Have enjoyed reading about the original 17 Remington ever since I first saw it in the Gun Digest the year Remington introduced it.
One of the first rifles I ever bought was a 17 in the Remington 700. Have since had one of the original LH Kimbers in 17 Remington as well as rebarreled Remington 700 and Savage rifles for it.
Always thought that the parent case of the original 17 Remington was the 223 Remington case with some obvious changes.
Tonight someone told me that its parent case was not the 223 Remington but the older 222 Remington Magnum case.
Of course, a factory round from the beginning doesn't really have to claim a parent other than an engineer or draftsman. There were older wildcats that had similar dimensions and ballistic performance to it. Think H&R built 17-223 wildcats on the Sako Vixen action.
Thoughts as to the parentage of the original 17 Remington ?
.
Don't know the original, but a better design would have been the .50BMG
Imagine the effects on a prarie poodle with a 25gr boolit at about 12,000FPS. It ought to just melt them.
The parent case of the 17 Rem is 223. 222mag is the parent for 204 Ruger, IIRC.
All published documents that I can find give the 223 Remington as the parent case that Mike Walker of Remington worked with to design the 17 Remington, introduced somewhere around 1971. Usually with a comment that he pushed back the shoulder angle differently than the 17-223 wildcat that some including H&R were playing with.
However, about a half dozen folks have come back emphatically saying that the parent case was the 222 Remington Magnum but don't cite any published source.
Any thoughts on the source of this disagreement or misunderstanding ?
Don't know about the 17 Rem but the first 17 I ever had was a 17Bee in 1953. It was on a Springfield action and was a BullPup configuration. Still have one of the empty Sisk bullet boxes somewhere. I know there were some 17Hornets at the same time but the Bee version was pretty good.
Parent case is the 222 Rem.. If looking for step-parent I would say 222 Rem. Magnum. Why? Case length. The 17 is longer than the 223 (make a 17 out of a 223 and you'll know). Most show the std. 222 as parent of all of 'em.
The 17 Remington is definitely in the 222 Remington family.
As to case length, we recognize the 44 Russian as the parent of the 44 Special, which is the parent of the 44 Magnum. Yet each parent is shorter than the offspring.
Isn't the parent case for the .223 the .222 or .222 Magnum? If so, the confusin on this issue is understandable.
First came the .222 Remy.
Then came the .222 Mangle-um and .223 - about the same time as the eggspurts were trying to purfekt Eugene Stoner's Buck Roger's-looking-concept-rifle, that we now know as the M16 family of military rifles.
The .221 Fireball came along a couple years later when the XP100 bolt-pistol was first introduced, @1962.
I suppose folks could argue the Triple Duece is the "parent" of all of them, including the .17 Fireball and wildcats 6X45mm and 6X47mm carts .....
But unless someone is maikng their own .17 Remy brass (and perhaps the .222M might be better to work with than .223 brass - hypothetically speaking) .....
.222M vs .223 is really splitting hairs!
The .223 was adopted to chamber in Stoner's brainchild, and the .222M has fallen into obsolescence.
Maybe if the .222M had been adopted to use in Stoner's rifle the .223R would now be obsolete? (who cares!?)
Remington records probably show the 223, extruded longer. Remember, I believe 1971 was the last year Rem. chambered the 222 Mag., and were pretty much done supporting it. Whether or not Walker used it, who knows?
Chicken or the egg?!!
The 222 made the Mag, the Mag made the 223, the 223 made the 17?.
I'm with stub! It is funny the Mag was too long for the Stoner, as today the action is made for everything!