Is there a resurgence of interest in .22 Hornet?

[JonathanL]

I've noticed that there seems to be more interest in the .22 Hornet round of late. We've had a few people asking for ammo (and have sold some to a chap on here) and even had someone phone up asking if we had any rifles in this week.

 

Is it the case that people are movinbg away from stuff like .17HMR and going to the Hornet for it's greater power and reloadability?

 

Perhaps it's just coincidence?

 

J.

[wymberley]

It's fair to say that I'm a convert but not historically so. My shooting oppo got one for fox and I wasn't too impressed with its performance. I say this in relation to the ranges that we can often shoot at. With the 223 I could but with the Hornet, he had to let it go. On the other hand, I'd come to the conclusion that my 223 was too much gun for my needs - another member is now hopefully using it to its full potential on the sort of land/range it was designed for. I paid attention to a couple of members, one in particular - he knows who he is - who knew which way was up. Technological progress and the advent of Lil'Gun powder together with a larger range of bullet choice has transformed the capability of this little calibre. Some will still say that a 223, et al, is/are a better choice for fox. If your range is 200 ish yards maximum and you are prepared to reload, they are not. Exceed that distance, then, of course it/they are. As always it's horses for courses, not to mention personal choice.

 

Having said that, it would be a shame if people tried to extend the effective range beyond the physical capability of the calibre that current technology safely permits and then allowed the rifle to take the blame.

 

So yep, there does seem to be more interest and not so much a coincidence, more of a justification.

[Scully]

Slightly off topic,but has anyone expressed an interest in .17 Hornet?

[Beretta28g]

I cant see the point, as it Isnt deer legal.

 

Personally i think the .243 is a brilliant Foxing round, but **** at deer.

 

.223 in my view is slightly small, but for a deadicated foxing tool i would not want to go smaller.

[kent]

Yes i feel the HMR is largely responsible in awakening the .22 Hornet. the HMR was billed as a 200 yds gun but wasnt exept under perfect conditions with good ranging and an experianced shooter. re-loading a .22 hornet puts costs the same or cheaper than HMR and furthermore gives control and versilility back to the shooter. My own .22 Hornet experiances so far show it capable of keeping sub MOA at 250 yds on AVERAGE- it can and does turn out better! Energy wise it produces more than the .22 WMR does at the muzzle 200+ yds out so its very fox capable yet i find actually quiter than the HMR though in part thats due to being able to use more effective centrefire moderators safely. Windage varies as do retained energies etc with bullet choice though think in terms of Half or less HMR windages

[kent]

I cant see the point, as it Isnt deer legal.

 

Personally i think the .243 is a brilliant Foxing round, but **** at deer.

 

.223 in my view is slightly small, but for a deadicated foxing tool i would not want to go smaller.

 

Your foxes must be massive the Hornet can push 700ft lb at the muzzle and like mentioned more than the muzzle energy of a WMR muzzle energy over 200+ yds.

[Dekers]

Calibres come and go, but the .22 Hornet was always a useful calibre.

 

It nearly died as did the WMR but I believe people are actually thinking a bit now and realise they both potentially have a place.

 

As for the .17 Hornet, well it may be useful, but we will have to ignore the hype and wait and see.

[JonathanL]

Slightly off topic,but has anyone expressed an interest in .17 Hornet?

 

I think that's an excellent round, to be honest. That's the round that's more likely to blow the .17HMR out of the water as it's reloadable and, hence, much more versatile.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Calibres come and go, but the .22 Hornet was always a useful calibre.

 

It nearly died as did the WMR but I believe people are actually thinking a bit now and realise they both potentially have a place.

As for the .17 Hornet, well it may be useful, but we will have to ignore the hype and wait and see.

 

It's pretty much well proven to be a good round as there are lots of people who have been shooting the .17 Ackley Hornet (and other variants) for a long time and I think the commercial round is pretty much identical. How much useit will see in this country is open to question though as, to be honest, there are plenty of other rounds which will do the same job, really.

 

J.

[Beretta28g]

Your foxes must be massive the Hornet can push 700ft lb at the muzzle and like mentioned more than the muzzle energy of a WMR muzzle energy over 200+ yds.

 

Erm, i just like to completly mess them up then if you do "pull" your shot slighlty the result is the same.

[wymberley]

I cant see

 

 

There's none so blind as...

 

The 22LR is not deer legal either but there's a small slack handful of shooters who can find a use for one.

 

I will concede that I shoot single shot which has nothing to do with using an excessive charge and in fact have sacrificed some energy in favour of accuracy. Never-the-less, my Hornet puts out 870 ft/lbs at the muzzle and exceeds the WMR muzzle at 300 yards. My oppo has seen the light and allowing some leeway to adjust for accuracy, we're still looking to achieve 800 at the muzzle and mag fed.

 

I have (just in time) read your last post. Because I am knadgered and can't chase after wounded quarry too well I too have deliberately set my energy requirement to compensate for an excellent shot turning into a poor one 200 yards down the line. Believe me, a 50gn SPSX at some 2000 ft/sec and 450 ft/lbs does this admirably.

[kent]

Erm, i just like to completly mess them up then if you do "pull" your shot slighlty the result is the same.

 

well there aint much in it compared to the .223rem. the terminal results will be the same with equal placement. There is only two advantages to bigger guns on foxes - windages and effective flat range!

[kent]

There's none so blind as...

 

The 22LR is not deer legal either but there's a small slack handful of shooters who can find a use for one.

 

I will concede that I shoot single shot which has nothing to do with using an excessive charge and in fact have sacrificed some energy in favour of accuracy. Never-the-less, my Hornet puts out 870 ft/lbs at the muzzle and exceeds the WMR muzzle at 300 yards. My oppo has seen the light and allowing some leeway to adjust for accuracy, we're still looking to achieve 800 at the muzzle and mag fed.

 

I have (just in time) read your last post. Because I am knadgered and can't chase after wounded quarry too well I too have deliberately set my energy requirement to compensate for an excellent shot turning into a poor one 200 yards down the line. Believe me, a 50gn SPSX at some 2000 ft/sec and 450 ft/lbs does this admirably.

 

sounds a tidy load that. i have yet to get onto non Hornet specific bullets and single loading myself. But it has to be said why do you need 5 shots when it should only take 1 to do the job

[Dave-G]

Sub calibers in general seem to be making a comeback. Possibly due to more plastic tip offerings being available and that HMR bullet casings/loadings seem to be getting less reliable.

[kent]

Sub calibers in general seem to be making a comeback. Possibly due to more plastic tip offerings being available and that HMR bullet casings/loadings seem to be getting less reliable.

 

I think i am missing your point, what do people find so special about plastic on the end of a bullet?

[wymberley]

I think i am missing your point, what do people find so special about plastic on the end of a bullet?

 

I think I understand what Dave is saying. However, I interpret your post to possibly infer that we did perfectly well without plastic in the past and could do so again in the future.

 

If you read the ongoing thread regarding NTX - you know the one; it's the one where BASC is determined (it would appear) to self destruct - it may well be prudent if we considered doing so. At least this may show willing on our part and thus avoid a very nasty alternative.

 

Possibly a little far fetched, but not totally without reason I feel.

[njc110381]

I've been a keen Hornet shooter for some time now. It's not always been the .22 mind - I had a .22 first, then a .17 Ackley for a while then went back to the .22 and have now ordered a new .17 Hornady to be made. If I wasn't such a gun swapper either would have been fine for me, I just like change.

 

I don't think there's much in it between the .17 and .22. The .17 shoots flatter I suppose but either are good rounds. They **** all over the HMR whichever you go with and are a fine compromise between .223 and HMR/WMR. They shoot Rabbits well without too much powder being burnt and will down a Fox with authority if you shoot them in the right place.

 

The Hornets will never take over from the HMR because they're either expensive to run in bulk on factory ammo or time consuming if you reload. But for those of us who put down maybe 25 carefully considered rounds or so per week it's not too hard to feed. It also puts pay to the "should I take a rimmy or a centrefure today?" question which comes up all too often when the farmer is sick of the rabbits but also has that fox that needs sorting which is often seen in the day.

 

If you want a high throughput bunny gun or a foxing rifle the Hornet maybe isn't the best but if you want an all rounder it can't be beaten.

[Gimlet]

Forgive me if I'm being thick, and if I've asked this question before, but what puzzles me about the Hornet, more so now that the .17 has come out is why has it never been modernised into a rimless cartridge?

I've been brought up, as it were, to believe that the rimmed, slim shouldered Hornet case is an old fashioned, not terriblly effecient burning cartridge. I can understand the value of a cheap small CF vermin round in the 600 to 800 ftlb bracket- in fact I'm surprised it isn't a more growded matket place, its a very useful niche in the cartridge line up- but why the pre-war chambering?

Have I simply been misinformed and it is in fact an effecient cartridge that could not be improved for the .17 Hornet, and if so how did it get its old-fashioned reputation?

 

I have no prejudice against either the .17 or .22 Hornet, and I'd be quite happy to replace my HMR with either if I became convinced of the advantages. But why is this oddball round the only available cartridge bridging the gap between magnun rimfires and .222/.223?

 

If this is a stupid question just move along and I'll get my coat.

[Dave-G]

I think i am missing your point, what do people find so special about plastic on the end of a bullet?

 

OK, I can go the long way round. Plastic weighs less and increases the ballistic coefficiency by improving the aerodynamics of the leading edge of the projectile -

 

I could be wrong - but the point I seemingly wasn't stretching out enough is that AFAIK, there are lighter: faster and better trajectory more frangible bullets with better ballistic co-efficients these days in comparison to those available when the .22 Hornet was at its peak as it were.

 

The same applies to rimfire offerings: .17 HMR, .17 mach2. I believe it's fair to say that 17 cal bullets, travelling faster with better trajectories than the old .22 40 grain lumps of lead have become very popular and safer - bringing greater shooting confidence to the field. The .22 WMR too apparently takes kindly to plastic tipped lighter bullets.

 

The .22 Hornet isn't quite a sub caliber I agree, but it's sub power in an inertia sense and sits "in between" rim and centrefires on the Home Office Firearms guidance notes.

 

To sum up then: Bullets with plastic on the end have become more popular in the last few years.

[JonathanL]

Sub calibers in general seem to be making a comeback. Possibly due to more plastic tip offerings being available and that HMR bullet casings/loadings seem to be getting less reliable.

 

The problem with the .17HMR in particular is the horrendous cost of ammo. This is why you see literally hundres of brand new guns languishing on the likes of Guntrader for years.

 

J.

[Dave-G]

The problem with the .17HMR in particular is the horrendous cost of ammo. This is why you see literally hundres of brand new guns languishing on the likes of Guntrader for years.

 

J.

 

I'm thinking the issue is indeed partly cost - in comparison to .22 RF as opposed to CF, but the almost weekly reports of reliabilty emerging of late, particularly in relation to the dangers of firing a bullet into another bullet stuck in the barrel.

 

It's almost like there might be some conspiracy by the ammo producers to force us away from low prfit margin rimfire ammo. :o

[kent]

OK, I can go the long way round. Plastic weighs less and increases the ballistic coefficiency by improving the aerodynamics of the leading edge of the projectile -

 

I could be wrong - but the point I seemingly wasn't stretching out enough is that AFAIK, there are lighter: faster and better trajectory more frangible bullets with better ballistic co-efficients these days in comparison to those available when the .22 Hornet was at its peak as it were.

 

The same applies to rimfire offerings: .17 HMR, .17 mach2. I believe it's fair to say that 17 cal bullets, travelling faster with better trajectories than the old .22 40 grain lumps of lead have become very popular and safer - bringing greater shooting confidence to the field. The .22 WMR too apparently takes kindly to plastic tipped lighter bullets.

 

The .22 Hornet isn't quite a sub caliber I agree, but it's sub power in an inertia sense and sits "in between" rim and centrefires on the Home Office Firearms guidance notes.

 

To sum up then: Bullets with plastic on the end have become more popular in the last few years.

 

Sorry, plastic tips mean nothing as regards rate of expantion. Non expanding target bullets and even big tough deep penetrating game bullets come so equiped. The 35 grn v-max Hornet bullet has a plastic tip and a horrendous BC compared to std hornet bullets. You will find the higher BC hornet bullets tend towards softpoints with trimmed meplat to comform to the max mag length with weights around 45 grns. Higher BC can be achieved using std light weight .22 bullets, but at the expence of being overlength and sometimes being too tough a jacket constuction to deal with tighter twists and faster velocities

[kent]

I think I understand what Dave is saying. However, I interpret your post to possibly infer that we did perfectly well without plastic in the past and could do so again in the future.

 

If you read the ongoing thread regarding NTX - you know the one; it's the one where BASC is determined (it would appear) to self destruct - it may well be prudent if we considered doing so. At least this may show willing on our part and thus avoid a very nasty alternative.

 

Possibly a little far fetched, but not totally without reason I feel.

 

Ahh, NTX = Non toxic- i get it now. Never ever will i use no toxic rifle bullets until forced to, look at the issues it creates wildfowling alone. Non toxic looses energy unless its mega cost and more toxic than lead

[kent]

Forgive me if I'm being thick, and if I've asked this question before, but what puzzles me about the Hornet, more so now that the .17 has come out is why has it never been modernised into a rimless cartridge?

I've been brought up, as it were, to believe that the rimmed, slim shouldered Hornet case is an old fashioned, not terriblly effecient burning cartridge. I can understand the value of a cheap small CF vermin round in the 600 to 800 ftlb bracket- in fact I'm surprised it isn't a more growded matket place, its a very useful niche in the cartridge line up- but why the pre-war chambering?

Have I simply been misinformed and it is in fact an effecient cartridge that could not be improved for the .17 Hornet, and if so how did it get its old-fashioned reputation?

 

I have no prejudice against either the .17 or .22 Hornet, and I'd be quite happy to replace my HMR with either if I became convinced of the advantages. But why is this oddball round the only available cartridge bridging the gap between magnun rimfires and .222/.223?

 

If this is a stupid question just move along and I'll get my coat.

 

Why has it not been updated? in many ways it was shortly after its launch by the .22 Bee, were is that now? fact is its very efficient in its "out Dated" rimmed case

 

how did it get its reputation? by being able to do practically anything a .222 or .223 can do in practical vermin and small game terms with half the powder and very little recoil. You need to shoot it a while to realy understand it BUT it isnt placed between the mag rimfires and .222 rem, its actually very close to the triple two without any excess and approx three times the power of a HMR

 

for years and years i fancied one, yet was talked out of it by others who had never owned one. I met more and more people along the way who liked thiers though and in the end i bought one myself. Why i ever wasted over a decade or so listening to those fools who had only listened to other fools i will never know

[Dave-G]

Sorry, plastic tips mean nothing as regards rate of expantion. Non expanding target bullets and even big tough deep penetrating game bullets come so equiped. The 35 grn v-max Hornet bullet has a plastic tip and a horrendous BC compared to std hornet bullets. You will find the higher BC hornet bullets tend towards softpoints with trimmed meplat to comform to the max mag length with weights around 45 grns. Higher BC can be achieved using std light weight .22 bullets, but at the expence of being overlength and sometimes being too tough a jacket constuction to deal with tighter twists and faster velocities

 

Perhaps Hornady ought to change their consultants then. I was referring to sub calibers in general rather than strictly .22 Hornet.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Dave-G