# Just bought my first 17HMR rifle



## williamdtipton (Oct 29, 2005)

I got the el cheapo Savage model from walmart ($150).
bolt action, sythetic stock ( I love these stocks, no dents, no dings)
I would have prefered a tubular magazine, but the clip is good i guess since its not an auto or anything.

We're taking her out for her maiden voyage monday or tuesday this week.

How do those whove used the round like it ?


----------



## williamdtipton (Oct 29, 2005)

Ive been hearing from some that it may have been better to just buy a 22 mag instead of the 17HMR because of the energy of the heavier bullet.

I bought so Federal Premium V-Shoks and compared the ballistics to a 22 mag on their site.

 -----muz-----------50-------------100-----------150

17HMR V-shoks
2550/245------2168/177-----1821/125------1516/87

 -----muz-----------50-------------100-----------150
22mag
2200/322------1777/210------1419/134------1155/89

http://www.federalpremium.com/default.a ... &firearm=3

I dont know much about ballistics and all, but it seems to me that the energy at 50 yards - 150 yards is similar enough to not really make too big a difference. is that correct?

Most of the time when Im hunting I rarely am within 50 yards ofthe rabbit or squirrel anyway.

And even at that rate 245 ft/lbs would be plenty to toast any critter that size.

And Ive heard that the 17HMR is much more accurate out to 150 yards anyway.

So based on what I think I see here, did I make the right decision for squirrel/rabbit (since these were the ONLY two guns I was even considering) ?

thanks in advance.


----------



## Dave_w (May 25, 2005)

You're sorta right about ballistics.

Remember that it's not just the force that the bullet impacts with. There's also the small matter of surface area and friction, which give you penetration resistance. Forget friction, that's impossible to measure in any significant way.

You'd have to divide the surface area of the two bullets, counting only from the nose to the widest point of the bullet, by the energy at each range in order to come up with a really good comparison. After that, if you wanted to get more complex, you would measure the length of the shallowest angle, factor it all in with a really complex and asinine formula, so on and so forth, until the boredom began leaking out of your skull.

But that's just assuming you'er hunting, which I suspect you are.

For target purposes (and by extension, small varmint hunting, since all you're usually trying to do is hit the damn things), the .17 is a little bit better. Flatter trajectory, more stabe in flight, less affected by wind. A little more expensive, however, so you're less inclined to go down to the range often enough to reach your full potential as a shooter.

I'm still using .22LR most of the time. I've got a Ruger factory race rifle that works just fine. At 100 yards, I can put rounds through dime-sized targets consistently and repeatedly. That's good enough to embarass the bog-bore guys at the range. Why? Because I shoot close to 250 rounds a week. For me, it's less about power and such and more about putting my Federal Olympic Gold Cups on target.

But varmint hunting requires a little bit of power at range, so either round will probably suit you just fine.

And if you want to get a better gun, I'd go with a Ruger 10/22 Magnum. Here's the thing: You can get a heavy .17 barrel and swap it in in about 45 minutes if you know what you're doing. Might take you an hour if you don't. You'd have to take the stock off anyway, so while you're at it, you can get a nice varmint or benchrest stock that free-floats the barrel and pop it in there. In the end, you'll have a pretty cheap and pretty damn good rifle.


----------



## williamdtipton (Oct 29, 2005)

Thanks Dave 

I took the 17 out today to set the scope and see how it felt.
Im really irritated that this wasnt an option years ago.
I could really feel the difference between this an my old 22LR.

The first round burnt thru a 3in thick piece of wood (birch I believe) I had in the trunk, blew a nice piece out the back and dissappeared into the ground somewhere. My 22 would have struggled on that. (more like would have never done it ;-) )

The sound was very distinctive too. 
Im very pleased with the gun and the round.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I wouldn't be to quick to judge the Savage just because of the price. A thing of beauty it may not be, but it will out shoot a stock out of the box Ruger 10/22 all day long. As a matter of opinion the even cheaper Marlin model 60 out performs a Ruger 10/22. When you do run into someone with a good shooting Ruger you will generally discover they haven't much of the original Ruger gun left in their hands. On the other side of the coin the Ruger feels better, looks better, is fun to shoot and of course has a much better magazine system. None of those things have really ever gotten me much game though. The Savage does have a horrendous trigger pull that really sucks. Go over to Rimfirecentral and you will see what they call the shim and spring modification that will make your Savage a really fun gun to shoot. In most cases the shooter discovers the gun will generally shoot much better than the shooter himself is capable of.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Gohon,

What are you talking about? My 10/22 shoots great and look how many factory parts are still there :lol:








[/url]


----------

