.17HMR + .22LR = ?

[VYD]

We have some good rimfire crowd going on here so here is my question for yall rimfire crazies. Those of you that have shot, still shoot, or thinking about shooting both, what makes you think that you need to complement your good ol' .22LR with .17HMR? And visa versa, if you shoot .17HMR only, why do YOU think it's a good idea to also have .22LR? If you think about it, a good .22LR with a good shooter can reliably kill a rabbit-size animal out to 200 yards with a Match ammo. To me, a logical step up from .22LR will be .204...lol.
Just curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Answers like "because I like guns" or "why not have both" or "because varmints explode from .17 and just roll on the side with .22" are not going to cut it, LOL.

Thanks all.

 

[264win]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

i have never seen or heard of someone who can reliably hit 1.5"-2" targets @ 200 yds with 22 in hunting conditions , very few who can do it @ 100 . that is where the 17 comes in for many

 

[RicosRevenge]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

^^^ What if there is a hint of a breeze? Wind bothers both, but really seems to screw with the .17(s) I have seen.

 

[dogmessiah]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

The .17 is flatter, so your maximum point blank range is longer, less to think about.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

price is also a consideration, along with the type of game you are hunting if being used for hunting, noise is also a thing to think about depending on where you hunt or shoot.

from a trainer standpoint the .22 has more arc, which gets you accustomed to making adjustments in elevation / windage at different distances.

for those that the above aren't interested in, the .17hmr is the shit - in calm conditions.

that's why i like the .22 magnum - seemingly a little bit of both

 

[shaman]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

I come from the 22lr and 17hm2 camp, but here is the simple way to look at it. The 22LR can be shot for much cheaper. In the 17hm2 case, they can both be shot accurately for about the same price, in some cases the hm2 making smaller groups for less money. The same can't be said for the hmr though. the .17s take over with the drop being less than minute of sparrow out to 100 yards, the range that most people will stop using a rimfire to shoot at live animals. Some will take them further, much further. Hmr guys have bragged about 450 yard crow poofs.

The flatness is what people don't want when using a trainer. they want a rainbow, and want to practice putting the crosshairs where the rainbow arc will be on their target. This makes shooting a bigger gun and longer distances easier, because they already are used to clicking or holding over for rainbow trajectory.

 

[vman]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

The more i shoot the 17hmr, the more i realise that as a reloader, having a 17hmr is pretty much a waste of money.

Now, saying that, I still hang on to it because regardless it is the "king" of the rimfire cartridges, sort of like how the .338LM and cheytac systems are kings of the centrefire world.

I dont own a .22LR, used to, sold one, shot a million of them and probably need to get another one for the future so I can shoot something on the cheap that doesnt required handloaded ammo.

For the cost of shooting a .17hmr I can easily reload a .223 which will outperform the .17hmr many times over.

So VYD to answer your question, yes I think going from a .22LR to a .204 ruger is a logical step however also remember the .204 ruger is a barrel burner as it shoots at 4,050-4,200 FPS!!! I think to go from a .22LR to a .223 would be a much wiser choice especially if you want to shoot the centrefire a lot.

 

[SmallBoreSnipers]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

I just happen to have both. My wife has a .22, and I have a .17. I also have another .22 that I will be picking up tomorrow. At 100 yards, wind or not, the .17 is dead on. It just doesn't seem to matter at that distance. I will be saving the .22 for 50 yards. While the .17 is a fun little round, I agree with vman. If you're looking for an increase in power, I don't think getting a .17 will be enough of an increase to make it worth it. I would get the .223, which I have actually considered several times myself.

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

The 17 HMR don't ricochet.
To some that may not matter. In areas where there are homes about it may matter more.
I get embarrassed when I am not in control of my bullet.
I've had a 22 LR ricochet off a squirrels head.

 

[VYD]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

Cool, thanks all. I was thinking for the price Savage rimfire cost, it's hard to justify selling one. Besides, if one breaks or start having issues, I have another rimmie to have fun with while another one is getting repaired. And yes, I have also heard of 300+ yard kills with .17HMR

The battle of rimfires is certain, I just need a calm nice day to do it...lol.

 

[clmayfield]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

I have a great 17HMR rig and a great 22LR rig.

What the 22LR has going for it is that it is a standard. Everybody shoots it. It has a lot of available ammo, both cheap and expensive. When people say rimfire, they mean 22. A lot of "rimfire" competitions are limited to 22 (which begs the question: "Why call it a rimfire competition?"

As for accuracy, inside of 100 yds, with match ammo, my 22LR beats my 17HMR. At 100, it is a draw, with the edge going to the <span style="text-decoration: line-through">22</span>17, especially on days with any wind whatsoever. At 200 yards, it is no contest, 17HMR wins.

For shooting varmints, the 17HMR is better because it is flatter, so you are not punished for doping errors. I zero at 100. My 50 yard dope is -.1 mil and my 200 yard dope is 1.1 mil. On my 22, I zero at 50. My drop at 100 is about 2.3 mils and at 200 is about 7.5 mils. Yes, my groups are good enough to hit varmints at 200 yards... as long as the damned thing would be sure and present itself at exactly 200 yards. If I think it is 200 and it is standing at 190 or 210, it is a clean miss.

The point that a 223 can be reloaded for about as much as a 17HMR round is well taken... but you have to take in consideration the time you are taking to reload. It is nice to be able to go out and just buy a box of ammo off of the shelf and have it perform.

As to the cost of ammo... I shoot match 22 ammo, so my 22 ammo now costs me more than my 17. I tend to shoot predominantly 22 because that is what all of my competitions are. For a truck gun, the 17 gets the nod. They each have their own place.

 

[VYD]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

Roger that, sir.

 

[Spud47]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

VYD,

I have traded for a .17HMR & I have several .22LR.

IMHO The .22LR are popular, ammo availabliity, are not a passing fade, accurate with the right load (Rimfires tend to be ammo sensitive-accuracy and relability can vary by brand of ammo)Inexpensive, wide array of ammo types.

.17HMR is flater shoting and still a rimfire, I have the equipment to reload, but not the time to reload. So .17HMR is cheaper than .223 or .204.

Just my $.02

Spud47

 

[DP425]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

17hmr= more lethal range
.22lr= cheap to shoot

 

[Longguns]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">17hmr= more lethal range
.22lr= cheap to shoot </div></div>I agree with DP425 on the 17 HMR more lethal, But I think the .22lr is more fun and cheaper to shoot unless you are shooting some match ammo. The 17 sucks in wind when I have shot it but so does the .22 in the wind. If you want to see things explode use the 17. Just my.02

 

[hntbambi]

Re: .17HMR + .22LR = ?

I shoot .22 lr, ,22 magnum, and .17 HMR. For accuracy and killing ability, the .17 HMR wins hands down. It can reliably kill coyotes at 150 yards. Wind is wind, it affects everything. Learn the dope and enjoy the practice.

I also shoot a .17 Remington (centerfire) and the little bullet is just devastating on ground squirrels and prairie dogs. It kills groundhogs, bobcats, and coyotes as well as any 22-250 with less pelt damage.