.17 HMR(rim-fire) or .17 Remington(center-fire)

[Fred Flinstone]

CZ is about to deliver the CZ-527 in .17 Rem., which .17 will be the best choice:.17 Rem or .17 HMR? Take in consideration $price of rifle and ammo. What's your opinion?

[Mballistic]

Good question; two entirely different animals.  The .17 HMR is 100-125 yard consistant 'chuck cartridge.  Yes, you can make longer kills than 125, but I said consistant.  ( If you place your shots well )  I have bought ammo for as little as $6.95 for 50 rounds.
The .17 Rem. isa serious 'chuck cartridge out to about 300 yards; again shot placement is everything.  Shots longer than 300 are possible, but??  The ammo runs about $18.00 for 20 factory loads.  I can reload for the .17 Rem at a cost of about .15 cents a round  ( that is with the brass already purchased. The .17 Rem. is easier to clean due to the better bullets available, for example the James Calhoon Slick Silvers.  Guess it depends upon what you want and what you want to do with the rifle.  Got to tell you I own a CZ 452 in .17 HMR and after I put in the after market sear and trigger spring there is NO creep and the pull is about 1 lb.  I aso own two CZ 527's.  One is in .19 Calhoon and the other is in .19-223 Calhoon.  Both of these were built by him.  Am I going to run out and purchase a .17 Rem CZ 527, even though I have a Rem 700 BDL, you bet I am.
My two cents,
Jeff

[Atlatl]

Checking out the noted ballistics, etc of the .19-223 Calhoon as listed on www.jamescalhoon.com, seems to have made someone at Ruger scratch their head and formulate the .204 Ruger.  The .19-223 is a .198 round on a .223 case vs.the .204 Ruger, .204 on a .222 Remington Mag Case.  ....hummm wonder were they got that idea?

[Mballistic]

Seems as though the .20 Tactical is closer to the .19-223.  That cartridge is based on the .223.  The ballistics I have seen seem out of line compared to the .19-223.  I believe the data for the .20 Tactical claims to drive a 33 gr. at 4300fps.  Best I get using Calhoon's "max" with a 32gr. is about 4100.  I can tell you this there are no signs of pressure using the published Calhoon loads.  As far as I am concerned no real need to excede the published max loads.  What difference 4100 or 4300?  'Chuck is just as dead.  I like my .19's.  Even if the .204 and the .20 Tact take off as factory loads how many shooters own and shoot .19's? Kinda nice braggin' rights.
Jeff

[Atlatl]

Off topic for the thread but it would be interesting if some put out a .230 or so to cover the gap from .224 to .243  Seeing that there are .14, .17, .19, .204, .224, .243, .257, .264, .277, .284, .308, .311, .338, .358, .366, .375, .416, .458, etc.  There once was a .228 but is long obsolete.

[Bonanza]

I picked up my 527 Varmint in 17 Rem. this last weekend. It looks real good with the heavy barrel and walnut stock. I went ahead and glass bed the action. The stock was free floated but after 3 shots it moved and the barrel touched the left side.

[Fred Flinstone]

Thanks for your post, is the stock wood or composite(synthetic)?
Please post again once free-floated with results.

Thanks again,
Fred

[Bonanza]

The stock is Turkish walnut. It appears to be a American stock with a bigger barrel channel. I have the bedding job completed and am waiting for better weather to shoot.

[Fred Flinstone]

This rifle should have been made for an outdoorman at mind: a plain barrel(not a heavy barrel) as to not have extra-weight for nothing. All .17 Rem. mfgrs. do the same error: these rifles are not only used for benchrest shooting, but should also be made for field use