Differences Between .22LR and .17HMR Rifles - Comparing Calibres

Hello there, in this video I'm going to talk a little bit about the differences between the .22 and the .17 HMR calibers of rifle. Now the .22 and the .17 are the most commonly used calibers in the UK for controlling small vermin such as rabbits, hares, crows and while on the face of it this gun may look very similar to this gun, there are differences and here are the differences. Right, this is a .22, this is a Ruger 10-22, semi-automatic rifle, takes a 10-shot rotary magazine, fits in under here, basically all you do to use it, cock it, it's now ready to fire, and as fast as you can pull the trigger, the bullets will come out the end of the gun. Well this is the .17 that I've got. The main difference between this and the .22, apart from what I'm going to tell you later, is the fact that in the UK In the .22, we can have them either bolt-action, like this, or semi-automatic. In the .17 caliber, we're only allowed to have them bolt-action. So, this is the .17 HMR. This particular gun's an Anschutz 1517. It's got a four-shot straight magazine, which fits in the bottom there. It's bolt-action, so you've got to do that between every shot. I dare say, in the US, you could have a .17 caliber pistol. Certainly heard of them. You'd get crazy big magazines for rifles, you know, automatic, semi-automatic. In the UK it's a little bit different. Now I've explained the difference in the .22 and the .17 that in the UK one of them has to be bolt-action, which is the .17. The .22 you can have either bolt-action or semi-automatic. But now I'll show you the actual difference between the bullets. Okay, this one here is a .22 bullet. It's classed as .22LR. That's where your charge is, in here. And you basically got 40 grain lump of lead with this particular bullet, and a hollow point. Again, you can get flat ones, you can get all sorts of different sorts of bullets, but generally, you'd have a casing that sort of size with a lump of lead on. The .17 bullet, that's it there, looks more like a little ballistic missile, that's it compared to the .22, you can see how much extra charge is in here. And with this being a .17 HMR, it's actually a .22 Magnum cartridge, which is necked down at the end to take this tiny little bullet with a ballistic tip and this ballistic tip as it flies at two and a half thousand feet per second through the air heats up as soon as it hits anything the end of this bullet just disappears inside the cavity which leaves a a big hollow point and then whack, all the energy is released, whereas the .17 bullet Although it is hollow point, it tends not to explode. With this, you get a lot of shrapnel. It basically just explodes on impact. The 2.2, it tends to just deform on impact. So killing power with this is greatly increased. Not only because you have much more charge behind it, and therefore it's travelling a heck of a lot quicker, but also because of the nature of the bullet itself. Now you can get .17 Mach 2, Which is basically... A .22 cartridge, neck down, for this sort of bullet, but it doesn't go as fast as the HMR version of the .17. It's actually been a while since I've bought any bullets, because I haven't been out shooting for a while, but I think the last time I bought .22 bullets, they were, I don't know, 4 or 5 pence each, they may be 6 pence each now. The last time I bought the .17 HMR bullets, they were nearer 25, 26 pence each, so... The HMR costs pretty much five times as much for every shot so you might be thinking why should I bother getting a .17 HMR? Well professional vermin controllers probably wouldn't even bother. They'd get the 2.2 and that would cover them for pretty much everything they're going to shoot, apart from foxes and so on obviously. If they're, you know, rabbit controllers they would use a 2.2 because every time they kill a rabbit they don't want to be spending 25, 26 pence. They'd rather spend five pence. Much more economically viable. So, the rifle in the 2.2 calibre is definitely better if you're going to shoot large amounts of rabbits. Otherwise, it's going to cost you a fortune if you use the 1.7. So all your professional guys will use the 2.2. Certainly in the UK. Maybe it's not in America where rounds might be a lot cheaper. I don't know. I'm talking UK here. So really, why should anybody bother getting a .17 HMR? Well, the reason I got one is, I think the reason a lot of people get them, because of the supreme accuracy of this gun. They really are very, very accurate. I normally set these sights around about 100 yards or so, and I don't have to hold over until I get beyond 150, 160 yards. The round has a very flat trajectory. It travels about 2,500 feet per second, and it's only a 17 grain round, so it weighs half as much as it does with the 2.2. So it doesn't drop off as quickly as the 2.2, so accuracy is the main selling point of this gun. That said, a gun is only as accurate as the person who's holding it. If you can't shoot with a 2.2, you're not going to be able to shoot with a 1.7. It won't suddenly make you into a world-class sniper. Now you'll notice that the 2.2 has a skinnier barrel than the 1.7. And although you can get 2.2s with heavier barrels, like target barrels, The 1.7 always comes with a heavier barrel than a standard 2.2, that's because you've got a lot more power generated from the round and it's forcing this little tiny projectile out of there, out of the end of here, if you've got a small barrel it's going to heat up too much, it's going to cause problems, so that generally makes .17 HMRs a little bit heavier, I've counteracted that with this gun by taking it down to almost the legal limit. So this is actually a little bit shorter than the 2.2. It doesn't seem to affect accuracy. Good to see you. You know, it's still a very, very accurate gun. You'll also notice that both rifles have a thumbhole stock. That's just personal choice. You can fit that to most rifles. With your professional vermin controllers, they want to be quiet as well. The 2.2 has the edge in noise. Because the bullet generally is a subsonic bullet, although you can get supersonic ones, because it's generally a subsonic bullet, As it comes out the end, it's traveling less than the speed of sound anyway. If you stick a moderator on, even a cheapy one like this, it's going to be very quiet compared to the 1.7. This is a reasonably expensive silencer, it was about 70 quid or something. I suppose it's mid-range, you can get very expensive ones. And this .17 HMR is still a hell of a lot noisier than the 2.2. I'll set the camera up and I'll fire a round off with each of the rifles. The first one will be 2.2, second one will be the 0.17 and providing that the camera picks it up, you should notice a hell of a difference in sound. Right, remember the first one will be the 2.2, second one will be the 0.17. Now then I put both shots into a tree just above the camera, hopefully it'll have picked up the difference in noise. The distance there was probably only about 20-25 yards, but you still should notice a There's a big difference in the noise. Next thing I'm going to demonstrate is just how quick the bullet gets to the target. The 2.2, with the bullets I'm using, I think they travel roughly 1,100 feet per second. The 1.7, again with the bullets that I'm using, I think they travel 2,450, roughly 2,500 feet per second. So hopefully you'll be able to see the difference in just how quick the bullet gets from the rifle to the target. It's only about 50 yards or so, I was going to demonstrate it in the field in front of my house but unfortunately there's cows in there, there's a nice big puddle of water there, I could have done it from 100-150 yards, you would have seen a real difference. But hopefully, if you've got sharp eyes and a decent pair of ears, you'll be able to see the difference here, 45-50 yards. First one will be the 2-2, second one will be the 1-7. Right, I'm going to be shooting the water about here, so watch out for that. 3, 2, 1, reasonably quiet, a little bit of water displaced, and now it's the turn of the 1-7. 3, 2, 1, I'm not sure you'll be able to tell the difference there, it's quite a short distance, but the 1-7 displaced a hell of a lot more water. It did get there a lot quicker as well, but over this short distance, it's maybe not too noticeable. If you're shooting a target at 80 or 100 yards, it's very noticeable. So the 1-7. Greater accuracy, greater range, but more noisy. Now, this next bit is probably only going to be of any use if you've got a wild boar charging towards you, but I'm going to demonstrate how quickly a bolt action can be fired as opposed to the semi-auto 2.2. Right, I'm going to be aiming for the same bit of water where I did the speed test. I'm going to see how long it takes to get five rounds off with the 1.7. I think I'll kneel down as well, make it a bit more steady. Three, two, one. Reasonably fast, reasonably accurate. I don't know whether either of these calibers would stop a wild boar charging towards you, but it's another demonstration nonetheless. Right, now we've got the 2.2. I'll fire five shots off with this. This should be a hell of a lot quicker. Three, two, one. That might have actually been six shots. Yeah, I think that was six. Six shots in the amount of time it took to take one with the 1.7. Now, obviously, if you're in America, the 1.7 is probably available in full automatic. You could rattle off a whole magazine within a couple of seconds. I'm talking UK here. Right, I've got some oranges at roughly 25 yards or thereabouts. The first one I'm going to shoot with the 2.2 subsonic, which is what the majority of people would use in the UK for shooting small vermin. Second one I'm going to shoot with the 1.7 HMR using the ballistic tip round, which again is what most people buy for their rifles in the UK. I'm going to zoom in as well. Well, so... Hopefully you're going to see a little bit of movement from the oranges when they're actually hit. That'll do. Right, first one, orange on the right with the 2.2 and I am going to try and hit them roughly in the middle. In three, two, one. Seem to be quite central. Next one, using the 1.7 HMR. In three, two, one. That probably tells you all you need to know about the main difference Between the 2.2 and the 1.7, hell of a lot more powerful and a lot more damage. We'll take the camera over there and have a look but I don't think there's much left of the 1.7 orange to pick up. There's a bit of the 1.7 orange, there's another piece, nice big bit down here about three yards away from where it was shot. That's about the biggest bit, it's absolutely destroyed it. There's orange juice all over the place, just blew it to bits. This is the 2.2 one which actually is pretty good. It was sitting like that, hit a bang in the middle, and that has actually done quite a lot of damage. That's not bad at all. Not bad. Not a patch on the carnage left by the 1.7, though. The answer to probably the most common question people ask me when I make shooting videos and outdoor videos is, how easy is it to get a 2.2 or a 1.7? 2.2s aren't too bad. The calibre's been around for years and years and years. Everybody knows it's suitable for rabbits. What? Getting that's not too bad. Obviously, you still need written permission and place to shoot, a gun cabinet and somewhere to store the bullets. But getting permission, once you have those, is pretty easy in most counties. Some will be stricter than others. The 1.7, I actually had more trouble getting the 1.7 than I would if I applied for a 2.43 or a treble 2.50, one of the really big caliber rifles with a specific purpose of shooting fox or deer. The chief firearms officer of the local force When I was applying for my 1.7 variation, to get that on my ticket, actually asked me to write a letter to him to say that I knew the difference between the 2.2 and the 1.7. I did feel like writing back and just saying, well, if you don't know the difference between them, it's a bad job. But I humoured him, and I basically wrote a letter saying, you know, I understand that these calibres on the face of it are very similar, but the 2.2 is going to be used primarily for night-time shooting, lamping. Where you have a short exposure time, multiple targets, so you need to go whack, whack, whack, whack. The 1.7 would be used primarily for longer range, daytime shooting. Where you need the accuracy at range. That said, once I'd given that, no problem. Got the certificate back with the 1.7 on. I did apply to be able to buy 1,000 rounds at a time, which is probably a little bit excessive. It came back only allowed to buy 500 rounds at a time. That's still pretty good compared to what I've heard other people are allowed to buy. Some people are only allowed to buy two or three hundred at a time, which makes a long round trip to a gun shop very expensive. So my own personal choice is to have both guns. The 1.7 would be very expensive if you had a nation of rabbits to control. I would use a 2.2 for that. But the 1.7... is excellent at long range daytime shooting and the bonus of having the 1.7 is if you see a fox when you're out the 1.7 is going to drop the fox a hell of a lot easier than the 2.2. In fact I wouldn't shoot at a fox with a 2.2. Some people might say that's silly you know but I'd rather shoot something know that I stand a very very good chance of killing it with one shot than Then pump it full of lead with a 2.2. If you could only pick one. Because I don't do much rabbit shooting now, I personally would probably pick the 1.7, but it is a lot more expensive to use it regularly. Hopefully this short video explaining the differences between the two calibers will make you think, yes, I want the 1.7, or no, I'll just stick with the 2.2. The 1.7 isn't that much of a leap. I control a lot of rabbits. It's going to cost me a fortune. I actually prefer using the 1.7, but I like to have both rifles because they both have a specific purpose. Thanks for watching.