.17 HMR rifle questions

[David Stewart]

I've always stuck with bolt actions. I'm more comfortable operating them (volumes said there) and so I go for the bolt on everything from my .22 rimfire for plinking on up to my Rem 700- 30.06 for deer. Speaking of which, for some bizarre reason I cannot ever remember needing a second shot on a deer in over 20 years of shooting..........I am well aware of the need for a second, third, fourth or even fifth shot as I often hear other deer hunters shooting that many times in the woods so for those guys, a large clip is necessary.

My .02,
David

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>(See Bullseye Bill's posts about records. Putting a shot like that on target at 2,000 + meters -- with any firearm, even with multiple shots -- is quite a feat. If those weapons couldn't shoot a sub-4" group at 1000 yards, I doubt they'd even try for a shot at distances approaching 1.5 miles.)

My point about records was totally lost, apparently. Carlos Hathcock's shot with a M2 50 cal machine gun was in his own words 'Just Luck'. He was sighting his gun in at a known stream crossing the day before and when he saw a VC stop and take a drink he squeezed the trigger. The VC stood up and caught a bullet, nothing more than luck, but still a confirmed kill.

The three Canadians were sniping at enemy forces that could not see or hear them and got lucky. They were plinking for a long time before they got lucky and hit one. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. The Barretts they are using will not shoot a sub 4" group, but when you have nothing to do all day but put lead in the air, why not fling some out there and see what falls out of the tree? They do it all the time.

Back on topic. There are actions and calibers that are just inherently more accurate than others and at different distances. Case in point, look at MB's match report, the vast majority of the guns are shooting 30 cal bullets although in different cartridges. They need large bullets going fast enough to make it to 1000 yards. They don't shoot anywhere as tight as a bolt action 50 BMG at that distance, but in their class, respectable groups. All of them are shooting bolt action rifles. A Barrett semi at that distance will be lucky to hit a man sized target, competitive hand loaders will get down to just under a foot groups. Semi auto 30 cal rifles don't have a chance against bolt action rifles at that distance even when the ammo is single fed.

Now at shorter distances you will see smaller bullets out shooting larger calibers. Real competitive shooters will shoot 6 BR, 6PPC, 22PPC, 22 Walldog, etc. at slower velocities and measure their groups way under .100. The only time I broke .093 was with a 6 BR. Higher velocity does not equal better accuracy. I have seen 308 shot at 1750 fps group under .200, when the same shooter was shooting at higher velocities (2750 fps), he was not able to group anywhere that tight, (mid .300's). .223 is another accurate caliber at less than maximum velocities, optimum speed is around 2750 fps. when max is around 3200 fps. depending on powder.

In the 17's, the only accurate 17 is the 17 Remington, but that is ill effected by wind at longer distances. Traveling at nearly 4000 fps it will literally vaporize small birds and varmints. High giggle factor. I never shot a 17 rim-fire that had any accuracy at 100 yards or beyond, and when a prairie rat is hit they just roll over, no fun. If you can't worship at the alter of the Red Mist, why bother?

My recommendation for Ben is to stay in the 22 cal range whether it is with a Long Rifle or with the .223 Rem. There are some very accurate bolts and autos in the Long Rifle for short distances, and definitely very accurate .223 in the bolt rifles for out there a ways.

Don't fall for that "fit and feel is more important than action" bull. You can't make a turd shoot no matter how well it fits and feels.

[Kieck]

Don't fall for that "fit and feel is more important than action" bull. You can't make a turd shoot no matter how well it fits and feels. -Bullseye Bill

Then why fall for the "bolt actions are inherently more accurate than autoloaders" line?

I have more practical experience comparing paintball guns than firearms, simply because I have played paintball professionally, have designed and built paintball guns, and have fired a much wider range of paintball guns than I have firearms.

Among paintball players, the mantra is "closed bolt is more accurate than open bolt." Closed bolts are the analogs of bolt actions, open bolts are the equivalents of autoloaders. In direct comparisons of the two, though, several factors make up the accuracy or lack of it.

1) Paint. The quality of the paintballs is paramount. If they ain't round (and I mean perfectly round), you won't hit where you're aiming.

2) Match of the paint to the barrel. The better the paintballs fit in the barrel (not too tight, not too loose), the more accurate the gun. This one is easy to compare in paintball guns because many of the barrels are interchangeable from one type of action to the other. The same lot of paintballs fired from the same barrel will be equally accurate whether fired from closed bolts or open bolts.

3) The consistency of the pressure (air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide) used to propel the paintball. Paintball players pay seriously big money for regulators to get very, very consistent velocities from shot to shot. Of course, the velocity is also affected by the roundness of the paintballs and how well they fit in the barrel, and those two factors play a bigger role than the consistency of the pressure coming through the regulators.

By the time you get past those three, "closed bolt versus open bolt" no longer matters, at least statistically. What DOES matter is how well the paintball gun fits the player, and how comfortable the player is shooting the paintball gun.

From my experience with traditional firearms, I see much the same pattern with factos affecting accuracy. First and foremost is perfection of the ammunition, both in the shape and protection of the bullet and in the consistency from round-to-round in the velocity. Then comes the barrel.

While the best bolt actions may be slightly more accurate than the best autoloaders, the difference will almost certainly be lost in the inaccuracies of the ammuntion and the barrel. Especially for all but the most serious of long-range, benchrest, competitive shooters.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>>Then why fall for the "bolt actions are inherently more accurate than autoloaders" line?

Because it is a basic truism.

>>I have more practical experience comparing paintball guns than firearms, simply because I have played paintball professionally, have designed and built paintball guns, and have fired a much wider range of paintball guns than I have firearms.

I am surprised that you have no grasp of the basics. Then again, I am really NOT surprised.

It is not possible to compare paintball toys to firearms when the ballistic coefficientcy of a bullet is compared to a paintball with almost no ballistic coefficientcy. I suppose you can make some vague generalities between paintball and handguns but it does not work against rifles.

>>Among paintball players, the mantra is "closed bolt is more accurate than open bolt." Closed bolts are the analogs of bolt actions, open bolts are the equivalents of auto-loaders. In direct comparisons of the two, though, several factors make up the accuracy or lack of it.

In sub-machine-guns you have open bolt and closed bolt, this has no bearing on rifles. Rifles can be highly accurate precision tools, what you are comparing are not. Handguns can never be as accurate as a rifle, there are some very serious hand-gunners out there and this is a broad statement, but rarely argued.


>>From my experience with traditional firearms, I see much the same pattern with factos affecting accuracy. First and foremost is perfection of the ammunition, both in the shape and protection of the bullet and in the consistency from round-to-round in the velocity. Then comes the barrel.

No matter how well designed the ammunition is it won't shoot out of a poor rifle. Given the same ammunition and same barrel, the bolt action will always shoot more accurately simply because, ( and this is as simple of an explanation as I can give you), because of the movement of the firearm while it is being fired.

Let me draw this out a little further so you won't be so confused. ANY movement of the firearm while the projectile is traveling down the barrel will effect the trajectory. A semi-auto action is moving, that effects the bullet. Harmonic vibration effects the bullet. The way the shooter mounts the weapon will effect the bullet. The way the rifle is bagged will effect the bullet. Even the heartbeat of the shooter will effect the bullet.

>>While the best bolt actions may be slightly more accurate than the best auto-loaders, the difference will almost certainly be lost in the inaccuracies of the ammuntion and the barrel. Especially for all but the most serious of long-range, benchrest, competitive shooters.

There is no 'slightly' about it. There is a reason why they don't allow bolt action guns to compete with semi-autos, the semi's wouldn't have a chance.

[Kieck]

I am surprised that you have no grasp of the basics. Then again, I am really NOT surprised. -Bullseye Bill

"No grasp of the basics?" Perhaps a better grasp than you realize. While I have no direct experience with gunsmithing, I do have friends who even make their own barrels. They worry considerably more about the barrels than the actions when they're considering accuracy.

. . . a paintball with almost no ballistic coefficientcy. -Bullseye Bill

HUH?!?! Look up "ballistic coefficient." While they differ, paintball do, indeed, have significant ballistics coefficients.

In fact, paintballers have played around with the effects of spin (such as backspin) to gain an advantage in range. That advantage is gained because the ballistic coefficient changes when the spin changes.

I suppose you can make some vague generalities between paintball and handguns but it does not work against rifles. -Bullseye Bill

Handguns, long rifles, shotguns, paintball guns, the laws of physics apply equally to all of them. "Rifles" are called "rifles" because of the rifling of the barrel. Many paintball gun barrels are similarly rifled -- either straight or spiral, again to change the ballistic coefficient of the projectile (paintball).

. . . paintball toys. . . . -Bullseye Bill

I know some guys in Wichita you should get in touch with. "Toys." No more than you .50 is a "toy," unless you're using it for a specific purpose.

If you're basing it on cost, many high-end paintball guns run well over $1000, plus at least $200 for a decent air system.

If you're basing it on lethality, I have a paintball gun that I occasionally shot marbles out of. I can get the velocity on it up over 1000 fps. A marble flying at 1000 fps can do some damage.

If you're basing it on "fun," they're no more toys than a target rifle is a toy.

In sub-machine-guns you have open bolt and closed bolt, this has no bearing on rifles. -Bullseye Bill

The terms are the same, but the concepts are different between sub-machine guns and paintball guns.

. . . what you are comparing are not. -Bullseye Bill

How do you know? Have you fired a highly accurate paintball gun? One that's been tuned and tweaked for accuracy, much like the rifles you're using as a comparison?

A semi-auto action is moving, that effects the bullet. Harmonic vibration effects the bullet. The way the shooter mounts the weapon will effect the bullet. The way the rifle is bagged will effect the bullet. Even the heartbeat of the shooter will effect the bullet. -Bullseye Bill

Right, but you forgot the biggest movement of them all! RECOIL! "For every action, an equal and opposite reaction occurs." Especially with heavy loads, the movement of a semi-automatic action pales in significance to the recoil of the entire firearm.

There is no 'slightly' about it. -Bullseye Bill

Oh, quit pulling my leg. Any "inherent inaccuracy" of a semi-auto action will be lost in the deviation among rounds. In other words, coming up with a statistical difference would be very, very difficult, if not impossible. Your ammunition would have to be precise, fired under precise condition, so that a completely fixed (not just benchrest) firearm would put all shots into a single hole. IF you could achieve that, then you might be able to test the differences between autoloaders and bolts.

In the real world, I still maintain that the type of action has far less significance on accuracy than many other factors.

[Kieck]

Here is an example (I know, I know, it's just a "paintball gun toy") of what I've been trying to say:

http://www.warpig.com/paintball/tech...osedopen.shtml

Anyone have the gunsmithing ability and firearm(s) to try this same sort of scenario out with a "real firearm?" I'd like to see your results, if you're able to do it.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Ben,
Sorry I got lured into hijacking your thread.

It came to me that a very inexpensive yet accurate .223 rifle that would serve you very well is he H&R Handy Rifle, in a heavy varmint barrel. It's a single shot, but I have seen some very impressive targets shot with them. They run a little over two bills.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

[Kieck]

Apparently, I'm the "lurer" (?) here.

Anyway, Bullseye Bill's comment about the .223 makes a lot of sense. If you're looking for rifle to pair with your 6-24X50 scope, the .223 would be a much better choice than any other the rimfires out there. The magnification is beyond the reach of rimfires, in my opinion.

I have a .22-250 that I use for long-range type varmint shooting. I've fired a .223 many times, too. I prefer the .22-250, but ammo is far less expensive for the .223.

Since you already have a deer/elk rifle, Ben, you should consider a .22LR. Not much out there that would be less expensive to shoot, and a .22 will handle most any varmint in its range. I've shot far more coyotes with a .22 than I have with my .22-250. The difference has been the distance of the shots.

Bullseye Bill -- I know it's hijacking Ben's thread, but I'd still like to hear what you think of trying the same rifle modified to fire as either a bolt action or an autoloader. My guess is -- like the paintball gun -- the other factors would influence accuracy so much that the type of action would be insignificant.

[mapleack]

If you're shooting small game within 150yds I'd go with a .22 mag. The ammo is cheaper than a .17 HMR and ballistics are close. Out of all the long guns I own, my marlin stainless .22 mag gets used the most of all, by far. It will shoot a 1" to 1.5" pattern at 150 yds, you can't complain about that. If you want a more powerful varmint gun, I also recommend the H&R / New England Handi Rifles. I have one in .25-'06 and its been a great rifle.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>Bullseye Bill -- I know it's hijacking Ben's thread, but I'd still like to hear what you think of trying the same rifle modified to fire as either a bolt action or an autoloader.

Hasn't anything posted earlier soaked in at all? Think about this statement, -
"the same rifle modified to fire as either a bolt action or an auto loader."

According to the accepted definition, especially the BATF&E, the receiver is the firearm itself, the 'rifle'. Once you remove the action, 'receiver', you no longer have a rifle to modify.

With a lot of machining you can match the same barrel to another type of action but all this tells you is the capabilities of the barrel, a component of the original firearm. It would also prove that it shot better in either a single shot or bolt action than it did in a semi auto.

I have highly accurized rifles in both .308 and .223, both bolt and semi-auto. I have done extensive reloading for both. Gone the whole gambit of blueprinting the bolt rifles, turning cases, uniforming, weighing, and on and on and on. My results are the same as everyone else's. Semi auto's can be made to shoot extremely well, but not to the degree of bolt action rifles.

Please re-read the previous paragraph and let it soak in. It is the crux of the biscuit, the basic and unalterable truth in the shooting world. If you just want to argue, get over it and find someone else to play with.

[Kieck]

My understanding of the action of a bolt-action rifle is that the bolt fits into the receiver. The bolt and the receiver are two different pieces. Correct?

I have highly accurized rifles in both .308 and .223, both bolt and semi-auto. I have done extensive reloading for both. Gone the whole gambit of blueprinting the bolt rifles, turning cases, uniforming, weighing, and on and on and on. My results are the same as everyone else's. Semi auto's can be made to shoot extremely well, but not to the degree of bolt action rifles. -Bullseye Bill

So, you've compared one semi-auto rifle to a different bolt-action rifle? What does that tell you? Or, you've compared a few bolt-action rifles to a few different semi-auto rifles? Again, what does that tell you?

Let's see your statistics, BB. Find me some actual, real, evidence that -- all other conditions being the same -- bolt actions are statistically more accurate than autoloaders.

The biggest claim that I've seen against autoloaders that really make sense to me is that the loading mechanisms tend to damage the bullets slightly before they're fired, altering the flights of the bullets. They compare those "damaged" bullets' accuracy to the accuracy of bullets loaded into a single fire bolt action, or to the accuracy of bullets loaded singly into a bolt action (rather than through the magazine). None of them compare bullets loaded singly into autoloaders to bullets loaded singly into bolt actions.

With a lot of machining you can match the same barrel to another type of action but all this tells you is the capabilities of the barrel, a component of the original firearm. It would also prove that it shot better in either a single shot or bolt action than it did in a semi auto. -Bullseye Bill

Why don't you re-read this paragraph, one that YOU wrote yourself. At the end, you're getting close to what I've been trying to suggest.

If you did such a thing, and barrels (not just one) consistently performed better on bolt actions than on autoloading actions, you could eliminate the effect of the barrel and get closer to the effect that the action has on accuracy.

Honestly, BB, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here. Obviously, you believe what you've heard repeatedly about bolt actions being inherently more accurate than autoloaders. I question the statement -- it hasn't matched with my experiences.

Besides all that, I still highly doubt that most people are interested in the finicky details of highly competitive match-grade firearms. Especially for shooting varmints. When I shoot varmints around my place, I don't have time to set up a bench, calculate range precisely, figure wind velocities and direction, carefully chamber a single round (or even hand load a cartridge on the spot to match the conditions of the day), or any of that. I grab the firearm that best suits the shot I see.

So, talk about "the best bolt actions" slightly outperforming "the best autoloaders," given all the other factors, is insignificant, don't you think? Why even bring up such statements, unless the person asking is looking to compete in the most extreme benchrest matches?

[Ben Brewcat]

Good info all. I'll for sure look into that H&R Handy. As far as our "lurid" thread , if I worried about Beesource threads staying strictly on topic I'd be twice as old as I already am.

I'm still looking .223-wards with everyone's feedback and my own reading. The recoil:comparable to a .22? I understand lots of variables, but as a generalization (remember fairly heavy scope, heavy barrel too)? It'd be cool if this could be the wife's intro gun .

[Kieck]

The .223 is a great caliber, but you'll find the recoil is much greater than the recoil of a .22LR (rimfire). Even with the heavy barrel and the heavy scope. And the "bang" of a .223 is a lot harder on unprotected ears.

My wife won't fire a firearm. If I could get her to try it, I'd start her with the .22LR.

As far as I'm concerned (accurate as possible or not), a semi-auto .22LR is hard to beat for plinking fun.

[thesurveyor]

If you like fun, try a .220 swift. It is a flat shooting cartridge that exits the barrel 4000 ft per second.

I agree the .223 is going to be more recoil that the 22lr.

[Michael Bush]

>I know what you mean in principle, but I'm not so sure it translates entirely. Consistency from shot-to-shot is vital, but "tight" doesn't necessarily translate to "consistent."

>If "tighter is better," welding the cartridge into the gun would result in greater accuracy.

And if you could do it consistently enough and if it were practical, yes it would.

>If those weapons couldn't shoot a sub-4" group at 1000 yards, I doubt they'd even try for a shot at distances approaching 1.5 miles.)

The advantage to a large gun is that the things you can't control, like the wind, have less effect. The really big guns on the battleships are shooting at targets miles away. But they aren't worried about getting a 3" group.

>"Twist" figures into all of that, too. If your maximum velocity is greater than the twist can stabilize in flight, all your other factors go out the window in a hurry.

Yes, but we aren't talking about twist. If you ignore velocity you can use the Greenhill formula to figure twist, but unless you are ordering a custom rifle, twist is something you seldom have control over. Instead you have to choose the right length bullet for the twist.

We are talking about ONE factor. The action. I could go into a much more complete list but that's not the subject.

Let's try this another way.

Here's a reality that is virtually the same concept.

I used to keep times for a 10K run here. There are thousands of racers. Let's look at predictions from two points of view. The first is what is the gender of the first place runner going to be? I can virtually guarantee it will be a male. The first three will be male. PROBABLY the first 10. I will be right 99.9999% of the time basing this prediction on gender.

But lets try another prediction. Let's say I pick two of the runners at random and try to predict which will come in before the other based ONLY on gender. If I pick the male, I'll be right about 50.1% of the time. If I pick the female, I'll be right about 49.9% of the time. Why? Because there are other factors. So how useful is the assumption that a given male will beat a given female? Not very.

So, if I want to be the winner of a benchrest contest, it would behoove me to shoot a bolt action because it is more likely to be in the top .0001% than a semi-auto. On the other hand if I'm picking a gun off the rack and assume that it will be accurate simply because it is a bolt action, I'll only be right about 52% of the time. If I assume it's accurate because it's a semi-auto, I'll be right 48% of the time.

I'm honestly not trying to argue with you and am probably saying what you intend to say, however the point is if you want top of the line, tack driving accuracy, you're much more likely to be able to get that out of a bolt action. If you want an accurate off the shelf gun, the odds are only a little better with the bolt action.

[thesurveyor]

I agree. Bolt action will always be more accurate. Many factors go into accuracy. The stock cannot flex, the barrel cannot flex, the action needs to be pillar bedded or glass beaded. I have even seen both types of bedding. The cartridge will have to be hand loaded. You cannot get ammo from the factory that is consistent.

These are just some things to consider.

Their is a product that I have seen, but never tried. I have always wanted to try it and just have not gotten around to it. Read the info, it is very intriguing.

Here's the link... http://www.rifle-accuracy.com/smartstock.htm it cost like $170.00 to have it installed in your rifle stock, but looks like it would be worth it. Pay special attention to the targets they show as results on factory weapons. Those rifles were straight out of the box, with the exception of the accurizer. It goes on the basis of rifle harmonics. The BOSS system on large caliber hunting rifles is the same type setup. It is there so you can shoot factory ammo, and get hand loaded accuracy.

If you look at sniper rifles 99% of them are bolt action. That is rifles that are used when accuracy cannot be questioned.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

There are a lot of gimmicks out there and this is another one, save your money. Large bore rifles are less dependant to barrel harmonics than small bore (22lr). Tuners, like the ones used on the end of the barrel are common on .22 bench guns and do make a difference in competition when measuring in the thousandths. Tuners on .22's are more helpful because the shooter can not control the ammunition's performance itself, only the things that effect the ammunition. This system is using the stock to add pressure to the barrel along a certain area and can have a dramatic effect, but not necessarily a needed one.

If the rifle is bedded properly and has no contact with the stock, it will likely perform at it's best possible ability. IF it is not bedded properly, or the barrel is not mated correctly, worn, or has some other problem, adding stock pressure can be beneficial, or make it even worse.

Whenever I see anyone brag on three shot groups I get a red flag. Five shot groups are the norm, shooting three shot groups shows a lack of trust in one's own abilities or the abilities of the equipment. Read their last sentence:

"Our Remington 700 VS and PSS rifles Average under 0.5 MOA 5 shot groups when tuned for Factory Match Ammunition, with most 3 shot groups under 0.3 MOA. "

They had to stop at three shots to show an improvement. 700's in the VS and PSS will typically shoot .250 to .750 to begin with.

If you want to improve your rifle consider spending that money on a good crown, shorting the throat, a heavier barrel lug, or truing the bolt.

Also note that the boss system has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Very few people come into the range with them anymore and I don't think I have sold one in the last seven years. One of it's most common complaints is the need to wear a plug in the left ear of the right handed shooter. It is equally uncomfortable to any other bystander's ears. Most people just turn them down and close it up or take it off.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>So, if I want to be the winner of a benchrest contest, it would behoove me to shoot a bolt action because it is more likely to be in the top .0001% than a semi-auto. On the other hand if I'm picking a gun off the rack and assume that it will be accurate simply because it is a bolt action, I'll only be right about 52% of the time. If I assume it's accurate because it's a semi-auto, I'll be right 48% of the time.

Mike, I think you used too many zeros. The spread is going to be much greater than that even if you take all those zeros out. I grade most of the league's targets and know those shooters abilities, and see that most of us will shoot at least 1/3 smaller groups with bolt over semi.

[thesurveyor]

Here are some pics of my surgical tool...

Northing fancy, but it shoots well enough for me... it looks like the scope touches the barrel, but it doesn't. I can get one dollar bill between the scope and the barrel, but 2 one dollar bills will not fit.

http://www.motorheadshaven.com/Rifle/P1010115.JPG

http://www.motorheadshaven.com/Rifle/P1010116.JPG

http://www.motorheadshaven.com/Rifle/P1010117.JPG

http://www.motorheadshaven.com/Rifle/P1010118.JPG

[livetrappingbymatt]

i have a 17 in a new england arms it shoots good. also own 340 savage in 222 this has had trigger work and rebeded,this is one heck of a varmit gun.
own 22 in semi and bolt action all good shooters. with any gun you need to decied what YOU want out of it?
have the trigger smoothed by a pro,reload if you can and practice practic practice!
bob