• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

.17 hornet, or .17 remington

B23 said:
Spot on and certainly heavy on the "BS" part but it's not exclusive to the 17's.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation, partial truths, or just flat out BS posted on these forums and people would be best served to do their own research because other than they are both 17 caliber there is really no comparison between the 17 Hornet and 17 Rem. To say there is only a, slight, difference in velocity and energy ft.lb between those two just shows the ignorance of the person claiming it because the velocity and energy difference as well as the trajectory between the 17 Hornet and 17 Rem. shooting the exact same bullet is significant.
Click to expand...
I did and here's the stats at 300 yards only , 17 rem, 242 ft lbs,3.3 in drop,velocity 2122, 17 hornet 200 ft lbs,2086 fps,drop 6in,factory loaded ammo, now I understand handloaders can exceed this.Based on these stats the 17 hornet wins for me,ammo availability,and shots at 300 yards max I call the stats on this example as slight.
 
ohlongarmisle said:
I did and here's the stats at 300 yards only , 17 rem, 242 ft lbs,3.3 in drop,velocity 2122, 17 hornet 200 ft lbs,2086 fps,drop 6in,factory loaded ammo, now I understand handloaders can exceed this.Based on these stats the 17 hornet wins for me,ammo availability,and shots at 300 yards max I call the stats on this example as slight.
Click to expand...
The problem is how you're comparing those numbers.

You reference factory ammo so we'll stick with that. Hornady 17 Hornet 20g ammo on the box claims 3650fps and a .185 BC Remington for their 17 Rem 20gr ammo lists same bullet but at 4250fps that's a difference of 600 FPS in velocity over the 17 Hornet.

The "drop" you reference is misleading because you're going off of what the box says and Hornady on that chart is using a 200yd zero which makes the trajectory look better. With a 100yd zero at 300yds the 17 Hornet drops 9.7 compared to the 17 Rem 6.3 which just looking at the numbers may not seem like a lot but that's a difference of 35%.

With regard to energy the 17 Hornet at muzzle is 592 ft.lb and 200 ft.lb at 300yds with impact velocity of 2122fps the 17 Rem muzzle is 802 ft.lb and 284 ft.lb at 300yds with impact velocity 2531. That's a difference of 42% which is a significant difference.

I'd be willing to bet anyone that does much shooting let alone precision shooting certainly wouldn't consider a 35% difference in trajectory and a 42% difference in energy as "slight".
 
When I was making this decision I Came across a 2nd hand 527 that was re-barreled to 17 FB. After the 17 FB I came across a good deal on a 17 HH. In Hind sight I did not care much for the rimmed Case & much prefer the 17 Fireball. 30 gr Bergers @ 3600 FPS has been impressive for me.

Old thread, In todays ammo situation the question may be 17HH or 204 Ruger. if you are a reloader I would opt for the 20 VT
 
B23 said:
The problem is how you're comparing those numbers.

You reference factory ammo so we'll stick with that. Hornady 17 Hornet 20g ammo on the box claims 3650fps and a .185 BC Remington for their 17 Rem 20gr ammo lists same bullet but at 4250fps that's a difference of 600 FPS in velocity over the 17 Hornet.

The "drop" you reference is misleading because you're going off of what the box says and Hornady on that chart is using a 200yd zero which makes the trajectory look better. With a 100yd zero at 300yds the 17 Hornet drops 9.7 compared to the 17 Rem 6.3 which just looking at the numbers may not seem like a lot but that's a difference of 35%.

With regard to energy the 17 Hornet at muzzle is 592 ft.lb and 200 ft.lb at 300yds with impact velocity of 2122fps the 17 Rem muzzle is 802 ft.lb and 284 ft.lb at 300yds with impact velocity 2531. That's a difference of 42% which is a significant difference.

I'd be willing to bet anyone that does much shooting let alone precision shooting certainly wouldn't consider a 35% difference in trajectory and a 42% difference in energy as "sli For now i'm a 17 hornet fan,300 yards in Ohio is a long shot,and it's performed flawlessly as I've posted hundreds of pics of victims here and other sites gh's coyote ,if 17 rem went to 1$ a round i might try one,as for shots over 300,rare,the 204 will handle it.
Click to expand...
 
I have a Vixen L46 that I rechambered in 20VT and it is very nice to handle, and then a few years later I came across a L461 in 17-222. Once you are comfortable forming brass then most of the cartridges no longer have much of a threshold to entry. Perhaps this is the main drawback for me on the Hornet cartridge... lack of available brass or ability to makes it.
 
Last edited:
bobcat93 said:
I've been thinking about getting another CZ 527 American.. I have the 221 fire ball and love it..I want one in .17 cal..and was looking more towards the .17 rem..would like your opinions..thanks
Click to expand...
Build a 17-223 . Easy to make. Just ask any Yote. Oh you can,t. Tommy Mc
 
swd said:
Do you mean the 17 Javelina? That case is a lot more work to make. The shoulder is pushed back and then cut down. Efficient, but a lot of work. A straight 17/222 would be a lot easier. If your worried about barrel life just shoot the 17 Rem and don't load it to max.
As far as the 204 doing everything better. Your only talking about 2" of wind drift at 400 yards. Anything less and they're pretty much ballistic twins.
Click to expand...
17 Javelina appeals to me. It seems to be about the perfect size case, if you don't consider the forming labor.

Danny
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oso
I think which of those two calibers you choose will depend on what you are using it for. If shooting high-volume ground squirrels or "sage rats", you want the Hornet. The barrel will far outlast the .17 Remington and you will not have to stop to let your barrel cool nearly as often. The brass is a bit cheaper - but not much - and can be hard to find at times - and same for the .17 Remington.

If you are only shooting at coyotes or ground hogs where you are not shooting high round count and want the most power- the .17 Reminton makes sense. The Hornet recoils noticeably less, allowing shots to be seen much better though the scope and will effectively whack squirrel-sized critters out to 350 yards +/- . Coyotes would be better inside 250 yards.

Another person suggested getting a .20 Practical. I have a .17 Hornet and love it - but I do most of my shooting with .20 Practical. Any .223 brass (always cheaply available somewhere) and bullets such as 32 and 40 V-Max, 39 Blitz King, etc. will do anything the .17's will do only better - and more cheaply (with exception of using twice as much powder). You won't have to clean your barrel as often and have more choices of barrel manufacturers. If you don't reload, the .17's will be more costly to shoot than a .204 Ruger or .223 Remington. The .17 Hornet is a bit quieter and safer with close neighbors as the tiny bullets don't carry after deformation very far.

edit; If not a reloader, the 204 Ruger is a good substitution for the .20 Practical. Easy to get brass right now and I think Starline is making it. There are inexpensive options now compared to prior times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
165,871
Messages
2,205,022
Members
79,174
Latest member
kit10n

Share This Page

Back
Top