Dec 18, 2001

should use 222 brass, if you use 223 you will not need to trim for awhile

if you went with 222 brass you may need to neck turn which will make you a tight neck chamber with out having to shoot neck turned brass all the time

Re: .17 Rem brass?
Re: Re: .17 Rem brass? -- JD		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Dan C ^Ž
12/21/2001, 09:48:23

I'm with Al, just stick with the factory stuff. Any percieved advantage to using 223 brass would be hard to detect for sure. You *could* use 222 brass, as the secondary shoulder created while case forming would give you plenty to headspace from for fire forming. But you would end up with the same problem as cases formed from 223's, too short. You don't want a bunch of dead space between the front of the case neck and the end of the chamber neck. No bullet support, increased erosion like Al stated. If you MUST use something other than factory 17 brass, the best alternative is 222 Mag brass, and again you are likely stuck with Remington brand.

I form all my Mach IV stuff from W-W or IMI 223 brass because I've found the quality and consistency of Rem Fireball brass pretty spotty. By using 223 brass, I can also fit the case length to my chamber length which is nice. But the 17 stuff does seem much better than the Fireball stuff.

Dan C

Re: .17 Rem brass?
Re: .17 Rem brass? -- Doug Rumbaugh		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Al Nyhus ^Ž
12/21/2001, 07:16:59

I've tried this on a couple of different occasions with .17 Rems. that had factory chambers. I never could get the reformed 223 stuff to shoot well, despite the reduced neck/chamber clearance. You also need to remember that in effect you will have a .17 Rem. case that is .036 shorter in the neck. This exposes the distal end of the neck area of the chamber to quite a bit more erosion. For me, it wasn't a succesful experiment, but maybe it will work for you.

Also, you CANNOT use 222 Rem. brass as suggested in another post. The datum line is approx. .087 shorter in the 222 than the .17 Rem. case, so you would be unable to headspace the case correctly.

The factory .17 Remington brass is some of the most underated brass out there. It is well annealed and it's weights are very consistent. It's good stuff. Are you having neck splitting problems?

How about RWS 5.6x50mm Magnum brass
Re: Re: .17 Rem brass? -- Al Nyhus		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Doug Rumbaugh ^Ž
12/21/2001, 10:18:05

Thanks for the response. No neck splitting, I just like to have options. I was also looking for an alternative that will allow me to reduce the "slop" in the chamber at the neck. With my 6PPC USA factory rifle, I was able to use 220 Russian brass instead of 6PPC USA brass and was able to simulate a tight neck gun with my factory chamber. This concept appeals to me.

Has anyone tried 5.6x50mm Magnum brass? This case is dimensionally similar to the .17 Rem since it was based on the 222 Magnum case; however, it is too long both at the shoulder and overall. It is made by RWS which is very good brass. Is there a problem shortening them and then bumping the shoulder back the required .234"? I have never formed cases with the shoulder modification so I don't know if this is a problem. Also, it seems that this case might be a good one to neck down to .17 for a wildcat that has more powder capacity than the .17 Remington to shoot those 37 grain VLDs. Anyone ever done this?

Modified by Doug Rumbaugh at Fri, Dec 21, 2001, 12:23:57