Now I've seen everything

[KN]

Went to the local gun show this last weekend and stumbled across a North American Arms mini revolver,  Chambered in 17HMR. Maybe it's just me but that seems to border on rediculous.   KN

[John Traveler]

No, KN, it's definitely NOT just you, because it doesn't just border on the ridiculous, it IS ridiculous!

Gun faddism being what it is, you can probably mold possum excrement into the shape of a gun, chamber it for .17 HRM and it will sell like crazy!

John

[tallyho]

I want to say somthing about this,  :? but I can't seem to find the words!

But at least it did give me an idea! :idea: I have an old Webley Junior air pistol I never shoot, maybe I can have it reworked to .17HMR, sell it for a bundle and buy a real gun!

[Sixgun]

I am not trying to step on toes here.  I just honestly do not understand why the 17HMR is popular or good for anything.

Let me explain my thought process when it came out.  I have never been a really big fon of the 22 mag.  I have had a few weapons chambered for them and bought some and enjoyed shooting them but the guns I had were revolvers with a 22 mag cylinder and most of the time I could afford long rifles easier.  They work fine for anything I wanted to use a rimfire for and if I needed something bigger I went to a center fire.  In fact, for alot of years, before you could get 22 long rifle ammo for under $10 a brick, I would load up 38s and shoot them in my 357 and use them for all of my chores that I used a rimfire for.

Now 22 mags cost $5 to $6 a box of 50 and I can get good long rifle ammo for $8 to $10 a brick of 500 to 550.

Then when I start thinking of th 17hmr which shoots a very small bullet under 2500fps and they start at $10 for 50 rounds of ammo, I start to wonder what good they are.  They will kill a ground squirel really dead but a coyote at 100 yards would be iffey, any farther is out of the question.

I have read some of the articles in the gun rags and the writers really are excited about them and the only thing they end up saying is they really go fast.

I know that lots of people don't load their own and want something hot but these things arn't really that hot.  Anyway, I'd like to know what the draw is.

Sixgun

[John Traveler]

Howdy, Sixgun!

I'm with you.  Strictly a traditionalist-type gun owner that likes things practical and functional.

I guess what the .17 HRM's appeal is it's NEWNESS and the advertising/gun writer HYPE that it is given to promote sales.

Anybody much over 30 years old surely must know someone that's owned, have shot, or have read about the history of .17 caliber cartridges and guns?  The shooting world is littered with failed .17 caliber cartridges, including the one factory centerfire rifle and round: the .17 Remington.

Even the US Military research establishment played with the .17 caliber for infantry use.  It flopped too.

The bullets are strictly for small varmits, are very sensitive to wind drift, and at best are only good for 200 yard shots at game or varmits.  

So, where does it's popularity come from?

Well, there is a whole new crop of younger shooters that will literally, buy anything that is new!  This in itself is not a bad thing, because it means people have the money to spend, the interest to buy, and it all promotes the shooting sports and gun ownership.

My prediction is that the .17 HRM will flop, and probably within our lifetimes.  The expensive ammo and limitations of the round will do that.

I can't think of a single thing that the .17 HRM can do better than a modest .22 centerfire except that it is "NEW" not "OLD-FASHIONED", and has gained recent popularity.  Does that sound like gun fadism?  It does to me!

John

[Sixgun]

Ya John, I think you are right.  Most of the guys that I know that want one is a younger shooter with lots of cash available to them.  I guess I just can't understand that mentality or how th 17hmr has got this far.

I do support the idea though.  If a gun or ammo company is making money, I am happy.  

We have seen them come and go and I have never understood why some of the good ones have gone or why some of the bad ones have succeeded.  One thing is for sure, If everyone had my tastes, they would drive the prices so high on what I like, I couldn't afford it.

Sixgun

[KN]

OK, since I srarted this thread I'll jump back in here for a second. Most of the comments made here are absolutely correct. They aren't good for any thing but small vermin. I had many of the same doubts as every one else when they first came out. So I reluctantly bought a 14" contender barrel. The accuracy at 100 meters was amazing. I ended up taking this with me on this years prairie dog shoot just to play with. 200yd kills were not very hard to make. As long as the wind is cooperating. I had so much fun with it that I bought a 23" contender barrel and set it up with a lamminated thumbhole stock set and the accuracy from it was just as good as the first one. I plan on taking it next year. I guess what I'm getting at is the accuracy and just plain fun of these guns is what the big draw is. I've never been a big fan of the 22lr or the 22 mag. I have several but they are not my first choice when I go shooting. But man these 17's are just plain fun.  Just my $.02   KN

[wildman]

Not any good for me.  My 22mag has always gotten the job done, and anyways the .17 caliber is not legal for me to hunt small game with, since .22 is the minimum legal caliber here.  But, I suppose this is what keeps the ammo and gun makers in business.  It also keeps folks with money to spend satisfied that they have the latest thing to make them a better hunter :lol: .

[redial]

I'd agree that I don't see the utility of the 17 in a wheelgun BUT I did manage to kill better'n 1400 gophers this Spring & Summer - most with the 17 HMR in a rifle. My own private gopher-Jihad!

They served their intended purpose handsomely! It's just that many folks don't need what the 17 does or don't live where it's useful.

FWIW, I laughed out loud when I saw the mini-revolvers in 17 too!

Redial

[TravisM.]

I agree. The 17HMR does show some impressive ballistics, most notably the Velocity, which causes its flat trajectory compared to other rimfire rounds. But, with all that velocity, it is still only throwing a 17 grain bullet. A .177 pellet goes what, maybe 6 grains? A standard .22 LR bullet is between 30 and 40 grains if my memory is right. Now, thats almost half that of the 17HMR, but the lower velocity of the .22 LR (let alone the .22Mag) is a byproduct of the heavier bullet.
My Dad has a Marlin 17HMR, and although it is a nice little rifle, I don't see it's advantage over a .22 LR or Magnum. And in all honestly, for the scarcity of the cartridges (in central PA) and the cost of the cartridges, I could go to the local gun shop, get a box of .243 shells. A .243 would undoubtedly do a better job on just about anything than any rimfire could.
I forgot, we were talking about pistols and revolvers.
Wouldn't chambering such a cartridge in a small short barreled revolver negate high velocity, which is the only real ballistic advantage the 17HMR has over any cartridge?

[Sixgun]

Yes, the volicity does suffer in a shorter barrel but since they probably use the same barrel blanks and drill a smaller hole it weighs more so you can get more out of the barrel for scrap metal when you figure out all of the reasons not to get one after you already did.

Sixgun

[Old Griz]

Sixgun;

I agree with you and John T. The new .17 seems to me to be an answer in search of a question. I'd rather have a .22 Hornet myself. When prairie dog plinking in Colorado we have always had a good steady breeze to contend with and that dinky .17-gr. bullet would be blown all over the place. And I sure wouldn't trust it to bring down a coyote cleanly. For the same price as the .17 cal. ammo, I'd rather put 125-gr. .357s in my Marlin 1894CB and put those yotes down.

Short range = .22LR.
Medium range = Hornets.
Long range = .223.

And except for the Hornets, the others are cheaper to shoot! :cb2: