This is an anecdotal, observation based field report of 17 Mach 2 performance on whistle pigs.
The gun: Used Ruger receiver with a cast aluminum trigger guard. E.R. Shaw helical fluting 18" X .920" stainless barrel. Brown hammer, sear, trigger kit. Hogue overmold stock. MOA bases. Warne Rings. Redfield 4X12 AO 5 Star scope.
Sight in was .17" low at 25 yards, 0 at 100 yards. 3 round groups at 25 yards was one ragged hole.
The Location/Day: SW Idaho along the Oregon/Idaho border on BLM/Public lands, 2,300' ASL, 60 degrees, light (0-5mph with puffs of 10 mph) variable wind.
Ammo: Hornaday with 17 grain V-Max was used for sight-in and the first 125 rounds of hunting. CCI with 17 grain V-Max was used for the remaining 300 rounds.
I used shooting sticks from a seated position on the ground.
Observations: It appeared to me that the CCI ammo was slightly hotter than the Hornaday ammo and functioned better. I had two rounds in the Hornaday ammo that didn't fully eject and perfect functioning with the CCI ammo. Also, the report of the CCI ammo was slightly louder and "hit" the whistle pigs with more authority, yet the report of the 17 Mach 2 is comparable to the 22 cal round and significantly less than a 17 HMR. Less crawl offs with the CCI ammo. With that said, there were still a significant number of crawl offs compared with the much hotter 17 HMR round (2550 FPS = 17 HMR compared to 2050 FPS = 17 Mach 2). The 17 Mach 2 hit with much more authority than the 22 HV hollowpoint rounds and I would say that there are fewer crawl aways than the 22 cal round. The 17 Mach 2, as might be expected, was very, very susceptible to wind drift, more so than a regular 22 or a 17 HMR. You are limited to the maximum range of 100-120 yards. The further out you shoot, the more crawl offs you get, every little puff of wind blows the bullet around (A LOT!). The 17 Mach 2 ricochets with impacts beyond the 75 yard mark as the bullet seems to have slowed down enough to not disintegrate on impact.
Cost: Much cheaper than 17HMR (average $12.50 / 50), slightly more expensive than the 22 HV hollowpoints ($5.25 / 50); 17 Mach 2 (average $6.25 / 50). Also you can find the 17 Mach 2 on just about any website and in most stores right now. The other two are hard to come by where I am at right now.
Here is my caveat on my opinion -- Non Gradus Anus Rodentum
OPINION: The 17 Mach 2 is a great, inexpensive round with some well defined limitations. I would hold my shooting to 75 yards or less for clean kills and so you would not have to worry greatly about a puff of wind. I would not shoot this round in winds over 5 mph at more than 50 yards. I believe is is much more destructive than the regular 22 cal HV HP rounds from 75 yards in. It has significantly less ricochets when shot less than 50 yards than the 22 cal. With a comparable cost, I believe it is slightly more capable than the 22 cal rounds for small varmints, killing more cleanly, less chance of ricochet and comparable report.
LIMITATIONS: A no wind round that doesn't retain enough energy beyond 75 yards to cleanly kill anything bigger than a rabbit. It has a maximum range of around 100 yards for flat shooting.
Bottom Line: I am keeping mine as I like the way it hits at 75 yards or less and is a flat shooter (much more so than a 22 cal) and gives me an addition 25 yards of range. It is cheaper and fills a gap for me. I will take two guns (a 17 HMR and a 17 Mach 2) and use each in the appropriate roll...one for shots out to 75 yards and the other 75 yards and beyond.
***********************************************************
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I changed receivers to the NoDakSpud NDS-22 shaved ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/revolution.html ). Additionally I changed the extractor (the original one was worn and I had several failure to extract). I also got my Brown 97D (Mueller) 4-12 scope mounted ( http://www.eabco.com/97DRiflescope01.html ).
The gun makes a ragged hole 3 shot group at 50 yards. I have now run close to 1200 rounds over 6 days of shooting through the gun.
OBSERVATIONS:
The 17 Mach 2 is a "dirty" round. I have shot both the CCI and the Hornady versions, with the Hornaday round being a hotter and dirtier round. I have had to clean it after 300-400 rounds or I start to get functioning problems, mostly failure to fully seat in the chamber. The CCI rounds are cleaner and work the action better. The CCI rounds, however, have less expolsive hits and more crawl-offs than the Hornaday rounds.
Shots beyond 75 yards will have significant drift with any wind and do not cleanly kill the whistlepigs. Within 50 yards all shots are explosive and clean kills. Only in the 50-75 yard range and beyond do you not get clean kills.
At $7 per box of 50 it is much cheaper than the 17 HMR. It is less capable than the 17 HMR, but most of my shooting is 100 yards or less anyway.
OPINION: I enjoy shooting the "little" 17 and will continiue to use it for my primary gun up close. I find it more capable and flatter shooting than the 22 and while more expensive it is worth the extra money to me.
Edited by RC to remove ***** it was spreading the page
The gun: Used Ruger receiver with a cast aluminum trigger guard. E.R. Shaw helical fluting 18" X .920" stainless barrel. Brown hammer, sear, trigger kit. Hogue overmold stock. MOA bases. Warne Rings. Redfield 4X12 AO 5 Star scope.
Sight in was .17" low at 25 yards, 0 at 100 yards. 3 round groups at 25 yards was one ragged hole.
The Location/Day: SW Idaho along the Oregon/Idaho border on BLM/Public lands, 2,300' ASL, 60 degrees, light (0-5mph with puffs of 10 mph) variable wind.
Ammo: Hornaday with 17 grain V-Max was used for sight-in and the first 125 rounds of hunting. CCI with 17 grain V-Max was used for the remaining 300 rounds.
I used shooting sticks from a seated position on the ground.
Observations: It appeared to me that the CCI ammo was slightly hotter than the Hornaday ammo and functioned better. I had two rounds in the Hornaday ammo that didn't fully eject and perfect functioning with the CCI ammo. Also, the report of the CCI ammo was slightly louder and "hit" the whistle pigs with more authority, yet the report of the 17 Mach 2 is comparable to the 22 cal round and significantly less than a 17 HMR. Less crawl offs with the CCI ammo. With that said, there were still a significant number of crawl offs compared with the much hotter 17 HMR round (2550 FPS = 17 HMR compared to 2050 FPS = 17 Mach 2). The 17 Mach 2 hit with much more authority than the 22 HV hollowpoint rounds and I would say that there are fewer crawl aways than the 22 cal round. The 17 Mach 2, as might be expected, was very, very susceptible to wind drift, more so than a regular 22 or a 17 HMR. You are limited to the maximum range of 100-120 yards. The further out you shoot, the more crawl offs you get, every little puff of wind blows the bullet around (A LOT!). The 17 Mach 2 ricochets with impacts beyond the 75 yard mark as the bullet seems to have slowed down enough to not disintegrate on impact.
Cost: Much cheaper than 17HMR (average $12.50 / 50), slightly more expensive than the 22 HV hollowpoints ($5.25 / 50); 17 Mach 2 (average $6.25 / 50). Also you can find the 17 Mach 2 on just about any website and in most stores right now. The other two are hard to come by where I am at right now.
Here is my caveat on my opinion -- Non Gradus Anus Rodentum
OPINION: The 17 Mach 2 is a great, inexpensive round with some well defined limitations. I would hold my shooting to 75 yards or less for clean kills and so you would not have to worry greatly about a puff of wind. I would not shoot this round in winds over 5 mph at more than 50 yards. I believe is is much more destructive than the regular 22 cal HV HP rounds from 75 yards in. It has significantly less ricochets when shot less than 50 yards than the 22 cal. With a comparable cost, I believe it is slightly more capable than the 22 cal rounds for small varmints, killing more cleanly, less chance of ricochet and comparable report.
LIMITATIONS: A no wind round that doesn't retain enough energy beyond 75 yards to cleanly kill anything bigger than a rabbit. It has a maximum range of around 100 yards for flat shooting.
Bottom Line: I am keeping mine as I like the way it hits at 75 yards or less and is a flat shooter (much more so than a 22 cal) and gives me an addition 25 yards of range. It is cheaper and fills a gap for me. I will take two guns (a 17 HMR and a 17 Mach 2) and use each in the appropriate roll...one for shots out to 75 yards and the other 75 yards and beyond.
***********************************************************
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I changed receivers to the NoDakSpud NDS-22 shaved ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/revolution.html ). Additionally I changed the extractor (the original one was worn and I had several failure to extract). I also got my Brown 97D (Mueller) 4-12 scope mounted ( http://www.eabco.com/97DRiflescope01.html ).
The gun makes a ragged hole 3 shot group at 50 yards. I have now run close to 1200 rounds over 6 days of shooting through the gun.
OBSERVATIONS:
The 17 Mach 2 is a "dirty" round. I have shot both the CCI and the Hornady versions, with the Hornaday round being a hotter and dirtier round. I have had to clean it after 300-400 rounds or I start to get functioning problems, mostly failure to fully seat in the chamber. The CCI rounds are cleaner and work the action better. The CCI rounds, however, have less expolsive hits and more crawl-offs than the Hornaday rounds.
Shots beyond 75 yards will have significant drift with any wind and do not cleanly kill the whistlepigs. Within 50 yards all shots are explosive and clean kills. Only in the 50-75 yard range and beyond do you not get clean kills.
At $7 per box of 50 it is much cheaper than the 17 HMR. It is less capable than the 17 HMR, but most of my shooting is 100 yards or less anyway.
OPINION: I enjoy shooting the "little" 17 and will continiue to use it for my primary gun up close. I find it more capable and flatter shooting than the 22 and while more expensive it is worth the extra money to me.
Edited by RC to remove ***** it was spreading the page
Last edited by a moderator:
