Philpot

[Alsone 789]

I've seen videos of a Coyotes shot with .17 Hornet. It killed it but not without it running off, jumping around and yelping, no doubt bleeding out. Not humane in my opinion to shoot such a large animal with such a small low powered bullet. BTW it was a well placed heart / lung shot. The .17 Hornet is very capable on fox to medium distances but Coyotes are another ball game. I've no experience shooting them, but personally I'd be looking at a minimum of .223, .204 / .22-250 or Swift.  I don't think anyone can make a case for shooting a 45lb animal with a .17 at any kind of distance. 20yds maybe it's humane.  Typical range of medium to long range, a lot less justifiable.




 

[BenBhoy 4,706]

Pigeon watch is only good for the trading section. If you want a bit of banter & ejaculation then it has to be THL. 

[Meece 1,957]

2 hours ago, Alsone said:

I've seen videos of a Coyotes shot with .17 Hornet. It killed it but not without it running off, jumping around and yelping, no doubt bleeding out. Not humane in my opinion to shoot such a large animal with such a small low powered bullet. BTW it was a well placed heart / lung shot. The .17 Hornet is very capable on fox to medium distances but Coyotes are another ball game. I've no experience shooting them, but personally I'd be looking at a minimum of .223, .204 / .22-250 or Swift.  I don't think anyone can make a case for shooting a 45lb animal with a .17 at any kind of distance. 20yds maybe it's humane.  Typical range of medium to long range, a lot less justifiable.




 

Nah, Nah, Nah.  1.7 REM CF ain't the pip-squeak 1.7 hornet.  A 1.7 REM CF is a necked down version of a .222 Remington magnum cartridge which is similar to a 223 but the case is about 2mm longer.  This case is necked down to 1.7 and launches a 20 .... to .... 30 grain bullet at speeds up to about 4,500 fps. Virtually no recoil, piano string trajectory.  devastating terminal internal wound effect out to 300 yards.  There was virtually no entry wound and no exit wound.  The terminal energy was unloaded inside of the carcase and when the coyote which is sort of like a small Alsatian size ( coyote stands about 60 cm (24 inches) at the shoulder, weighs about 9–23 kg (20–50 pounds),  was picked up it was just like a bag of jelly.   it is a fantastic round that has everything that would be desired.  It was designed for varmint shooting to save damage to fur pelts.  it is a commercial manufactured round and it is used a  lot in Australia but for some strange reason hasn't had the world wide success that it should have had. it is possible that out in the USA things are slightly different than we perceive them and there is an attitude of I can so I have the right.  this is why the buffalo was nearly slaughtered to extinction as was the passenger pigeon. its a 30. 06 or it aint a gun.  The1.7 REM CF can be thought of as a specialist cartridge and the guys on coyote gods were definitely specialist with special short barrelled custom made rifles and tolling techniques using decoy dogs.to lure the coyote in to a kill zone.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.17_Remington

Edited February 15, 2020 by Meece

[Sausagedog 7,381]

 

A few things that lost the 17rem the spot light were wind, rain and barrel cleaning.

Wind is a pain for any bullet. The 17 becomes a short range rifle on a windy day.

If it's raining don't bother. A single drop of rain may as well be a brick.

Cleaning. Most folk struggle at cleaning a center fires barrel properly once groups start to open. A friend's 17r would go from 1/4 moa to 1moa after about 25rds. His barrel needed soaking for 24hours in hoppes#9 to get back to 1/4moa. Most folk today think you only need to pull a bore snake thingie through if you've got nothing better to do once in a while!

Don't get me wrong. I love 17rem. I spent three years with a feller using one.

I have seen him shoot fox's in the head at 300yds. Magpies at 300yds. Running foxes up to 300yds.

Personally I didn't think it was that flat and by 400 yards it's running out of steam. We recovered 25gr Hornady hp bullets from sandy soil at 400+ yards that had not gone any deeper than a 22lr would at 50yds and they looked like they could be reloaded!

Reloading it was a fiddle obviously due to the tiny case mouth but the big issue was charge weight issue. A mere 1/10 of a grain change could ruin a batch of ammo. Powder throwers were useless. He had to weigh every charge and use a trickler every time. By comparison a 308 I once had made single hole groups on charges thrown by the basic Lee powder thrower.

In my experience (limited) it's a 300yd rifle but very safe due to it fizzling out very quickly. I heard it said somewhere that if shot up into the sky the bullet will only make 1000yds. I don't know how true that is but going off what I saw I can believe it.

It's a specialists cartridge in my opinion and not for the faint hearted.

[Alsone 789]

I missed the Remington bit. I would still consider the bullet on the small side though.

As for shooting a bullet with between 900-1200 ft lbs into the air and it only travelling 1,000yds, I'd call bullshit. .22LR comes with a 1.5 mile warning on the box (@ 2,000yds ?) and the energy from that is around 300ft lbs or 1/4 that of the .17 rem. There's a big difference between usable range and potentially dangerous range.

[lllluke1 328]

.22lr @ 900yards. Still ringing the steel 

 

 

[Sausagedog 7,381]

7 hours ago, Alsone said:

I missed the Remington bit. I would still consider the bullet on the small side though.

As for shooting a bullet with between 900-1200 ft lbs into the air and it only travelling 1,000yds, I'd call bullshit. .22LR comes with a 1.5 mile warning on the box (@ 2,000yds ?) and the energy from that is around 300ft lbs or 1/4 that of the .17 rem. There's a big difference between usable range and potentially dangerous range.

There is a huge difference between shooting something straight up and nearer to ground level. You need to brush up on your physics matey.

You only have to compare the huge rocket required to carry a payload straight up compared to a relatively smaller vehicle flying a payload horizontally.

Gravity is constant, velocity isn't. The lighter the free flying object the faster it slows, also factor in the faster it goes the more force is acting on it in the opposite direction via the atomsphere.

For example, try launching a paper airplane at 4000fps, how far would it go? No where, opposite force would destroy it.

22 wise, it's trump card is it's slow speed! Air imparts much less opposite force on it, air to some degree can move around it. The compressed pocket of air in front of the bullet is less than something traveling twice as fast.

Compare two vessels at sea. One is a car ferry and the other a speed boat. They cross a line at full speed, then at 100yds shut their engines down. Which one stops first?

In Sam and Marks videos they often shoot from a high elevation! Never wondered why?

Alsone, please tell me how many years you have owned CF rifles? Stop looking at energy figures! It's an equation and not reality. A bullet never ever will deliver a value in lbs weight to the value predicted. It's a red herring. It's not even a square value.

If you take a bullet with value X and another bullet exactly the same but travelling faster to produce double the value of X the latter does not go twice as far. It does not return twice as much work. Foot pounds are a complete red herring in judging ballistic performance.

It's only use is legalities via committees of experts.

Ever hear the phrase diminishing returns?

The 17 Rem starts off fast but is easily over come by atmosphere where upon time and gravity pull it to earth also very quickly.

The 45/70 500gn bullet starts off slow. Is not  so overwhelmed by atmosphere. Time is added against the constant gravity via elevation away from horizontal. Just like the heavy ship, it goes further, it has more momentum.

Phone NASA, they'll talk you through it.

[Alsone 789]

Sausage, check out this: https://www.wired.com/2009/09/how-high-does-a-bullet-go/
 

If you don't trust Wired, then if you google it, there's the same discussion of the Mythbusters tests on a science forum that reach pretty much the same conclusion.

Mythbusters checked this out with a .30-06 and found it went to 10,000 feet when fired vertically. Some have since challenged this and found they may have made a mistake and it potentially goes even higher. 

You have to remember here the differences with .17, but having a smaller surface area means less drag (hence why it flies flatter horizontally), and it also has a much higher velocity than a .30-06. The flip side, is it has less mass. I'm not a scientist so can't calculate the difference, but as a moot point, they also found a 9mm handgun round, which is a big slow high drag low energy projectile compared to a rifle round, managed to reach 1,300m or 4,300 feet!. In the light of the latter, it's highly unlikely a .17 Rem is only going to reach 1,000 feet.

As for it being shot up into the sky, all the above assumes 90 degrees ie straight up like a rocket. If windage is present or the angle is less, then the horizontal travel could be massive.

This table from a Hunting Education Course concurs with what I said - .22LR HV at sea level - around 1.5 miles, .222 around 2.3 miles, and as.17 Remington out ranges .222 in usable flat trajectory due to lower drag, I'd guess the total distance travelled is probably greater than the 2.3 miles of .222.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Know-Your-Rifle-or-Handguns-Range/20105001_700046704/



Remember as well, the higher above sea level, the further the travel.

I wouldn't mention to your FEO that you believe your CF's will only travel 1,000 feet if fired into the air. You'll be revoked faster than a rocket flies. You'll face even worse if your 1,000 foot bullet hits someone a couple of miles away. There's a very good reason why it's essential to backstop a rifle.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Alsone

[walshie 2,804]

Let's not confuse a bullet being fired vertically and tumbling back to earth at terminal velocity with a bullet being fired on a trajectory.

[Sausagedog 7,381]

1 hour ago, Alsone said:

Sausage, check out this: https://www.wired.com/2009/09/how-high-does-a-bullet-go/
 

If you don't trust Wired, then if you google it, there's the same discussion of the Mythbusters tests on a science forum that reach pretty much the same conclusion.

Mythbusters checked this out with a .30-06 and found it went to 10,000 feet when fired vertically. Some have since challenged this and found they may have made a mistake and it potentially goes even higher. 

You have to remember here the differences with .17, but having a smaller surface area means less drag (hence why it flies flatter horizontally), and it also has a much higher velocity than a .30-06. The flip side, is it has less mass. I'm not a scientist so can't calculate the difference, but as a moot point, they also found a 9mm handgun round, which is a big slow high drag low energy projectile compared to a rifle round, managed to reach 1,300m or 4,300 feet!. In the light of the latter, it's highly unlikely a .17 Rem is only going to reach 1,000 feet.

As for it being shot up into the sky, all the above assumes 90 degrees ie straight up like a rocket. If windage is present or the angle is less, then the horizontal travel could be massive.

This table from a Hunting Education Course concurs with what I said - .22LR HV at sea level - around 1.5 miles, .222 around 2.3 miles, and as.17 Remington out ranges .222 in usable flat trajectory due to lower drag, I'd guess the total distance travelled is probably greater than the 2.3 miles of .222.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Know-Your-Rifle-or-Handguns-Range/20105001_700046704/



Remember as well, the higher above sea level, the further the travel.

I wouldn't mention to your FEO that you believe your CF's will only travel 1,000 feet if fired into the air. You'll be revoked faster than a rocket flies. You'll face even worse if your 1,000 foot bullet hits someone a couple of miles away. There's a very good reason why it's essential to backstop a rifle.

I never mentioned 1000' (feet)!

Re the 30-06 and 10,000' shot vertical that equates to 3333yds.

Standard ball ammo for 30-06 is 155gn.

So a bullet 6x the weight only went 3000yds plus straight up! My money is still on 17Rem making a 1000yds straight up! Also the 17 does not have less drag, if anything it has more drag! It's ballistic coefficient is way down compared to the .30-06. The calculus of a coefficient considers many factors. A standard ball round for a 30-06 (155gn spitzer boat tail) is actually "slippier' through air than a 25gn 17hp flat base! Irrespective of velocity.....no actually, the increased velocity makes it worse for the 17!

Thanks for the chart. It gives my argument weight too. A WMR has more energy at 100 than a 22lr has at the muzzle in terms of the useless ft/lb values but look how little more it travels, not much more at all!

Just one more question for you to answer mate, still waiting

Edited February 16, 2020 by Sausagedog

[Alsone 789]

I'm not going to argue physics with you because I'm not a physic professor. But run the ballistics through Gundata and you'll find that .17 remington and .30-06 tail off very similarly when shot horizontally. At 1,000yds, both have around 500 inches of drop. This suggests a very similar total distance of travel through air as both are towards the end of their travel horizontally. If the .17 has more air resistance then gravity is proportional to mass and the .30-06 is heavier, so one is cancelling out the other.

I still don't believe a .17 remington bullet will travel 1/3 rd less than a 9mm parabellum handgun round if fired vertically. I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can find the ballistics show otherwise from a reliable source.

Either way, a CF is not a safe gun to fire elevated and neither is a RF for that matter.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Alsone