It's my opinion that hornady used EXCELLENT marketing strategy when introducing the .17 hmr before the .17 hm2. Imo they are too close to need both,2550 fps for the hmr vs 2100 fps for the hm2 (factory specs). If hornady had introduced the .17 hm2 first,there would be a LOT less .17 hmr sold,especially due to the fact that the .17 hm2 will fit in any action designed for the .22LR,whereas the .17hmr requires a .22 magnum length action. Also the hm2 is cheaper in costs compared to the hmr. Of course both the .22 magnum AND the .17 hmr pale in comparsion to the recently reintroduced (loaded ammo) 5mm remington magnum as far as overall versatility. What do YALL think?