.17 hornet

[pstenson123]

What are your views on the .17 hornet?

I've just put a variation for the above , how are you getting on with yours who own them?

thanks Paul.

[casts_by_fly]

Love mine. I have been shooting it for 5 years now and it is perfect for small vermin out to 250 yards.

 

Rick

[daz2202]

Love mine too. Pleased I waited for a cz rather than buying the savage.

 

It's like an hmr on steroids

[pstenson123]

Thanks guys, glad I put variation in for one then coz I love the hmr

[Salop Matt]

Myself I would just stick with the .22 Hornet on the basis that its been around so long with bits available for it and a good knowledge base !

 

ATB

 

Matt

[welshwarrior]

Myself I would just stick with the .22 Hornet on the basis that its been around so long with bits available for it and a good knowledge base !

 

ATB

 

Matt

Got to say I'd agree with that or go for a proven 17 CF like the 17 Rem

[steve_b_wales]

Got to say I'd agree with that or go for a proven 17 CF like the 17 Rem

I agree too.

[Dekers]

Help me out on this ....just where is it the .17 Hornet scores, over say HMR or .22 Hornet, more likely .204/.222 (I have purposely left out the other .17 centrefires).

 

Is it that good/useful?

 

Put another way I have rimfires up to and including WMR and my centrefires start at .223 and go upward, a circa 1000ft lb gap, which I have NEVER had a problem with and I shoot every quarry you can think of in every situation you can think of at every distance you can think of.

 

In simple terms sell me a .17 Hornet.

 

PLEASE NOTE.....this is a genuine question, I am not having a go, but I'm struggling to see what I am missing.

 

Cheers!

Edited November 17, 2014 by Dekers

[wymberley]

Help me out on this ....just where is it the .17 Hornet scores, over say HMR or .22 Hornet, more likely .204/.222 (I have purposely left out the other .17 centrefires).

 

Is it that good/useful?

 

Put another way I have rimfires up to and including WMR and my centrefires start at .223 and go upward, a circa 100ft lb gap, which I have NEVER had a problem with and I shoot every quarry you can think of in every situation you can think of at every distance you can think of.

 

In simple terms sell me a .17 Hornet.

 

PLEASE NOTE.....this is a genuine question, I am not having a go, but I'm struggling to see what I am missing.

 

Cheers!

!00 ft/lb? - 1000?

[kent]

Be a nice choice if we had woodchucks and such in quantity here, other than that get the .22 version or go .17 Rem

[V8 90]

You should have bought my Tikka .204 in that GRS Stock

[welshwarrior]

Interesting that you didn't find it that badly effected by wind I only used one once and the results on long range crows persuaded me I would not use it as a foxer over 100m.

[wymberley]

I haven't re-read them and wrote them 18-24 months. There will be typos in there too, I blame them on wind.

You suffering too; I think mine's down to the take away I've just had.

[Dekers]

!00 ft/lb? - 1000?

 

Quite correct of course, finger trouble, circa 1000ft lb!

[pstenson123]

You should have bought my Tikka .204 in that GRS Stock

Hi norm how you keeping?

Yes wish I had bought the full setup off you now mate!

Have you got a link norm for the cr123 batteries buddy? ATB Paul

[kent]

Interesting that you didn't find it that badly effected by wind I only used one once and the results on long range crows persuaded me I would not use it as a foxer over 100m.

 

Thing is you only learn that on a tricky wind

[welshwarrior]

I didn't try it on a windy day but assumed it would get blown about abit.

[V8 90]

Hi norm how you keeping?

Yes wish I had bought the full setup off you now mate!

Have you got a link norm for the cr123 batteries buddy? ATB Paul

Ebay - 330883550358 they will be fine.

 

Keeping well thanks - Clay Shooting going to plan

[casts_by_fly]

Got to say I'd agree with that or go for a proven 17 CF like the 17 Rem

 

What, 60+ years of history isn't enough for you? The 17 hornet (1950's) was around before the 17 Rem (introduced in 1971). There is load data for hundreds of different combinations of powder/bullet/etc.

 

 

Help me out on this ....just where is it the .17 Hornet scores, over say HMR or .22 Hornet, more likely .204/.222 (I have purposely left out the other .17 centrefires).

 

Is it that good/useful?

 

Put another way I have rimfires up to and including WMR and my centrefires start at .223 and go upward, a circa 1000ft lb gap, which I have NEVER had a problem with and I shoot every quarry you can think of in every situation you can think of at every distance you can think of.

 

In simple terms sell me a .17 Hornet.

 

PLEASE NOTE.....this is a genuine question, I am not having a go, but I'm struggling to see what I am missing.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Dekers,

 

I'm one of the bigger proponents of this round on this board and have probably been shooting it longer than most anyone on here (alcydion excluded I believe). It is very much a specific cartridge for a specific task. We can compare it to some of the other cartridges you mentioned, but the only realistic comparison is the 22 hornet. Compared to the HMR, it is much more powerful. The difference between centerfire and rimfire is real and the same here as for most any centerfire you'd compare to a rimfire. With the same bullet, the hornet will add 1500 fps with no issues. That is a big gap. If you like a HMR for rabbits, crows, and similar vermin but wish it had a bit more legs and a little more wind bucking, then the hornet is your bag. If your personal limit on the HMR is 100 yd, then the hornet will push 250 in the same conditions. That is a big jump in usability. Compared to a 204/222 the hornet is a lot smaller. The 17 hornet is best with 20 or 25 gr bullets. Those bullets have a limit in what they can do. Sometimes you need more bullet weight and in that case you bump up to the 204 or 222/223. When would you need that increase? DRT foxing. The hornet is a capable fox gun and fur guys in the US use it all the time. Just don't expect DRT (dead right there) performance all the time. If you're fox lamping at night in a light breeze, then the last thing I'd want is the hornet. I'd pick up a 223/243 in that case. If you're out in those conditions for rabbits and a fox pops along then I'd take the shot. The 17 hornet lacks in pure energy.

 

The real comparison is the 22 hornet. Comparing the 45 gr 22 hornet and the 20 gr 17 hornet (probably the best two loads) you're trading speed for retained energy and reduced wind drift. The heavier 22 bullet will drift less and have a bit more punch when it gets there. The 17 bullet will get there faster and flatter. Assuming both carry enough energy to the target (think rabbit for instance) you're estimating wind drift (in the 17) vs holdover (in the 22). If you're shooting fox fairly often then I'd go 22. If you're usually limited to vermin (like me) then 17.

 

What you're missing though, is the fun factor. The 17 hornet takes 10-12 grains of powder, roughly half of a 222/223 based cartridge. If you find some deals on components (i buy my bullets in the US) then the price per shot is cheap. Mine are the same as buying HMR here, though i got the bullets cheap. You can moderate a 17 hornet with a SAK (don't try that with a 222) and get great velocity from a short barrel with the fast powder you use for a 20 gr bullet. It is like shooting a HMR on steroids.

 

thanks

rick

[daz2202]

 

What, 60+ years of history isn't enough for you? The 17 hornet (1950's) was around before the 17 Rem (introduced in 1971). There is load data for hundreds of different combinations of powder/bullet/etc.

 

 

 

 

Dekers,

 

I'm one of the bigger proponents of this round on this board and have probably been shooting it longer than most anyone on here (alcydion excluded I believe). It is very much a specific cartridge for a specific task. We can compare it to some of the other cartridges you mentioned, but the only realistic comparison is the 22 hornet. Compared to the HMR, it is much more powerful. The difference between centerfire and rimfire is real and the same here as for most any centerfire you'd compare to a rimfire. With the same bullet, the hornet will add 1500 fps with no issues. That is a big gap. If you like a HMR for rabbits, crows, and similar vermin but wish it had a bit more legs and a little more wind bucking, then the hornet is your bag. If your personal limit on the HMR is 100 yd, then the hornet will push 250 in the same conditions. That is a big jump in usability. Compared to a 204/222 the hornet is a lot smaller. The 17 hornet is best with 20 or 25 gr bullets. Those bullets have a limit in what they can do. Sometimes you need more bullet weight and in that case you bump up to the 204 or 222/223. When would you need that increase? DRT foxing. The hornet is a capable fox gun and fur guys in the US use it all the time. Just don't expect DRT (dead right there) performance all the time. If you're fox lamping at night in a light breeze, then the last thing I'd want is the hornet. I'd pick up a 223/243 in that case. If you're out in those conditions for rabbits and a fox pops along then I'd take the shot. The 17 hornet lacks in pure energy.

 

The real comparison is the 22 hornet. Comparing the 45 gr 22 hornet and the 20 gr 17 hornet (probably the best two loads) you're trading speed for retained energy and reduced wind drift. The heavier 22 bullet will drift less and have a bit more punch when it gets there. The 17 bullet will get there faster and flatter. Assuming both carry enough energy to the target (think rabbit for instance) you're estimating wind drift (in the 17) vs holdover (in the 22). If you're shooting fox fairly often then I'd go 22. If you're usually limited to vermin (like me) then 17.

 

What you're missing though, is the fun factor. The 17 hornet takes 10-12 grains of powder, roughly half of a 222/223 based cartridge. If you find some deals on components (i buy my bullets in the US) then the price per shot is cheap. Mine are the same as buying HMR here, though i got the bullets cheap. You can moderate a 17 hornet with a SAK (don't try that with a 222) and get great velocity from a short barrel with the fast powder you use for a 20 gr bullet. It is like shooting a HMR on steroids.

 

thanks

rick

Thankfully this is not face book. But if it was I would press 'like' you said exactly what I wanted to and feel about the round but couldn't put it into words.

It's a great round which now I wouldn't be without.

[Dekers]

casts_by_fly

 

[casts_by_fly]

It is in fact a fundamentally problematic case design for modern push fed actions and when CZ bin the 527, its limited factory rifle availability/usability will come to an end. Trying to feed a tiny pointed bullet into a rebated rimmed chamber is stupid and done for well, who knows what reason. They should have pushed the 17 Fireball instead with a modern case design compatible with modern rifles and 17 cal bullets.

 

I agree that a rimmed case isn't the best for a bolt. It can work, but like you said, not the easiest with the little tiny pointed bullets. I don't have that issue personally and actually the rimmed case makes my life easier, but that isn't the story for most.

 

The issue with promoting the fireball is that it has been done and didn't pick up steam. <sarcasm on> It didn't have anything going for it really as it was just a scaled down version of another old and not terribly popular 17 (the 17 Rem). At least the hornet was a scaled up (bigger is better) version of a very popular new introduction (the HMR). </off>

 

I agree though that if I wanted a small 17 for a bolt action I'd be looking at the Fireball (or actually the 17-222 more likely. I like the proportions better and it handles 30gr bullets better).

 

thanks

rick

[theshootist]

 

I agree that a rimmed case isn't the best for a bolt. It can work, but like you said, not the easiest with the little tiny pointed bullets. I don't have that issue personally and actually the rimmed case makes my life easier, but that isn't the story for most.

 

The issue with promoting the fireball is that it has been done and didn't pick up steam. <sarcasm on> It didn't have anything going for it really as it was just a scaled down version of another old and not terribly popular 17 (the 17 Rem). At least the hornet was a scaled up (bigger is better) version of a very popular new introduction (the HMR). </off>

 

I agree though that if I wanted a small 17 for a bolt action I'd be looking at the Fireball (or actually the 17-222 more likely. I like the proportions better and it handles 30gr bullets better).

 

thanks

rick

 

By .17-222 you mean the .17 remington? I'd like to keep my HMR and .22-250 and slip a .17 rem walking rifle neatly in the middle! 25gn at 4000-4100 would be great. [Dons devil's advokate hat] if going for a .17 CF why mess with anything other than the top dog?

[Dekers]

 

By .17-222 you mean the .17 remington? I'd like to keep my HMR and .22-250 and slip a .17 rem walking rifle neatly in the middle! 25gn at 4000-4100 would be great. [Dons devil's advokate hat] if going for a .17 CF why mess with anything other than the top dog?

 

Because everyone situation/quarry/shooting requirements are different!

 

[casts_by_fly]

By .17-222 you mean the .17 remington? I'd like to keep my HMR and .22-250 and slip a .17 rem walking rifle neatly in the middle! 25gn at 4000-4100 would be great. [Dons devil's advokate hat] if going for a .17 CF why mess with anything other than the top dog?

No, I mean the 17-222. It is a 222 necked down to 17 with no other mods. There isn't really any difference between the rem and 222 variants, and I want something a little different.

 

Rick