.17 cal./Bullseye

boomer47 · Post by **boomer47** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:31 pm

Bullseye,

Do you have any new info about Ruger bringing out a MK111 in .17 caliber?
I can't see any reason Ruger can't do it as the 10/22 rifle has been upgraded to .17 cal. and the only things I can think of that are needed is a stronger recoil spring and maybe a heavier bolt.
I've just finished tweaking out my 5th Hunter along with 2 MK11678gc's and am looking for a new toy.
A friend has a .17 10/22 and after shooting it and looking at the internals I can't see why the MK111 could not handle the cartridge with a little beefing up.
I can't imagine the chamber of a MK111 being overstressed by any .22LR case,no matter how much powder you stuffed into the case, so it must be the bolt and recoil spring that makes the difference and that ought to a fairly simple fix.
In any case, it should make the MK line more competitive as there seems to be a lot of interest in the .17 cal. now.
Also, that .17 cal. 10/22 is a REAL tackdriver. I don't know what ammo he was using but he was shooting dime sized 10 shot groups at 75 yards,using a Bushnell 3-9x scope set at 6x, off a bench with a sandbag rest.

Post by **Bullseye** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:51 pm

No I have no further information on the .17HM2 Mark III. The last information I had was the entire project was scrapped for technical difficulties. You might want to contact their technical dept and see if they'll share info with you. They won't share info with me anymore, since the LCI thing.

R,
Bullseye

Post by **Bullseye** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:12 pm

Boomer,

I found this on the Tactical Solutions website. It supports my previous description of the technical problems associated with the .17M2 cartridge in autoloading pistols.

".17 Mach 2

At this time we have decided not to offer our lightweight 10/22 barrels and Pac-Lite uppers for the .17 Mach 2 cartridge. We have have safety concerns with the faster peak pressure curve of the .17 Mach 2 cartridge in our semi-automatic products. ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS has also advised against the use of this cartridge in semi-automatic firearms originally designed for the .22 LR cartridge. We are continuing research and development with the .17 Mach 2 cartridge and plan to have future offerings in these products."

Ruger once had a tech sheet out stating this, but in their new website upgrade it got lost.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye

boomer47 · Post by **boomer47** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:29 pm

Bullseye,

I'm a little late getting back on this but I see Nic is still offering .17 conversion parts for the 10/22.
I still can't see any reason the MK series pistols can't handle the load if an aluminum receiver 10/22 can. The .17 is just not that wild a cartidge.
The Stingers and Aguila are already up to around 1600-1700fps with a heavier bullet than the .17 and the MK chamber is surely strong enough to handle the .17, just need to tame the bolt speed down a bit like the VQ 10/22 kit does.
However, it seems to be a dead issue so I'm going to forget about it for now but I'll bet it won't be long before someone comes out with either a pistol(semi auto, not revolver) or MK retrofit kit for the .17 like VQ did for the 10/22.

R, Jack

Post by **Bullseye** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:04 pm

Boomer, I hear you but I don't know why they dropped the .17 project at Ruger. As you know, I've been the "Red Headed Stepchild" since the LCI thing, so my contacts have dried up, otherwise I'd have that answer for you.

There have been other caliber modifications to the basic ruger 22 auto. I have a picture of one converted to 32SWL. I'm sure the conversion could be done but at what cost, and is it marketable? I don't have those answers. If someone else comes out with a conversion kit, then more power to them. Tac Solutions hit a winner, so there's no reason why someone else couldn't.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:08 am

Bomer and Bulseye tak a look at this on the .17 caliber, just popped in Tac Sols site and found this
Sunday
August 13, 2006 .17 Mach 2

At this time we have decided not to offer our lightweight 10/22 barrels and Pac-Lite uppers for the .17 Mach 2 cartridge. We have have safety concerns with the faster peak pressure curve of the .17 Mach 2 cartridge in our semi-automatic products. ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS has also advised against the use of this cartridge in semi-automatic firearms originally designed for the .22 LR cartridge. We are continuing research and development with the .17 Mach 2 cartridge and plan to have future offerings in these products.

Post by **Bullseye** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:19 am

Len, You saw that Tactical Solutions .17 Mach 2 article before that (look up at my August 10 posting)

I guess what I should have said in my last posting was, "Tactical Solutions hit a winner with their lightweight aluminum 22 upper kits, so I see no reason why someone else couldn't with a .17 Mach 2 conversion."

I didn't say that very well.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:12 am

Bullseye wrote:Len, You saw that Tactical Solutions .17 Mach 2 article before that (look up at my August 10 posting)

I guess what I should have said in my last posting was, "Tactical Solutions hit a winner with their lightweight aluminum 22 upper kits, so I see no reason why someone else couldn't with a .17 Mach 2 conversion."

I didn't say that very well.

R,
Bullseye

Found it, actualy post date is 11th. Old Polaks have poor memories and they are shot too. That cartridg must really have a short rise time to cause so much caution, better than blowing smeones hand or fac off though. Only reason Ido not forget to put on pnts before leavin house is ther is n pocket on m butt to carry my pistol.
Use a lot of slower burning Green Dot myself to keep the rise time longer. Use it in 12, 20, abd 28 gage shotshells and in .45ACP, it really makes a difference in felt recoil and muzzle jump. I the .45ACP 200 grain LSWC and 5.0 green dot is a sweet shooting load, you should try it
Remembr old Polaks never die, they always smell that way.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Found it, actualy post date is 11th.

Do you have your forum clock set for GMT? I show that posting a 10 Aug 2006 at 6:12pm.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:03 pm

Bullseye wrote:
Found it, actualy post date is 11th.
Do you have your forum clock set for GMT? I show that posting a 10 Aug 2006 at 6:12pm.

R,
Bullseye

Evidently no, always wondered what time zone the forum was on, did not realize yoiu used Zulu time just like the airlines and the military. That way everyone uses the same time.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:18 pm

Len you can set your own forum time. Just go to profile and scroll down the page, under the "preferences" section there's a line called "timezone." You select the time for your area and that sets the forum time on your machine.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:27 pm

Bullseye wrote:Len you can set your own forum time. Just go to profile and scroll down the page, under the "preferences" section there's a line called "timezone." You select the time for your area and that sets the forum time on your machine.

R,
Bullseye

just took care of that, now we are both on the same time.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:36 pm

Great, now we've synchronized our watches!

R,
Bullseye