Home Main Category General Firearms

.22 magnum and a .17 HMR Revolvers, Opinions please

robert38-55robert38-55 Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
I might have good chance of getting either a .22 mag. or a .17HMR revolver in the very near future. I am leaning toward the .17. Noticed that I didnot post .22 mag. vs .17. I know they are two different calibers with two different chararistics and two different performance figures. What I was wondering if anyone here has had any experience with the .17HMR revolver and if ya liked it or not. I had a .22/.22mag. Ruger several years ago so I know what that revolver is like. I am thinking that the little .17HMR might be a good plinker like the .22mag. What say ya'll?
"It is what it is":usa:

Replies

  • WeatherbyWeatherby Posts: 4,953 Senior Member
    I love my 17 in a rifle but for just a plinker get a .regular .22 sooo much cheaper on ammo
  • BigDanSBigDanS Posts: 6,992 Senior Member
    .17 hmr is almost the cost of shooting 9mm...
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
  • shootershooter Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    BigDanS wrote: »
    .17 hmr is almost the cost of shooting 9mm...
    I agree.:that:

    As has been stated, it would be an expensive "plinker". I've had my Colt New Frontier and Ruger Single-Six revolvers in 22 lr./22 mag. for over 25 years and have shot very few magnum rounds from either one. Reason? I can shoot 38 special or 9 mm for the same cost for plinking.

    If the model you're interested in is the Ruger Single-Six with scope rings (hunter?) then you could make a case for a good small game hunting package in 17 HMR or 22 mag. But you said plinking.

    With cast bullet reloads, my centerfire revolvers are cheaper to shoot than 22 mag. or 17 HMR rimfire.

    Just my 2 cents.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    I see the benefit of a .17 HMR rifle, and a handgun to match ONLY to share ammo. I think a revolver would lose a lot of the benefits of the .17 round, and I'm with Weatherby and BigDan that for a plinker a .22 Mag (and ESPECIALLY one with .22 LR capability) makes much more economic sense.

    Without the extra velocity of a longer barrel, I gotta imagine that a .22 would have more game-taking energy with the heavier bullet at handgun-type range, and the comparisons I've seen put a velocity from a .22 Mag revolver in the same class as a .22 LR rifle. FWIW.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Posts: 6,112 Senior Member
    If you want mainly a plinker, I wouldn't bother with the .22 WMR or the .17 HMR personally, though of the two .22 WMR would get the nod for cheaper ammo.

    I've got a Smith and Wesson 48-4 in .22 WMR that I like a lot, but again it's really not a plinker. Especially since out of the 8 3/8" barrel the rounds are pushed pretty fast, I consider it a small game gun.

    One side problem you might run into with the .22 WMR is dirty/unburned powder gumming up the revolver pretty quick. I have shells start to stick after only about 3 cylinders full in my 48.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Thanks fellows. Thats some good insight!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • BigslugBigslug Posts: 9,863 Senior Member
    Both are poor choices for a plinker due to ammo cost.

    The .17 is a decent rifle choice due to flat trajectory over its effective range and the precision with which it can be delivered from a rifle.

    The .22WMR is closer to what handguns are traditionally about - a largish mass of lead delivered at a moderate velocity over a relatively short range.

    They're both good HUNTING rounds, but choosing them to rid the world of soda cans will put you in the poor house.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • snake284snake284 Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Robert, if it's me, I'd get me a nice little 17 HMR Rifle if you're interested in a 17. But for a hand gun I'd get a 22LR Revolver of some flavor. The reason, it's been said already, economics. And it's more efficient in a hand gun. Like was said, a 17 is mostly about velocity and a hand gun will rob you of a big part of that velocity.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Robert, if it's me, I'd get me a nice little 17 HMR Rifle if you're interested in a 17. But for a hand gun I'd get a 22LR Revolver of some flavor. The reason, it's been said already, economics. And it's more efficient in a hand gun. Like was said, a 17 is mostly about velocity and a hand gun will rob you of a big part of that velocity.

    Once again thanks fellows for the input and thanks Snake for the opinion. I do have a .17HMR mosseberg bolt rifle/with scope,and I love that rifle. I got to admit fellows I didn't stop to consider the economics of the equation,or the velocity variable.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • rberglofrberglof Posts: 2,998 Senior Member
    Did a quick Google and looks like the 17gr HMR is about 400 fps faster then the 30gr 22 mag out of the single six 5.5' barrel.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement