17hmr semiautomatics?

[Bigballaizm]

Not to cause a problem or be unkind as it looks like you do a lot of posting but do us and yourself a favor, if your gonna answer an old post read all the others under that one, This was answered at least 3 times already after is was asked
Don't be mad just friendly chitchat....

This happens all the time...

[CHS]

Actually I thought they were legal in CA. I was able to handle one of these set-ups about 6 months ago when I was looking into a .17 HMR. I also remember Excel Arms being at the OC Gun Show. They are located somewhere in the Norco/Corona or somewhere in the IE. Cool rifles.

They show off the pistols at the gun show because they make them, but they aren't CA approved.

[dominic]

I believe the warning was for .17 mach 2 ammo; I do not recall reading any warnings on .17 HMR but I could have missed it.

I see where Remington is recalling both the model 597 semi-automatic and the ammo and it is 17 HMR, and the way I read it is don't use their 17 HMR in any semi-automatic firearm:

http://www.remington.com/safety/17_HMR_Ammo_notice/default.asp

[LasVegasTaxMan]

I see where Remington is recalling both the model 597 semi-automatic and the ammo and it is 17 HMR, and the way I read it is don't use their 17 HMR in any semi-automatic firearm:

http://www.remington.com/safety/17_H...ce/default.asp

Good thing I dont own any semi-auto .17 HMR rifles then. Thanks for the info.

[fw10ring]

500 rounds through my Volquartsen 17HMR so far. I guess they are the only ones that got it right!

[mds2004]

Excel only sells their rifle in .22 mag now apparently too.

[hnoppenberger]

this is silly they have ar's chamberd in 17 fireball and 204 ruger i dont see what the problem is they cant make a rifle strong enough to take the punishment? too much pressure that is silly up the specs on the rifle.

anyone else with me here?

[Kiba]

this is silly they have ar's chamberd in 17 fireball and 204 ruger i dont see what the problem is they cant make a rifle strong enough to take the punishment? too much pressure that is silly up the specs on the rifle.

anyone else with me here?

It's not that the rifles "aren't strong enough" and are breaking-- the problem has typically been ammo failure, usually ruptured cases at the primer rim or just above it as a result of improper action timing because the .17hmr has a very quick pressure curve. The pressure/time curve for .17hmr is very quick (and according to a couple manufacturers inconsistent round to round and between brands) making it hard to properly time an action for safe extraction-- i.e. a given bolt mass and recoil spring rate that works safely on one brand of ammo might start extracting too early with another round/brand and lead to a ruptured case spitting bits of brass onto your arm. The pressure curve characteristics and lack of repeatability of that pressure curve just make it a difficult round to design a safe and reliable semi-auto action around... at least a straight blowback one as nearly every manufacturer has tried.

Magnum Research was using a small expansion chamber in the barrel of their .17hmr semi autos to serve as a "pressure curve equalizer" to try and even out the action timing from round to round-- but they are recalling their rifles as well.

It also doesn't help that .17hmr is pretty dirty and can foul a chamber leading to either stuck cases or cases that are not fully chambered prior to firing.

Volquartsen is continuing to sell their .17hmr rifles if you want an option. Why VQ's rifles seem to be functioning reliably is a good question considering they are a blowback design just like the Excel, 597, and Magnum Research.

[11Z50]

I see where Remington is recalling both the model 597 semi-automatic and the ammo and it is 17 HMR, and the way I read it is don't use their 17 HMR in any semi-automatic firearm:

http://www.remington.com/safety/17_H...ce/default.asp

Thanks for the info! But oh balls! I really liked that rifle!!!

[chief003]

It's not that the rifles "aren't strong enough" and are breaking-- the problem has typically been ammo failure, usually ruptured cases at the primer rim or just above it as a result of improper action timing because the .17hmr has a very quick pressure curve. The pressure/time curve for .17hmr is very quick (and according to a couple manufacturers inconsistent round to round and between brands) making it hard to properly time an action for safe extraction-- i.e. a given bolt mass and recoil spring rate that works safely on one brand of ammo might start extracting too early with another round/brand and lead to a ruptured case spitting bits of brass onto your arm. The pressure curve characteristics and lack of repeatability of that pressure curve just make it a difficult round to design a safe and reliable semi-auto action around... at least a straight blowback one as nearly every manufacturer has tried.

Magnum Research was using a small expansion chamber in the barrel of their .17hmr semi autos to serve as a "pressure curve equalizer" to try and even out the action timing from round to round-- but they are recalling their rifles as well.

It also doesn't help that .17hmr is pretty dirty and can foul a chamber leading to either stuck cases or cases that are not fully chambered prior to firing.

Volquartsen is continuing to sell their .17hmr rifles if you want an option. Why VQ's rifles seem to be functioning reliably is a good question considering they are a blowback design just like the Excel, 597, and Magnum Research.

[CHS]

Question, could this issue possibly be resolved with a refinement/change of the primer? Personally I don't know much about the manufacturing process of rifle rounds; however, it would seem reasonable that one could determine the burn rate of the powder leaving only the variability of the primer and consistency of the cartridge housing (which could also be improved to sustain higher pressures, if that is what is needed).

The resolution is a delayed blowback system. One that allows the bullet to leave the barrel before extracting the cartridge when pressure levels are safe.

That's it.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Because they are "unsafe" due to not being on the roster.

Yes. The sad fact of life for California gun owners and is that many low volume and increasingly, high volume, manufacturers simply refuse to jump through an increasingly expensive array of hoops for 10% of the US market. H&K didn't even bother with the P30 which is a great disappointment to me personally. So until I move out of state, I'll never legally be able to purchase and own one.

[Kiba]

The resolution is a delayed blowback system. One that allows the bullet to leave the barrel before extracting the cartridge when pressure levels are safe.

That's it.

Exactly-- that is what I was alluding to in my post when I pointed out that so far all manufacturers have only tried straight blowback actions with Magnum Research being the only exception with their little expansion chamber in the barrel as a slight modification. A gas operated and/or delayed blowback design may very well solve the problem. The dirty chamber issue would still be a concern but it's nothing you couldn't stay on top of with a chamber brush.

[CHS]

Exactly-- that is what I was alluding to in my post when I pointed out that so far all manufacturers have only tried straight blowback actions with Magnum Research being the only exception with their little expansion chamber in the barrel as a slight modification. A gas operated and/or delayed blowback design may very well solve the problem. The dirty chamber issue would still be a concern but it's nothing you couldn't stay on top of with a chamber brush.

Well with a true delayed blowback system, you shouldn't have a dirty chamber to being with. Or at least much less dirty than with a straight blowback system.