Anyone using .17 Fireball?
- Thread starter C h r i s
- Start date
Because the 17 Rem is overbored, and can eat barrels. That has always been the issue with the 17 Rem. The FB/Mach IV is the ideal case capacity for the 17 caliber bore (and therefore extremely efficient when looking at powder charge versus pressure).
Stalker_AG
Well-Known Member
Interesting reading chaps.
Am I right in saying the only advantage over the 17HMR is an increase in power? Is this because you are also going after foxes, or looking for more range on rabbits?
Am I right in saying the only advantage over the 17HMR is an increase in power? Is this because you are also going after foxes, or looking for more range on rabbits?
Depending on the case (Hornet, Fireball or 222RemMag) it is really the amount of powder/power as well as an increase in the weight of projectile that can be launched. there are diminishing returns however, as mentioned previously with the 17Rem.
For foxes, the 17 HH is the lightest with ranges limited to about 150yds for reliable kills without splashing. For the Fireball, 200-250yds. And for the 17 rem, 400yds is about it. then there's the other wildcats, like the 17 Predator, Javelina and 17PPC. All grossly over bore, but intended to launch up to (if they can be found anymore) 40-50gr 17 bullets.
FYI: "Splashing" is when the bullet is going so fast, and spinning so fast, that the bullet actually starts to come apart before it can penetrate. When it occurs, you'll see a red "splash" on the animal, but all it has done was removed a chunk of hide/fur, with minimal penetration or muscle damage.
The challenge with the heavier bullets though is twofold.
1. Trying to push something that heavy down such a tiny bore, even with today's powders, often leads to "peaky" loads where pressure spikes can happen when near the edge of the limits of the case...and often catastrophically.
2. Bullet deformation. This leads to a significant reduction in accuracy and range. That long of a bullet often gets deformed as the leading edge/ogive engages the lands and begins to spin, while the rear is resistant to that sudden rotation, causing jacket separation and/or voids in the core to form as the bullet deforms but is pushed/swaged down the bore. This changes the BC and the center of gravity of the bullet. Often times to the point where the bullet either comes apart upon exit of the muzzle and/or the bullet behaves erratically in flight since the shape of the bullet no longer is anywhere near the original shape.
Saubiers.com is really the honey hole of information on all sub-caliber cartridges (smaller than .224"). Lot of old hands there with a metric **** tonne of information and experience.
Stalker_AG
Well-Known Member
Thanks, guys. Not really a thing I knew anything about until now. I always considered the HMR a fast 17 round... but it's nothing compared to some of those mentioned here!
It would be interesting to hear the noise difference.
It would be interesting to hear the noise difference.
Sonicdmb73
Well-Known Member
I assume you are referring to .204 Ruger?
While the Fireball uses the same bullet it’s a lot less powder about a third less, depending on the powder/bullet. So probably won’t be any louder than the 17 version.
This^
You keep saying you’ve used .204 in the past, you do realise that not all 20 cal cartridges are the same don’t you?
The smaller 20 cartridges will burn smaller amounts of powder and potentially run at lower pressure, meaning they will be quieter than the .204 you keep referring to!
Why is a 20 vartarg going to be any louder than a .17 fireball? They burn the same amount of powder and are very similar bore and bullet size
17 HMR is a slow round generally!! It’s fast for a rimfire but not fast at all….
HMR will send a 17gr bullet at 2550 fps,
My .223 Ackley will do 4100 fps plus with a 30 gr bullet.
My .308 will do 3410 fps with a 110 gr bullet.
My .280 will do 3500 fps (or more) with a 100 gr bullet….. over five times the bullet weight of the HMR. Burns a load more powder though!!
C h r i s
Well-Known Member
Blimey, that's a little bit of a sarcastic question... It'll be louder than a 17 FB and similar to the 204 Ruger because the Vartarg is pushing the same weight bullet to a very similar velocity - so unless I'm going crazy I'd imagine its a similar supersonic crack. I know the powder charge is less, but the moderator will supress that noise component to a negligible level anyway.
And without being rude, the thread is about .17 Fireball, something me and the gunsmith are already committed to - there are a whole bunch of calibres out there in a similar performance bracket, but I wont consider these as there are times when I can't reload so having the ability to buy off the shelf ammunition will be a big bonus.
No, the muzzle blast makes up a large proportion of the report on even with a moderated rifle, the main reason a .22 hornet is so much quieter than a .223 is because it burns about half the powder.
As for buying factory ammo that doesn’t make fireball a good choice, .222 would be better.
The .17 fireball isn’t going to be any quieter than the .20 vartarg.
Last edited:
C h r i s
Well-Known Member
.22 hornet MV is a LOT less than most factory 223 loads, hence quieter - I've done enough real world testing over the last 30 years to realise that a heavier bullet will make more of a crack than a lighter bullet at the same MV, blast suppression is down to the moderator.
I don't need a 222 (how is that even relevant!!), I have multiple 223's - close enough especially when running light bullets, plus more than enough .17FB ammunition at the importers, I spoke to them direct to confirm.
I'll let real world testing tell me that .17FB is or isn't quieter than 20 Vartarg or whatever, which is totally immaterial as I have no interest in .20 Vartarg.
Remember, this thread is about .17FB, thanks to those who have contributed something actually useful (finnbear270, MarinePMI) , I now know that a Sako XS action should feed well enough, and have ammunition and know where to get more.
Looking forward to the build, lets keep this on track please.
I don't need a 222 (how is that even relevant!!), I have multiple 223's - close enough especially when running light bullets, plus more than enough .17FB ammunition at the importers, I spoke to them direct to confirm.
I'll let real world testing tell me that .17FB is or isn't quieter than 20 Vartarg or whatever, which is totally immaterial as I have no interest in .20 Vartarg.
Remember, this thread is about .17FB, thanks to those who have contributed something actually useful (finnbear270, MarinePMI) , I now know that a Sako XS action should feed well enough, and have ammunition and know where to get more.
Looking forward to the build, lets keep this on track please.
Funny, in the previous post you said you imagined it, now you are telling me you have done full testing of different bullet weights, presumably with calibrated sound testing equipment, not just your subjective ear?
Best of luck with the build, not sure it’ll do what you think it will but only one way to find out.
Last edited:
C h r i s
Well-Known Member
Come on man... I was being sarcastic.
I'd imagine its a similar supersonic crack (204 Ruger vs 20 Vartarg) because I am yet to personally conduct real world tests with each. Anyone who hasn't fired both, side by side in a direct comparison isn't really qualified make any statement of fact on the matter.
So long as its quieter than a 204 that has ammo available off the shelf and similar bullet drop at 200yds, and doesn't burn the barrel as quick as a 17 Rem then I'm happy.
I'd imagine its a similar supersonic crack (204 Ruger vs 20 Vartarg) because I am yet to personally conduct real world tests with each. Anyone who hasn't fired both, side by side in a direct comparison isn't really qualified make any statement of fact on the matter.
So long as its quieter than a 204 that has ammo available off the shelf and similar bullet drop at 200yds, and doesn't burn the barrel as quick as a 17 Rem then I'm happy.
Not true. Physics doesn’t change just because you haven’t heard it in person. You are still seriously down playing the effect of muzzle blast on overall report volume, burn less powder in the same bore you will get less muzzle blast. Burn the same amount of powder in a smaller bore you will get more muzzle blast. The idea a moderator removes it completely in a supersonic round is just daft.Come on man... I was being sarcastic.
I'd imagine its a similar supersonic crack (204 Ruger vs 20 Vartarg) because I am yet to personally conduct real world tests with each. Anyone who hasn't fired both, side by side in a direct comparison isn't really qualified make any statement of fact on the matter.
So long as its quieter than a 204 that has ammo available off the shelf and similar bullet drop at 200yds, and doesn't burn the barrel as quick as a 17 Rem then I'm happy.
Gunfire Noise Level Reference Chart (dB) For Shotgun, Rifle, Pistol - EAR Customized Hearing Protection
Expert gunshot noise decibel chart for various types of rifle, shotgun, and pistol, based on research by Dr. Krammer. Gunfire noise can reach levels well over the threshold of pain. Even a single shot can expose your ears to more than 150 dB, enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
earinc.com
Gives 155.5 db report for a .223 55 gr commercial load, a jet z (known for being one of the better mod’s attenuation wise) will attenuate 32 db at best. That leaves a whole lot of muzzle blast to add to your sound signature.
The .204 you mention above burns more powder in a smaller bore than the .223 so that is why the .223 is quieter.
As for your quest
The .17 won’t be as flat as the .204 due to the lower BC of the bullets used, but it will be quieter.
Last edited:
C h r i s
Well-Known Member
Never said a moderator will completely remove all noise from muzzle blast, agreed that is daft - however I have done a LOT of testing of moderators, using calibre specific mods of same construction (DPT 7 baffle, OB), 20" barrels, and firing into soft sand at 45 degrees @ 3m you get a good idea of the noise of different calibres without any supersonic crack to contend with. Far from scientific but witnesses came to the same conclusions - the noise with a good calibre specific mod but without supersonic crack is minimal and not too offensive, reaching the conclusion that a lot of the 'really offensive' noise is indeed the supersonic crack.
How to reduce muzzle blast....? Its not just about a wider bore, a longer barrel can be equally effective.
Appreciate the inherent lower BC of the .17 compared to a .20, however it should work out more or less as flat to 200m as my previous 204 factory rifles. Bullet drop is also governed by velocity. Being a semi-custom rifle I can spec the barrel length to get a higher velocity from the .17, that's all been worked out a long time ago. Understand that if I was having a custom 204 I could get better overall performance for the same barrel length, but I'm not.
How to reduce muzzle blast....? Its not just about a wider bore, a longer barrel can be equally effective.
Appreciate the inherent lower BC of the .17 compared to a .20, however it should work out more or less as flat to 200m as my previous 204 factory rifles. Bullet drop is also governed by velocity. Being a semi-custom rifle I can spec the barrel length to get a higher velocity from the .17, that's all been worked out a long time ago. Understand that if I was having a custom 204 I could get better overall performance for the same barrel length, but I'm not.
Stalker_AG
Well-Known Member
Thanks,
Yes I realised bigger centrefires were much faster, but I had always considered HMR fast in .17 as I didn't think the tiny bullet would stand up to too much more velocity... but clearly, it does!!! Just didn't really know about .17 centrefire I guess, it's just not that common round here.
Brilliant stuff.
Similar threads
