17 MACH IV

T

TOM64

New member
Please tell me the pros and cons of this caliber vs the 17 Remington. I noticed it's chambered in the T/C Contender custom shop barrels, that's the direction I'm heading anyway.
 
The 17 mach iv is based on the 221 fireball cartridge and the 17rem is based on the 222magnum.
Quite a bit of difference, if you like effecient mild round mach iv,a scorcher 17 rem.Best luck Mike
 
Last edited:
Pro's 17M4

A little less powder, a little less noise, and a little more barrel life.

Con's 17M4

It's a wildcat. You will need more exspensive dies, more time at the reloading bench, slightly less velocity.

Pro's 17 Rem

More velocity, easy to reload, you can buy factory brass and ammo, and factory rifles are available.

Con's

slightly louder, slightly less barrel life.


Basically the 17 Mach IV will do almost what the 17 Rem will do with almost the same powder.
 
The 17machIV is alittle slower shooting equal bullets, Redding type s dies they are the same cost as 17Rem. Hornady makes a 20gr V-Max that's a good bullet for the 17machIV if wanting to get velocity up with the 17Rem.
Alot of good powders for both calibers and if your a 17 cal shooter be hard press to pick one over the other, me I solved that problems years ago have both. Only extra cost I have is the form die for the 17machIV and I think they are around $60 from Sinclair now.
Kind of hard to say on barrel life other than it's how one shoots and takes care of them. I rebarrel both mine the same time. In the 17Rem I never have gotten good groups over 4000fps, most of mine have been around 3850 to 3925fps and I've had my best luck with IMR-4320 and 25gr bullets in the 17machIV with 20gr bullets I'm using N-133 or 8208. Well good luck
 
Quote:
Actually the .17 Remington is a necked down .223 not a .222 Mag The .204 is based on the 222 Mag.JC



No JC both the 17 Rem and 204 are based on the 222 mag. The 17 mach IV is based on the 221 fireball.

I've got both the 17 Rem and 17 Mach IV and shooting 25 gr bullets the coyotes can't tell the difference. The Mach IV will do any thing that the 17 Rem will do with less powder and noise. Like Jack Roberts pointed out the barrel life is much better on the Mach IV. Other than the case forming (which by the way is quite simple) there really is no difference loading the 2 rounds. If your looking to try out a wildcat the Mach IV is a good place to start. There is also at least one place that you can buy the formed brass for the Mach IV (for the life of me I can't find that link though) and I believe that Cooper sells loaded ammo for the Mach IV. My 17 Rem is gathering alot of dust since I got a Mach IV.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Actually the .17 Remington is a necked down .223 not a .222 Mag The .204 is based on the 222 Mag.JC



17 Rem is a necked down 222 MAG, I think you were thinking 17 MK IV, which can be made from the .223...JOHN
 
Quote:
Quote:
Actually the .17 Remington is a necked down .223 not a .222 Mag The .204 is based on the 222 Mag.JC



17 Rem is a necked down 222 MAG, I think you were thinking 17 MK IV, which can be made from the .223...JOHN


\
If you read THE HANDLOADERS MANUAL OF CARTRIDGE CONVERSIONS they list the 223 case. The case lenght on the 222mag is 1.850,223 1.760 and 17rem 1.796. Body lenght in the 17 is 1.351,223 1.438 and 222mag 1.463. Using the 223 case you don't have to move the shoulders back as much and come closer to OAL of the 17 than if you used 222mag case. I've always used the 223 case.
They made a 17 Ackley Mag (17x222mag) didn't do anything but neck to 17cal. Just my .02
 
In reality, the 17 Remington is based on the 222 Remington Magnum case in spite of what The Handloaders Manual of Cartridge Conversions states. It's just another example of don't believe everything you read in printed books and magazines.

17 Rem cases can be made from 223 Remington cases, but they end up aproximately 0.030-0.040" shorter than a SAAMI spec 17 Remington case, which is not the best thing for the front of a SAAMI spec rifle chamber.

The 222 Remington Mag is indeed the parent case for the 17 Remington. The other contention is a myth......that works in a limited way....since the resulting case is too short.

Rope's posted case lengths point out this fact. You don't stretch a case's overall length to form another case from it. If you start with a case that's too short (223 Rem), you end up with a case that's also too short. If you use the correct parent case (222 RM), you end up with a slightly longer case but it's easily trimmed to proper length for the SAAMI spec rifle chamber.

I've never found a source yet that tells how to shorten the case neck on an already reamed SAAMI spec rifle chamber to compensate for brass that's too short. If you use 222 RM brass to form 17 Rem cases, it's not a problem you need to concern yourself with....

In my situation, I just buy 17 Remington factory cases and I don't have to worry about any of it..... Granted, quality 223 Rem brass makes for good cartridge conversions (like with the Tac 20), but not when the resulting case neck is way too short for the rifle chamber it's to be used in.

-BCB
 

I know you don't beleive what is written but an article by Ron Terrell in Varmit and Small Game Rifles and Cartridges talks about a modified 223 case used as the parent to the 17rem which is about right since the wildcat 17-22,17-223 and 17-222mag were already being use before the 17rem came out. I was waiting in line to buy one of those factory 17rem as I was shooting the 17-222 and 17-223. All the necks I miked on the 222mag case are alot thicker than the 17rem and when I made cases from 222mag I had to clean up the necks and ream the inside after the first firing, when I used the 223 cases after the first firing neck brass move up some so case OAL was about right. I'm more concern with the case lenght to the top of the shoulders at the neck than the neck length. I've taken alot of cases that the neck needs alot of trimming and I shorten them alot more than would be the mim and never had a problem. We differ on this but what the heck alot of 17rem brass out there. You might want to tell us all about the problems you mention in your post on www.saubier.com about making 17rem brass from 222mag but there again I don't believe everything I read!!!
 
Sure, roper......If you'd care to enlighten me, and others, to what I said.... I think you might have me confused with someone else as I've only played with making the case conversion in question. It worked OK but I saw no real benefit for me in doing it....

I did make 204 Ruger brass from 222 RM brass early on in the life of the 204 ruger before brass was available, but I never had an problems doing that either.

I did a search of all 29 pages showing at Saubier and found three references to the 17 Rem and case forming: The page shown is the current Saubier page at the time of this reply.

1. Page 14 - 17 Remington Brass from 222 Rem Mag Brass -
Help!!!!

2. Page 16 - 17 Rem 222 RM brass with 30 grain MEF Moly

3. Page 22 - Forming short 17 Rem cases from .223 Brass

I didn't do a Saubier archive search as posts are archived by date only, so you need to know what date a certain post was made. However, the topic comes up occasionally and any poster who believes the 17 Rem was derived directly from the 223 Rem is always quicky, but politely, corrected, generally with a technical explanation as to why he is not correct.

Of the three found, I only commented on the post on page 14, and it was in the form of a questions to Silverfox - who origninally made the post - as I knew he was in the process of building a new 17 Rem rifle, and I thought he might be doing something different with the chamber. Are you confusing the two of us, Silverfox and I, maybe?

I do remember in the past you've questioned some of Silverfox's 204 Ruger velocity data that he has posted here, even though at the time you did not have a 204 Ruger to really know the truth.....

In the post on page 22, Daryl did state he found some federal 223 Rem brass that made up in longer cases than normal and pointed that out. I didn't comment at all but do remember reading the post at the time.

Incidently, I do frequent Saubier quite often, but there are folks there who routinely form cases for wildcats and other small bore cartridges that are far more knowledgeable than I am about those isssues. I've learned a lot there.

In addition, if someone makes a crazy or stupid comment, folks there are generally pretty good about setting the poster straight, in a nice way. In the 4 years I've posted at Saubier, no one has ever pointed out any really grave, stupid mistakes on my part. And I communicate frequently with quite a few of those folks, so I'm sure either on the foruum or in private I would have been questioned about a statement I might have made in error - on any subject. They are a lot of good folks there as well as being very nowledgeable.

Even though I've never noticed you posting there, you might post your 17 Rem/223 Rem information on Saubier and see what response you get about the true parentage of the 17 Remington. You might find it enlightening, in spite of what both our copies of the Handloader's Manual of Cartridge Conversions says.

If you want to make 17 Rem brass from 223 Rem cases..... have at it.... it ain't hurtin' me none.

Have a nice day.... I hope to hear back from you.

-BCB
 
Just got back from a coyote hunt this afternoon with my .17 Mach IV XP-100 handgun. Got 1 at 300 yds. I like the heavier bullets since they give me an edge in energy beyond 250. Using the 30 gr. Starke at 3400 out of the 17" barrel. The rig has the Burris 4-12X Compact rifle scope on it.
 
Back
Top