which is better.... 17hmr or .22....

glockguy · Mar 27, 2011

ok so i know this is most likely a really dumb question, but which is better... .22 or 17hmr? iv never owned either caliber and was thinking about getting one of the 2.... my buddy has a 17hmr and its a pretty sweet lil gun....

TimW · Mar 27, 2011

If you're comparing it to a .22 long rifle there is no comparison. If you're comparing it to the .22 mag the .17HMR is still the better choice in my opinion. Flatter and more devastating effects on targets.

elsie · Mar 27, 2011

I've shot 22 for many years (first firearm I bought). They're ubiquitous, cheap to shoot and lots of fun (or used to be when there was open territory to shoot them). You can also get them in semi-auto, which 17HMR seems to have a problem with. I picked up a Savage 17HMR a couple of years ago, mainly for sage rat shooting, and they are just as much fun to shoot as the 22. Ammo is more expensive - on par with 22 Mag ammo which makes sense because it's basically a necked-down 22 Mag. Shoots flat and accurate. I don't think you can go wrong with either one and the best solution is to get both.

elsie

buick455 · Mar 27, 2011

the great thing about the .17 hmr is ammo consistency because no matter what the box says its made in the same factory......... at least that's the way it was a year or so ago.

The Cheese · Mar 27, 2011

really this is kind of an apples to oranges thing. 22 is great cause ammo is cheap, the guns can be cheap and easy to find. 17 is a decent flat shooting round and guns are a slightly more expensive, ammo is a more as well. They can be used for the same things, but 22 wins if you just like to shoot a lot and do so on the cheap. Everyone should own at least 1 if not 5 22lr guns. 17hmr is one of those optional things IMO. I figure if I can't reload the ammo then it better be cheap.

speelyei · Mar 27, 2011

"Better" would be the operative word.

A comparative ballistics chart would show that the .17hmr has a much flatter trajectory. A shopping trip would show that the .22lr is much cheaper. It depends on what your goal is.

Personally, I am in the .22 camp. The price is right, and I use mine for plinking, target shooting, minor pest control, and as a trainer for my .308. If I want to build my self esteem and shoot little groups, I shoot from 25yds or 50 yds. If I want a challenge, I shoot plastic army men or golf balls from 100yds or 125 yds.

rimfirecentral.com has a lot of info if you want to wade through some posts.

As far as purchasing a .22 rifle, there are a lot of choices. You could buy a $2k biathlon or competition rifle, or a sub $100 semi-auto. Any action, any sight configuration, old or new...

By far, the ultimate add-on-barbie accessory .22 is the Ruger 10/22. People love to modify these and reconfigure their rifles. The amount of add on paraphenalia for these outstrips the AR by miles. You could also find a "military trainer". These are nifty robust rifles with some history, and you can still find them for around $100. Unfortunately, they have become collectible, which means often the price paid for them eclipses the fun of ownership, at least for the working stiff.

I don't think the .17hmr is a very old caliber. I don't remember seeing it in the 90's. Maybe it existed, but the point is, there are billions of old .22 rifles, I think the .17's are all much newer.

Another factor with a .22... sorting bulk ammo by weight is an excercise in futility. Apparently, the way to sort bulk ammo (if you wanted to) to eliminate duds and fliers is with a rim gauge that measures the thickness of the base, where the priming compound is.

PDXSparky · Mar 27, 2011

I agree, "Better" is subjective based upon individual wants/needs.

I'd get another Ruger 10/22 at Bi-Mart, on sale this week for $169.97 and a box of 500 rounds for $14.97 The 25 round Butler Creek magazines aren't on sale this week, so you'll have to wait for those.

mjbskwim · Mar 27, 2011

Two completely different rounds.
But the 22lr is much better cause it's much cheaper to shoot
Since that's the only thing to consider between the two.
I don't really think the 22 mag compares very well,as the 17 flies much faster.
But I love the 22mag and think the next smart move is to the 223. Doesn't cost too much more and it actually carries some energy

teflon6string · Mar 27, 2011

Hmmmm... What are you shooting?

Need just a little more swat on target? 17hmr it is. Need a lot more swats, cheap? .22 all day long.

HollisOR · Mar 28, 2011

PDXSparky said:
I agree, "Better" is subjective based upon individual wants/needs.

I'd get another Ruger 10/22 at Bi-Mart, on sale this week for $169.97 and a box of 500 rounds for $14.97 The 25 round Butler Creek magazines aren't on sale this week, so you'll have to wait for those.

2x, or buy both. All firearms are great at putting holes in paper effectively well. Sometimes the only real way to know, is to own it, use it and see if it is what you want. Sometimes fun is a very big factor.

Spitpatch · Apr 3, 2011

"the great thing about the .17 hmr is ammo consistency because no matter what the box says its made in the same factory......... at least that's the way it was a year or so ago."

Having spent the last 4 months playing with my first .17, I know this is the "general opinon", but my chronograph and accuracy testing definitively say otherwise.

For a man that has no rimfires, I would not hesitate to recommend a .22lr. Cheap, accurate, and ammunition that can run from crappy to supreme quality, depending on price.

The .17 suffers greatly from a general lack of quality in the ammunition offerings currently available. All is mediocre, but NOT all is the same.

I believe there will never be a day when match-quality .17 ammo is offered. The expense would be too great, and the market share would be very small. Long Rifle ammo can be had in any degree of quality, power or bullet style the heart desires. Even birdshot for snakes and rats. By far the better choice for a first rimfire.

salmonriverjohn · Apr 4, 2011

I'll stick with my .22 and .22 mag thank you. The .17 I had was just to much buck for the bang to justify the extensive shooting that I love to do. I still load and shoot the little .22 Hornet though, now there's a little critter that really goes BANG!
It all comes down to personal choice and thats just mine.

009 · Apr 4, 2011

well said.. .22lr,s/.223/7.62x39 are my pref. on the cheap rifle side.

rusobr2 · Apr 4, 2011

i have the 22 mag , and also the 22 lr--i shoot alot with a friend that swears by the 17--it is a little flatter , my 22 mag with 36 gr. is very flat--ammo about the same price as 17--when i first pick up the 22 mag (rug. 96/22m) i sited it in at 50 then moved to 75, and shot just a hair high--wow! thats where it hit (high)took aother shot at point and right on--then moved out to 125 "bingo" still right on ! my budy with the 17 and just a touch of wind had groups all over--the 17 is just what it says (about 17 gr bullit- some can be had at 20 gr.)at about 2400 ft per sec. knock down is less---the 22 mag is anywhere from 30 gr. to 42 gr. with 1800 to 2100 ft per sec. depd. with a **** of a knock down ! my 22lr i use for plinking and having a lot of fun on cheap ammo ! when we go out for sage rats and yotes i use the mag or one of my sk's--ammo again falls into play here 7.62x39 avg. 5.00 for 20,and cci 22m - 11.00 for 50,but the sk's more fun by a long shot w/ great knock down !!

my thoughts only ...steven

sandman1212 · Apr 4, 2011

I have both a few .22 and a 17 HMR. Both are great for what they are made for, there is just not comparing the two side by side. I get more use out of the .22's from training and just fun as I ever will the 17 HMR. there is just more options, cheaper to shoot and just plain fun. You can shoot 7x as much .22 for the same amount.
my opinion...get a .22 and practice and then a .17...you may find you don't need a 17 HMR for your intended purpose.