| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .17 HMR article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Intro revamp
Several superfluous statements in the intro paragraph. The cost of ammunition is not only subjective and fluid, but relative to a host of factors - any comment regarding its relative expense is an opinion / hearsay, and does not belong in an informative article. Secondly the short statement "it is descended form the .22 magnum" is also superfluous because the very next statement describes its creation by necking down a .22 magnum. mr.trooper
Chronograph results
Why is there a paragraph called "Chronograph results" under the see also section? It looks like someone just pasted it in there randomly. There is also nothing to back up the statements. That info needs to be deleted or verified and included in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.245.113 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a question
Is it safe to use .17HMR in a .22WMR revolver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.149.121 (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. It would fit, and fire, but the case would fail and possibly lodge the undersized bullet and/or case fragments in the chamber or barrel. This could seize up the cylinder, preventing the gun from working, or block the barrel and cause a very dangerous overpressure situation if a subsequent round is fired. Because of this, .17 HMR and .22 Mag ammunition should be stored separately to prevent accidental mixing. scot (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a stretch, how will an undersized bullet .172" jam in a .224 bore? Maybe we should include such a warning on this page because that's a pretty common misconception at my firing range, and I tried one and it worked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.149.121 (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- "It worked" is a pretty presumptive statement. I'm quite sure the bullet went out the barrel sideways and tumbled off in some random direction, and that you blew out the case mouth and may well have split the case as well, and you probably didn't develop enough pressure to cause the case to seal the rear of the cylinder, which means you could get gas blow-by (a much bigger issue in other action types). Search the web for "excessive headspace" and look at some of the things that can happen, and keep in mind that with the .17 HMR in a .22 WMR chamber the headspace was not just excessive, it was infinite...
- The problem with posting a warning here (besides the general issue of Misplaced Pages disclaimer policy) is that I'm quite certain the firearm manufacturer already tells you quite explicitly to ONLY use ammunition marked as .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire; even if it was made long before .17 HMR, it is also unsafe to fire straight walled .22 Short, Long, and Long Rifle ammunition out of the tapered .22 WMR chamber, as the case will fail and split lengthwise in the oversized chamber, resulting in gas blow-by past the breach. There are hundreds if not thousands of unsafe combinations of mis-matched ammunition and chambers; see http://saami.org/Unsafe_Combinations.cfm for a very short list (and out of date because it doesn't list the .17 rimfires). There are many more than that however; many wildcat cartridges are made by shortening and/or reducing the bullet diameter of another cartridge, exactly as the .17 HMR was made by necking down a .22 WMR, and the wildcat will often fit in the parent cartridge's chamber and may even be convinced to fire. This is especially true of rimmed cartridges and rimless cartridges chambered in controlled-feed actions, like the Mauser bolt action. There are also exceptions to the SAAMI ruling, for example, 5.56x45mm ammo, which is loaded to a higher pressure than .223 Remington, should in general not be fired in guns marked .223 Remington, but it can be fired in some, such as the Ruger Mini-14, if the manufacturer explicitly allows it. There was an odd revolver some years back (the Medusa, as I recall) that used a deliberately oversized chamber and a flexible extractor, and would fire any .355/.357 straight walled cartridge of .357 Magnum or less length, including rimless cartridges like 9x19mm, .380 Auto (when asked at the Shot Show, the manufacturer dodged the question of "What does it do to the brass?", because, looking at the chamber design, I'm sure the answer is "Mangles it beyond re-use"). And, just to toss some more oddball stuff in the mix, at one point you can buy specially chambered .19 caliber barrels for .22 LR rifles (http://ct-precision.com/ used to make them), and fire standard .22 LR ammo out of them. The throat is cut long, and tapers from .22 down to .19, swaging the bullet into a .19 caliber projectile and upping the chamber pressure for a higher velocity. So for just about every rule there's a special exception, though no one recommends firing a sub-caliber bullet, because the lack of bore seal means no velocity, and no accuracy.
- Adding a warning to all ammunition and/or firearms related articles probably isn't practical. If you think it should be done, however, post a comment to WT:GUNS, and let the Misplaced Pages firearms group discuss it. scot (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I found this on Hornady's Website. http://www.hornady.com/in-the-news/latest-news/17-hmr-notice I wondered if it had been included in the Wiki page for the 17HMR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.130.169 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that "warning" on the main article is appropriate. Besides, any safety issues would be with individual firearms, not necessarily intrinsic of the round itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.254.181 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ideas todo
Ideas on todos: typical usage of this cartridge, mention that it's likely to render .22 mag obsolete (if a source can be found). Friday (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Probably a bad idea, considering that the .22 mag continues to sell. Arthurrh 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely. .22 magnum offers a round with a similar velocity and greater muzzle energy. .17HMR is an intermediary between .22LR and .22 magnum. In most cases, .22 magnum remains the superior round.SkizitJNM (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This article now fails to mention the new ammo that comes in 22 magnum with ballistic tips and the performance up to 2250 feet per second with a low thirty weight bullet... Kind of takes the advantages and disadvantages apart now. Look at Hornady, or CCI to get some info. Msjayhawk (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Quoting 'improved or better BC' differences are small enough to make no discernible difference in the field' Less 'Ricochet' is due to bullet break up due to its SPEED not size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chockmoose (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
WPMILHIST tag
The WPMILHIST tag has been removed due to this caliber not being military related.--Oldwildbill 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Semi-autos
What about the .17 HMR makes it unsafe in semi-autos? Neither the article nor the citations explain that. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
A notable explanation to your question is the Remington M597 .17 HMR semi-auto rifle that was built, sold, and then subsequently (and some would argue unfairly) recalled. The rifle was prone to rounds being ejected out of battery before the bullet had progressed down the barrel and gas pressure inside the barrel reached a safe level. This caused the necked-down brass case of the .17 HMR to start expanding before it fully ejected from breech, and led to the brass casing exploding inside of the rifle before extraction and ejection was completed. This potentially ruined the rifles that this happened in, and caused an obvious safety concern to the person holding the weapon when this detonation of the cartridge occurred. Some owners of the rifles that failed reported injuries due to the magazine well erupting, and the magazine and subsequent rounds being destroyed and violently ejected into their arms, etc. Other reported injuries included lacerations and other similar injuries. The "unfairly" recalled portion of the Remington M597 rifle that was recalled has nothing to do with the ammunition or the rifle itself. Some customers considered the recall unfair because initially, Remington offered a $250 buy-back credit for each rifle under their self-imposed recall. Several people payed significantly more than $250 for the rifle when they bought it new, and filed a class-action lawsuit to sue Remington and force them to refund the full cost of what they payed for the rifle (for instance, some customers were charged $450 for the rifle when it was sold new, and felt that the $250 refund still left them at a loss of $200 after the refund from Remington occurred). Remington later modified their recall and offered a replacement rifle, although it was bolt-action, and typically sold for less money than the M597 was offered for. This was seen by some as satisfactory, and others as still not a "100% refund" of the loss acquired by purchasing and returning the M597 for a "lesser expensive" rifle.
The reality is that the design of the .17 HMR round (although excellent in fixed, bolt-action usage) is not a good candidate for a blow-back semi-auto design. The case head angles and shortness of the casing itself does not lend itself to proper and safe performance in most blow-back design semi-auto rifle. The higher-velocity ejection of gunpowder gases through the shorter necked-down design of the casing causes the casing to want to release from battery sooner than a 22LR, 22WMR, or similar cartridge (in the case of the Remington M597). The overpressure that is happening during this movement causes too much strain on the walls of the brass casing while the casing is ejecting, and is no longer being supported by the steel of the barrel, leading to failure and risk of explosion.
Ruger designed a rifle that was based off of the 10/22 model, and was advertised and scheduled for public sale, but it was canceled shortly before the release date for public sale due to similar reliability and safety concerns. Magnum Research has sold semi-auto rifles chambered in .17 HMR, but they are somewhat expensive compared to other .17 HMR bolt-action offerings from other popular companies. There are several well-known companies and other aftermarket companies that offer .17 HMR "conversion" kits, that will convert a 10/22 or similar semi-auto rifles into a .17 HMR platform, but the popularity is somewhat mild.
Bottom line, due to the engineering design of the .17 HMR cartridge itself, it is POSSIBLE to create a .17 HMR semi-auto rifle to funtion correctly. However, due to manufacturing variance and quality concerns, most popular firearm manufacturers have shied away from mass producing a semi-auto rifle chambered in .17 HMR, due to the extremely high quality control tolerances that would be needed in their facilities to be able to consistently manufacture a complete weapon and gaurantee it's overall safety for every weapon. Let's face it, these days people will sue companies over anything, and you can never gaurentee every product that goes out the door will not fail. For all of these reasons, it just makes the major manufacturers hesitant to produce a semi-auto weapon for this particular cartridge. The problem does not lie with the .17 HMR ammunition itself (in reality, the .17 HMR cartridges are probably one of the most consistent and highest-quality rounds when it comes to mass production in the factories), the problem lies in the fact that it was never really engineered to be a semi-auto cartridge in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.205.170 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Reference #8, the first reference in the warning against use in semi-automatic firearms, is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.20.189 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
.17 HMR
I've added some things to the page. Talking about the ballistics of the .17 HMR cartridge and also comparing it to the commonly known 22 LR. I think this information will be helpful to the readers in the future.
Categories: