Author Topic: .17 M2 Here to stay?  (Read 1586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CZJedi

  • Guest
.17 M2 Here to stay?
« on: March 21, 2006, 01:20:59 PM »
I just found out I'm getting enough of a tax return to maybe swing a new CZ, so I was thinking about the 453 in .17 M2. I have a really accurate .22lr (T/C Classic Benchmark), and was not really impressed with the .17HMR. It was accurate, but not so much more accuate than my T/C .22, or my old 452 .22 that it warrented the jump in price.

Anywho, the .17 M2 seemed to fit the bill; accuracy like the .17HMR, and at $5 a box, not much more than high quality .22 (which is what I shoot anyway). This would mostly be for target; with varmint hunting maybe once a year.

The only problem is that the local CZ dealer told me that he thinks in a few years it will be an obsolete round. He said that while the .17HMR sell, the .17 M2 just sits there. Ok, so I went to another dealer: same thing. He said he has only sold one M2 and is still on his first case of ammo.

I don't want to get this thing and then be stock with a gun that doesn't have any ammo. Any thoughts on this situation?

KingPolymer-III

  • Guest
.17 M2 Here to stay?
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2006, 08:45:19 PM »
I had a .17HMR and got rid of it.  I really dont see the .17HMR and M2 adding much advantage over the .22MAG.  This is my personal preference of course, others may dissagree,  I agree that the .17 duo offer a flatter trajectory and a nominal increase in kinetic energy, but over the distances that you and I will be using it,  how much of an advantage over a .22MAG will it offer, and all three are the same price.  
 I think if you are a diehard cartridge collector and MUST have it, but I simply don't see a reason to replace the .22MAG.
  I have alot of respect for Steve Hornady, but these cartridges simply don't replace the .22MAG for me.