Savage M25 .17 centre fire

S

Scottish Highlander

New member
Hi Everyone, I was at local gun dealers today picking up some ammo and took a look at my ( Hopeful next purchase ) :D I had to use a lot of will power not to put a deposit down on it when I was there lol.

It was the new Savage M25 .17 hornet centre fire. I was wondering if any of you guys have fired one and if you had an opinion on it at all ???

Its a nice looking rifle and it would fill a gap in my rifle choice for what I'm shooting that evening. I've heard mixed reports on the Savage brand and I'm not 100% sold on it yet ....Is it just Savage that make it ???

Thanks
 
From what I read in G&A, the Savage will be the first chambered in .17 Hornet, and others may follow. Winchester also released a new .17 cal chambering, the .17 Winchester Super Magnum Rimfire I think, it is a 3000+ FPS rimfire, also to be built first by Savage.

Only time will tell which will become more popular and be made available by other manufacturers. I would think the .17 Hornet will come out faster, all that is required really is rebarreling a .22 hornet action.

Glad to hear they are coming available, I had yet to see either a rifle or ammunition for either round.
 
hi highlander. I have handled one and fired a few rounds. I do not like savages (sorry about the lack of capitals, I am typing one handed due to a baby on my lap)- I think they look terrible. but they do make very accurate rifles and the 17 hornet is no exception. this easily is a half m.o.a. rifle. on game, in this case rabbits, it pulverises them and is a delight to shoot. with a suppressor you can shoot all day without hearing protection.

whether it will survive when the 17 ultra magnum comes in remains to be seen.

I would rather shoot a .22 hornet, simply for nostalgia, but the 17 hornet is very impressive as a 100 to 300 metre varmint rig.
 
whether it will survive when the 17 ultra magnum comes in remains to be seen.

I suspect that the astute shooters will notice a certain difference in barrel life and will stick with the Hornet over time. Plus the .17 Remington already exists as a more powerful option anyway - anybody with what someone once called "magnum-itis" in .17 calibre form isn't exactly going to rush to the Hornet first of all, are they?

As for the Super Magnum Rimfire, I have a funny feeling its life will be short - it'll be more expensive than the HMR but not reloadable like .17 Hornet (which I've heard is slightly faster with the same bullet weights), and it might find itself boxed in on both sides. Against only the wildcat .17 Hornet it might have had a chance, but with SAAMI-spec and easily reloadable factory ammunition available, I think it's a different matter. I don't know exactly what the development (or in the Hornet's case more like standardisation) timelines for the two cartridges were, but I get the impression Winchester have been caught flat-footed here.
 
Not sure I agree with you pathdoc. I think it will be a real killer of the HMR depending on the pricing. The 17's rule the roost here and this is a very exciting round. As an aside, they have been predicting the demise of my loved 17 m2 for many years and I have yet to see it. I will certainly be getting an ultra mag the second they arrive here.
 
What gap are you hoping to fill?

The 17 hornet is not a bad idea but with the 17 WSM coming out it may have some competition.
The 17 WSM claims to be roughly similar ballistics to the 17 hornet, but sources say it will retail for the same price as 17hmr, which if true could well be the death of 17hmr as there would be no reason not to buy it over the 17hmr, and if you can get the same ballistics as 17 hornet with the 17 WSM then the hornet may be short lived also.

This is strange territory to get into though, as if you are thinking the 17 hornet some may say just make the step up to a 17 fireball or another big 17cal round, but by looking at ballistics other than possibly noise there's not really any reason to a 17cal center fire over a 204 Ruger which beats them in every way.

But then buy making a few small steps you just up to a much different cartridge but find no real reason not to do it.
But I think you said you had a 22-250 or 223 in another post, so then there is no point in a 204 Ruger.

The other trouble is that when the 17 WSM comes out it may be cheaper than 17hmr in the US, but the rest of the world is a different story.
I know 17hmr ammo in the US is far far cheaper than in England and New Zealand.

So really it depends what gap you are trying to fill, what your intended use is and what your reasons for not using what your currently have are.
 
TRG , the only rifle I have myself is a 308 Tikka. I dont have a 223 but I did mention in a previous post that I would maybe consider one but my father has a 222 that I can use if I really wanted to.

Balistics table below shows the difference between the .17 hornet and the .22 hornet.

Hornet Comparison.

yards 0 100 200 300 400

17 hornet (20 grain) 3650/592 3078/421 2574/294 2122/200 1721/131
22 hornet (35 grain) 3100/747 2271/401 1590/197 1126/99 923 /66

figures expressed in velocity (fps) and energy ft/lbs

The .22 has an extra 15 grain bullet weight but the chart above shows in my eyes its in no comparison compared to the .17 Hornet. Fare enough out to 100 yards there isn't much fighting but the .17 soon starts to show up the .22 Hornet.

I personally disagree and think this .17 centerfire will take hold strongly in Britain and the fact it's ballistics above come out as they do it may end up that the .22 Hornet ends up being the unfavorable choice. There is also a 40 grain bullet available for the .17 Hornet for reloading as far as I am aware.
The rifle is mainly for vermin control and the fun factor plus my 6 year old girl is starting to show signs of interest so it'll be a good starting point for her to learn the most addict able obsession shooting is :D:D

Jamie
 
Opps made a bit of a mistake with the Hornet vs 17WSM, Hornet will shoot a 20gr bullet at 3650fps vs 3000fps from 17WSM, which certainly is better, but not as big a gap as against 17hmr (not that you were considering, but it was mentioned).

But With some research I did find out 17hmr ammo will cost you about $12-14 a box of 50, and 17WSM is about $14-15, which the claim it will be the same price may hold up true to my suprise.
And factory Hornady ammo for the 17 Hornet is about $18-20 for a box of 25.

To reload 17 Hornet can be done for around 27cents a round from my research, using Hornady brass and assuming a case life of 10 shots, and also middle of the range bullets, its now $6.75 for 25 or $13.50 for 50, but with the added task of reloading, some people have trouble reloading such a small round also.
But 204 Ruger can be reloaded for about 29cents a round based on research using middle of the range brass and bullets (similar to that used by the Hornet).

If you are wanting something for varmints, that's not to loud and very low on recoil then the 17 Hornet will do you well, but the 17WSM (if you can get it) wont be too far behind and at under half the price per shot.

Or if noise isn't a major factor (recoil will be more but still very mild) the 204 Ruger can give you much more flexibility in what you shoot and a much better round for very little more.

Just giving you other options/things to think about.
 
even though I'm mainly a big bore guy... seems I have more than my share of 17's... so I'll comment on a few I have...

smallest... 17 Mach 2 ( 22 LR, necked to 17 ) love this cartridge, shoots like a laser ( head shoot pidgins & squirrels from 100 + yards ) little chance of ricochet for use around the farm, but still powerful enough to easily drop a raccoon out of a tree

17 Hornet... mine is actually a 17 K Hornet, 10" Contender barrel... used to hate this cartridge, had to size 22 Hornet cases, then fire form to 17 K Hornet... my buddy has a 17 A.I. Hornet... pretty much the same loading issues... however the new 17 Hornet standardized from Hornady fits into my chamber ( but not my buddies ) & if used as a fire form load, is plenty accurate in my chamber the 1st time, then easy to load as a K Hornet after that... Hornady has given my Contender barrel new life... as far as "power", I don't think the Hornet has enough over the Mach 2 ( or 17 HMR ) for most to mess with, unless you like "rocket science" ( reloading ) as much as I do...

17 Fireball... Remington really dropped the ball on promoting this round, as someone that shoots 4 different 17's, this one is the most balanced of all the 17's IMO... it has become my 2nd favorite behind the lil Mach 2... much more powerful than "existing" rimfires, easier on barrels & much more efficient than the bigger 17 Remington

17 Remington ( 223 case ) my FIL loved this round, & shot it enough to shoot the throat out of a Remington 700 rifle ( which is the gun I converted to 17 Fireball ) he had loads chrono'd over 4,000 fps, & several loads you could see the streak of the bullet disintegrating on the way to the target... it's the king of speed here, but, while I still have a Contender barrel in this caliber, personally my least favorite...

as far as the Savages... I don't have a good one, but have heard from several people, as far as newer guns, they are as accurate as any... I'm sure Hornady will ( & is already ) doing a better job promoting the 17 Hornet, than Remington did with the 17 Fireball

however, if I were buying one 17 caliber rifle, based on cartridge alone, I think I'd still pick the 17 Fireball, but this is based on the fact I reload... if I didn't reload, I'd be wanting to see more on that "super rimfire", before I decided between it & the 17 Hornet
 
I'm a Savage guy and was contemplating a M25 in .17 hornet before word came down about the new rimfire. But setting the new rimfire aside, everything I'm hearing on the varmint/predator boards about the M25 is not good. Some are lights out accurate, some not, many have feeding, extraction and ejection issues.

I'm not one to believe half the bad crap you'll hear about certain guns. After all, one unhappy customer = ten happy ones in the word of mouth game. But I've heard enough from people of good record to make me stand back and think twice about the M25 even if the new rimfire wasn't on the table.

I have zero experience with the gun you're looking at but I'd dang sure do your research before laying out cash.
 
L_Killkenny,

That's really interesting.....thanks for saying so. I'm totally torn now what to do lol. I have time on my side hopefully and I wouldn't just rush into it blind.

jamie
 
Magnum wheel, I believe they were going to that but not sure if it ever happened.
I always thought that round would be good necked down to 20 or 17cal, but theres so many options in the 17cal range it would be silly to try introduce something else into that market.
 
On a side note, I noticed in my Hornady manual tonight that there is already load data in it for the .17 Hornet, as well as a prediction (in past tense) of the rifles that will follow the Savage, to include Ruger. It is strange to me that the info is in past tense, as if it already happened, when I bought the book before the first rifle was released...
 
I started shooting prairie dogs in 1949 with a 22 RF rifle. Over the years Iv used various 22 caliber centerfire rifles. I have had a 17 Remington some years befor I got 17 HM2, 17 HMR, and 17 Fireball rifles. I have become a 17 caliber fan so whenever a 17 Hornet and Winchester 17 SM becomes available in the area I live, I ll get them. I enioy shooting low muzzle blast and low recoil rifles.
 
Boomer58cal, I brought a 17hmr as for shooting small varmint it did everything better than 22wmr for me, I didn't need the extra energy which would've been the only advantage it had.

I think I would go for the 17wsm if it turns out to be any good instead of 22wmr or 17hmr. But as for the others I don't have any use for them, I don't need a 22 or 17 hornet, and for me the larger .17 centerfires don't have any advantage over 204 ruger but a few disadvantages.

But others may find use for them, if I had a 22 hornet I wouldn't go straight out and sell it to get the 17, but if I had neither and wanted one or the other I wouldn't discount the 17.
 
I agree Trg, If I had a 22 hornet it would be getting traded in for the .17 Centrefire. The ballistics show after 100 yards the .17 caries more velocity and energy. The .17 has a good killing range up to 350 yards, the 22 hornet doesn't :rolleyes:
 
Where I shoot the .17 is fabulous, mainly because you can carry a lot of ammo on quite steep hills. We go through 500 rounds in a day, which is pretty heavy in anything but a .17. The .17 rim fires do have fabulous accuracy out of the box. I hardly ever use the Anchutze .22 hornet, it is the queen of the safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top