.17HMR vs .22Mag

[NukeBOMB88]

Hey guys,

I've been thinking about getting a .17HMR or a .22 magnum for carry hunting around the farm for foxes , cats and rabbits.

What would you guys recommend out of these two calibres?

The .17 is supposedly the better choice from what I've heard but I think that the .22 mag ammo is cheaper.

I would appreciate any input you guys could give me as to a good choice of rife too.

Thanks,
Nuke

[MeccaOz]

I saw a video Nioa did. It was a side by side of these two calibers and at the end of the day the .22 mag just piped the .17

[Eduardo]

Can I assume that "piped" means it's better?

Reminds me when I had to ask my Australian friend what a "fried out combie" was.

[Eduardo]

Since you folks got me curious I looked it up.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_17HMR_22WMR.htm

Summary and conclusion

The .17 HMR and .22 WMR are both useful varmint and small game cartridges. Ammunition and rifles for both are widely distributed and commonly available. Recoil and muzzle blast are low for both, particularly from a rifle. They are good cartridges for use in semi-populated areas.

.17 HMR ammunition is generally more expensive than .22 WMR ammunition, but the difference will not be an unbearable burden to most small game and varmint hunters. For inexpensive practice at the range, neither is in the price class of the .22 Long Rifle.

Used with proper ammunition, the .17 HMR has an advantage in velocity, trajectory, and accuracy. The .22 WMR has an advantage in energy, bullet frontal area, sectional density, and consequently killing power.

After researching and writing this article, I have reached a conclusion about these two cartridges. I would favor the .22 WMR for shooting small game and varmints within 100 yards, and the .17 HMR if shots often run much beyond that distance.

[MeccaOz]

Can I assume that "piped" means it's better?

Reminds me when I had to ask my Australian friend what a "fried out combie" was.

Laffin yeah your onto it Eduardo But I may have spelt it wrong.

And yeah Thats pretty much what Ive gotten out of two calibers too. I guess the speed of the .17 would negate the wind drift a little but I have never really had much to do with the caliber, but the .22 mag I have some experience with, and a mate of mine uses one on everything from rabbits to small - medium pigs.

[Walt68]

Shot a .22 magnum for years, great on those small pests, ammo seems easier to come by than .17

[farmerstuff]

I have had both & the .22 mag just seems to hit harder. They both have expensive ammo. Sometimes you can find .223 on special nearly same price.

[NukeBOMB88]

Maybe I should just move on up to a .223 then

[Wobble]

The .17 is supposedly the better choice from what I've heard but I think that the .22 mag ammo is cheaper.

Longer range yes. Ammo's not cheap though as you say.

I notice you've already got a .22 and .204 Ruger. They're not doing the job for you?

Adding either the 17HMR or 22Mag to that line up is really starting to split hairs IMO. I'd probably spend the money on ammo for what you've got already.

2c.

[The Brass]

I'm sort of with Wobble.

Reloading for the .223 is pretty good for price, and you can pick up some bulk ammo at a half decent price.

If you're not using your .22 these days you could sell the .22/.204 for a nice .223?

Might not be for you, just an idea.

[RDobber]

I would appreciate any input you guys could give me as to a good choice of rife too.

Depends on if you go with the rimfire or .223 option.

Then the same old question, got a budget? How much are you looking to spend?

Too many questions

[MeccaOz]

Just my opinion here, but I'm a firm believer in having a plain jane .22LR , simply the price of ammo cant be beat, it's good for rabbit and foxes within range.

Then stepping up to small centerfire to give you that "reach". I mean .17 and .22 mag ammo is nearly at .223 prices and your not really getting the same bang for the buck.

Obviously this isn't true if your a rimfire competition shooter, but for hunting that's my view on it.

[Shotfox]

If you are considering reloading the 17 will be expensive. and the choice is difficult 17HMR, 17Hornet, 17 Remington, 17 Fireball, 17WSM which I think is the better one.

Anyway if you want value stick with the 22LR if you are reloading I would move to a 204 because of the reloading cost.

But its horses for courses.

[Old Fart]

Just my opinion here, but I'm a firm believer in having a plain jane .22LR , simply the price of ammo cant be beat, it's good for rabbit and foxes within range.

Then stepping up to small centerfire to give you that "reach". I mean .17 and .22 mag ammo is nearly at .223 prices and your not really getting the same bang for the buck.

I'd say he's got that covered with his .22 and the .204 Ruger as it is.

About swapping to a .223? I dunno that I'd bother if you've got a proven .204.

You can't shoot the heavier pills like in a fast twist .223 but the .204 will still shoot up to 50gr bullets and at higher velocity than the same in a .223.

Still more than enough for rabbits, foxes and cats as required. Well more...

[NukeBOMB88]

The 50 grainers out of the .204 seem to have poor accuracy due to the slow twist rate barrel of a.204 I have not tried them yet but that's what I've heard

[zook60]

The 50 grainers out of the .204 seem to have poor accuracy due to the slow twist rate barrel of a.204 I have not tried them yet but that's what I've heard

You are normally lucky to get 40g to work with a factory barrel let alone a 50g. 50s would be sweet tho

[Westy]

".22 Hornet"

[pmomd]

Barrel life is a bit shorter in the .204 too right?

Compared to the .223.

[huccl]

Bit more powder being burned. Nothing crazy though. I wouldn't say barrel life's really a factor comparing the two.