.17 VS .22

[OceanDreamer]

Here is the scenario (actually happened)

At my LGS, my son (20 years old) was looking to buy his first rifle (we have always shot handguns except for the 10/22, but that is mine and he want to buy his own).

While at the LGS, he started looking at .22's and .17's. The salesman was pushing him towards the .17 saying that once he shot one he would never want to pick up a .22 again....

I have never shot a .17 and neither has he and since he is old enough and has his own $$, I told him that it was his choice. But he wanted some opinion from those who have both. Both the .22 & .17 are in his budget with no problems so any advice would be appreciated....

[devster55]

I would go with the 17 the 22 ammo is cheap but the 17 is so darn accurate.

[uxo2]

17HMR is comparing Apples to Oranges.

The Hummer a flatter trajectory.


.22lr
Best overall IMHO for utility and FUN IMHO.

[bbguns44]

There was a test done & the result was that .17 is better from 120yds & further. .22 is better for distances under 120yds. The heavier .22 suffers
from more drop at longer distances. .22 is also cheaper. Marlin 795 in .22
for $170 is a great deal. I'd start with that.

[Barry]

Not knowing what your son plans on using the rifle for is an issue.

If plinking/target and using ammo in large quantity, then I'd go 22LR
If hunting at distance, the 17 is quicker, flatter but more expensive to feed.

Barry

[sholling]

It depends on what he wants to do with it. 22LR ammo is more far affordable (if you can find any), and he can get into match shooting if he likes. 17 is more of a 100+ yard squirrel hunting round. As for 22LR accuracy - that depends on the ammo (match ammo is accurate, bulk ammo isn't), the rifle, and the range. You'll note that they shoot 22s in the Olympics and nobody claims that their shooting isn't accurate - but while 22 rifles can hit targets and kill rabbits well past 100yds they are really best at 50-75yds or so.

[speedrrracer]

22LR or 22 WMR? Makes a huge diff.

What's the intended use? Makes a huge diff.

I have all 3, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. If you're just plinking at 25 yards at the range, might as well save the money and get a 22LR. If you want to knock down bigger varmints or buck the wind best, 22WMR is the best of the 3. If you want the flattest-shooting round, 17HMR is king, but get some side wind and you'll be amazed how far a bullet can be blown in such a short time...

My pref overall is the 17 HMR.

[V]

Whats the CalGuns consensus on the brouha about 17HMR ammo not being safe in semi-auto rifles?

It was a while ago but I thought there was the problem of ammo mfg's saying that they didn't advise the use of 17HMR in semi-autos resulting in some rifles being recalled and some organizations/ranges etc not allowing use of 17HMR in semi-autos.

At Appleseeds instructors are advised to advise shooters of 17HMR issues but not to bar/ban their use however instructors are not allowed to loan 17HMRs due to liability insurance issues.

Not trying to rag on anyone's rifles or choices, just trying to keep up with latest info.

My google search on 17HMR and semi-auto still throws up 2011 era articles on the recalls, not much on later developments.

Cheers
V

[k1dude]

Whats the CalGuns consensus on the brouha about 17HMR ammo not being safe in semi-auto rifles?

It was a while ago but I thought there was the problem of ammo mfg's saying that they didn't advise the use of 17HMR in semi-autos resulting in some rifles being recalled and some organizations/ranges etc not allowing use of 17HMR in semi-autos.

At Appleseeds instructors are advised to advise shooters of 17HMR issues but not to bar/ban their use however instructors are not allowed to loan 17HMRs due to liability insurance issues.

Not trying to rag on anyone's rifles or choices, just trying to keep up with latest info.

My google search on 17HMR and semi-auto still throws up 2011 era articles on the recalls, not much on later developments.

Cheers
V

It's all a bunch of BS. Remington started it all because of their own screw up.

Remington wanted to get in on the .17 action. So they decided to throw it into their 597 semi-auto platform. But the .17 HMR was cycling the action too quickly to be reliable. So they decided to increase the weight of the bolt to slow it down. How did they increase the weight? Like idiots, they added tungsten to the bolt. Anyone who knows metallurgy knows that tungsten is brittle. So it's no surprise the bolts started blowing up in .17 HMR 597's and lawsuits started to fly.

What was Remington's response when they withdrew .17 HMR 597's from the market? It surely wasn't a mea culpa. Noooo. They blamed the cartridge instead of admitting they screwed up. CCI in fear of liability exposure, went along with the Remington BS and said it shouldn't be used in semi-autos.

A few manufacturers knew it was all BS and decided to buck the trend and continue to make semi-autos or introduce them. And none of them have ever had a problem. Volquartsen, Excel Arms, and Alexander Arms all make .17 HMR semi-autos. There's very little information available about Excel Arms, which is strange because they are a California company. But if you read the reviews from Volquartsen and Alexander Arms, there's been no problems whatsover. So if you want a .17 HMR semi-auto, go for it.

To the OP, get a .22 as his first gun. It's cheap, reliable, and EVERYONE should have one. It's been most people's first gun since forever for a reason. They just work and they're cheap to buy and feed. This may be his first gun, but it surely won't be his last. He can always add a .17 later. And if he's paying for his own ammo, he'll appreciate it even more. When I was 20, I didn't have 2 nickles to rub together, but I always found a way to afford .22 ammo. I wouldn't have been shooting much if I had to pay .223 prices for .17 back in the day.

[Jack L]

It depends on what he wants to do with it. 22LR ammo is more far affordable (if you can find any), and he can get into match shooting if he likes. 17 is more of a 100+ yard squirrel hunting round. As for 22LR accuracy - that depends on the ammo (match ammo is accurate, bulk ammo isn't), the rifle, and the range. You'll note that they shoot 22s in the Olympics and nobody claims that their shooting isn't accurate - but while 22 rifles can hit targets and kill rabbits well past 100yds they are really best at 50-75yds or so.

[tanakasan]

To the OP, get a .22 as his first gun. It's cheap, reliable, and EVERYONE should have one. It's been most people's first gun since forever for a reason. They just work and they're cheap to buy and feed. This may be his first gun, but it surely won't be his last. He can always add a .17 later. And if he's paying for his own ammo, he'll appreciate it even more. When I was 20, I didn't have 2 nickles to rub together, but I always found a way to afford .22 ammo. I wouldn't have been shooting much if I had to pay .223 prices for .17 back in the day.

^^This!

The 22LR is a great platform, both to learn on and as a way to increase proficiency! A perfect first gun since the ammo is (was) relatively affordable. As a new/young shooter, I would want to shoot many rounds, not 20 rounds per range trip at maximum accuracy.

The WMR is more cartridge, but more expensive. The HMR is very expensive to shoot and as a single "overall" rifle, not my first choice.

Robert

[fonzy]

A box of .50 rounds of 22 roughly $3 dollars. 50 rounds .17 in the $15 dollar range.

[cgates]

I do not think you can compare a 22LR gun to a 17HMR. Its not fair. The 17HMR is far superior to the 22LR in many ways, and in other ways, the 22LR is far superior to the 17HMR. Not just talking about ballistics here...

I will say this - it is very hard to rationalize NOT getting a 22LR as a first rifle. They generally are not very expensive to buy or to feed.

[Jet Setter]

Not knowing what your son plans on using the rifle for is an issue.

If plinking/target and using ammo in large quantity, then I'd go 22LR
If hunting at distance, the 17 is quicker, flatter but more expensive to feed.

Barry

This^^. That is my only gripe about the .17 is the cost compared to .22lr. As a range linker, .22 is the way to IMO.

[Izzy43]

.22lr: Good for plinking, hunting small critters out to 75yds, excellent target shooting plaform with the right rifle and match ammo that it likes.

.17HMR: Blows up small critters out to 125yds unless head shots, ammo too expensive for plinking unless you have deep pockets, excellent target platform with the right rifle and and ammo that it likes, ammo not much more expensive than good match .22lr ammo.

As has been said, it comes down to the use of the rifle. I have seven .22lr firearms, one .22WMR and one .17HMR (most accurate 100yd rifle), each for its own purpose.

If I could only have one rimfire rifle it would be a .22lr.