varminter.223 Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Anyone out there got one of these? I was thinking of having one put together having seen what my shooting pard was doing with his .17 Ackley Hornet, so I rang up the local ticket office to see if Santa was going to grant my wish and having spoken to one of Santas Little Helpers, was given the green light! Whooooppeee -or words to that effect. Anyway, Christmas day was getting closer by the hour and its been a few weeks since I penciled in my "wish list" and sent it off for my wish to be granted, so I thought I'd give Lapua Land (or is that Lapp Land?) a bell to see if Santa had perused my letter and was going to grant my wish for a Mach IV. Well, not sure was the reply. What??What??(Thats not what I was lead to believe)But, but, but I've been really good this year! A handful of foxes, plenty of hares, bunnies and crows have fallen to my various rifles! Santa scanned the list diligently. Hmmmm, .17 HM2-tick! .17HMR-tick! .17 ackley hornet-tick! .17 remington-tick! .22 LR-tick! No, no .17 Mach IV on the list. Sorry, need to make further inquiries! Seriously now, has anyone out there got one? Has precedent been set by another licensing authority? The cartridge is 99.9999% identical to the .17 Fireball (some may argue that its the same) that has just been released. So, why not get one of those then? Well, because i want to spend hours forming brass, neck turning etc and well, because I want one! What better reason?The licensing authority have made a few inquiries, and have confirmed thru' Bisley that its virtually identical and will investigate further. They haven't said no and hinted that I might be able to have one ( or are they just teasing?). Any input, advice etc muchly appreciated! Merry Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnse Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 just ask for a .17 centerfire,then as long as its got a .17 bore it wont matter what case is behind it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxing2night Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Hope you get what you wish for my mate All the best from wales F2n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 The Mach IV is for all intents and purposes, the 17 Fireball. This was a smart move by Remington as the SAAMI specs for the Mach IV were already established in the 1960's. P.O. Ackley once told me it was the most efficient 17 CF there was so I had one built back in 1980. It was a fine varminting rifle right up until someone offered me way too much money for it! Get the 17 Fireball. Save the grief of fireforming and the possibility of non-standard chambers in custom wildcats. If you are set on a 17 caliber centerfire you won't be disappointed.~Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varminter.223 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 just ask for a .17 centerfire,then as long as its got a .17 bore it wont matter what case is behind it Makes a lot of sense! Nice one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varminter.223 Posted December 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 The Mach IV is for all intents and purposes, the 17 Fireball. This was a smart move by Remington as the SAAMI specs for the Mach IV were already established in the 1960's. P.O. Ackley once told me it was the most efficient 17 CF there was so I had one built back in 1980. It was a fine varminting rifle right up until someone offered me way too much money for it! Get the 17 Fireball. Save the grief of fireforming and the possibility of non-standard chambers in custom wildcats. If you are set on a 17 caliber centerfire you won't be disappointed.~Andrew Appreciate the advice. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pete01 Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Just get a 17Rem. Out preforms them all and no worries about brass or anything else for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Pete: Respectfully, I'd write that it "just ain't so" with regard to the 17 Remington. It does out perform other 17's but compared to the Mach IV (17 Fireball) it generates about 100 ft/sec more velocity (give or take a bit) but requires as much as a 10% increase in powder charge to get that little bit more speed. From a standpoint of efficiency, it's the loser to the Mach IV. I've shot them both and for practical purposes there is not a speck of performance difference. JMHO ~Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornishman Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 I banged my head on this sort of problem for years until I realised that most police licensing departments run on a strict observance of the rules. These rules are set out in the Home Office Guidance to the Police and if you read it through you'll understand where the police are coming from. Here's a link to the relevant part and you'll then need Adobe to download the document. http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-p...ms-Guidance.pdf If you already have Adobe then this link will take you straight to the document...... http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-p...pdf?view=Binary There's lots of pages so either save it to your computer hard drive or print it off at work. Understanding these rules is really helpful: Be polite but don't hesitate to quote the rules to the Firearms Department - they might even find it helpful. And another thing while I'm thinking of it. Most police forces recruit police staff (i.e. civilian jobs) internally. That is most jobs are filled by people who are already within the organisation because they know the systems. That means the new blood comes in at the ground floor and work their way up. The Firearms Licensing Department is the ground floor so most staff will be junior and new. Capable people are likely to move on quickly. That means the people who process your applications will probably know almost nothing about firearms, they just learn the Home Office Guidance and the NFLS. If you need anything out of the ordinary it's best to write a letter explaining what it is that you want and why so that you guide them in the right direction. Within the HO Guidance there is a specific prohibition on granting a slot for a specific calibre (e.g. 22 centrefire) so if you ask for a .17 centrefire they should refuse you, you need to quote a specific chambering. The point you will have to satisfy them on is whether the .17 Mach IV is suitable for all vermin or only for rabbits etc - see Chapter 13, page 77 and para 13:15. I suspect the point at issue here is whether or not the 17 Mach IV is suitable for fox Cornishman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 So what is the procedure for identifying suitability? Would a factory ballistic specification sheet paralleled to a similar cartridge (eg: 17 Fireball and the 17 Remington) be enough? What about wildcats like the 17 Ackley Hornet? Lord! There are a huge number of calibers that I shoot that aren't on that list at all. Someone hates you guys. ~Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varminter.223 Posted December 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 Andrew, Your right in your reasoning, alot more powder for very little gain! From my reading, I get the impression that the muzzle bark for the .17 Remmy is much worse than for the MACH IV- totally different league. Couple this with 100 % bullet fragmentation. sufficient energy to stop "Charlie" out to 300yds + ( if you can see that far in the dark) it all makes for a pretty effective round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varminter.223 Posted December 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 Cornishman, Many thanks for your valued input. I will put pen to paper constructively in the next few days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnse Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 south wales licensing authority granted me a .17 centerfire and a .204 centerfire both for fox and vermin.I too thought about having a 17 mach IV built but decided to go with the 17 ackley hornet with out having to do a one for one. ATB Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 Andrew, Your right in your reasoning, alot more powder for very little gain! From my reading, I get the impression that the muzzle bark for the .17 Remmy is much worse than for the MACH IV- totally different league. Couple this with 100 % bullet fragmentation. sufficient energy to stop "Charlie" out to 300yds + ( if you can see that far in the dark) it all makes for a pretty effective round. I shot both of these cartridges in the deserts of New Mexico so noise was the least of my concerns, but I'm sure you are correct. The 17 Remington barks loudest of the two. I loved the Mach IV. I build it on a Remington Model 600 Mohawk action with a stubby, heavish barrel. At the time you could commonly get only ONE bullet. The Hornady 25 grain HP. The first varmint I shot with it was a coyote at about 225 yards. The coyote just ceased to live, if that makes any sense: One second he was loping along and the next he was chin down in the dirt and lifeless without a twitch in between. Of course, rabbits and prairiedogs just exploded. My average group was about 5/8 MOA with a 4X scope and sighted over the hood of my car. I got into other interests and when an offer came to buy the gun at twice what I had into it I let it go. Today you guys are lucky: Dies are common, as are components. It's a shooters world. (Of course, you still have to deal with your gun laws!) ~Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.