.17 Hornet Superformance Varmint
When I first read about Hornady's .17 Hornet, a necked down .22 Hornet, I was skeptical. I just assumed it was the classic ammunition marketeers tactic of taking an old cartridge and necking it up or down and then telling the world it was the best cartridge ever designed. I could not have been more wrong
The .17 Hornet loaded with a 20 grain bullet performs significant better than .22 Hornet loaded with a 35 grain or 45 grain bullet. At 300 yards, a 35 grain .22 Hornet bullet will be travelling at about 1126 ft/s, (99 ft/lbs of energy). A 20 grain .17 Hornet bullet at 300 yards will be travelling almost than twice as fast, 2122 ft/s, with more than twice the energy (200 ft/lbs). At 300 yards a 45 grain .22 Hornet performs slightly better at 300 yards (127 ft/lbs of energy), but the .17 Hornet still has it beat by a large margin.
THe .17 Hornet works in the same actions as the .22 Hornet, all that is needed to convert a .22 Hornet gun to .17 Hornet is a barrel change.
The Hornady .17 Hornet is loaded with Superformance powder and a V-Max bullet. MSRP is $25.27/box.
In MA, we can use only shotgun or .22LR at night. During the day, anything goes for coyote, but no slugs or buckshot. This little number might be just the thing for coyote and even bunnies, along with woodchucks, etc. thanks to the accuracy, speed, and quietness over the .223. In addition, the .17 will be kinder on coyote pelts than .22 caliber rifles. The reason it isn’t in automatics is due to the rim. The .19 Badger is a good round based on the .30 Carbine, if you are interested in that.
The .17 Hornady is a brilliant development from Hornady. In N.E. Ohio it will not replace say a 22-250 after 225 yards or so. Groundhogs take a lot of killing. I might not even try the .17 Hornet beyond 150 yds. Only experience will tell. I appreciate the velocities the 20 gr. bullet is achieving, but beyond 150-200 yds. the groundhog anatomy does not respect little bullets, no matter how fast they are traveling. Of course if you hit the spine or brain, or take out the top part of the heart it is a moot point. But at a distance of 175 yds. or more who is doing precision shooting like that? The small bullet is easily pushed by our robust winds, making long-shots quite challenging.
Cartridges of the World notes that the .17 Ackley Hornet is notably more accurate, and fouls bores less than larger case-capacity .17′s, as well as being quiet, negligible recoil and seldom ricochets.The .17 Ackley Bee doesn’t offer much more velocity with similar weight bullets. The shoulder angle on the .17 Hornady Hornet appears to be slightly more gentle than the Ackley version, though it’s hard to tell from ad pictures and the small photo in the reference. Still, ~3500-3600 fps is high efficiency from a rather small capacity case. I’m thinking of turning an as yet uncommitted Cadet Martini action into one.
I don’t think it’d be a good semi-auto candidate. I think Ackley did experiment with a .17 based on the .30 carbine case, which would be a better choice. The thick hornet rim is a minus in trying to get a semi to function, and Hornet brass is rather thin, and would get mangled during ejection. The Browning 5.7×28 might also be an interesting candidate, and is already available on a pistol platform…just change the barrel and recoil spring. Or the 5.45×18 Russian…though case capacity is probably a bit short.
I am intrigued by the possibilities of the .17 Hornet. Having hunted varmints in NE Ohio, including about 325 groundhogs, our varmints take a lot of killing. The groundhogs are the worst: sometimes you wonder if they need a grenade or a mortar to put them down. 95% of the time the best frangible bullets from the better manufacturers work just fine. My issue is that I hate when the varmint is hit and still runs to its den. I have seen groundhogs utterly eviscerated in the belly and still run to their den. Now I know they are soon going to expire, but I do not like the idea that I witnessed them running that far. I have hit groundhogs with Federals 40 grain bomb in 22-250, basically be disemboweled, and still run 30 yards to the den. Usually those Federal pills get the job done right away. I am wondering about 20 grain bullets in .17 caliber going about the same velocity as my 22-250 and how they will perform. I would not push the .17 grainers beyond 200 yards in most cases. Clearly they damn well better hit like a grenade to humanely take out something as tough as a groundhog.
As far as coyotes go, I would limit my ranges in NE Ohio to 100 yards or so. I have shot some coyotes in this area that were right around 80 pounds. It is rare, but I shot one with my 22-250 Sako at about 350 yds. and the bullet had lost enough velocity and was pulled off enough by severe winds that the brute survived for about a year. He had lost locomotion on the shoulder that I hit, but was doing quite well until a sheep farmer drilled him. Such experiences buffer my thoughts about anything in .17 caliber. Doubtless I would not have taken that shot with a 20 grain bullet.
Next up is the 17 Bee (218 Bee).
For a semi-auto rifle, why hasn’t anbody thought of the 30 Carbine?
There is a wildcat 17 Carbine, could use it in a semi-auto.
I believe and correct me if I am wrong. But I think Ruger chambered the 77/22 for a .22 hornet. So you would be getting more power from a smaller lighter rifle.
Will
Actually, it would probably be slightly heavier if they used the same barrel profile. Less materiel would be removed from the interior of the barrel.
Why should I consider putting my .204 Ruger out to pasture for the .17 Hornet? The smaller bore allows for less ejecta to get expelled and will likely foul faster. I am sure it will have a novelty factor because nothing drives sales like a new caliber but I will probably not bite on the .17 Hornet hook.
Why would this make more sense than a rifle in 223 Remington? There are more options in rifles and ammo for the 223 Remington than almost any other cartridge. It’s not like the recoil from the 223 Remington is excessive.
Well, for starters, this would have lighter recoil, which may not be too important for many people, but smaller framed people and youths might enjoy the experience more. This round would also be quieter, allowing for more follow ups or maybe shots at other animals nearby without spooking them. It would be less likely to make blood pudding out of your animals and it would also make a smaller hole for if you are selling pelts.
For things like coyote and similarly sized varmints, the difference might be negligible, but it could be significant for prarie dogs and such.
Nice concept. Will have the first run in a model 25 savage and about $700 bills.. Will monitor the reviews before considering an investment… 17 Remmy still works:)
I love this idea. Would like to see what do does to the varmints
“The .17 Hornet works in the same actions as the .22 Hornet, all that is needed to convert a .22 Hornet gun to .17 Hornet is a barrel change.”
The same can be said about .221 Remington Fireball and just about every gun that has a .222 Remington bolt face.
I wrote the name of the wrong cartridge. I meant .17 Remington Fireball instead of .221 Remington Fireball.
Strange – i have been handloading .17 K-hornet since I can’t remember ~1978. What is old is new my guess.
*drool*
Looks neat. I just wish there were .22 Hornet semi-autos to be converted to .17 Hornet.
Ah… a semi auto would be awesome. It would be a powerful version of the 4.6mm H&K round.
hmm. is the OAL short enough to fit into the pistol grip of a pistol?
I’m thinking something along the lines of a center fire pistol.
Imagine the love child of a kel-tec PMR-30 and a HK MP7.
I have a small colelction of cartridges and just compared a few of my .22 Hornets against other pistol cartridges. It is significantly longer than almost all of them, even 7.63 Mauser and .38 Super ACP. The round that it is closest to in length is .30 Carbine being only a hair longer. I think you could do a pistol, but it would be odd looking like the AMT Auto-Mags in .30 Carbine with a very wide magwell.
A pistol with a magazine outside the grip would probably be ,ore comfortable and easier to design, especially if it could be made to accept Ruger 77/22 .22 Hornet mags, but they might require some modification because of the different taper.. Higher Capacity (maybe 20?) single stack magazines could be fairly easily developed.
Perhaps a pistol would be better based off of a semi-auto rifle. It wouldn’t be as small, but it could be just as fun.
The problem with these would probably be that .22 Hornet and probably .17 Hornet sit on the edge of requiring a gas system. This would mean either adding weight with a huge bolt or with a complicated gas system. Maybe extra strong springs could be used to compensate somewhat.
.17 is the new .250.
For serious, as bullet technology gets better and better, smaller calibers and lower weights are becoming acceptable for more and more things. At this point, it’s even enough to compensate for the original deficiencies of the .223 cartridge against hominids (see Mk. 318, 62gr Gold Dots, etc).
I approve of the new .17 caliber centerfire.