being a cheap plinker any more than you can blame the .22LR for not being a 250yd varmint cartridge.


I have to disagree all the way around. Even mid-priced .17HMR rifles (~$400) very commonly shoot half MOA and that's at 100yds or more. There are zero .22LR's in that price range that will even come close, at any range but certainly not 100yds. While half to 1MOA is not too difficult at 50yds, it takes a hell of a rifle shooting preferred, match grade ammo and a lot of luck to shoot that at 100yds. So to get .17HMR accuracy out of a .22LR takes match grade ammo (think Federal Ultra at $15/50rds) and a very high quality rifle. Now you have a rifle that is no good on small game unless you take headshots and limit yourself to 50yds. Who wants to use expensive match ammo on rabbits? To even come close to .17HMR effectiveness on game, you have to use high velocity hollowpoint ammo and give up all that accuracy and you still only have a 125yd small game rifle that is still unsuitable for anything bigger than small predators like coons, possums and foxes.

You don't see .17's competing with .22LR's because the .17's have an unfair advantage.

The .223 comparison is always a little silly. Folks either compare the cheapest milsurp garbage that still goes bang but is comparable in price or handloads. Handloads cost time and time is money. I put a lot of value on my time. I handload so I can shoot more but it is nothing more than a chore. The difference in muzzle blast between the .17 and the .223 is staggering. You can shoot the .17 without hearing protection (not recommended) without making your ears bleed. Not so with the .223. The .17 is a wonderful 200-250yd varmint cartridge. The .223 is a wonderful 300-350yd varmint cartridge. If you have no need for the .223's added capability, why shoot it? You don't drive finish nails with a 2lb sledge. Not to even mention the fact that half-MOA .223 rifles are gonna be twice what a good .17HMR costs.

No sir, there is a vast performance gap between the .22LR and the .223 and the .17HMR steps right in there nicely. Along with other cartridges like the Hornet, Bee, .25-20 and .32-20. If I can buy a $350 rifle that shoots half-MOA, is 200-250yd capable, does everything I need it to do with factory ammo that costs $14/50rds and doesn't require time at the reloading bench, I'd be foolishing to grab the bigger hammer.

 

[teetertotter]

Short answer, buy both

Ditto - Buy both!! End of discusion?

 

[jpwilly]

I like the 22lr for target, hunting and plinking work. The 22lr with subsonic ammo is also very quiet.

 

[benzy2]

As would I but they are different tools with different purposes. I wouldn't burn 500rds of .17HMR in a sitting any more than I would shoot at varmints at 200yds with the .22LR. I shoot tens of thousands of .22LR every year but only a couple hundred .17's. Because it is a field cartridge, not a cheap plinking cartridge. You can't blame the .17 for not being a cheap plinker any more than you can blame the .22LR for not being a 250yd varmint cartridge.

Totally agree, in fact, I think I already conceded the hunting side as a potential advantage.

I have to disagree all the way around. Even mid-priced .17HMR rifles (~$400) very commonly shoot half MOA and that's at 100yds or more. There are zero .22LR's in that price range that will even come close, at any range but certainly not 100yds. While half to 1MOA is not too difficult at 50yds, it takes a hell of a rifle shooting preferred, match grade ammo and a lot of luck to shoot that at 100yds. So to get .17HMR accuracy out of a .22LR takes match grade ammo (think Federal Ultra at $15/50rds) and a very high quality rifle. Now you have a rifle that is no good on small game unless you take headshots and limit yourself to 50yds. Who wants to use expensive match ammo on rabbits? To even come close to .17HMR effectiveness on game, you have to use high velocity hollowpoint ammo and give up all that accuracy and you still only have a 125yd small game rifle that is still unsuitable for anything bigger than small predators like coons, possums and foxes.

I haven't seen mid priced .17hmrs commonly shooting half MOA, especially at 100 yards. A group here or there, maybe, but commonly? Nope. I went back and checked RFC and their .17hmr boards. They have exactly 3 people that have gotten (2) four shot groups under 1/2MOA at 100 yards on the same piece of paper in over 3 years of effort. Two of the three were a Sako Quad and Remington 504, both $1000 rifles when released. At 50 yards, they have again 3 shooters that have shot (2) four shot 1/2 MOA groups on the same paper, this time two of the three being a Cooper and an Anschutz. JBM has a 17gr vmax moving .32 MOA in a 1 mph wind at 100 yards. You need to be a darn good shooter in great conditions to make calls within 1mph to stay under 1/2 MOA. If you can't judge a 2mph wind shift, well, you aren't going to be holding 1/2 MOA in the best rifle. Then you get back into hunting, which again, I agree is the area where the .17hmr would have some advantage.

You don't see .17's competing with .22LR's because the .17's have an unfair advantage.

I feel you don't see it because they are less accurate, at least when chambered in the best rifles. I don't feel there is the consistency in the .17hmr ammo as there is in the best .22lr, which is why you don't see it compete.

The .223 comparison is always a little silly. Folks either compare the cheapest milsurp garbage that still goes bang but is comparable in price or handloads. Handloads cost time and time is money. I put a lot of value on my time. I handload so I can shoot more but it is nothing more than a chore. The difference in muzzle blast between the .17 and the .223 is staggering. You can shoot the .17 without hearing protection (not recommended) without making your ears bleed. Not so with the .223. The .17 is a wonderful 200-250yd varmint cartridge. The .223 is a wonderful 300-350yd varmint cartridge. If you have no need for the .223's added capability, why shoot it? You don't drive finish nails with a 2lb sledge. Not to even mention the fact that half-MOA .223 rifles are gonna be twice what a good .17HMR costs.

Hobbies typically cost time. Shooting is a hobby. We don't send ourselves bills for the work we could have been doing while shooting. For me, handloading is also a hobby. I'm not about to bill myself for a hobby I enjoy. I believe I stipulated that the price comparison I made only works if you want to reload and doesn't hold true for all. As for volume levels, try a little blue dot in a .223 case and you would think you were shooting .22lr. The beauty of reloading is that you can tailor loads to run anywhere from .22mag velocities up to full house .223 loads. I also don't have faith in an accurate shot with a .17hmr at 250 yards in any real world situation. Every 1mph wind change at 250 yards is a 2.5" drift in the bullet. To make consistent hits at 250 yards, you must be darn good at reading the wind out in the field.

It seems today, many of the $400-$600 centerfire rifles today are capable of 1/2 MOA, at least with those inconvenient handloads. I know more than a few Remingtons, Savages, CZs, Vanguards, Ventures, etc that have shown that accuracy either out of the box or with a little bedding, and they'll actually do it at 100 yards or more.

No sir, there is a vast performance gap between the .22LR and the .223 and the .17HMR steps right in there nicely. Along with other cartridges like the Hornet, Bee, .25-20 and .32-20. If I can buy a $350 rifle that shoots half-MOA, is 200-250yd capable, does everything I need it to do with factory ammo that costs $14/50rds and doesn't require time at the reloading bench, I'd be foolishing to grab the bigger hammer.

It all again depends on what you plan to do. In the hunting I do, I typically don't end up with a .22lr hoping I had more gun. I also typically don't take a .223 and wish I had less. Again, I hand load and blue dot can turn a .223 into a .22hornet or whatever desired. If I was stuck shooting only what I could buy at Walmart, it would be a different story. But I'm not.

If I'm overlooking a good source that has a bunch of .17hmrs shooting 1/2MOA at 50-100 yards, I'd gladly take a look at it. Mine, well, it is a good shooter but it is by no means a consistent 1/2MOA shooter.

 

[Maverick223]

I haven't seen mid priced .17hmrs commonly shooting half MOA, especially at 100 yards. A group here or there, maybe, but commonly? Nope. I went back and checked RFC and their .17hmr boards. They have exactly 3 people that have gotten (2) four shot groups under 1/2MOA at 100 yards on the same piece of paper in over 3 years of effort. Two of the three were a Sako Quad and Remington 504, both $1000 rifles when released. At 50 yards, they have again 3 shooters that have shot (2) four shot 1/2 MOA groups on the same paper, this time two of the three being a Cooper and an Anschutz.

FWIW, I have shot a fairly inexpensive Savage 93R17FV that regularly shot 0.5MOA groups @ 50yds. (I don't recall shooting it at 100, so I'll not comment on that) in favorable conditions (with calm wind) and good ammo (Hornady XTP). I didn't shoot groups side by side, but it did so for both myself as well as the owner of said rifle. No modifications (other than the adjustment of the AccuTrigger as well as the addition of a better scope and a sling) had been made. Was it a fluke...one that just happened to be built just right?...I don't know.

 

[Speedster]

Help me decide-which one? .17HMR CZ vs Savage

So I have decided I DO in fact need a .17 HMR.

I want something to between my .22LR and my AR in .223/5.56. I am using it to feed my ground squirrel addiction and for close range prairie dogs.

My choices are the Savage 93 Tactical or the CZ 452 American with the regular sporter barrel. Both are $400, that is regular price for the Savage and a clearance price on the CZ. I thought I had it figured out that I was going to get the Savage, but then of course I keep hearing to check out the CZ.

Yes, I know the Marlin is a great rifle too, but I think I prefer these two more. Ok, confuse me more, tell me why I should get a Marlin.

If the CZ was the Varmint heavy barrel, I think I would go for that, but then I keep thinking that it is an accurate rifle as is, and should still do well for multiple shots, even with the barrel heating up. The price is right too.

The Savage is regular price, so I can always pick it up later if I gotta have one. I like the Accu-Trigger better, but not super keen on being one of those "tacticool" poseurs.

So gimme some suggestions and help me pick my next ride.

Thanks for the input.

Speedster

 

[Maverick223]

Speedster, I liked the Savage 93R17TR enough to purchase one (of course I disliked the overtightened mounts enough to send it back to Savage ). The selling point for me was the stock. That said, the CZ is far from a bad choice. The Marlin isn't bad either, but I don't like it near as much as the Savage (even the basic FV model)...or the CZ.

 

[helotaxi]

I had a Marlin but sold it to a friend to get a Savage, only because the Savage was left handed. The Savage is finicky with the magazine, the Marlin was not. The Savage had me confused with one ammo type because I couldn't find the hits on a Shoot-n-see after the first...I realized they were going in the same hole at 50yds. It did that for an entire box of that ammo. The next box (and I can't for the life of me remember which ammo did what) of a different load was around 2MOA at the same range. Rifle flat didn't like it.

This is with a nothing special, out of the box, 93R17 GLV with a cheap Bushnell 3-9 scope and either CCI or Winchester ammo (don't remember which).

 

[benzy2]

Maverick223,

I don't mean to say that none of them can do it, as the other rifle from both of those ranges was a Savage I believe. I'm sure more are out there that can do it than the few listed on a given website. My Marlin will shoot in the mid .1s at 25 yards in perfect conditions if I do everything right, most times. It seems like it could be a 1/2 MOA gun if everything goes perfect. Problem for me is that even then, it will throw a few out when everything feels like it was perfect. Just too inconsistent to be called a 1/2 MOA gun. Still, the big issue at 100 yards is wind reading ability, and if you can't call a 1 or 2 mph wind change, you are going to struggle to shoot those groups.


Speedster,

The marlin is a fine rifle, especially for the money. I had two issue with mine. First was the stock fit was a little loose. I bedded mine and it seemed to cut quite a few fliers out. Second is the trigger. I was never happy with it. I did all of the home mods which did make it a better trigger, but still not good. I broke down and bought a Rifle Basix trigger which is nice. I like it a little better than the accutrigger, but the accutrigger is one that works for me as well.

As to which is better, I think they are pretty even. I'm not sure I would go with the tactical model if you plan to hunt much with it. At 7.5 lbs before scope, it isn't a light rifle. For a hunter, something like the GV, or Marlin 917V, or the CZ American would be my choice. Much handier in the field, though not quite as easy off a set of bags. All three of those rifles have been known to shoot well. If you do more stationary hunting then the weight difference wouldn't matter much, but if you plan to hike it, a lighter rifle is nice.

 

[larryflew]

As someone who shoots a custom 5.56 when I decided I had to have a 17 I went with a Volquartsen and it shoots ragged holes on bench at 100. Don't have anywhere right now to try longer than that.

Looking at ballistic tables it has the exact same ballistic curve as 30 30.

 

[Maverick223]

Maverick223,

I don't mean to say that none of them can do it, as the other rifle from both of those ranges was a Savage I believe. I'm sure more are out there that can do it than the few listed on a given website. My Marlin will shoot in the mid .1s at 25 yards in perfect conditions if I do everything right, most times. It seems like it could be a 1/2 MOA gun if everything goes perfect. Problem for me is that even then, it will throw a few out when everything feels like it was perfect. Just too inconsistent to be called a 1/2 MOA gun. Still, the big issue at 100 yards is wind reading ability, and if you can't call a 1 or 2 mph wind change, you are going to struggle to shoot those groups.

I understand that, your experiences are your own...just throwing out what I have seen and accomplished. I absolutely agree with you regarding the wind, a calm day (or at least consistent wind...which is a rare phenomena here) it is almost requisite to achieve tight groups at long range (same goes for any rimfire).

As to which is better, I think they are pretty even. I'm not sure I would go with the tactical model if you plan to hunt much with it. At 7.5 lbs before scope, it isn't a light rifle. For a hunter, something like the GV, or Marlin 917V, or the CZ American would be my choice. Much handier in the field, though not quite as easy off a set of bags. All three of those rifles have been known to shoot well. If you do more stationary hunting then the weight difference wouldn't matter much, but if you plan to hike it, a lighter rifle is nice.

Personally I believe the .17HMR (as well as the .17HM2, to a lesser extent) is better suited to varminting than in a hunting capacity, so I don't mind, and even welcome the added weight. For .22LR/WMR I very much agree and find lightweight to be important.

 

[dirtykid]

Afetr buying my latest .17 savage,my ruger 10/22's have become a kids-toy now,, sure ammo is 2x the price and previous poster is right about "finicky" magazines but i've been leaving table scraps at edge of resorvoir shore and shooting skunks right in the neck from 160-yards at a 35-degree incline for weeks now !! nothign like the old .22 !! area wher i hunt is full of them and they keep getting caught in my coon- traps,, time to thin the herd ! and my little Hornady 17-grain polymer-tips just EXPLODE thru small varmints !

 

[Speedster]

Thanks for the input boys. I appreciate it. I decided I'm going to get the CZ 452. It is lighter, is getting better reviews than the 455 replacing it, its on sale, and I'm sure it will work well.

Who knows maybe I'll end up with the Savage later. You all know the perfect number of guns- Just one more!

Speedster

 

[Smaug]

It seems like 17HMR costs the same as 22WMR, why not just get the 22 Magnum and save the cost of new cleaning tools? It has the same range, right? A lot more power. No more expense.

I'd probably stick with .223 though. Isn't bulk .223 the same as basic 22WMR and 17HMR? And when you want something less, just load it down with the lightest bullets and a light powder charge.

I'm pretty amazed that HMR is good enough for coyotes and hogs. The 20 gr. bullet seems questionable to me, especially when a 22 Magnum or .223 (?) costs the same and would not be.

I think my next rifle is going to be a benchrest .223. I'll shoot probably 95% at targets. When I don't feel like hand-loading for it, I can challenge myself to do the best I can with bulk stuff. I'm sure I could load it down to 22 WMR levels, and probably load it to be more accurate as well.

 

[Smaug]

Or hyper velocity 22LR... Not accurate enough?

 

[Maverick223]

It seems like 17HMR costs the same as 22WMR, why not just get the 22 Magnum and save the cost of new cleaning tools? It has the same range, right? A lot more power. No more expense

It doesn't have near the trajectory, nor the explosive terminal ballistics of the .17HMR. Additionally accuracy is usually much better (but this isn't due to the cartridge design, but rather lesser quality ammo and rifles). FWIW, I don't really see the need for a .22WMR now that the .17HMR has entered the market. The .22LR (for small game hunting, close range varmint, and small-bore target) and .17HMR (for moderate range varmint and target) fill all my rimfire needs for adequately well.

I'm pretty amazed that HMR is good enough for coyotes and hogs. The 20 gr. bullet seems questionable to me, especially when a 22 Magnum or .223 (?) costs the same and would not be.

I wouldn't use any rimfire for hog, and would be leery of using any for coyote...but if I did the .17HMR would be my choice due to the excellent terminal ballistics of the 20gr. XTP. FWIW, I don't believe anyone is arguing that the .17HMR (or any other rimfire) is taking the place of the .223Rem....or most any other centerfire cartridge.