i just can figure it out. i know some poeple that have purchased a .17 caliber rifle and i dono why not a 223. a 223 is bigger. better varmit rifle, longer range, and its cheaper ammunition. i mean i am not sayin that a .17 caliber is bad i like the gun i got to shoot one and they are neat. but why not a 223 instead. its just a plain old better deal i think.

Something different .

I know three guys who have bought 17 remingtons in the last couple of years, and from talking to them, the main reason seems to be accuracy. All three of these guns will shoot half minute groups right out of the box. I' m not talking about " my rifle that once upon a time shot three out of five into half inch" , they will average better than a half inch at 100. Another thing is less chance of ricochet. Other than that, its like halcon said, no matter what cartridge you choose, someone can say another does the same thing better. The guys I know have all parked their 22 centerfires and are happily burning 17 ammo as fast as they can load it now.

I know some guys that claim the 17s do less pelt damage. Don' t know if that is true or not. Personally I use a 243 for varmints.

I' ve always understood the 17 to have less pelt damage.

I want one mainly to hunt smaller varmints at longer rang and with less chance for a ricochet.

Oh, not in comparison with a .223 but more so with the regular .22lr I already have.

I know nothing about this cal. gun....but a friend of mine at work has one and can' t fined shells for it anywhere......anyone know where he can get some shells for the .17 cal......thanks

whats a ricochet. dono what it is.

From what I know a ricochet is when your bullet bounces off of something adn changes direction.

I have a friend in Indiana who shoots one and another in Georgia, both say the pelt damage is minimal. I see the .17 Rem ammo here for sale often and i belive cabela' s has a bulk package of .17 Rem for sale in there new spring shooting catalog, u know the one that comes with the .50 cal ammo cans.