.22mag or .17hmr

[JRSpicer426]

The biggest problem with people that wipe their hands of the HMR is it takes some barrels about 4-5 boxes of ammo for a barrel to get "shot in", and another 1-2 after a cleaning. Patience if you get one-

[Mike Pearson]

accy would depend on the gun . But  if they were equal then in a breeze the 22mag. would win . killing is also dependent on shot placement but all else equal a 40 gr. bullet will be more dependable over a 17 gr bullet on critters over the size of a rabbit and maybe smaller ones also . I have both and can assure you the 17 is a good round but not the magic some believe just shoot a big fox with one or a yote . the 22mag is better for these things . on a windless day the 17 is good on small critters out past 22mag range . so it depends on where , when and how you hunt as to which is best it would seem . Again i use the 22mag most .

Shootall, I take it you don't believe the ballistic tables from Hornady and CCI, right? They say that the .17 HMR has BETTER wind-deflection than the .22 Magnum. This is due to two reasons.
First, the .17 HMR's bullet (small as it is) has a higher ballistic coefficient. Second, the .17 HMR's gets a substantial headstart in muzzle velocity. Those two factors lead to a flatter trajectory and a better job deflecting wind. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with you about the .22 Mag having more punch than the .17. The .22 Mag's bullet enters a varmint with a 35% area superiority right at the outset. It's a better choice for a predator than the .17HRM.
The Hornady tables show that the little .17 Mach2 (the .17HMR's little brother) is within a .1" of an inch in wind-deflection at 150 compared to a 40gr. .22Mag Hollowpoint. If you're shooting small pests over 100 yards (crows, ground squirrels, etc.), the .17 HMR is the better cartridge....easier to hit with. For things the size of a woodchuck on up, the .22 Mag has an edge.

[dovehunter]

Personally I have never seen the need for a .17 caliber but that is just me.  One thing I didn't notice anyone else mentioning is the fact that all these hyper velocity rimfires are very destrucitve of edible meat unless you can always make head shots (which I can't).  I love the .22 WMR and have had several rifles in this caliber over the years.  All have been accurate.  However I found early on that the hollow point or solid point expanding bullets would just about blow up a squirrel.  If you're planning on trying to eat whatever game your son shoots with his new gun you might want to consider getting only solid point, non-expanding bullets.  Just a thought.

[Gene R]

If he doesn't already have one, then I would suggest the most useful of them all (.22 Lr) As for myself, I never find any of these threads like this useful at all.

I am not very good on making decisions influenced or not when it comes to guns.. I find I must have one of each...and sometimes 2 or 3 if I really like one.......

[ratgunner]

I can solve this.Buy a 5mm.

[gcrank1]

.22 LR is the 'gold standard' for sure, and these days you have the choice of about all bullet weights and velocities within reason. Good hunter to 75yd. Big Plus...you can afford to shoot it.
If you need more punch & range, the .22WMR is the best bet short of reloading, especially with the CCI 30gr. added to the mix.
If you like whats 'new on the block' the .17s have some attraction, but the way ammo pricing is going if you cant afford to shoot it a lot, why bother. It is also starting to look like the little 17 might go under.

[NRAJOE]

I couldn't decide between the .17 HMR or .22 mag....but found a used Marlin 883 with scope at a gunshow for $200 out the door.





So I said what the heck....its .22 mag for me.

[diggler1833]

If you can't decide between the .17HMR and .22mag then buy one of each.

I've got a Savage 93R17, and it is accurate enough to be reliable on small critters or pieces of clay targets at 100yds.  I was not lucky enough to get one of the tack drivers that Savage makes, instead, mine is a solid 1" to 1-1/2" at 100yd shooter, averaging about 1-1/8" or so.  I have not tried weight/rim thickness sorting the ammo either, as I don't feel like adding an additional 30 minute process to shooting a rimfire.

The part that I don't like about it is that ammo is pretty high for a rimfire.  at $13-15 per box depending on where you go around here it keeps the rifle in the safe more often that not now.

[gcrank1]

I, as well as C.E. Harris and others of note think sorting by rim thickness is a wasted effort, if headspace is close to correct. The real key is bullet to throat fit, thus match chambers shoot better than most field chambers. As far as I know, nobody is talking match 22WMR or 17HMR chambers, and reportedly all the 17 bullets come from the same place. There is a much larger selection of 22WMR ammo to try, some shoot better than others in a given barrel.

[Kirkned]

For my money I'd take a 5mm Remington over both of these choices.  Shoots flatter than the 22 mag. Hits harder than either the 22mag or the 17hmr and just plain kicks the crap out of both of them.  That said if I had to choose I''d go with the 22 mag.  Using the lighter but more costly bullets it comes close to the 5mm.

[Bigeasy]

I had a 17 HMR, sold it last year.  Nice and accurate (a CZ), but murder on edible game, unless you took head shots only.  With the 22 mag, FMJ bullets work well with less meat destruction.  If you want to shoot bigger game, use a 40 grain hollow point, or a selection of the newer, plastic tip stuff if you want to kill varmints.  I guess the 22 mag is just more versatile.  I have killed a few turkey using 50 grain bullets in my 22 mag Winchester 9422.  One shot to the base of the wing.

Larry