.22 LR v .17 HMR

R

ripnbst

New member
I am looking to get a rifle to plink with and both are cheap enough. I also want to shoot little critters with it and from what I've read .22lr leaves a little hole while the .17HMR leaves little behind.

What is the difference? Why is this the case? Is the .17 HMR a significantly faster round?

Help me understand why the rounds that seem similar have such a different effect on the animals they make contact with.

Thanks in advance.
 
I have a 17HMR, and it is a lot of fun. I bought it before the 22 mag came out with the lighter 30 grain bullet at higher velocity, or I would have the mag instead of the 17. The mag and the 17 cost about the same amount to shoot, but with the smaller faster bullet now available for the mag, it is going to be more versatile than the 17.

The 22 LR is also a good choice, just not up to the 17 or the 22 mag.

Bill
 
i like the .22lr cause it cheap to shoot and i shoot a lot. the .17 or .22 mag isn't cheap, why not? why we don't see bulk packs of .17 or .22mag?
 
I have and use both. The .22's do kill things well enough, but only the .17 makes me giggle every time I shoot something.

The amount of damage done by that little bullet is truly amazing.
 
I have several of each caliber and for plinking and cheapness the .22 is what you want. Way cheaper than the .17. The .17 however is way better for groundhogs and what not as well as much farther shots. On a calm day 200 yards is a chip shot on a hog. They do drift alot however due to being so light.
 
ripnbst said:
I also want to shoot little critters with it and from what I've read .22lr leaves a little hole while the .17HMR leaves little behind.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of an exaggeration unless you're shooting something that's very small. On rabbit/woodchuck/groundhog sized critters and bigger, the 17HMR very often leaves no trace at all. It very much looks like you scared the animal to death. It is very common to see no evidence of a wound whatsoever. On small critters, like prairie dogs/squirrels and the like, the results are closer to 22-250 type carnage on the larger animals.



However, except for price, the 17HMR is superior to the 22LR is every way. If I were buying a gun today, the 17 would be my choice every single time of a 22.
 
That's a bit of an exaggeration unless you're shooting something that's very small.
Click to expand...
Ive shot a lot of rabbits with my .17HMR, and Ive only had one that the bullet didnt upset violently, and simply punched a very small hole through it. It still died instantly too, as did most all the others, but at first blush, it didnt look like it was hit.

I shot one little one where the only thing left was its tail and one rear foot.

If youre squeamish, dont look. Blood and guts in the links. :)

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b...Wbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f=0/ps=50/r=0/rx=550/ry=400/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b...Wbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f=0/ps=50/r=0/rx=550/ry=400/
 
peetzakilla said:
However, except for price, the 17HMR is superior to the 22LR is every way
Click to expand...

Generally, I like shooting the .17HMR, but those little bullets come apart so easily. If I'm hunting for meat, the .22LR gets the nod. For shooting varmints I don't intend to eat, the .17HMR gets the trip.
 
I use either Hornady's or Federal's, both use the BT's. Not sure which ones I was using for those in the pics, but the results are the same with either.
 
AK,

Your results look just like mine. First rabbit I shot, I couldn't believe I got that much carnage out of a 17 grn. bullet.

It is deadly on paririe dogs out to 150+. I would like to know if the new, lighter grain .22 mags perform the same. If they do, then that would be my choice.

Bill
 
As some have noted, a better comparison would be the .22 mag and .17HMR. Similarly, the .22 long rifle and .17 HM2 are based on the same case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top