Looking for my first 17

[B23]

The 17FB, 221FB, 204Ruger, 223, and 222Mag whether necked down, case shortened or lengthened can all trace their parent case back to the original 1950's 222.

[Bayou City Boy]

Originally Posted by B23

The 17FB, 221FB, 204Ruger, 223, and 222Mag whether necked down, case shortened or lengthened can all trace their parent case back to the original 1950's 222.

Indeed ALL.378" case head cartridges are descendants of Mike Walker's original 222 Remington case design.

But as I hope that we all know, no one at Remington Arms physically stretched a 222 Remington case to make a 223 Remington case or before that a 222 Remington Magnum case, both to be utilized as potential military cartridges in the then ongoing military AR-15 rifle trials. The 223 Remington design won that contest simply because it met all of the CONARC ballistic requirements for the cartridge to be used in the AR-15 rifle and it fed better in the previously approved AR-15 rifle. However, Remington kept the longer 222 Remington Magnum case alive by "legitimizing" it for civilian consumption.

In practical reality, the two cartridges were created separately from the 222 Remington "parent" with newly designed form punches and dies to create totally new but related descendants or siblings to the original 222 Remington case.

When the 17 Remington cartridge came along later, its parentage can physically be traced most directly to the 222 Remington Magnum case design since the 222 Remington Magnum case is the only commonly well known "member of the .378" family" that has enough length to physically create proper length 17 Remington cases, in practical reality.......

Semantics does not always equate to practical reality......

-BCB

[Gary in Illinois]

Originally Posted by Bayou City Boy

… The simple reason for this is that the parent cartridge for the 17 Remington is the 222 Remington case and not the 223 Remington cartridge which is too short to begin with.


-BCB

Not to step on anyone’s toes but with a shooter who may be new to case forming, I should point out that I am pretty sure BCB meant to say that the parent case of the 17 Remington is the 222 Rem MAG case, not the older 222 Rem case, which is, indeed, too short.

Might save some head scratching by a newby who checks into the case length of the cartridges mentioned.

[Bayou City Boy]

Originally Posted by Gary in Illinois

Not to step on anyone’s toes but with a shooter who may be new to case forming, I should point out that I am pretty sure BCB meant to say that the parent case of the 17 Remington is the 222 Rem MAG case, not the older 222 Rem case, which is, indeed, too short.

Might save some head scratching by a newby who checks into the case length of the cartridges mentioned.

Thank you for catching my "hunt and peck" cell phone mis-step. Maybe I'm being too concerned about offending someone by what I say and I'm not paying full attention to what I'm posting..... I'll correct it in my original post.

Thanks again.....

-BCB

[Matt_3479]

Originally Posted by Bayou City Boy

Matt, you seem well on the way to your goal and you obviously have a good understanding of what you want to do. And I fully understand that you have a good source to 17 Remington brass so making it from another cartridge is not a significant issue for you .

That said, and since it comes up regularly in 17 Remington discussions, for anyone who is reading this, if you try to make 17 Remington brass from 223 brass, you will end up with faux "17 Remington" brass that is about .040" short in neck length. The simple reason for this is that the parent cartridge for the 17 Remington is the 222 Remington Magnum case and not the 223 Remington cartridge which is too short to begin with.

Will the short brass work? From a practical point of view, yes it will if it is not done over a long period of time. But from a more technical view point, shooting short brass in any chamber can be detrimental to the chamber case neck area itself as well as it allows for additional gas erosion in the barrel throat area that is not a planned part of the cartridge design and the barrel throat that was cut to best match the cartridge design.

Hence, for anyone considering using 223 Remington brass to build a 17 Remington rifle, take a step back and simply chamber for the 17-223. It is an excellent cartridge that is very close to the 17 Remington when external ballistics between the two cartridges are compared. I own a 17-223 rifle and it is excellent in itself.

Again, I recognize that this is not an issue for you as you have a good source for 17 Remington brass, but some readers of this thread may not have access to brass that is fully formed factory brass with correct and proper cartridge case length.

-BCB

Thank you very much for the in-depth post. 100% the ease of finding 17 rem brass atleast in my neck of the woods is surprisingly easy and plentiful. I’ve been wanting to do a wildcat for some time. Like the idea of trying it. But it seems like there’s no point here. So many different opinions but they all pretty much stress that the 17 rem and 17-223, 17-204 are all very similar. Without mixing head stamps, the 17 rem, 17-204 ans 17-222 would be top of the list. The 17-223 would be viable I’ll just keep brand “x” for one call and brand “y” foe the other.

[Bill K]

You fellows are making this too far complicated.
Get you a nice 17 Rem and 17 Rem brass and enjoy. Or is you want a 17-223 get a set of those dies and 223 brass and enjoy.

[Bayou City Boy]

Originally Posted by Bill K

You fellows are making this too far complicated.
Get you a nice 17 Rem and 17 Rem brass and enjoy. Or is you want a 17-223 get a set of those dies and 223 brass and enjoy.

The things that you said here are an obvious given....

Is it now wrong here to try to provide a bit of extra perspective about a particular subject that might benefit both the OP and others? Or is the KISS Principle now the only thing that some of you want to see and to think about?

The OP seemed to appreciate the extra information, and perhaps it might help a few casual readers passing by also. Quien sabe?

And for clarification, with my use of the term Kiss Principle to explain something, I hope that it doesn't morph into me calling someone stupid. No harm was intended toward any man or beast. Its simply a term that I would guess everyone has heard and understands

-BCB

[Daryl]

Interesting comments. Seems to me, the "parent" of all the .375/8" brass is the .222 Rem. It was the "first".
BCB's post noting the .222 was the parent case, is true in that it was the FIRST of that case diameter. The others were lengthened versions, yes.
All the rest came afterwards, with the .222 Rem Mag. being second. It was a lengthened .222 case with shorter neck as well.
The .17Rem came next, then the mil. version then .223, seems to me. They were close to the .17Rem., which one was first, not sure.

[Bayou City Boy]

For many folks, the semantics of the issue are weighed as being the over-riding issue in itself as if we're relating to the ".378 family" as though it's an actual genetic family or an actual living family.

At Saubier I don't think that most of us worry about which one came first, unless maybe that is the specific issue being discussed here. Then its the current topic which is fully logical to discuss, but it's a totally separate discussion from a more technical look at "parentage".

I worked in a technical problem solving field for years, and maybe that focuses my interpretation in a different direction. So for me, I see this "parentage" issue in a very simple manner when I'm here at Saubier. For me it boils down to, for example, what .378" cartridge do I need to use to make another cartridge?

In this example, if I'm making 17 Remington brass, what cartridge do I need to use to do that?

Answer: 223 Remington brass allows me to make passable but not perfect 17 Remington brass that is .040" short in the case neck. 222 Remington Magnum brass allows me to make full length 17 Remington brass that meets SAAMI specs in all ways. So for me, 222 Rem Mag brass is the direct "parent" of the resulting 17 Rem brass if we want to speak in terms of "parentage". And 223 Remington brass is the red headed step child in the relationship for me.......

That is my interpretation of the issue and others may look at it totally differently. That is totally ok by me as i'm a big boy in that "YMMV" is a totally fine concept for me on a discussion forum. And occasional push back on discussion forum is a totally natural thing. That fact, however, should not make push back by an individual or anything else related to the topic to be a "taboo" issue that is complicating an otherwise very simple and logical answer that was likely never a riddle to anyone. If we all agreed on everything, discussion forums would not exist.

Again, YMMV as they say on the internet.

-BCB