An ignorant question on caliber size - help?

B

bedbugbilly

New member
O.K. - I've shot blackpowder for over 45 years and never been in to the new fangled cartridge guns that much. My experience in shooting handguns has been pretty much limited to SA Colt & Remington repro. cap and ball with the exception of some experience with a Colt 1911A1. Recently, I did some "horestrading" and got myself a Ruger Vaquero in 357 so I could shoot 38 sp. and also got a nice older Ruger Bearcat in .22 for plinking. While I was at one gunshop, the fellow mentioned the newer .177 caliber but since I was interested in getting a 357 and a 22, I didn't ask him about it. My question is this - can someone explain to me about the 177 caliber? I know it was used in "pellet guns" - but why was a cartridge developed in this caliber? Or, did I misunderstand the fellow at the gunshop? I had a .22 as a kid - shot everything from CB caps to Long Rifles and even "shotshells" for gophers. It has always been the "standard" and always performed well. Is this 177 cartridge more "potent" than a .22 (better for varmit hunting)? Does it look like a smaller .22 cartridge or does it have the profile of a cartridge like a 30-30 - larger base tapered to the bullet diameter? As I said, this is probably an "ignorant" question but when I've been to the gunshop I usually go to, they are so busy that I hate to bother them with questions while they have customers waiting. Many thanks for any info you can provide. And by the way, I love the Vaquero and the Beaqrcat! It's nice to have something thaqt I can take out when I have limited time to shoot and not have to worry about cleaning up as much as a black powder revolver. Maybe these new fangled cartridge guns WILL catch on!? :D
 
There are a couple of .17 caliber cartridges, one based on a necked down .22 Long Rifle case and another based on a necked down .22 Magnum case.

They have good ballistics, but as far as that goes, I don't know how they compare to the .22 LR and .22 Magnum.

As for catching on, don't count on it. This newfangled smokeless powder is just a fad.
 
The .17 HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire) is pretty much a necked down .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire.) Pictures and data at:
http://www.hornady.com/store/searchammo.php?main_cat=249&mode=search&categoryid[]=637&x=37&y=5

The .17 Mach 2 is the length of a .22 long rifle to be usable in more different actions but I do not know whether the case diameter is like LR or Magnum.

There are several .17 centerfires.
The .17 Remington is based on the .223 and the .17 Remington Fireball is based on the .221 Remington Fireball.
See the Fireball at:
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=346238

The original .17 Remington is similar but a longer case.
 
Not an ignorant question at all,,,

Years ago there was a wonderful varmint cartridge called the .17 Remington.

It was a necked down big rifle type cartridge,,,
That pushed the .17 cal round at a bit over 4,000 fps,,,
It had a marvelously flat trajectory and vaporized prairie dogs.

The new .17 HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire) cartridge has the same appeal,,,
An itty-bitty bullet going reeeeeealy fast just has to be deadly.

Specs on it are in the general vicinity of 2,300 fps with a 17-20 grain bullet,,,
That's not much better than a .22 Magnum that goes 2,200 fps with a 30 grain bullet.

It certainly has more "whang" than a .22 long rifle,,,
But not a whole lot more than a .22 Magnum.

It's a bit more expensive than .22 Mag,,,
.17 goes for around $12 for a box of 50 cartridges,,,
.22 Mag goes for around $10 for a box of 50 cartridges.

The little round certainly has it's following,,,
I'm not one of the people who thought there was a need for it.

In my not-so-humble opinion it was just Hornady saying,,,
Let's make a new rimfire round and see if we can sell a bunch of it.

.
 
Thank you all for the information! I learned a lot! When the fellow at the gunshop mentioned it, I actually thought I had "mis-heard" him but then I saw references to it in several other places. As I said, I was brought up on a .22. We hunted squirrels with shorts - mainly because they were "cheap" back then. (I have to admit I was a little shocked when I saw the price of .22 LR when I bought some for my Ruger Bearcat - but - like anything else, the price goes up over time!). I didn't have a rifle that shot .22 magnums but if I had, I know my Dad would have squashed that idea because they cost too much (at the time). About the "hottest" cartridge I had experience with was the .22 LR with a hollowpoint. The regular .22 LR just weren't cutting it on the woodchucks on the farm but the hollowpoints seemed to work O.K. Right now, I'm looking at a Ruger Single Six with interchangeable cylinders just because it's "pretty" (a used one). Although I don't think I'd use the magnum cylinder that much, it would be nice to have that option. I have a woodchuck on the farm I've been trying to get for three years and it's come down to an "honor" thing for me - I'd love to have the magnum to nail him! I guess the cartridge companies are a lot like the movie "Field of Dreams" . . . i.e. . . . "build it and they will come". But, I'm not being critical when I say that. Everyone has their own likes and interests and I imagine that if you were in to hunting varmits, with the trajectory and velocity that the .17 has, it would be something you'd love to try. Things change from generation to generation and that's what keeps life interesting. Many thanks to you fellows for the information as I learned a lot - it is all greatly appreciated! That's what makes this board so special! My best to all of you!
 
One correction; the .17 centerfire and rimfire cartridges use a .172 bullet, not .177.

And the .17 Rem isn't quite dead yet; I still shoot one, and the rifle is only about 7 years old.

I also have a Ruger Single Six in .17 HMR. The .22 is certainly cheaper to shoot, and is great for squirrels, rabbits, and pretty much anything the .17 HMR will handle for the most part. The reason I like the .17 HMR in the single six is that it's handy for garden/chicken house varmints, and the bullets don't tend to ricochet like .22 LR ammo does. It's NOT a plinker for me, and I revert back to the .22 LR for that most of the time.

It's a gun used for a very specialized, very specific purpose for me, so a few hundred cartridges will last me many, many years.

Daryl
 
If you think .22LR is bad, wait til you see the price of shorts. Around here, there's only 2-3 different kinds, and every one of the is at least a $1 more per box of 100. I guess they're just not commonly used anymore, what with a lot of people buying the bulk packs of long rifle.
 
I turned one of my ruger 10/22s into a 17 mach 2 and the performance difference from it's 22 form is very easy to see. I did find out that not all 17 hm2 ammo performs well in a semi though.
The mach 2 does not seem like it has caught on nearly as well as the HMR ammo as I am finding out as I try to sample the few different brands of it locally. Overall I am a 17 fan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top