Jakotay22 wrote:I have struggled to find solid information and thought this would be a place to start. My brother lives on around 20 acres in Vic with a rabbit problem. Would I be responsible to bring my 17hmr down? He does live off of a main road for what it's worth.
Let me know if that is all too vague..
Thanks.
TassieTiger wrote:Download the hmr to lightest workable loads.
TassieTiger wrote:I’d use a .22 as well but if the hmr was the only available rifle - Maybe a couple grains out would help quash a few fears.
Die Judicii wrote:I've read all of the above, and see no mention of the "real" suitability in your case of using the .17 HMR
I am of the understanding that this particular round was first developed at the request of the american military.
Because a lot of fresh intakes had no or little experience with firearms, they needed to address this and the ensuing safety issues.
Some of their primary requisites were as follow,
1) A small lightweight round.
2) A round that was highly frangible that would disintergrate upon impact of minimal objects such as branches etc.
3) Accurate
So really the .17 HMR is probably even more suitable on smaller holdings than the common .22 lr or .22 short.
Especially so if there is shrubbery, light tree coverage etc.
It still pays to take notice of what has been said by other members as regard to backdrop, markers, etc etc.
Common sense goes a long way.
Die Judicii wrote:I've read all of the above, and see no mention of the "real" suitability in your case of using the .17 HMR
I am of the understanding that this particular round was first developed at the request of the american military.
Because a lot of fresh intakes had no or little experience with firearms, they needed to address this and the ensuing safety issues.
Some of their primary requisites were as follow,
1) A small lightweight round.
2) A round that was highly frangible that would disintergrate upon impact of minimal objects such as branches etc.
3) Accurate
So really the .17 HMR is probably even more suitable on smaller holdings than the common .22 lr or .22 short.
Especially so if there is shrubbery, light tree coverage etc.
It still pays to take notice of what has been said by other members as regard to backdrop, markers, etc etc.
Common sense goes a long way.
Bills Shed wrote:Down load a HMR?????? You do realise it is a rimfire!
22 subs would be fine but richoet can be an issue. Common sense prevails.
Bill
Bills Shed wrote:Down load a HMR?????? You do realise it is a rimfire!
22 subs would be fine but richoet can be an issue. 100m head shoes with a sub is not hard to do with practice. They are my bread and butter round for small properties.
I do like to reduce a load in my 17H. I make a very short 17gn projectile that is good for low velocity with a very thin jacket and a massive hollow point into the core. The chance of a richoet is low as it is a very fragile pill, but the possibility is still there. Common sense prevails.
Bill
Bills Shed wrote:Down load a HMR?????? You do realise it is a rimfire!
22 subs would be fine but richoet can be an issue. 100m head shoes with a sub is not hard to do with practice. They are my bread and butter round for small properties.
I do like to reduce a load in my 17H. I make a very short 17gn projectile that is good for low velocity with a very thin jacket and a massive hollow point into the core. The chance of a richoet is low as it is a very fragile pill, but the possibility is still there. Common sense prevails.
Bill
TassieTiger wrote:Bills Shed wrote:Down load a HMR?????? You do realise it is a rimfire!
22 subs would be fine but richoet can be an issue. 100m head shoes with a sub is not hard to do with practice. They are my bread and butter round for small properties.
I do like to reduce a load in my 17H. I make a very short 17gn projectile that is good for low velocity with a very thin jacket and a massive hollow point into the core. The chance of a richoet is low as it is a very fragile pill, but the possibility is still there. Common sense prevails.
Bill
Okay - I’ll take that one on the chin. I thought it was a centrefire...a small centrefire all the same but...okay, rule out that particular option - my bad.
A friend has a .17 (thought it was hmr) but maybe not...it’s fookin loud like a centre!!!!
Bruiser64 wrote:In WA the police have a table of minimum property sizes for each calibre when submitting a property letter when applying for a licence. For the 17 hmr 100 acres is the recommended size with 50 acres being the bare minimum. .
ponkychonk wrote:Bruiser64 wrote:In WA the police have a table of minimum property sizes for each calibre when submitting a property letter when applying for a licence. For the 17 hmr 100 acres is the recommended size with 50 acres being the bare minimum. .
Where did you get this info from?
Bruiser64 wrote:20 acres is a small property. This article from Sporting Shooter May be of some use. http://www.sportingshooter.com.au/gun-l ... hooting-on . In WA the police have a table of minimum property sizes for each calibre when submitting a property letter when applying for a licence. For the 17 hmr 100 acres is the recommended size with 50 acres being the bare minimum. The main issues with a property of that size would be containing the shot on the property and not getting complaints from the neighbours. If the property is undulating and/or heavily wooded, it may be perfectly safe to shoot a hmr. A quick call to the local police station may be prudent before proceeding.
Die Judicii wrote:I've read all of the above, and see no mention of the "real" suitability in your case of using the .17 HMR
I am of the understanding that this particular round was first developed at the request of the american military.
Because a lot of fresh intakes had no or little experience with firearms, they needed to address this and the ensuing safety issues.
Some of their primary requisites were as follow,
1) A small lightweight round.
2) A round that was highly frangible that would disintergrate upon impact of minimal objects such as branches etc.
3) Accurate
So really the .17 HMR is probably even more suitable on smaller holdings than the common .22 lr or .22 short.
Especially so if there is shrubbery, light tree coverage etc.
It still pays to take notice of what has been said by other members as regard to backdrop, markers, etc etc.
Common sense goes a long way.
TassieTiger wrote:Forgive my ignorance here - the .17hmr is apparently pushing somewhere around 2500fps vs a .22lr of around 1200fps standard or 1050fps for subs - how is the HMR less likely to ricochet than the slower and heavier .22 round?
duncan61 wrote:Even silenced the HMR will make noise as the bullet is doing Mach 2 when it leaves the barrel