Why do some people form .17 Rem brass from other brass? What is wrong with the Remington brass? I know it's not Laupa, but is it really worth taking .222 Win or some such case and necking it down ?
.17Rem. Brass Question
- Thread starter dimecovers3
- Start date
Steve--Using .222 Remington Magnum brass and even .204 Ruger brass for forming into .17 Remington can be very beneficial for shooters who have a chamber that has a very "generous" neck diameter. When fired casings come out of my .17 Rem Lilja chamber, the OD of the necks measures .201". My rough guesstimate of the actual neck diameter of the chamber would be .202", with about .001" of springback once the casing is fired. My loaded rounds in .17 Remington brass measure from .1935" to .194" OD, depending on what lot the brass is from. Subtracting .194" from a chamber neck diameter of .202" gives .008" difference or .004" of "slop" per side.
I would like that total difference to be more in the .0025" to .003" range, but .0035" to .004" may have to be acceptable.
So, when I form .17 Rem brass from .222 Remington Magnum brass I use a Redding #1 Form die in the first step. Step #2 has me using a Redding .17 Remington Trim die, and as my final step, I use my RCBS .17 Remington full length die to set the shoulder where I need it and to size the neck to near final diameter. When I finish forming the brass, the neck walls are thick enough so I can turn them to approximately .012" wall thickness with an OD of about .196" When I seat a bullet in those casings, I wind up with with brass with the that measures .198" OD. Right about where I want it to be.
With Winchester Western .204 Ruger brass, I use the same two form dies and FL sizing die, but wind up with case neck walls that are from about .0123" to .0133" thick. I turn the necks so they are .012" thick. The casing neck OD with a bullet seated measures .198".
Forming the Winchester Western .204 Ruger casings for the .17 Remington is quite a bit easier than forming the .222 Remington Magnum casings down to .17 Remington in my experience. I lose a few more casings to crumbled shoulders, etc. with the .222 Rem Mag brass and hardly have any "mishaps" with the .204 Ruger brass. Maybe, if I annealed the necks on the .222 Rem Mag brass, I might have fewer "mishaps", but I don't have any of the equipment necessary to anneal my brass.
My new .17 Remington project will have a chamber cut that has a .194" neck, .010" freebore, and 1.5º leade. Right now, I am turning the necks on once-fired .17 Remington brass to approximately .0098" in thickness and my loaded rounds measure .192" OD. I will try forming a few rounds of WW .204 Ruger brass for this new chamber to see how they work in this new rifle.
I really do not mind going through all the work of forming brass from either the .222 Rem Mag brass or the .204 Ruger brass, but will probably stick with the .204 Ruger brass in the future. I do have somewhere around 250 brand new .222 Remington Magnum casings that I bought to form into .204 Ruger brass, but I may just sell the .222 Rem Mag casing???? I do have some spare time on my hands and really enjoy crafting these casings. Hopefully, the accuracy that "might" result from my efforts will bring an extremely large smile to my face.
Edited on 1-2-2006 because I had some decimal places wrong on the neck wall thicknesses. I was using .00122", .00123", and .00133" and meant to type .0122", .0123", and .0133"--SORRY ABOUT THAT! My head was not too clear when typing that stuff.
I would like that total difference to be more in the .0025" to .003" range, but .0035" to .004" may have to be acceptable.
So, when I form .17 Rem brass from .222 Remington Magnum brass I use a Redding #1 Form die in the first step. Step #2 has me using a Redding .17 Remington Trim die, and as my final step, I use my RCBS .17 Remington full length die to set the shoulder where I need it and to size the neck to near final diameter. When I finish forming the brass, the neck walls are thick enough so I can turn them to approximately .012" wall thickness with an OD of about .196" When I seat a bullet in those casings, I wind up with with brass with the that measures .198" OD. Right about where I want it to be.
With Winchester Western .204 Ruger brass, I use the same two form dies and FL sizing die, but wind up with case neck walls that are from about .0123" to .0133" thick. I turn the necks so they are .012" thick. The casing neck OD with a bullet seated measures .198".
Forming the Winchester Western .204 Ruger casings for the .17 Remington is quite a bit easier than forming the .222 Remington Magnum casings down to .17 Remington in my experience. I lose a few more casings to crumbled shoulders, etc. with the .222 Rem Mag brass and hardly have any "mishaps" with the .204 Ruger brass. Maybe, if I annealed the necks on the .222 Rem Mag brass, I might have fewer "mishaps", but I don't have any of the equipment necessary to anneal my brass.
My new .17 Remington project will have a chamber cut that has a .194" neck, .010" freebore, and 1.5º leade. Right now, I am turning the necks on once-fired .17 Remington brass to approximately .0098" in thickness and my loaded rounds measure .192" OD. I will try forming a few rounds of WW .204 Ruger brass for this new chamber to see how they work in this new rifle.
I really do not mind going through all the work of forming brass from either the .222 Rem Mag brass or the .204 Ruger brass, but will probably stick with the .204 Ruger brass in the future. I do have somewhere around 250 brand new .222 Remington Magnum casings that I bought to form into .204 Ruger brass, but I may just sell the .222 Rem Mag casing???? I do have some spare time on my hands and really enjoy crafting these casings. Hopefully, the accuracy that "might" result from my efforts will bring an extremely large smile to my face.
Edited on 1-2-2006 because I had some decimal places wrong on the neck wall thicknesses. I was using .00122", .00123", and .00133" and meant to type .0122", .0123", and .0133"--SORRY ABOUT THAT! My head was not too clear when typing that stuff.
SilverFox,
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. The more I learn about accuracy in rifles and loads, the more I learn that I don't know. I'm afraid to ask you a couple of questions because I think it shows your explanation is over my head, but here goes: why was the chamber cut so "generous" the first time?,was that deliberate?) and why will your new project's chamber not be cut to use the Rem. 17 brass now that you know what size it loads to rather than go through the trouble of getting the .204 to fit? I guess I'm still not getting it....?
Steve
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. The more I learn about accuracy in rifles and loads, the more I learn that I don't know. I'm afraid to ask you a couple of questions because I think it shows your explanation is over my head, but here goes: why was the chamber cut so "generous" the first time?,was that deliberate?) and why will your new project's chamber not be cut to use the Rem. 17 brass now that you know what size it loads to rather than go through the trouble of getting the .204 to fit? I guess I'm still not getting it....?
Steve
Steve--Do not be afraid to ask questions, no matter how simple you think they might be. If you don't understand something, you need to ask questions to get it cleared up, so don't apologize for asking questions.
I had my Lilja barrel set back and rechambered because of excessive throat erosion. Unfortunately, I didn't specify what neck diameter, etc., that I wanted when I had the barrel rechambered and my gunsmith just rechambered it with a reamer he had on hand that had a "generous" neck, but was probably well within the SAAMI specs. ,Live and learn!!!)
My new .17 Rem project rifle's chamber is cut so I will be using standard .17 Remington brass, but I will have to turn the necks on it a wee bit. One reason one might want to use the WW .204 Ruger brass and form it to .17 Remington is based on brass quality. Remington is the only company that manufactures .17 Remington brass. Some shooters find the quality of Remington brass to be lacking. Sometimes the WW brass is of better quality than the Remington brass and if I find that to be true a majority of the time, I at least have the option now, of forming WW .204 Ruger brass into .17 Remington brass for my new rifle.
I hope these answers help clear up some of the questions you had. If not, please fire away with additional questions so we can get this cleared up to your satisfaction.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
I had my Lilja barrel set back and rechambered because of excessive throat erosion. Unfortunately, I didn't specify what neck diameter, etc., that I wanted when I had the barrel rechambered and my gunsmith just rechambered it with a reamer he had on hand that had a "generous" neck, but was probably well within the SAAMI specs. ,Live and learn!!!)
My new .17 Rem project rifle's chamber is cut so I will be using standard .17 Remington brass, but I will have to turn the necks on it a wee bit. One reason one might want to use the WW .204 Ruger brass and form it to .17 Remington is based on brass quality. Remington is the only company that manufactures .17 Remington brass. Some shooters find the quality of Remington brass to be lacking. Sometimes the WW brass is of better quality than the Remington brass and if I find that to be true a majority of the time, I at least have the option now, of forming WW .204 Ruger brass into .17 Remington brass for my new rifle.
I hope these answers help clear up some of the questions you had. If not, please fire away with additional questions so we can get this cleared up to your satisfaction.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Silverfox,
It all makes sense now. I'm glad I asked. I plan to have a Rem. 17 built as a light carry calling rifle for 'yotes and Bobcat mostly. I have read the .17 with a 25 gr. Berger is a great round up close and is the best for not causing pelt damage. I also like the idea of seeing my shot through the scope. I am about to go through with it, but wonder if I will regret my caliber selection. I was almost for sure going with a Tac 20 because I thought it fit the bill and Lapau has brass out for it now through Dakota, but I started reading more about the .17 for fur hunters. It,the Tac 20) may be too much recoil to see my shots and too hard on pelts. I really want both,lol,lol). I figure I'll research this .17 and try to get it right for me and after using it awhile, I can refine what I like into a Tac 20 that's a little heavier for woodchucks that is even more suited for me. The more I hunt big game and birds, the less gun I use and the more game I kill. Seems to be a natural progression to start out over gunned and to come full circle into using something lighter and more enjoyable to shoot. Websites like this one are fantastic for helping the learning curve. Thanks for all the help.
Merry Christmas
Steve
It all makes sense now. I'm glad I asked. I plan to have a Rem. 17 built as a light carry calling rifle for 'yotes and Bobcat mostly. I have read the .17 with a 25 gr. Berger is a great round up close and is the best for not causing pelt damage. I also like the idea of seeing my shot through the scope. I am about to go through with it, but wonder if I will regret my caliber selection. I was almost for sure going with a Tac 20 because I thought it fit the bill and Lapau has brass out for it now through Dakota, but I started reading more about the .17 for fur hunters. It,the Tac 20) may be too much recoil to see my shots and too hard on pelts. I really want both,lol,lol). I figure I'll research this .17 and try to get it right for me and after using it awhile, I can refine what I like into a Tac 20 that's a little heavier for woodchucks that is even more suited for me. The more I hunt big game and birds, the less gun I use and the more game I kill. Seems to be a natural progression to start out over gunned and to come full circle into using something lighter and more enjoyable to shoot. Websites like this one are fantastic for helping the learning curve. Thanks for all the help.
Merry Christmas
Steve
Steve--The .17 Remington and either the 25 gr. Berger or 30 gr. Starke, Kindler Gold, or maybe the 30 gr. Berger would also be quite appropriate for coyotes, especially. I use the 30 gr. Starke bullet as my coyote load for my .17 Remington. Muzzle velocity is 3,900 fps and it is easy on fur, but hard on the coyote population. The bullets mentioned above are not just good for close range shooting, but work quite well out to 250 yards and with good bullet placement they work beyond the 250 yard mark as well.
I have a Savage 12VLP in .204 Ruger that I use as my primary coyote rifle now. I have not shot a Tac 20, but I don't think the recoil of the Tac 20 is much different than that of the .204 Ruger and I can witness my hits on coyote, prairie dogs, etc. in the scope because the recoil is quite light. The recoil is only slightly more than with the .17 Remington. Keep in mind though, that my 12VLP weighs 10 pounds for just the rifle. Your light carry calling rifle will have more of a tendency to cause you to lose the sight picture with the .204 Ruger or Tac 20, but I would think you might still be able to witness the hits. The Tac 20 certainly has the cream of the crop to choose from when it comes to brass availability.
As for bullets for the .204 caliber rifles that are fur friendly, I happen to think that the 35 gr. FB HP Berger bullet fits that bill quite nicely. Quite a number of .204 Ruger and Tac 20 shooters have been giving rave reviews of their experiences with the 35 gr. FB HP Berger bullets for saving fur and putting coyotes down for the count.
You have a tough choice to make when choosing between the .17 Remington and the .204 calibers that are available to you today. I think your best bet would be to get one of each!!!
I really enjoy shooting both my .17 Remington and my .204 Ruger. The 39 gr. Sierra BlitzKing bullets are excellent for prairie dogs as they have an extremely high BC and they fight the wind extremely well. They are a pleasure to shoot up here in North Dakota where we do have quite a bit of wind when prairie doggin'. I do use the 20 gr. V-Max for prairie dogs and will be using the new 25 gr. V-Max for prairie dogs, now that Hornady began making them available late this past summer. They have a better BC than the 20 gr. V-Max and are better suited to my wind conditions. That will be one of my primary bullets for the new .17 Rem I am building. I am also going to give some of the 30 gr. custom bullets a try in this new .17 Rem.
Anyway, you have an interesting dilemma. Let us know what you choose to do. I'll be looking for your posts on what decision your research has led you to.
I have a Savage 12VLP in .204 Ruger that I use as my primary coyote rifle now. I have not shot a Tac 20, but I don't think the recoil of the Tac 20 is much different than that of the .204 Ruger and I can witness my hits on coyote, prairie dogs, etc. in the scope because the recoil is quite light. The recoil is only slightly more than with the .17 Remington. Keep in mind though, that my 12VLP weighs 10 pounds for just the rifle. Your light carry calling rifle will have more of a tendency to cause you to lose the sight picture with the .204 Ruger or Tac 20, but I would think you might still be able to witness the hits. The Tac 20 certainly has the cream of the crop to choose from when it comes to brass availability.
As for bullets for the .204 caliber rifles that are fur friendly, I happen to think that the 35 gr. FB HP Berger bullet fits that bill quite nicely. Quite a number of .204 Ruger and Tac 20 shooters have been giving rave reviews of their experiences with the 35 gr. FB HP Berger bullets for saving fur and putting coyotes down for the count.
You have a tough choice to make when choosing between the .17 Remington and the .204 calibers that are available to you today. I think your best bet would be to get one of each!!!
I really enjoy shooting both my .17 Remington and my .204 Ruger. The 39 gr. Sierra BlitzKing bullets are excellent for prairie dogs as they have an extremely high BC and they fight the wind extremely well. They are a pleasure to shoot up here in North Dakota where we do have quite a bit of wind when prairie doggin'. I do use the 20 gr. V-Max for prairie dogs and will be using the new 25 gr. V-Max for prairie dogs, now that Hornady began making them available late this past summer. They have a better BC than the 20 gr. V-Max and are better suited to my wind conditions. That will be one of my primary bullets for the new .17 Rem I am building. I am also going to give some of the 30 gr. custom bullets a try in this new .17 Rem.
Anyway, you have an interesting dilemma. Let us know what you choose to do. I'll be looking for your posts on what decision your research has led you to.
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.
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.