# 17 mach 4



## rednek (Dec 29, 2006)

does anyone have a good load(s) they like in there 17 mach 4. i just bought one and lookin for a deadly round for it


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

Never heard of a mach4. You reffering to the 17REM?


----------



## rednek (Dec 29, 2006)

no its a mach 4.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

www.reloadersnest.com


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

it's the same as a 17 Fireball. The Mach 4 was it's old name.

southdakbearfan has you pointed in the right direction. Also pick up a new manual. Or just go into a gun store and take a look at the manuals. You can write down a few formulas while you're standing there if you need.

xdeano


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

17 mach 4 is not the same as Remington's 17 Fireball. The differences are slight, but there nonetheless.

I like IMR-4198 and AA-2015 with Hornady 25gr hp's. Now I'm using R/P Fireball brass with R/P 7 1/2 primers (good luck finding them).

3800fps is easily attainable, and 3900 is probably realistic. I can exceed that by a little bit in my 22" Lilja barrel.

Great round. Very efficient, and cases can be easily made from .223 brass. 17 Remington is considerably faster, but it also takes considerably more powder to do it.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I was curious so I looked this up. I did NOT know Remington had increased the shoulder angle to match the mach 4's. I thought the first drawings I saw retained the shoulder angle of the parent cartridge (221 fireball). Is that correct?

http://www.17remingtonfireball.com-a.go ... dimensions


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

Csquared, 
That's pretty damn close if you ask me. It's the difference between a wildcat that people were making and SAAMI picked those dimensions over another guys gun that was tooled with a different chamber reamer.

For what he's looking for, the recipe, either one will work. It just opens up the possibilities. 

xdeano


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Didn't mean to appear to be correcting you, xdeano, but I see now it does look that way. My point was I don't think there will be any name changes. Sorry I wasn't more careful.

I actually learned something in the process because I didn't know they were that close, because as mentioned I thought the mach 4 had a steeper shoulder along with the other minor differences. It brings up an interesting point, however. Why in the heck did Remington pick dimensions so close without duplicating?

Cooper has been making rifles chambered for the mach 4 for years and the component industry settled on case dimensions long ago, so I wonder why Remington had to be different? I would understand if there was enough difference to prevent chambering in a rifle chambered for a mach 4, but I don't believe that is the case. :huh:


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

I guess Remington wanted to make a shiny turd. It is just another marketing ploy to sell a few more guns is all. I'd bet it is just a fad.

Csquared, no harm, I know you know your stuff, I just wanted to wanted to nail down my point. Don't get me wrong there is a difference, just not enough to miss up a starting load. I am glad that you brought up the point.

xdeano


----------

