i would like people with experience or related to give me the run down on the .17 (mach IV or close size) vs. the popular .223
i would ask you to disregard price, ease of loading, etc.
BASE YOUR JUDGEMENT ONLY ON PERFORMANCE AND RELATED ITEMS
thank you all and let the games begin :d
------------------ A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed !!
I have had pretty good luck with the .17 Rem on coyotes out to about 300 yards. Probably somewhere in the area of 100 or so taken with it. I have taken 4 Mule deer, 5 antelope, and one small bull elk with the Remington. All were one shot kills inside 150 yards. Most were head shots. The last deer I shot with one was hit at about 100m in both lungs. Took me 3 hours to find him dead. No blood trail at all. I think it is a great varmint round inside 300 yards. I have retired it as a big game round.
The serious coyote hunters seem to really like the 17's, the high velocity really dumps them, and the little bullets don't mess up the hide.
I shot a buddies 17 jet, pretty similar to a mack IV, recoil is non existant, and the 4000 fps at the muzzle is pretty impressive.
The 223 is a better choice past 200 yds, and is an amazingly versitile round. While the 17 is neat, and good for specific applications, I would go with the 223.
Posts: 7213 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 27 February 2001
Wildcat If you really want to know everything possible about 17's go to www.coyotegods.com. They have a few guys over there that really know their stuff.
------------------ Safety & Ethics,Accuracy, Velocity, Energy Joe M
Ol' Sarge is right. Having had both in a Contender I can assure you nothing is more fun than both. Can you ever have enough toys? As to effectiveness, every ctg. has it's limitations, usually they are not as great as those of the shooter.
------------------ If Elmer didn't say it, it probably ain't true.
I have become a .20 cal. convert. I've owned a ton of .17s---couple Mach IVs, couple Javelinas, .17 VLD, .17 Rem., etc. There is nothing wrong with .17s, but I like the way the .20 splits the difference. The Tactical .20 (based on .223 case) will launch a 33 grain Hornady VMAX to 4300 fps in the right gun. The only drawback of the twenty is not enough bullet manufacturers. I believe that problem is going to be relieved over time because the .20s are becoming so popular.
I like the .17 Remington over the .223 for a couple of reasons. Recoil is so low on the .17's that you can spot your impacts - watch the action unfold in the scope. The noise level is low, although not much difference between the .223 and .17 rem. And the trajectory is extremely flat out to 300 yards.
The .17 VLD is a .17 on the .223 case that has a near straight taper and sharper neck. It was designed by Todd Kindler to shoot the fast twist barrels and the VLD bullets (37 grain Very Low Drag).
The post from Id somwhat bother me as I live in Co and we have a min bullet for big game hunting and it is not a 17 cal. I own a 17 Rem, 17machiv, 223, 223AI and afew 222. If the wind is not a factor the 17's are fun to shoot. If your looking for a rifle to shoot in most conditions I would say go with the 223. I always take a back up rifle when I take a 17. As to loading I use Wilson and Neil Jones dies and I try hard not to work the brass too much. If I had to choose between a 17 Rem, 223 or a 222 I would go with a 222. Over the years I've shot a 17/223 and a 17/222 and the biggest problem I have now with the 17 is the bullets . You just cann't walk in a buy a box of 17 cal bullets. Everything is special order. Well good luck!
Posts: 1098 | Location: usa | Registered: 16 March 2001
I have to vote for the 223. It will do everything the .17 can and more, its more stable wind wise, better bullet selection, recoil is not a factor on either one but you can get componets for the 223 anywhere.
