Is there a resurgence of interest in .22 Hornet?

[Gimlet]

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

 

I won't be getting rid of my .222 yet. I like its reach for one thing. But I could yet be tempted to replace my HMR with a Hornet. The .17 has thrown a spanner in the works. Have to see how that is received.

I guess one thing that put me off the Hornet in the past was pretty average accuracy. Reading the results you guys are getting with home loads puts a different perspective on it.

The trouble with firearms regulation means that you do have to go by what other people say to a certain extent. You can't really try a gun for a while unless you have a mate whose got one or unless you like spending money and filling in forms.

 

Kent, as a rabbit only gun, how do you think the .17 Hornet will fare?

[kent]

I won't be getting rid of my .222 yet. I like its reach for one thing. But I could yet be tempted to replace my HMR with a Hornet. The .17 has thrown a spanner in the works. Have to see how that is received.

I guess one thing that put me off the Hornet in the past was pretty average accuracy. Reading the results you guys are getting with home loads puts a different perspective on it.

The trouble with firearms regulation means that you do have to go by what other people say to a certain extent. You can't really try a gun for a while unless you have a mate whose got one or unless you like spending money and filling in forms.

 

Kent, as a rabbit only gun, how do you think the .17 Hornet will fare?

 

It will fare ok for some on rabbits, for myself i am not a fan of the .17's they are just too unpredictable on terminal effect.

 

the hornet has only one issue on accurraccy - it must be well cut on the chamber. Buying CZ and the likes gives a way better chance of getting a good one. Mine produces sub moa at over 200 yds with RWS factory ammo but is further improved by handloads. In fairness a great many who extoll the virtues of bigger guns cannot actually achieve that std

 

the triple is also a great gun and when all said and done the only plus to the Hornet when so matched is using half the powder and very low pressure levels (when using Lil Gun) its quieter, recoils even less, gives longer barrel life and is very cheap to feed home loading.

[kent]

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

 

Not particulary as they also make non and slow expanding b/tip bullets. If the general public are unaware of this and think the plasic tip means more than it does then its not thier issue to deal with

[al4x]

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.

 

this is a very interesting comment and one I really don't understand, the last load of HMR ammo I bought were £12.50 for 50. If you reload the hornet you'd have to ignore many costs to get down to the same level when you truthfully work it out and then there is your time. Buy a decent game cartridge for your shotgun and you are talking very similar money with unless you are pretty good a far lower kill ratio. Of course compared to the LR then it is expensive always has been but you get what you pay for, if you want flat shooting and a load more punch then its well worth it.

 

Gimlet I reckon you shoot too many bunnies for it to be worthwhile from memories of your posts, like you mine sees a fair bit of action and it just does what it says on the tin shoots small quarry to 150 yards with a very good level of accuracy. Where the hornet fills a gap is for people who like to take out one gun for a wander and shoot the odd thing, I however much I try cannot see it as a gun to sit and lamp with on the back of a pickup and shoot lots of rabbits for one thing come harvest or on autumn drillings I'd be reloading once a week loosing cases left right and centre all things that make it uneconomic. Foxing wise well cost is pretty much irrelevant with the numbers we shoot I probably spent a tenner last week on the 12 foxes but I'd class that as good value for money

 

This thread keeps coming back and you have the few on here who use one but look on guntrader at the number of guns sold and it gives an idea of their numbers as despite what Kent will say there aren't thousands out there that people just never part with.

[Gimlet]

this is a very interesting comment and one I really don't understand, the last load of HMR ammo I bought were £12.50 for 50. If you reload the hornet you'd have to ignore many costs to get down to the same level when you truthfully work it out and then there is your time. Buy a decent game cartridge for your shotgun and you are talking very similar money with unless you are pretty good a far lower kill ratio. Of course compared to the LR then it is expensive always has been but you get what you pay for, if you want flat shooting and a load more punch then its well worth it.

 

Gimlet I reckon you shoot too many bunnies for it to be worthwhile from memories of your posts, like you mine sees a fair bit of action and it just does what it says on the tin shoots small quarry to 150 yards with a very good level of accuracy. Where the hornet fills a gap is for people who like to take out one gun for a wander and shoot the odd thing, I however much I try cannot see it as a gun to sit and lamp with on the back of a pickup and shoot lots of rabbits for one thing come harvest or on autumn drillings I'd be reloading once a week loosing cases left right and centre all things that make it uneconomic. Foxing wise well cost is pretty much irrelevant with the numbers we shoot I probably spent a tenner last week on the 12 foxes but I'd class that as good value for money

 

This thread keeps coming back and you have the few on here who use one but look on guntrader at the number of guns sold and it gives an idea of their numbers as despite what Kent will say there aren't thousands out there that people just never part with.

 

That's why I went for the triple to be fair. The bulk of my rabbits are shot with .22lr and most of them HMR. I shoot foxes and perhaps 100 rabbits a year (its a bit early to say) with the triple, and I use it because I've got a few tricky areas where I can't get within rimfire range for safety or practical resons. If I didn't keep them down with something I'd quickly have an infestation and the triple does give dependable long range reach for the bunnies and full authority on foxes. 200 yd rabbits are plain easy and 300 take only a little effort and consideration for wind. It makes a mess of them and yes the effect is very unpredictable, more than I thought it would be. Some I've eaten, most go in the hedge and some are just pulp. As its pure pest control on these individuals that doesn't matter, but its expensive. My rifle shoots Federal Vshoks the best. It shoots cutting groups at 100 yds and sub MOA at 200. But they cost the same as the sako factory ammo I use for my .308- £26 a box at SGC. (I don't hand load, small batches are done for me by a mate, but I can't ask him to knock out 1000 a year.)

I would love a rabbit gun of about 400/500 ft/lb, with 200 yd range (realistically, 150 is the sensible limit with the HMR), that's a tad flatter than the HMR and a tad less wind sensitive. And less fussy to live with. I'm still intriqued by both .22 and .17 Hornet in that repsect but I too struggle to see it being cheaper to feed in real life. I still think the .17 Hornet is more an American market round where they have pests larger than rabbits but smaller than foxes. I'd like to have a Hornet to try alongside my HMR for a while but I don't expect the FEO will wear that. For me, I have to start home loading before I could become a Hornet owner. But I'm not knocking them. The more I find out the better and these Hornet threads are very interesting.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Gimlet

[al4x]

the facts with that info is really without reloading its a non starter, and even if you did you'd be saving a bit of powder and thats it over the 222 and loosing performance. Its not going to be a gun to replace your main rabbit calibers and if you want something for long range shooting of them then its not the correct tool again. I'd be looking at something in 20cal or 17 but with a bit more oomph behind them.

[njc110381]

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?

 

I guess it still sells because people still buy it. The nearest modern round that I know of is the 5.7x28... http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=769

 

Al4x - the cost of reloading kit takes a great many rounds to pay back. At the same time if you reload for other calibres already then the £30 for a set of dies is soon saved. From my point of view I think the whole kit has paid for itself.

 

My estimated shot count is 10,000 through my Hornet. I was paying £8/20 for S&B factory - 40p each. lets say a home load costs 30p (they're a bit less than that) to keep it simple. That's 10p per round saved. Over 10,000 rounds... You do the maths.

 

Edit.... ****! I've paid over £2k for Hornet ammo?! I need to use the .22lr more! :o

Edited June 6, 2012 by njc110381

[al4x]

I guess it still sells because people still buy it. The nearest modern round that I know of is the 5.7x28... http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=769

 

Al4x - the cost of reloading kit takes a great many rounds to pay back. At the same time if you reload for other calibres already then the £30 for a set of dies is soon saved. From my point of view I think the whole kit has paid for itself.

 

My estimated shot count is 10,000 through my Hornet. I was paying £8/20 for S&B factory - 40p each. lets say a home load costs 30p (they're a bit less than that) to keep it simple. That's 10p per round saved. Over 10,000 rounds... You do the maths.

 

 

The costings weren't aimed at you Neil purely the person who suggested the HMR was so expensive to shoot people were going out and buying hornets

[njc110381]

Fair enough.

 

I don't think the HMR is expensive to shoot really? In fact for the range it offers it's quite reasonable. My grumble has always been with the down range energy of the round on larger quarry, which combined with the ability to home load the Hornet for a similar cost made me switch to the little centrefire.

 

When you look at what goes into the HMR over the .22lr - more powder and brass, necking down and a jacketed bullet rather than a basic lead lump, it's not surprising or unreasonable that it costs what it does.

Edited June 6, 2012 by njc110381

[mr smith]

The costings weren't aimed at you Neil purely the person who suggested the HMR was so expensive to shoot people were going out and buying hornets

 

 

Don't know what he charges now but one of the local shops was trying to charge £16 for 50 rems around three years ago.Gave up my HMR about the same time.

[al4x]

£12.50 here for whichever brand you want, its an increase from the £7 or so when I first got mine but still not too horrendous for what you get.

[Salop Matt]

I loved the idea of a hornet and was all set to apply for a hornet slot or .17rem. How ever long variation times put me off submitting the paperwork and parting with my hard earned. In this time it’s given me the chance to review things. I’ve now returned to the thought that the CF route isn’t currently for me.

99%+ of my rifle shooting is rabbit work and all my rabbits are sold and the HMR inflicts the most damage I feel I can get away with and the butcher doesn’t mind . Anything like a .17rem or 22.hornet would simply do to much damage for sale purposes although acceptable for my own uses.

 

Good luck to all those going for the hornet and other CF cals but am sticking with the HMR and my air rifles. With my shotgun and HMR I can control all the rabbits and fox I am required to happily.

And if more people give up on the HMR then hopefully I can benefit from cheaper future purchases and also ammo quality will improve if the crowds leave the cal behind and manufacturers are forced to address the issue!

 

But to the OP`s question is hornet getting more popular …….. I would say yes but I also predict that the .17 hornet will be either a flop or a censures cal. I suspect people will leave other cals such as the HMR but return back to the cal or at least add one back to there cabinet ! My personal preference for a rabbit gun is the HMR !

 

[Beretta28g]

£12.50 here for whichever brand you want, its an increase from the £7 or so when I first got mine but still not too horrendous for what you get.

 

 

£19/100

 

If you want a intermediate caliber go .204 ruger

[kent]

the facts with that info is really without reloading its a non starter, and even if you did you'd be saving a bit of powder and thats it over the 222 and loosing performance. Its not going to be a gun to replace your main rabbit calibers and if you want something for long range shooting of them then its not the correct tool again. I'd be looking at something in 20cal or 17 but with a bit more oomph behind them.

 

Good grief shooting one would be a start

 

£19/100

 

If you want a intermediate caliber go .204 ruger

 

your missing the point .204 is a totaly different animal

[Gimlet]

 

your missing the point .204 is a totaly different animal

 

That's what I thought.

Mustn't wander off topic but isn't the .204 was a necked down .222 Rem? Therefore its got to be much the same price to load.

I do know the triple is significantly noisier than the Hornet, so again surely the .204 will be the same?

I debated getting a .204 but I figured, rightly or wrongly, that out to my nominal 300 yd range limit there would be no great accuracy advantage over the .222, possibly less in the wind, and the latter would have more authority on foxes and be generally easier to live with. I ruled out the Hornet because I thought 200 yds was about it for the foxes and I wanted more.

I'm satisfied the Hornet could not quite replace the triple for what I use it for. Its against the HMR its a toss up. Replacing an HMR with a .222/.204//.17 Rem as far as I can see makes no sense at all.

[kent]

this is a very interesting comment and one I really don't understand, the last load of HMR ammo I bought were £12.50 for 50. If you reload the hornet you'd have to ignore many costs to get down to the same level when you truthfully work it out and then there is your time. Buy a decent game cartridge for your shotgun and you are talking very similar money with unless you are pretty good a far lower kill ratio. Of course compared to the LR then it is expensive always has been but you get what you pay for, if you want flat shooting and a load more punch then its well worth it.

 

Gimlet I reckon you shoot too many bunnies for it to be worthwhile from memories of your posts, like you mine sees a fair bit of action and it just does what it says on the tin shoots small quarry to 150 yards with a very good level of accuracy. Where the hornet fills a gap is for people who like to take out one gun for a wander and shoot the odd thing, I however much I try cannot see it as a gun to sit and lamp with on the back of a pickup and shoot lots of rabbits for one thing come harvest or on autumn drillings I'd be reloading once a week loosing cases left right and centre all things that make it uneconomic. Foxing wise well cost is pretty much irrelevant with the numbers we shoot I probably spent a tenner last week on the 12 foxes but I'd class that as good value for money

 

This thread keeps coming back and you have the few on here who use one but look on guntrader at the number of guns sold and it gives an idea of their numbers as despite what Kent will say there aren't thousands out there that people just never part with.

 

 

BUT there are those who have shot a few guns over the years who decide its for them for all the reasons you do not yet understand or maybee comprehend. Its not a real high volume bunny gun but neither is the HMR IMO and i have actually used and owned both! Still the HMR is the gun for some but i found it over rated personally once it gets past 160 ish (on our hills with sweeping winds), the Hornet on the otherhand is underrated and i keep pushing the ranges out currently i recon on an extra 100yds over what the shooter in question can do with the HMR with equal ease. It has yet to damage rabbits over what you expect with the HMR, it can pull of clean head shots at times when the body is the best option with the HMR due to those drastically reduced windages and it will kill any fox as well as the .222 or .223 can - yet it does so with very little noise, the lowest recoil and wont make your sporter weight barrel more than warm to the touch when volume shooting. MOST OF ALL ITS DARN GOOD FUN TO SHOOT AND MAKES THE RIFLEMAN SMILE.

[JonathanL]

The costings weren't aimed at you Neil purely the person who suggested the HMR was so expensive to shoot people were going out and buying hornets

 

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I said that .17HMR's were selling (and haven't been for a while) because they are expensive to shoot. I'm asking whether there may be an interest in the .22 Hornet because it's more flexible.

 

J.

[kent]

That's what I thought.

Mustn't wander off topic but isn't the .204 was a necked down .222 Rem? Therefore its got to be much the same price to load.

I do know the triple is significantly noisier than the Hornet, so again surely the .204 will be the same?

I debated getting a .204 but I figured, rightly or wrongly, that out to my nominal 300 yd range limit there would be no great accuracy advantage over the .222, possibly less in the wind, and the latter would have more authority on foxes and be generally easier to live with. I ruled out the Hornet because I thought 200 yds was about it for the foxes and I wanted more.

I'm satisfied the Hornet could not quite replace the triple for what I use it for. Its against the HMR its a toss up. Replacing an HMR with a .222/.204//.17 Rem as far as I can see makes no sense at all.

 

Well at that 200yds and a 45 grn handload its producing more than the muzzle energy of the WMR, something to think of perhaps. i have to admit i never reconed the HMR to be the 200yds gun it was pushed as initially.

The 204 ruger is a necked down .222 mag i think not a .222. not 100% sure but that means even more powder. have you not considered downloading the .222 ? i believe about ten grains of SR4759 and a 55 grn bullet gives around 2100 fps, given its loosing only a little speed to the HMR yet a lot better BC it might be a good compromise Or just suffer twice the powder and run a 45 grn pill at around 2900 which is what i get with my hornet homeloads with 12.2 grns of lil gun.

[al4x]

That's what I thought.

Mustn't wander off topic but isn't the .204 was a necked down .222 Rem? Therefore its got to be much the same price to load.

I do know the triple is significantly noisier than the Hornet, so again surely the .204 will be the same?

I debated getting a .204 but I figured, rightly or wrongly, that out to my nominal 300 yd range limit there would be no great accuracy advantage over the .222, possibly less in the wind, and the latter would have more authority on foxes and be generally easier to live with. I ruled out the Hornet because I thought 200 yds was about it for the foxes and I wanted more.

I'm satisfied the Hornet could not quite replace the triple for what I use it for. Its against the HMR its a toss up. Replacing an HMR with a .222/.204//.17 Rem as far as I can see makes no sense at all.

 

 

The 204 had significantly more authority on foxes than the .222 uses more powder than the .223 and runs higher velocities with lighter bullets. If you reload the main difference is cost of powder which personally I don't find significant enough to be worth worrying. Where you see a difference with the .204 is drop with a 200 yard zero you get 4" of drop at 300 yards with a 32 grain bullet and still chucking out just under 700ftlbs Obviously noise is a factor but once you are onto centerfire they are all noisy.

 

Kent I understand you can potter about with your hornet and shoot rabbits and the odd fox, Here it has no place for me as we shoot quite a lot of rabbits and when foxing I have a .243 the HMR can shoot large volumes of rabbits with no issues no heat cost is a factor depends how tight you are. I can understand why people have them when they just shoot a few for the pot but I do more than that and when out foxing its always nice here to be the right side of muntjac legal as those dawn and dusk hours they are always about.

[kent]

The 204 had significantly more authority on foxes than the .222 uses more powder than the .223 and runs higher velocities with lighter bullets. If you reload the main difference is cost of powder which personally I don't find significant enough to be worth worrying. Where you see a difference with the .204 is drop with a 200 yard zero you get 4" of drop at 300 yards with a 32 grain bullet and still chucking out just under 700ftlbs Obviously noise is a factor but once you are onto centerfire they are all noisy.

 

Kent I understand you can potter about with your hornet and shoot rabbits and the odd fox, Here it has no place for me as we shoot quite a lot of rabbits and when foxing I have a .243 the HMR can shoot large volumes of rabbits with no issues no heat cost is a factor depends how tight you are. I can understand why people have them when they just shoot a few for the pot but I do more than that and when out foxing its always nice here to be the right side of muntjac legal as those dawn and dusk hours they are always about.

 

 

its not going to be for everyone, wind is a big consideration in these parts so it suits me well and far more usefull than the HMR. I use .22 subs for volume bunnies. Heat is not just about burning the barrel its about zero and accuraccy shift and heat haze obscuring your target rising from the barrel. The powder usage in the hornet is not only economics it makes for a very pleasant shooting experiance and a very easily moderated round, quite litrally twice as easy as a .223 to moderate as it uses half the bang fuel

[kent]

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I said that .17HMR's were selling (and haven't been for a while) because they are expensive to shoot. I'm asking whether there may be an interest in the .22 Hornet because it's more flexible.

 

J.

 

I think that might be a very valid point. The average shot isn't going to get out much more than once a fortnight through the year that aint a lot of rounds

[Salizar]

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

Yep! I`ve got one on order, problem is might have to wait until March/April before it gets here, plan to swop a slot from .17rem. Think the ammo is less expensive and a bit cleaner, but we`ll see.

 

atb J

[kent]

Yep! I`ve got one on order, problem is might have to wait until March/April before it gets here, plan to swop a slot from .17rem. Think the ammo is less expensive and a bit cleaner, but we`ll see.

 

atb J

 

Yes i use little gun and cleaning is a breeze

[wymberley]

 

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.

 

 

Damn me, we wrapped this up on Saturday afternoon. Finally got oppo off the 35gn V Max and on to something half decent that suited his Anshutz. Managed to get a 45gn Speer shooting a nice tight group for 811 ft/lbs from the magazine without being silly - just 12.5 gns of Lil'Gun.

 

In a week, we've gone from a quagmire to a dustbowl and for the first time in ages he got out that evening and promptly shot 3 foxes stone dead out to 150 yards although the nearest, it must be said, came out of the hedge at less than 20 yards.

 

Sorted.

[Amazed]

I my self have been put off getting a hmr as where I wanted to use it will be pushing the range out to 150/200 yards wich I am told the Lil bullet will do easily but a bats **** will push me off course. A hornet or a 222 would be a better choice in this place I would think. And no more expensive to shoot Getting my feo to agree is a different matter tho. What are we looking at price wise per shot on the hornet ?