Chuck Hawks Compares the .17HMR to the .22WMR

[rob]

I thought this was a really good article. His conclusion is interesting.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_17HMR_22WMR.htm

It's interesting that he came to his conclusion simply based on energy values without any field testing. Everybody that hunts with a 17HMR would know how effective it out to 100 yards, so I really couldn't see any practical advantage of the 22WMR over the 17HMR for shooting small game out to 100 yards.

But, if it was legal to own selfloaders here in oz I'd be striaght down to the LGS to order one chambered in 22WMR  

Lol! Why not a bolt action .22 WMR?

[brown_bear]

I thought this was a really good article. His conclusion is interesting.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_17HMR_22WMR.htm

It's interesting that he came to his conclusion simply based on energy values without any field testing. Everybody that hunts with a 17HMR would know how effective it out to 100 yards, so I really couldn't see any practical advantage of the 22WMR over the 17HMR for shooting small game out to 100 yards.

But, if it was legal to own selfloaders here in oz I'd be striaght down to the LGS to order one chambered in 22WMR 

Lol! Why not a bolt action .22 WMR?

No particular reason.. it's just that if you wanted a selfloading rimfire magnum the 22WMR all there is left. 

[rob]

I see.

They are discussing the new CZ 455 over at Rimfire Central. Most all of them agree the CZ 452/3 was damn near perfect and the only reason for the changes from that to the new gun look like some cost saving features.

And so it goes...

[brown_bear]

I see.

They are discussing the new CZ 455 over at Rimfire Central. Most all of them agree the CZ 452/3 was damn near perfect and the only reason for the changes from that to the new gun look like some cost saving features.

And so it goes...

That's not good.. any news on what's changes between the models actually are?

[rob]

I see.

They are discussing the new CZ 455 over at Rimfire Central. Most all of them agree the CZ 452/3 was damn near perfect and the only reason for the changes from that to the new gun look like some cost saving features.

And so it goes...

That's not good.. any news on what's changes between the models actually are?

One I remember is the absence of locking lugs on the bolt. That sounds bad to me.

Here's the thread, "The New 455"

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330916

[brown_bear]

I see.

They are discussing the new CZ 455 over at Rimfire Central. Most all of them agree the CZ 452/3 was damn near perfect and the only reason for the changes from that to the new gun look like some cost saving features.

And so it goes...

That's not good.. any news on what's changes between the models actually are?

One I remember is the absence of locking lugs on the bolt. That sounds bad to me.

Here's the thread, "The New 455"

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330916

Thanks for posting the link..

I remember the bolt on my 452 being pretty tight when new but it loosend up nicely and seems to get better with more use. That bloke who posted about his 455 sure seems to be doing a lot of messing about with it, filing away at bits and pieces etc..  and I'm wondering if the problems he's having are more to do with his methods of operation rather than the gun.

From what little informaton there is on the 455s it sounds like they are trying to standardize the actions across the rimfire models to achieve this barrel change compatability feature.

Either way, it might be prudent to hold out for wait until there are a good number of 455s in the field to see how the changes pan out..

[epitome]

If the 455 turns out to be a "down grade" from the 452/453 models, that will be very bad news for CZ.

Lets hope things improve with the 455. Hopefully it might just be some QC problems with the initial batch.