I'm curious as to why no gunmaker (commercial or private) has ever extended the .22 mag rimfire casing by 1/3 or 1/2 its existing length, loaded it with the right powder for the job, and thereby boosted velocity to around 2500 fps. Seems like that would make a pretty slick cartridge and the new .17HMR all but superfluous. Only restriction I can think of is that the thin brass can't safely swallow a bigger meal in one gulp. Any techies help me understand this one???
I think Kimmo nailed it from a practicality standpoint. This would be a caliber in search of a market. On the technical side, it is generally better to have the primer in the middle of the charge. That's why all the old large bore rim fire calibers went the way of the dodo. Rimfire cartridges have the priming compount start out as a liquid and it is spun in the case. The centripital force disperses it into the rim. If the priming compound doesn't sit just right, velocity and accuracy can change, just like changing a centerfire primer.
As a side note, I believe the .17 rimfire will go the way of the dodo too. It's a hot topic now, but it won't take long before people realize they can reload .17 Rem for a lot less than buying rimfire. But I'm one of those guys who never saw much need for anything below .22 cal anyway. Not to say they shouldn't exist, if that's someone's thing, it's cool. Maybe if I change my mind, I'll wait for a used .17 rimfire to go on sale and have it rechambered.
Posts: 425 | Location: Minnesota, USA | Registered: 01 April 2001
quote:Originally posted by Mouskie: I'm curious as to why no gunmaker (commercial or private) has ever extended the .22 mag rimfire casing by 1/3 or 1/2 its existing length, loaded it with the right powder for the job, and thereby boosted velocity to around 2500 fps. Seems like that would make a pretty slick cartridge and the new .17HMR all but superfluous. Only restriction I can think of is that the thin brass can't safely swallow a bigger meal in one gulp. Any techies help me understand this one???
I've got a pretty decent idea. One of the biggest differences between the 17HMR and the 22 mag is the former is loaded with an ultra light weight boat tail spitzer and we all know what the other has to work with. Why doesn't someone load, say, a 30-35 gr. A max or Ballistic tip type BTS in the 22lr or Mag? I'll bet the Mag will catch and pass the 17 easily. Shouldn't be a problem with tubular magazines since it is rimfire.
Posts: 323 | Location: Keithville, La. USA | Registered: 14 February 2002
Well, I know you can get better bullets in a 22mag. CCI is loading a Speer TNT hp in a 22mag, and remingtin has a ballistic tip load for it as well as one or two other mfg. THey are out there and they really work well. I have shot hundreds of sage rats with the CCI TNT's and they work extrememly well. I side with not going below 22, but on the other hand I know there are those out there the love those 17s and wouldnt want them to be deprived. Food for thought, some farmers who invite varmint hunters on their land, require rimfire only, so a 22 hornet wont do you any good in SOME places. IMHO JAG
Posts: 510 | Location: Hood River, OR | Registered: 08 May 2001
I'm with Jag. There are already good bullets out there for the .22 Mag you just have to pay for them. In addition to those he mentions, Federal also loads a Sierra JHP (can't remember the weight) and Winchester loads their devestating 34 grain HP. On ground squirrels that Winchester load does more damage than a .223. Basically turns them inside out within 100 yards. Very accurate too.
NoCAL
Posts: 167 | Location: Woodland, CA USA | Registered: 11 February 2002
I"m one of those w/ a 5mm Magnum. In fact, I've got about 3 1/2 boxes of ammo left for it I don't shoot it anymore. Too costly and no way to replace the ammo. But in it's day, it was a great little round. Just didn't really fit in any particular catagory. There was always something that would do it as well.
I think the 17 HMR will probably end up the same way. Shame, it's one of those 'good idea' things that just don't seem to stay all that long. Guess we'll see where we are in say, 5 years or so.
Posts: 203 | Location: Back home in Texas | Registered: 20 May 2002
quote:Originally posted by Mike M: In a round about way, they did. It was called the 5 MM Remington and was a dismal failure.
For such a "dismal failure" both the 591 AND the 592 Remingtons still have a loyal following. Particularly now that the centerfire conversions are available. The main fault with the 5mm was that all the tooling for all the components were unique to that round. The 17HMR shares most of it's tooling with the 22 Mag.
At least if the 17 DOES go the way you predict, those owners of these rifles will still have the option of necking down 22 Mag cases and loading available 17 slugs, an option not available to the 5mm owners.
Posts: 211 | Location: Little Rock, AR. USA | Registered: 23 May 2002
Mouskie, one of the main reasons there are no really hot rimfires is because for them to work, the rim has to be thin enough to permit the priming to be impacted adequately by the firing pin. This thin rim imposes a practical limit on what pressures can be safely used......This in addition to the non-reloadability of rimfire cartridges. I for one have believed that this latest gizmo, the .17 Magnum RF, is another of those "brilliant solutions to nonexistent problems" the manufacturers keep generating to separate us from our $$$.
I was told the reason for the demise of the 5mm Rem. was that Rem had a lot of trouble with the case shoulder collapsing when making the ammo. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Posts: 1946 | Location: Michigun | Registered: 23 May 2002
