I see your point about the Rifleman magazine. They do promote some calibers...I just hope they don't talk a bunch of people into buying a gun that they have no use for. (Not that a gun needs a purpose to be bought LOL)

It's kind of like the NASDAQ and some of these tech companies. They get pumped up so big that everybody buys in...but the cream always rises in the end.

Good points all around. My way of thinking is if you are going to be a bear, be a grizzly. If I am going to have a .17 caliber, I might as well get a the 17 remington and be handloading at 4000fps. I love all kinds of rounds, but I will have to pass on this one.

How small could you go? Modern military rifle rounds have been geting smaller and smaller over the last 100 years, from 68 cal round ball down to the .223 of today.

Part of it comes from the 'spray and pray' mentality of most grunts. If you want to do S&P, you have to carry a lot of rounds. I would rather carry 200 .223 rounds than 200 8mm Mauser rounds. Maybe they can get down to a nice 2mm round, jack up the velocity to keep it stable at 200 yards. You could carry 1000 rounds in your pack. You could blaze away at the enemy all day. I don't know how effective you would be, but that isn't the fault of the "shooter", now is it? #:^)

Plus, if all you want it for is target practice, it would be ideal. Low cross sectional area, high velocity, all it has to do it penetrate a single sheet of paper and essentially zero recoil. Ideal for target practice.

Chubber

Looks like a neat plinking cartridge, but if I really wanted something more powerful than a .22 long rifle (and more expensive to shoot), I would probably go with the reloadable .22 hornet if not .223.

I don't have any experience with them, but the marlin .17 gave 3 shot groups under an inch, and 10 shot groups under 2 inches, both tests at 100 yrds. Pushing a 17 gr bullet at 2600 fps isn't doing too bad at all for hunting either! I know if I had the money, I'd have one for p-dogs, rabbits, squirrels, maybe even yotes!!!!

A great novelty, I want one!<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Won't one more fit in the gun cabinet?
I am sure we can all find a use for it, I will probably end up with one.

I don't want one and I disagree with the write up in The American Rifleman. They seem to think this thing can defy the laws of physics.

by laws of physics are you talking about, a smaller bullet traveling at a higher speed would drop less? This is comparing the .17 HRM to the .22 mag, it has less area for a crosswind to affect flight, I think it is a good advertisement ploy to sell guns but if the data is correct why not have aflatter shooting cartridge than a 22mag that is quiet with no recoil? I know there are other reloadeable cartridges that perform better but there are more popular cartridges that don't perform as well. So the little bullet won't kill a coyote, I have other guns for the coyote, but it will kill squirrels, crows, rabbits, ect. I believe there is a niche for this cartridge.

I have a Marlin 17V and I gotta tell you, I like it!
It doesn't replace any existing round...it doesn't have to.
My question to all of those that say it isn't needed is: was the .260 needed? there are dozens of cartidges that exist because someone WANTED it...not because it was/is needed. This isn't about that to me, it's about something new to have and use, and experiment with...most of all to have FUN with!
Try one...you might like it...
I have posted picture of my initial groups on ....(dare I say it?) HuntAmerica/Rimfire...if you want to see what it did out of a Stock Marlin 17V....not bad for the first few shots and the weather conditions.
I'm excited about this round...and I am impressed with what it can do...I will use it within it's limitations, and that it that.
Rifle Magazine has a fairly decent article on it in the March issue, and after shoting mine, I have to agree with the limits the author talks about.


Edited by - Warner_Will on 03/13/2002 10:54:45