17rem

[snaggletooth]

I'm considering changing my hmr for a .17 cal centrefire to cover all bases in term of vermin, rabbits,corvids and fox, short to medium range (250yds). Obviously my choices are 17hornet or 17rem, as 17Fireball brass looks to be to much hassle to sort.

Just wondering how well the 17rem moderates. I've heard good reports (pun intended) about how quiet the 17hornet is with a cal specific mod, but I'm tempted by the extra range that the 17rem offers. Ideally I want just one rifle in the cabinet, and have tried a .222 in the past as possible replacement for the hmr but found it too noisy, even with a good mod fitted. Will the 17rem be much quieter than the triple?

 

 

[Toby]

In a word no. I have a 17 Rem with a 20" barrel and a Hausken SD 228 17 cal moderator. It used to be 24" with a jet z cqb but was just too ungainly seen as most of my foxing is from hides, hence the chop. The rem burns 10 or so grains of powder more than the hornet but has increased performance. Noisewise with a good mod I wouldn't think there is much in it noise wise between 17,222 and 223.

I have had mine now for a few years and really rate the 17rem.

[rhhudson]

I have a friend who uses one he loves them they shoot great. Little-no recoil and he's got a .17 hardy moderator. You will never get them silent but its pretty quiet.

 

i think he's going to sell it pm me if you'd be interested.

 

Thanks

 

rhhudson

[gbal]

222 and 17 rem are both superior to the 17Hornet-more powder usually means more performance,and they have that,good though the 17 Hornet can be-if you want more range,it just can't be the best choice.

Of course,222 and 17 rems burn just about the same amount of powder,so report is similar-maybe the 17 is a tad sharper,but little in it-the recoil is likewise a tad less-close to zero scope movement-even at say 24x-you see it all.

Won't be much in the moderation-but 17rem won't be quieter-two points though-moderators are by no means all equal,and downrange is not the same as at shooters ear. Rabbits showed no more alarm at the 17 unmoderated than the 222 (nor the much inferior 22 Hornet).The same will hold for moderated rifles.

The 17rem quickly became my favourite rabbit rifle to 250 yards.

Absolutey terminal with chest shots-tiny entry,no exit-meat damage minimal,hydrostatic shock maximal.

 

 

A very light carry PPC might challenge it these days....maybe!

 

gbal

[JB1]

If you want a rifle that's going to put a smile on your face each time you take it out get the 17 remington.

[Sherlock]

I have just ordered a 17 Hornet , having owned approximately five 17 rem rifles over the years.

I must say I wasn't taken with the 17 H when I first had chance to shoot it. It was a nasty savage in a plastic stock that would have been more suited to a daisy BB gun , then a precision centre fire rifle.

 

I did test my last 17 rem shooting side by side the 17 H..

First thing I noticed was the Hornet was quieter, not massively , but noticeable.

 

The performance was dramatic though... My 17 rem would shoot the very capable 25 gn Vmax at 4050 fps without any pressure signs.. The 17 H was crono'd at 3500 fps (ish) with the 20 grn bullet. On the clay targets we shooting out to 350 yards ... the 17 H was far more effected by the elements... with the Hornet missing , far more than it connected. The 17 rem on the other hand smashed the clays shot after shot, and then smashed the bits of clay too.

 

I suspect that part of the issue was the Savage rifle just wasn't very accurate rifle in the first place, whereas by 17 rem was an absolute tack driver, having a Pacnor 1 in 9" tube fitted by Neil McKillop on a Tikka 595 action.

The savage did not last long .. my buddy was not a happy bunny with the constant flyers and 1 moa groups.

 

As I said , I have ordered my own 17 H rifle ( CZ BTW) yesterday, I like to try cals for myself, although in the back of my mind , I keep thinking " Have I made a mistake" I remember last year when I arrive at my shoot, the farmer said that the fox was in the back field

.

We watched as the fox was trotting back to the wood with a partridge in its mouth.. With the farmer breathing down my neck and getting more urgent that I take the shot , I waited for the moment that it stopped for a second. before it ducked under the wire fence and into the wood.

 

The fox was hit solidly in the ribs and dropped on the spot... I didn't have time to dial in , just sat the crosshair 1 mildot over the top , on my Zeiss 6-24 victory. The fox was then ranged at 327 yrds.. I don't think the 17 H would have been as effective or the farmer so happy with the result.

 

Good luck with your decision.. I hope I have made the right one too

 

 

ATB

S

[Sherlock]

One more point.. If I didn't already own a fantastic 223 - plus now a 6.5 CM. I wouldn't have entertained the 17 H.

 

I am going to treat this like a HMR on Steds. The occasional fox - but primarily as a 250 yrd bunny and crow rifle.(when conditions are mild) The 17 rem on the other hand needs no 20 cal or 223 to supplement it... Unless say shooting in wild windy conditions - but then most of the 20 - 22 cal struggle too.

 

I must say the 17 rem always left me smiling and shocked how capable it is even past 400 yrds

 

 

 

 

Damn I think I want another 17 rem Arghhhhhhhh

[stillair1]

When my shooting buddy was zeroing his hmr,.17 hornet and .223, all with dm80's fitted about 400yds away from me. I could clearly distinguish the hmr pop, but the noise of the two centre fires was too close to call. In fact I had to ask if he had shot all three rifles. Not withstanding that, at just over nine grains of powder the .17 hornet is a very powder frugal round for the performance considering I'm running at double that powder charge with the fireball to gain 400fps.

[srvet]

I have a 17 rem and have been surprised in a good way with the terminal performance. It does get blown about by the wind a bit but otherwise it is really nice to shoot. It is fox capable but saying that the 22/250 is my preferred fox rifle as there seem to be fewer runners whereas I had a few fox run on for 20-30 yards with the 17 rem before expiring. I have not directly compared the 17 vs the 222 with any degree of care, however my friend and I shot his 222 next to my 17 and noticed no great difference in sound. I use a 20 cal Spartan mod and find it to be quite quiet whenever I use it.

[Chief]

I have my 17Rem with a suppressor, but it's not a dedicated 17 suppressor its for 223. I feel like it is significally quieter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chief]

If you really want a quiet and efficient 17 that is perfect out to 250 yards. Get the 17 Squirrel, it only burns 7 gr. of powder to reach 3400 FPS. It's quiet without a suppressor. I love it so much that I just got a 22 squirrel to compliment it. Here are some pics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dave thorniley]

hi 17 rem anyday ive shot em for 25 years awesome round dave.

[David Hancock]

Chief- lovely rifles.

[Chief]

Chief- lovely rifles.

Thank you

[snaggletooth]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply. I think I am leaning more to the 17rem, even though a good proportion of my shooting would fall within the range of the hornet. But as I said in the opening post, I want to stick with one rifle that will cover all bases. My hmr was my first powder burner, and it has served me well,but for the most part I've always been using it within it limitations, it's when you push it past its limits you can see the inconsistencies. I think in my situation, it could be the same with the hornet, not knocking the cailbre by any means, but some the shots maybe edging towards it's limits,especially for fox, whereas the 17rem is still going to have a bit tank. I think for the extra performance I could live with a bit of extra noise.

 

 

Chief- lovely rifles.

 

I'll second that.

[snaggletooth]

In a word no. I have a 17 Rem with a 20" barrel and a Hausken SD 228 17 cal moderator. It used to be 24" with a jet z cqb but was just too ungainly seen as most of my foxing is from hides, hence the chop. The rem burns 10 or so grains of powder more than the hornet but has increased performance. Noisewise with a good mod I wouldn't think there is much in it noise wise between 17,222 and 223.

I have had mine now for a few years and really rate the 17rem.

 

Has shortening the barrel made much notable difference to performance?

[gbal]

Snagggletooth,Toby will comment/cofirm forhis rifele/expeience.

 

In general,no-whatever very small differnce results,it will be barely noticable/measureable in field performance.

Rifle barrels vary a bit (same chamber/length). Shortening a 17 rem 4 inches might reduce MV by 120-180 fps.

Doesthat not matter-well,no: consider the following ballistic data:

 

!7Rem 24" 20g@4250 BC .185 drop /drift " at 200y is 0/4.7 and at 300y it's 4.4/11.4

 

17Rem 24" 25g @4040 BC.190 d/d 200 0/4.8 300 5/11.7

 

So over 200 fps (with a very small BC improvement) gives a virtuallly no difference at 200y,and about 1/2 inch at 300y

 

Look at velocity effects in a 24" 204 (since this data is available,and directly comparable):

 

32g BC .207 @ 4225fps 200 is 0/4.2 and 300 is 4.1/10.1

32g BC .207 @4030 200 is 0/4.4 and 300 is 4.7/10.6

 

-it's very clear that 195 fps less means less than 1/2 inch -and this is around 17rem velocities. No effective difference for the small pests and ranges for which the 17Rem is appropriate even with over 200 fps reduction in MV.

 

These are all SAAMI loads,so comparable for pressure etc,but it holds quite widely...200fps is undetectable,in real shooting.

 

gbal

[Toby]

Has shortening the barrel made much notable difference to performance?

Not that I have noticed accuracy wise or performance wise on live quarry.

[Toby]

Has shortening the barrel made much notable difference to performance?

Not that I have noticed accuracy wise or performance wise on live quarry.

Snagggletooth,Toby will comment/cofirm forhis rifele/expeience.

In general,no-whatever very small differnce results,it will be barely noticable/measureable in field performance.

Rifle barrels vary a bit (same chamber/length). Shortening a 17 rem 4 inches might reduce MV by 120-180 fps.

Doesthat not matter-well,no: consider the following ballistic data:

!7Rem 24" 20g@4250 BC .185 drop /drift " at 200y is 0/4.7 and at 300y it's 4.4/11.4

17Rem 24" 25g @4040 BC.190 d/d 200 0/4.8 300 5/11.7

So over 200 fps (with a very small BC improvement) gives a virtuallly no difference at 200y,and about 1/2 inch at 300y

Look at velocity effects in a 24" 204 (since this data is available,and directly comparable):

32g BC .207 @ 4225fps 200 is 0/4.2 and 300 is 4.1/10.1

32g BC .207 @4030 200 is 0/4.4 and 300 is 4.7/10.6

-it's very clear that 195 fps less means less than 1/2 inch -and this is around 17rem velocities. No effective difference for the small pests and ranges for which the 17Rem is appropriate even with over 200 fps reduction in MV.

These are all SAAMI loads,so comparable for pressure etc,but it holds quite widely...200fps is undetectable,in real shooting.

gbal

I ummed and ahhed before getting it chopped, crunched some numbers and as you also have seen for sub 300m shooting not worth worrying about. Would be considerably louder without a moderator however......

[snaggletooth]

In that case, at the ranges I'll using it,it won't make any difference. Thanks guys

[dave thorniley]

hi, if you go for a 17 rem, you wont regret it its my main go to rifle for fox, it will take fox out to any reasonable distance, easy to load, components widely available ,I have taken rabs and maggys out to 400yds, get a 1 in 9 twist good luck and merry xmas dave.,

[Matt234]

Swapped out my 17HMR for a 17 fireball and I've never looked back you just have to buy the brass when it's available cheap on power to just 17.7 grains

[Alycidon]

17H is not a good fox caliber in my book, its adequate yes at shorter distances but the 17FB or 17Rem would be a far better proposition for foxes as they can deliver higher energy into the target.

 

On the other hand crows and rabbits out to 250 yards or so are really good sport as long as you dont take it out in strong winds. Horses for courses really and it depends on what else you have in the cabinate.

 

A