Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been doing some research... Has anybody actually read anything about the 17 Mach 2 performance that came first hand from the author?? All the articles I've read side-step testing the cartridges actual on-site performance. Lots of regurgitation of Hornady info. Lots of trumpeting. No, "This is how it worked for me when I shot it." I just got done reading the American Rifleman version and got alot of the same. Groups were "previously shown" to the author. In other publications, groups were listed a "single best" not average group size. No one has listed actual, on-site chronographing data. No game performance. All of the articles seem to be a PT Barnum sales pitch with little substance beyond Hornady press release material. I read a post on one site where a fellow wanted an M2 because it was quiet, killed better than a 22LR, and was more accurate than a 22LR. I tried e-mailing him to see where he got his information but it bounced. Perhaps he was just thinking wishfully?

Anyhow.. Can anybody out there give me a hand?? I hit Shooting Times, Gun World, and American Rifleman. Any other sources of substance out there?? Thanks in advance. ~Andrew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
I didn’t know that Shooting Times and Gun World were sources of substance. American Rifleman is the only one I half trust, the rest are just out to make a buck and will say or do anything to get it. I read several gun rags but don’t think I have ever thought of any of them as sources of substance. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I admit that I haven't been reading many of the gun mags of late. That being said, I haven't seen any stories on the M2 other than what you describe finding in AR.

However, I have seen only one article, actually it was the link you posted here, regarding the Aguila .17.

So what does that tell us? Is the M2 being hyped? Perhaps so. But at least I have seen gunmakers actually annoucing firearmschambered for the M2. I have seen no OEM manufacturer make such an announcement for the Aguila round. Yes, some are producing replacement barrells. It is not the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Notdads: If you don't read much then you most likely didn't read the articles on the 17M2 I was referring to -and so you probably don't understand my criticism of the press coverage of this new cartridge. I have no bones to pick with the M2 but there is something fishy going on. If you had read the articles you'd know what I'm getting at. Far too much going UN said about the M2.

I'm glad you read my article but what's that got to do with anything I was asking about? It had a lot of hard data, as did the original article on the cartridge last month. If you ever find anything nearly as detailed on the 17M2 I'd like to see it. It was the point of this post. Thanks in advance. ~Andrew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Andrew,

I understand your point about the coverage of the M2 fully. What is going unsaid about the 17M2 is probably just as true as when the 17HMR was introduced. The guns mags, almost all of them, will find nothing wrong with any piece of ammunition or firearm they are reviewing. After all, it is the advertisers that make the magazine work. They will parrot to the readers what they have been told by the manufacturers. It's that simple.

I guess I didn't convey my point in my previous post. What I was trying to say was that I haven't seen any articles that provided any more input into the round itself, as in the article you referenced in AR. And frankly, AR is probably one of the worst at this. They are all parroting what they have been fed by Hornady and CCI. I have seen no articles that provide much useful data or real field experience with the round.

Lastly, lets be honest shall we. You most certainly do have a bone to pick with the H2. After all, you have been promising the coming of the Aguila 17 for a long time. I've read your posts on the Aguila round and have gathered more useful data from your posts than anything I've seen on the M2. However, your testing prior to public release and your repeated championing of the Aguila round make you less than a neutral party when it comes to the M2 in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
NotDad: No doubt about it. I like the 17 Aguila. This isn't about the 17 Aguila. I was lucky enough that when I badgered Aguila about ammo a year or so back (I'd built a custom rifle on the promise of a delivery of ammo by High Standard) they offered me prototype ammo for testing. I found both good and bad in it, reported same, and got the revised ammo in return. Some of which was worse than the previous ammo -which I reported. The ammo was adjusted and samples sent again. I was the only person I knew of who had been shooting the 17 Aguila -or had seen it for that matter. If you ever hang your hat at RFC you'd know that the folks there argued it "didn't exist" -even when I presented data and photos of the cartridge. I reported on Marlin Board, and "JHO" (where I normally hang) that the round did exist and that I got such-and-such results. I did champion the round to the extent that I really like it and it performs really well on target and game. (see? I'm doing it again.) The M2 was announced in February 04, but my "championing" was going on from April 03 and all through the following summer. I'd actually finished 95% of my testing of the SP ammo by 12/03 ; well before the 17M2's announcement. If I was "championing" the round back then I was doing so in light of its own merits, not in contrast to the M2.

So now the M2 is on the horizon and I'd really like to compare the two with data from somebody OTHER than the Hornady lab. I don't read gun rags much either, frankly, but I have been keeping up with the M2 for just that reason. I have been stymied at every turn. All the M2 info I find is -for the most part- second hand. All I was looking for is to find a single article that states. "We got X velocity for an average of 10 shots, and we got an average group size of X inches." Not an unreasonable request to make of a journalist who is trying to convince me that this round is the Second Coming of rimfires. (HMR being the First, of course)

As for the factory offerings, at least one company is looking into making guns. Taurus (Brazil) is looking at least one carbine and one revolver in the 17 Aguila... that according to Industrias Tecnos, the parent company of Aguila Ammunition. They have requested ammo and all the tech prints. I got an e-mail t that effect, along with a copy of the email from I.T. last Thursday.

Anyhow, I hope I've made myself understood. Don't read anything I write about the 17 Aguila as an attempt to sway anybody from the M2 unless I think it's appropriate advice based on what I know of the two: After all, I do think they'll have different uses. The guy who hunts western jacks might like the M2, the Eastern squirrel and edible game hunters might prefer the 17 Aguila. We'll know more when the M2 arrives, I guess. ~Andrew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Andrew,

I think we're on the same page. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
NotDad: Cool. If you DO ever find what I'm looking for hang up a post, eh? Thanks. I have a barrel now, and some ammo on back order. I wonder which will hit the shelves first: the ammo? or the review? ~Andrew

(Later) PS: And accentuating the idea that the M2 and the 17 Aguila are "different" cartridges is today's notice of SAAMI approval for the 17 Aguila as an individual cartridge with it's own operating parameters. SAAMI will also be accepting the M2 under the same reasoning. It sounds weird, but there was always the chance that they would rule against one or the other saying that they were too similar. (a 17/LR) Politics! FYI. ~A.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top