Re: .17 HMR or .22 Magnum and which rifle?
now to completely take it off topic:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: anthony1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My question is, why are all of you saying this? Bad memory? Just agreeing with everyone else? Just for the hell of it? <span style="color: #FF0000">Have no idea and talking out of your asses? </span> </div></div>
FEELIN' A LITTLE GASSY...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: anthony1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you dont know know the FACTS, then dont pass along your information as such. </div></div>
in the end, (no pun intended) it is NOT and apples to apples comparison, and shouldn't even be a valid topic of discussion anywhere, although it has been beat to death everywhere.
the facts are (and rarely pointed out during these ford vs. chevy type discussions):
one is .22 cal, the other .17
one is straight walled, the other bottlenecked.
one is 30 to 50 grains, one is 17 or 20 grains.
most "comparisons" out there are using round nose 40gr .22 loads, VS. spire poly ballistic tipped .17 loads
one ranges in FPS from 1500 to 2200, the other 2350 to 2550.
<span style="font-size: 14pt">it's like comparing a .30 carbine to a .2506, the only similiarity is the cases are made of brass and that they are both centerfires.</span> each has it's place and application as does the .17 hmr and .22 wmr.
more facts:
the .17 TOF dictates (on a ballistic calculator) that it is less susceptible to wind drift as it spends less time in flight, along with thinner signature to catch wind resistance. therefore SHOULD be less wind drift than slower moving, heavier, fatter .22 caliber slower moving bullet.
yet those that shoot both calibers attest that the .17 drifts more in a crosswind. there's at least three posts in this thread by actual users of both calibers that attest to the performance in wind is better with the .22 mag. actually let's not even call it "amount of drift" or "performance" - let's call it "more consistant" or "predictable" in the wind.
in most articles or reviews on both or either of the calibers this is called out often...."this ballistic table or that ballistic table says the .17 has less wind drift"...this is true. even though the numbers vary depending on what BC they "cook up" to use - that too seems to change with every new article.
as in most articles written about rimfires by "the big magazines", they just can't seem to take rimfires seriously enough to go through the trouble to go out and prove the numbers the ballistic tables or manufacturer's are telling them, and in many cases, still seem to fail to field test them past 50 yards; so they quote what the program tells them to quote, or outright plagerizes or quotes the work performed by someone else.
i'm sure beyond any doubt that in a closed laboratory environment, with a constant wind coming from 90 degrees for the entire distance the .17 would "hold the wind" better, as per the sterile ballistic calculators say so.
when was the last time this happened at your local range?
so i could only ASSume that the .17 is more apt to be affected by <span style="font-weight: bold">changes</span> in the windspeed as it makes it's way from point A to B - not accounted for in any ballistic program that i know of, yet those that get paid to write articles keep referencing those tables as gospel for field use.
armchair quarterbacks say it's possible the raiders could win the superbowl, the government says my SUV gets 27 mpg hwy, and ammo manufacturer's advertised FPS are always correct too.
unfortunately, i don't have access to a .17, as i would like to do a simultanious firing from both .22 mag and .17 hmr in both calm and windy conditions using actual measurements both in deviation from POA and relative group size and put this whole thing to rest.
from a less than scientific try a few years ago in a less than constant but ever present wind at my local range, i did have the oppurtunity to shoot my .22mag simultaniously with a very locally known shooter and his .17hmr @ 100 yards. after 5 rounds, it was apparent that the .17 hmr group was more erratic in that changing wind. i do not recall the group size or amount of deflection, but i do recall that 2 .17 rounds were closer to the bull than the .22 mag group, and 2 .17 rounds were outside the .22 mag group. 1 .17 round didn't even print on the 8.5 X 11 target. the .22 mag group did open up more and showed more horizontal stringing than the calm day group, but not as much in relation to the .17 group. that was only 5 rounds, and IMO 5 rounds isn't enough data for me to make a 100% decision, but enough to produce a HMMMM....
now in calm conditions the week before, the .17 could literally shoot circles around the .22 mag group, and he did so on purpose - just to prove that he and that caliber can be that precise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: anthony1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> much flatter trajectory and bucks the wind better which translates to more clean hits in the feild.
</div></div>
oddly enough (while not grouping as well) i've found that 50 gr gamepoint .22mag ammo "holds the wind" better than the flatter trajectory and faster 30gr hornady ammo...so i can only say in that instance that faster and flatter may not be better.
that's my reasoning, and <span style="text-decoration: underline">only my deduction - not opinion </span> that based on the information at hand, that i choose to have the .22 mag by my side at the range or in the field when conditions are not optimal, and especially on game that you want to keep edible and require penetration.
for fair weather shooting and fair weather hunting, the .17hmr by leaps and bounds.
back to the op: for rifle choice, for under 500.00 you have savage, marlin, CZ, maybe a ruger if you look hard enough. if you have a not so abundant optic budget, get a lower priced savage or marlin and invest the rest into an optic. if you don't mind the carrying the extra weight while hunting, get a heavy barrel. as mentioned before a rifle basix trigger is pretty good for the money, so you may even want to consider a non adjustable trigger model and replace it with a rifle basix later. it'll cost alittle more in the end, but you'll end up with a more savory trigger. the money you save up front will cut the RB trigger cost in half.