When the original 17 Remington was first introduced in the 1970s, did Remington make any comments in press releases or to gun writers about its parentage ?

Do any authoritative sources, e.g., Cartridges of the World, say anything about its parentage ?

Thanks for any insight.

you're testing my memory here, but mike walker gave an intro to the round. Mike was quite the shooter. he had tried the 17/223 but found some erratic results, then he changed the shoulder a bit and found that he had good results. The one thing he did make a strong note of was that remmy 7 1/2 primers gave him by far the most consistent results. This is the only round i know of where the primer really makes a difference. Mike was the brains behind much of what remmy did in the 50's and 60's , the shooting world owes him much

butchloc is correct, the 17/223 wildcat was chambered by H&R, the shoulder was moved back .087 on the 17 Rem. Most of the reason was probably to "standardize" the case as with any wildcat there are usually differences in some of the case dimensions.

The .17 Remington is the .222 Remington Magnum necked down.

George

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
The .17 Remington is the .222 Remington Magnum necked down.

George

Nope, that's a better description of the .204 Ruger. As has been said previously, the .17 Remington is a modified .223 case.

No one I've visited with who has used both the .17 Rem and the .17/223 notes any particular difference in their performance. Moving the shoulder back reduced the case capacity a very slight amount in the .17 Rem, but this is not significant. I can't see that it made case forming from .223 brass any more precise.

Both the .221 Fireball and the .222 Remington have commonly been necked to .17 caliber. Neither will typically quite reach the 4000 fps mark with a 25 grain bullet, which is perhaps why the slightly more capacious .223 was chosen as the base case.

In the early days of .17's nobody could figure out how to keep the bores clean for more than a few shots. Is this still a problem?

quote:

Is this still a problem?

It is on some of the original 700 Remingtons chambered in .17 Rem., those barrels did foul. I had one that did.

I put a Douglas SS XX premium barrel on that action and fouling was no longer a problem.

I've not heard of fouling issues with the CZ's in .17 yet, nor with the Sako's of the past.

GeorgeS wrote:

quote:

The .17 Remington is the .222 Remington Magnum necked down.

That's incorrect -- just as Stonecreek pointed out.

The .17 Remington's roots lie with the .223 Remington case.

So, let me try to understand how the .17 Remington casing is based on the .223 casing which is, according to what I have read some mention here, based on the .222 Remington casing and NOT the .222 Remington magnum casing.

First, the .17 Remington casing measures 1.796" from the bottom of the base to the end of the case mouth.

Second, the .222 Remington casing measures 1.700" from the bottom of the base to the end of the case mouth--some .096" short of what is required for the .17 Remington casing????

Third, the .223 Remington casing measures 1.760" from the bottome of the base to the end of the case mouth, closer to the .17 Remington length, but still .036" short of the required length.

Fourth, the 222 Remington Magnum casing measures 1.850" from the base to the end of the case mouth, and now we have a casing that is long enough to make a .17 Remington casing.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Are some of you saying that the .222 Rem, and the .223 Remington casings were modified in such a way that they became longer through some "stretching process" to make them 1.796" long as the .17 Remington casing now measures???? I have necked down .223 brass to .17 Remington and it is a wee bit short of what I would be willing to use. However, I have necked down .204 Ruger brass to .17 Remington and everyone agrees that the .222 Rem Mag. casing is the parent casing of the .204 Ruger, and that newly formed brass is just great in most factory .17 Remington chambers.

It remains a mystery to me??? Like I said, though, I can make .17 Remington brass out of .222 Rem Mag brass AND from .204 Ruger brass.

[Edited to add: The case heads on the .17 Rem, .222 Rem., .223 Rem, and .222 Rem. Mag are almost identical, but I still don't fathom how the shorter casings get stretched to .17 Rem casing length????]

Hammer has already read this on another site but I'm going to take the liberty of copying directly the answer to this question as answered by one of the two or three sharpest small caliber shooters/wildcatters/writers I've ever run across. The answer is his as my own personal answer would be...Huh?

"Well, specifically, the parent case is the granddaddy 222 Remington. All of the siblings have their own specific features. The 17 Remington has a completely different internal profile than any other 222 based case. The only thing in common between the 17 Rem and the 222 Mag is the head size. Length is different (1.796" vs. 1.850"), brass thickness and internal drawing dimensions are unique, etc.

17 Rem cases can be made from 222 Mag cases, only because the 222 Mag has adequate length to begin with. The end result is something quite different than a true factory 17 Rem case."

Sounds good to me from my experience with the .17 Rem, Triple Duce Mag, and .17-223's.

quote:

The Reload Bench
Historical Notes:

The 17 Remington was introduced in 1971 as a new caliber for Remington's 700 Series bolt action rifles. It is the smallest caliber centerfire rifle cartridge offered on a commercial basis to date. The case is based on the 223 Remington necked down to 17 caliber, with the shoulder moved back .087" to lengthen the neck while retaining the same shoulder angle

The 17 Remington is similar to, but not identical with the 17-223 wildcat developed about 1965. Experiments with 17 caliber rifles go back to 1944 when P.O. Ackley, the well known gunsmith and experimenter, developed the 17 Ackley Bee based on necking down the improved 218 Bee case.

There are a number of other 17 caliber wildcat cartridges made by necking down 22 caliber centerfire cases such as the 221 Remington Fireball, 222 Remington, etc.

There is only .026" difference in the trim to length size for the 17Remington (1.786") [NOTE: 1.796" is MAX length for the 17Rem] and the max on the .223Remington (1.760").
Pretty easy to achieve when you push the shoulder back.

The metal has to go somewhere...

quote:

There is only .026" difference in the trim to length size for the 17Remington (1.786") [NOTE: 1.796" is MAX length for the 17Rem] and the max on the .223Remington (1.760").
Pretty easy to achieve when you push the shoulder back.

The metal has to go somewhere...

I added the bolding in Flippy's quoted material to emphasize that he is using the trim to length for the .17 Remington and the maximum length for the .223 Remington.

As you recognized, I used the maximum length for each casing in my examples--not trim length on one and maximum length on the other as you did. No "big" deal to some, however it is nice to comapre apples to apples instead of comparing apples to oranges.

I just went to my reloading bench and necked down two .223 Lake City casings in my RCBS .17 Remington FL sizing die. The one that measured 1.753" in length before resizing now measures 1.764" long and the other that was 1.7535" long prior to resizing and measures 1.7645" now in my digital caliper. That's still .0215" and .0220" short of the trim length for the .17 Remington. While the

quote:

metal has to go somewhere...

and they both did get longer--actually, .011" longer, it doesn't appear to have made the Lake City .223 casings measure up to the 1.986" trim length of the .17 Remington. So, when you say

quote:

Pretty easy to achieve when you push the shoulder back.

, please share your secret on how you make the .223 Remington casings 1.796" long when you resize them for the .17 Remington.

Thanks.

As to parent cases, not sure case length and case forming are the keys to this.

Most would agree that the 44 Russian was the parent of the 44 Special... And the 44 Special was the parent of the 44 Magnum... But neither child can be formed completely from the parent case.

Geez, Silverfox, you're getting a little snippy on this, aren't you?

First, try actually firing your resized .223 cases, then measuring. They will likely exceed the "trim to" length for the .17 Rem.

The SAAMI specs for any given cartridge do not necessarily correspond to what happens when you reform the "parent" case. Rather, they correspond to whatever the company whose proprietary cartridge it is submits to SAAMI. In the case of the .17 Rem, it is my supposition that Remington chose to go the "easy" route in making their brass and used the same brass billet from which they make their .223 cases. I also assume that this results in a case that is just a tad longer than the nominal .223 length -- and conveniently allows .223 brass, which will stretch some when necked down to .17, to be used without trimming when resized to .17 Rem.

.222 Magnum cases, on the other hand, require substantial trimming when resized to .17 Rem, while .223 cases, though a tad short, can be, and are regularly, shot without trimming.

Now, it is perfectly accurate in a way to say that the .222 Magnum is the "parent" of the .17 Rem. The .222 Magnum was developed as a military round, however, as fate would have it, it was just a tad too long for the prototype Stoner AR-15 magazines. So it was slightly shortened (mostly taken from the neck) and standardized as the 5.56 Nato, or .223 Remington. Since the .223 is the direct "parent" of the .17, then the .222 Magnum is the "grandparent"; and I suppose the original .222 must be considered the ancestor of them all, even though all of its offspring grew in length and none (like the .44 S&W's offspring) can be "made" from its brass.

By the way, the story passed on by Montdoug about the internal differences in .17 Remington brass and other .222-based brass is the whackiest story I've heard in a long time.

Stonecreek nailed this one.
I once formed some .17 Remington cases from .222 Mag brass and had to trim .060" off the neck. Also, shoulder set back was .112" Too labor intensive for me. .223 is the correct answer!
Parker Ackley stated that .17/223 data could be used on .17 Remington cases.

Stepchild

OK gents.....gotta add my $0.02.

The 222Rem case IS the ancestral parent(i.e. case head design) of the 17Rem, as well as the 223 and 222Rem Magnum.......BUT, one can only form a proper 17Rem case from the 222Rem Magnum(or longer) case. Forming the 223 case into a 17Rem will result in a case with a neck that is 0.020" to 0.040" too short. It's been tried by too many people....too many times(myself included). Yeah....some will say that the neck is only 0.020" to 0.040" short......so what??? Well....if you consider that an actual factory chamber has a neck that is 0.020" to 0.050" too long.....then you'd end up with a case that could be 0.040" to 0.090" too short. Don't believe me?.....that's ok. Just get a Sinclair case neck length gage, and check a few of your favorite 17Rem chambers.....interesting stuff.

Also, the factory 17Rem case actually does have a slightly different(and thinner) brass profile, forward of the web area, than a reformed 222Rem Magnum case.......resulting in a slightly greater case capacity for the factory 17Rem case.

Hope this helps.....

Friend Of The 17
Kevin Gullette

But I make my 17 Rem cases out of 204 Ruger brass. It's far cheaper anf better, IMO.

Buy it, 500 pieces for $165.
http://www.gifts.com/products/Cabelas/Remington-Unprime...p%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8

The 17 Rem case is made from a sheet of brass, not from another cartridge.



Bruce