Remington 597 .17HMR Recall - The Firearms Forum

MemphisJim1 · 08-20-2009, 03:22 PM

Any fellow 597 .17HMR owners care to share your views?

PRODUCT SAFETY WARNING
AND RECALL NOTICE

17 HMR AMMUNITION AND MODEL 597® HMR SEMI-AUTOMATIC

DO NOT USE REMINGTON 17 HMR AMMUNITION IN SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS.

DO NOT USE THE REMINGTON MODEL 597 HMR SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE.

Remington has been notified by its supplier of 17 HMR ammunition that 17 HMR ammunition is not suitable for use in semi-automatic firearms. The use of this ammunition in a semi-automatic firearm could result in property damage or serious personal injury.

If you have a semi-automatic firearm chambered for 17 HMR ammunition, immediately discontinue use of Remington 17 HMR ammunition. If you have any Remington 17 HMR ammunition that you wish to return to Remington contact the Remington Consumer Service number below. Do not return the ammunition to the dealer. Remington will provide you with a $10.00 coupon for each complete box of 50 rounds of Remington branded 17 HMR ammunition you return to Remington. This coupon will be good for the purchase of any Remington ammunition at your local dealer.

In light of the ammunition manufacturer’s notice, it is very important that you immediately stop using your Remington Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle. If you own a Remington Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle and wish to return it to Remington please contact the below Remington Consumer Service Number. In return for your Remington Model 597 17 HMR synthetic stock semi-automatic rifle, Remington will provide you a coupon valued at $200.00 good for the purchase of a replacement Remington firearm. If you have a laminate stock Remington Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle, Remington will provide you a coupon valued at $250.00 good for the purchase of a replacement Remington firearm. Remington will also reimburse you for the actual postage to return your Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle to Remington.

Please allow up to 6 weeks after Remington receives your Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle or your Remington branded 17 HMR ammunition for the appropriate coupons to arrive. Instructions for redemption of the coupons will be contained on the coupon.

For any consumer questions or instructions on how to return of your Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle or your Remington branded 17 HMR ammunition, please contact the Remington Consumer Service Department at 1-800-243-9700, Prompt #3.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Safety First
Always observe the ten commandments of safe gun handling and wear approved eye and ear protection anytime you are shooting.

TOOHSOTKIL · 08-23-2009, 07:20 PM

This seems to be the Remington way, I remember the introduction of the 597 after the sorry failure of the 522 Viper. They made folks pay for improved replacement magazines and still claimed it was not their problem.

Has anyone bought a 50 round box of .17HMR for $10.00?? Did it even start out at $10.00??

Did the 597 cost $200.00 new, the laminate at $250.00?
You just have to love these folks, they don`t even kiss you after a reach around..............

mwmjones · 01-14-2010, 03:18 PM

I just spoke to a customer service rep at Remington and they are currently swapping out the barrels and converting this rifle to 22WMR at no cost

Call them @ 1-800-243-9700 option #3 and have your serial # number ready to have them send you a postage paid mailing label

Good Luck!

Michael

LDBennett · 01-14-2010, 03:41 PM

Both the 17HMR and the 17HM2 seemed to be very poorly thought out by Hornady. A couple of years ago many were converting 10/22 to 17HM2 with disastrous results because of the pressure characteristics of the 17HM2 ammo and the bad concept that you only had to bolt on a barrel and you were suppose to be good to go. These modifiers forgot that the bolt mass, the recoil spring and the cartridge pressures all have to be in balance in a blow back semi-auto design. Then they found that the 10/22 was so crude as to have excessive head space if not adjusted. The excessive pressure peak of the ammo with these two problems left the shooter with blow out cases and all kinds of similar problems. Some were able to solve the problems, some not, and some only temporarily. The whole key to the problem was the pressure peak Hornady needed in this cartridge to make it perform significantly better than a 22LR cartridge. Their attempt to create a market where their was not one before apparently has turned into a disaster.

Now we see the 17HMR with perhaps similar problems in at least the Remington 597. Hornady ought to be ashamed for putting such ill conceived cartridges on the market place.

Too bad I bought a 17HM2 (CZ bolt gun). Even though I have not had any problems, the ammo will eventually disappear and I'll be stuck with a gun and no ammo. I'll have to re-barrel it to 22LR, I guess, when that happens.

LDBennett

LurpyGeek · 01-14-2010, 04:25 PM

It's not a problem with the ammo. The problem is using a bottle-necked cartridge in a blow-back operated action. Firing with this combination means that the brass begins moving backward in the chamber before pressures have subsided enough to be safe, leaving the shoulder, neck and base of the casing unsupported. This means the possibility of cartridges bursting and venting hot gasses and debris out the action.

This is not an issue in bolt-action rifles.

The ammo will continue to be available.

mr.t7024 · 01-14-2010, 06:55 PM

As much as I like the Henry I had a problem. I bought a lever action .17 in August of 08, because of problems with blowback, and unusual marks on the empties, I called Henry they told me send the rifle back and they pd. the postage. Got the rifle back in less than a week.Barrel and bolt were replaced. There customer service was impressive.All problems fixed! Any one else have a problem with the .17 Henry Lever Action. Or was mine a fluke

LDBennett · 01-14-2010, 08:25 PM

LurpyGeek said:

".... the brass begins moving backward in the chamber before pressures have subsided enough to be safe, leaving the shoulder, neck and base of the casing unsupported."

That's is exactly why the mass of the bolt and the force of the recoil spring (and the hammer spring too) are a balancing act against the pressures. The timing can be adjusted with those components to assure the bolt is closed long enough so that the remaining pressures will not bulge the case as the bolt opens. So if that timing is not possible (for whatever reason???) then the cartridge is not a good choice for a semi-auto blow back action. Remington apparently found that out as the 597 is a blow back operated semi-auto rifle.

I still stand by my initial premiss that the cartridge is a poor design because it has an unusually high peak pressure that occurs as a fast spike. While some claim to love these two cartridges my preference is still the good old 22LR. The ammo choices are huge with 22LR whereas with the 17HM2 (I know little about the 17HMR) you have CCI/Hornady, Remington, and Eley.

I have, as you indicated, had no trouble with my bolt 17HM2 but while ammo is available today it may not be tomorrow because the popularity of both of these 17 rimfire cartridge is hugely waning. That is the first sign that they will eventually quit making ammo. The cartridges, 17HM2 and 17HMR, were mistakes that we will have to pay for in the end.

This is my opinion and, of course, you can have yours.

LDBennett

mr.t7024 · 01-15-2010, 08:12 AM

I am with LurpyGeek on this one. The Firearm makers should have had the specs on this cartridge, they should have built the firearm to handle it. I would like to know where the Remington folks had their heads on this one... just saying!

LDBennett · 01-15-2010, 08:24 AM

The 597, like the Ruger 10/22, is a cheapy design. It doesn't surprise me that it too has problems with the 17 cal rimfires. It may be as I said before:

That's is exactly why the mass of the bolt and the force of the recoil spring (and the hammer spring too) are a balancing act against the pressures. The timing can be adjusted with those components to assure the bolt is closed long enough so that the remaining pressures will not bulge the case as the bolt opens. So if that timing is not possible (for whatever reason???) then the cartridge is not a good choice for a semi-auto blow back action.

LDBennett

LurpyGeek · 01-15-2010, 09:46 AM

LDB, I'm with you in that I prefer good old .22 LR. I've never really understood the niche that any .17 flavor fills. If I want to reach out further, I'll go centerfire.

Also, I see what you're saying, but this is an issue that will occur with a bottle-necked case in any blow back operated action. The amount of force that a blow-back action can handle can be tuned with special attention to weights and spring tension, but the "timing" cannot be adjusted since by definition, the cartridge begins moving backward immediately upon firing. This is why there are so many different methods of delaying the extraction of cartridges until chamber pressures subside.

My knowledge is by no means complete, but the only successful blow-back operated bottleneck cartridge I can think of is the 7.62x25mm Tokarev in various sub-machineguns. I don't know how this was accomplished, whether pressures were kept low or extra material was included in the casing in critical areas.

Straight walled cartridges don't have these issues. This is why there are blow-back operated firearms in many pistol calibers (hi-point for example).

Most bottlenecked calibers use something to delay the extraction of the casing whether it's short recoil, gas operation or some other method. I'm not sure .17 has enough power to be compatible with any of these methods.

LDBennett · 01-15-2010, 11:42 AM

LurpyGeek:

If you make anyone of those components heavy enough then the bolt will not open at all. The area between wildly opening the bolt and not opening it at all is the timing and is controlled even in blowback operated guns. It can take time for the pressure to build to a point that it overcomes the inertia and the spring forces from the recoil spring and the hammer. I have never heard that the bolt starts moving immediately and that doesn't match the mechanics of the situation.

Having said that, it may be that the delay in starting opening can only be so great that the bolt will never fully open or so little of a delay that the pressures are too high and the case bulges as it moves to the rear out of the chamber. That is, the "good" zone is miniscule. Analysis like this needs to be done by engineers who design guns. Obviously Remington didn't do this analysis adequately and it was never done by the guys modifying 10/22's. The fact that so few manufacturers (was it only Remington???) brought out a 17 cal rimfire blow back operated semi-auto may be revealing as to the toughness of the task and that the 10/22 modifiers were just blowing in the wind with their conversion. I don't know for sure but always suspected the 10/22 modifiers were not doing it right (no engineering, just trial and error with lots of error).

But I have a hard time accepting your premiss that:

"the cartridge begins moving backward immediately upon firing"

That does not match the physic of it all, to me. Perhaps you would like to expound on the science of your premiss so I can understand it???

LDBennett

LurpyGeek · 01-15-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDBennett

If you make anyone of those components heavy enough then the bolt will not open at all. The area between wildly opening the bolt and not opening it at all is the timing and is controlled even in blowback operated guns. It can take time for the pressure to build to a point that it overcomes the inertia and the spring forces from the recoil spring and the hammer....

Having said that, it may be that the delay in starting opening can only be so great that the bolt will never fully open or so little of a delay that the pressures are too high and the case bulges as it moves to the rear out of the chamber. That is, the "good" zone is miniscule...

I believe we're thinking along the exact same lines here, and that the narrow "good" zone is the issue with the .17.

As far as when the cartridge actually begins to move to the rear... There is no locking mechanism between the bolt and the barrel. As soon as pressures rise enough to propel the bullet, force is being imparted in the opposite direction as well (against the bolt). Newton told me about this.

Energy great enough to force the projectile through the rifling is great enough to begin to move the bolt / casing to the rear, although with lower velocity since it has more mass to move. Nothing is making the bolt stay closed and wait until the pressures have subsided. The high pressures are the very thing that makes this kind of operation happen.

Perhaps my use of the term "immediate" can too easily cause confusion (Immediate in regards to what? The trigger pull? The hammer impact? The motion of the projectile?). If we really pick the timing of these events apart then nothing is immediate.

Again, I think we are in agreement for the most part, but are puzzling over semantics.

mr.t7024 · 01-15-2010, 01:05 PM

Volquartsen uses the Ruger 10/22 action with their parts for a semi-auto .17 rimfire, !Expensive yes, but very shotable yes, for over 1000$ no.As far as the Ruger 10/22 being cheaply made, then LDB,that is your opinion and I wonder how many people would agree with you. I have yet to see one worn out.

MemphisJim1 · 01-15-2010, 02:16 PM

Our long day's journey into night is almost over. Apparently Remington has changed its approach to the recall. They're now offering to re-barrel to .22WMR. To get a shipping label, call Remington at 1-800-243-9700, then #3 when the options come on. Have you rifle's serial number handy as they'll require it. I just made the call.

ponycar17 · 01-15-2010, 02:58 PM

I don't know that I'd call the .17 HMR a mistake. I know a few people who enjoy the .17 HMR greatly, myself among those. The problem is, as everyone else said, about the blow back semi-auto and case pressures. The cartridges, I don't believe are at fault. The .17 HMR is not on par with centerfire calibers and isn't supposed to be, but it is a VERY flat shooting small game round that packs a significantly stiffer punch than .22 LR at all effective .22 LR ranges. The .17 HMR is a versatile round that can either be explosive with ballistic tipped ammo, very shocking with hollow points, very disruptive and heavily penetrating with jacketed soft points and hard penetrating with fmj ammo. I know little about the .17 HM2 but the .17 HMR has its place in the proper firearm.

CampingJosh · 01-15-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrt

Volquartsen uses the Ruger 10/22 action with their parts for a semi-auto .17 rimfire, !Expensive yes, but very shotable yes, for over 1000$ no.As far as the Ruger 10/22 being cheaply made, then LDB,that is your opinion and I wonder how many people would agree with you. I have yet to see one worn out.

I agree that the 10/22 is cheaply made. I have one, and I like it, but it is neither an engineering marvel nor a manufacturing work of art. As to seeing one worn out, that's not a good measure. I've never worn out an adjustable wrench, but that hardly makes it a finely made specialty tool.

The 10/22 is less than $200 new. It's a cheap gun. It's a cheaply made gun. That's not always a bad thing. It's certainly a value. But it's still cheaply made.

mr.t7024 · 01-16-2010, 04:00 PM

I would rarher use the term inexpensive, rather than cheap. To me, cheap takes on a completely different meaning.When I can pick up my 10-22 sporter, shoot it and it does not jam that means reliability,and that is not cheap. Being that, I believe semantics is our problem,not the 10-22. With that said,I hope y'all have a great day,take care and keep shooting!

LDBennett · 01-17-2010, 07:25 AM

OK, lets get specific about the 10/22:

Its tolerances are very loose. Its barrels only moderately accurate compared to a Volquartsen barrel or its own match barrel on the super target model. Its chamber is very loose so it feeds anything from almost any magazine. But I would add that my Volquartsenized 10/22 ONLY feeds ammo reliably from Ruger magazines due to the tight chamber dimensions.

When modified to 17HM2 the headspace is often too much but interestingly the 22LR cartridge doesn't seem to care about the excessive headspace. (Headspace in this gun is investment cast into the bolt face). This modification to 17HM2 is my concern. It seems to give problems unless every detail is covered in the modification. I know some have been successful in the modification but others have not. More than one of these modified jewels badly splits cases. I'd hate to be a left hand shooter when one of these 17HM2 cases spits out its remaining contents through the ejection port and into the guys face!

There are those here who po-po my concerns and claim theirs works but I'll not do one or suggest anyone else do one. Remington's removal of the 597 from the marketplace along with their claim that the 17 cartridges are not safe to shoot in any semi-auto gun adds credence to my decision.

As I said, I have a 10/22 that has been Volquartsenized (barrel, stock, trigger parts... all Volquartsen). It shoots extremely accurately regardless that it has loose tolerances on its remaining Ruger parts. I like this gun... in 22LR, but would not consider ever modifying it to any 17 cal. rimfire cartridge. It has never bulged a case, it feed ammo well from RUGER magazines, and is astonishingly accurate, for a semi-auto gun.

My measuring stick is a gun like the Browning Auto Take Down or an original Winchester Pump 22 (1890 or 1906 but not the Rossi or Taurus clones of those guns). Those are precision made guns but if made today (and the ATD is) they would be expensive (and the ATD IS!!)

So you see I DO NOT hate 10/22's but do understand what they are and what they can successfully be made into, and it is not a 17 cal gun, in my opinion.

And remember this is all MY opinion and yours may vary.

LDBennett

300 H&H · 01-17-2010, 09:32 AM

The 17 HRM is the only rimfire to exceed the preasure of the 22WMR. (except the 5mm Remington mag.) it operates dangerously close to the design limit of the rimfire case. The case can only be so thick for the firing pin to be able to crush it, setting off the round. The 17HRM operates at 26,000 psi and the 22 WMR at 24,000. Hornaday wanted more performance and got it, but only with a price. In bolt actions it is fine, but in semi auto's it is too close to the limit. Out of battery firing, ie., excessive head space with this much preasure destroyes the case heads, and damages guns and shooters. It would work, but careless cleaning, or lack of cleaning contributes along with slack tolerances, common in semi auto actions, won't let it. These are the problems that have lead Remington to this recall. The 17 HRM is just a bit to close to the practical limits of the rimfire case. I hope the ammo is available for many years to come though. It would be a shame if it went away.

Regards, Kirk

Popeye · 01-17-2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H&H

The 17 HRM is the only rimfire to exceed the preasure of the 22WMR. (except the 5mm Remington mag.) it operates dangerously close to the design limit of the rimfire case. The case can only be so thick for the firing pin to be able to crush it, setting off the round. The 17HRM operates at 26,000 psi and the 22 WMR at 24,000. Hornaday wanted more performance and got it, but only with a price. In bolt actions it is fine, but in semi auto's it is too close to the limit. Out of battery firing, ie., excessive head space with this much preasure destroyes the case heads, and damages guns and shooters. It would work, but careless cleaning, or lack of cleaning contributes along with slack tolerances, common in semi auto actions, won't let it. These are the problems that have lead Remington to this recall. . I hope the ammo is available for many years to come though. It would be a shame if it went away.

Regards, Kirk

I would change only one thing.

The 17 HMR is just a bit to close to the practical limits of the rimfire case to be reliably and safely used in an inexpensive, blow back, semi-automatic weapon.

The round works as advertised when chambered in a bolt-action rifle.

mr.t7024 · 01-17-2010, 07:35 PM

Popeye I agree!.

I would still like to know where the folks at Remington had their heads. Marlin never made a semi-auto in 17HMR, I believe Ruger was going to, Remington did to their ultimate dismay! I find it difficult to believe Remington did not pay attention to the specs on that cartridge, I also find it difficult to believe they did not cross reference the specs to the 597. Making it right now,is a good thing.

When I teach a firearm saftey course in Massachusetts, I stress Saftey, Remington did not with 17HMR 597. I am more than chagrined with their R&D. I am glad no one got hurt, that I know of, because of their stupidity.

pensacola don · 11-10-2011, 11:26 AM

I had a malfunction/premature ignition with a 597 17HMR. It blew the mag out, the bolt handle and extractor. No injuries. I contacted Remy. Their first question, "Was anybody hurt?", I felt it was honest. They sent prepaid postage. They were very timely in their response. They are sending a replacement rifle. I am well pleased!!!

Thanks Remy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mrfreefall · 12-20-2011, 03:01 PM

597 Investigation and Legal Action

I have decided to pursue legal action because my 597 blew up and I cannot get fair compensation from Remington. My attorney has a long and successful history in gun cases. He and his team are investigating and would like to make contact with other 597 owners. If you would be willing to talk with him, please respond privately to me at mrfreefall@hotmail.com.

Thanks!

jlloyd73 · 12-20-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrfreefall

597 Investigation and Legal Action

I have decided to pursue legal action because my 597 blew up and I cannot get fair compensation from Remington. My attorney has a long and successful history in gun cases. He and his team are investigating and would like to make contact with other 597 owners. If you would be willing to talk with him, please respond privately to me at mrfreefall@hotmail.com.

Thanks!

Most people's idea of "FAIR COMPENSATION" is not really fair for someone...namely the company. Did you get hurt when the gun blew up? Did they offer to replace the firearm, or give you the retail amount for the gun?

I have no issues with someone being reimbursed for or a defective product or pain and suffering, but typically when someone lawyers up it means they want more than they deserve.

Most companies will go out of their way to make a person happy in a situation such as "my gun blew up due to a defect".......even more so when that defect was well known to the public.

IMO.....there is always more to the story and yours don't really say much.

Ledslnger · 12-21-2011, 07:52 PM

I have heard...since Volquartsen is somewhat local to me....(fairly close to my parents and some of my friends) that they "fix" Remington 597s for a fee. From the same people I heard they function superbly after they get them back. They won't tell you what they do to them I guess either. As far as cost I heard $150 roughly dropped off and picked up at their door. I haven't seen or shot one of them that has been "fixed", but as impressive a company as Volquartsen is I definitely would not discount their work.

08-20-2009, 03:22 PM	#1
MemphisJim1 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Suburban Memphis (Mississippi side) Posts: 58	Remington 597 .17HMR Recall Any fellow 597 .17HMR owners care to share your views? PRODUCT SAFETY WARNING AND RECALL NOTICE 17 HMR AMMUNITION AND MODEL 597® HMR SEMI-AUTOMATIC DO NOT USE REMINGTON 17 HMR AMMUNITION IN SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS. DO NOT USE THE REMINGTON MODEL 597 HMR SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE. Remington has been notified by its supplier of 17 HMR ammunition that 17 HMR ammunition is not suitable for use in semi-automatic firearms. The use of this ammunition in a semi-automatic firearm could result in property damage or serious personal injury. If you have a semi-automatic firearm chambered for 17 HMR ammunition, immediately discontinue use of Remington 17 HMR ammunition. If you have any Remington 17 HMR ammunition that you wish to return to Remington contact the Remington Consumer Service number below. Do not return the ammunition to the dealer. Remington will provide you with a $10.00 coupon for each complete box of 50 rounds of Remington branded 17 HMR ammunition you return to Remington. This coupon will be good for the purchase of any Remington ammunition at your local dealer. In light of the ammunition manufacturer’s notice, it is very important that you immediately stop using your Remington Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle. If you own a Remington Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle and wish to return it to Remington please contact the below Remington Consumer Service Number. In return for your Remington Model 597 17 HMR synthetic stock semi-automatic rifle, Remington will provide you a coupon valued at $200.00 good for the purchase of a replacement Remington firearm. If you have a laminate stock Remington Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle, Remington will provide you a coupon valued at $250.00 good for the purchase of a replacement Remington firearm. Remington will also reimburse you for the actual postage to return your Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle to Remington. Please allow up to 6 weeks after Remington receives your Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle or your Remington branded 17 HMR ammunition for the appropriate coupons to arrive. Instructions for redemption of the coupons will be contained on the coupon. For any consumer questions or instructions on how to return of your Model 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifle or your Remington branded 17 HMR ammunition, please contact the Remington Consumer Service Department at 1-800-243-9700, Prompt #3. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Safety First Always observe the ten commandments of safe gun handling and wear approved eye and ear protection anytime you are shooting. -->

08-23-2009, 07:20 PM	#2
TOOHSOTKIL V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Curracus Posts: 318	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall This seems to be the Remington way, I remember the introduction of the 597 after the sorry failure of the 522 Viper. They made folks pay for improved replacement magazines and still claimed it was not their problem. Has anyone bought a 50 round box of .17HMR for $10.00?? Did it even start out at $10.00?? Did the 597 cost $200.00 new, the laminate at $250.00? You just have to love these folks, they don`t even kiss you after a reach around..............

01-14-2010, 03:41 PM	#4
LDBennett Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hesperia, CA Posts: 5,715	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall Both the 17HMR and the 17HM2 seemed to be very poorly thought out by Hornady. A couple of years ago many were converting 10/22 to 17HM2 with disastrous results because of the pressure characteristics of the 17HM2 ammo and the bad concept that you only had to bolt on a barrel and you were suppose to be good to go. These modifiers forgot that the bolt mass, the recoil spring and the cartridge pressures all have to be in balance in a blow back semi-auto design. Then they found that the 10/22 was so crude as to have excessive head space if not adjusted. The excessive pressure peak of the ammo with these two problems left the shooter with blow out cases and all kinds of similar problems. Some were able to solve the problems, some not, and some only temporarily. The whole key to the problem was the pressure peak Hornady needed in this cartridge to make it perform significantly better than a 22LR cartridge. Their attempt to create a market where their was not one before apparently has turned into a disaster. Now we see the 17HMR with perhaps similar problems in at least the Remington 597. Hornady ought to be ashamed for putting such ill conceived cartridges on the market place. Too bad I bought a 17HM2 (CZ bolt gun). Even though I have not had any problems, the ammo will eventually disappear and I'll be stuck with a gun and no ammo. I'll have to re-barrel it to 22LR, I guess, when that happens. LDBennett Last edited by LDBennett; 01-14-2010 at 03:42 PM..

01-14-2010, 04:25 PM	#5
LurpyGeek Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UT Posts: 1,436	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall It's not a problem with the ammo. The problem is using a bottle-necked cartridge in a blow-back operated action. Firing with this combination means that the brass begins moving backward in the chamber before pressures have subsided enough to be safe, leaving the shoulder, neck and base of the casing unsupported. This means the possibility of cartridges bursting and venting hot gasses and debris out the action. This is not an issue in bolt-action rifles. The ammo will continue to be available. __________________ Knowing is half the battle... Of course, the other half is violence.

01-14-2010, 06:55 PM	#6
mr.t7024 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Near a brook & pond in Ma Posts: 734	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall As much as I like the Henry I had a problem. I bought a lever action .17 in August of 08, because of problems with blowback, and unusual marks on the empties, I called Henry they told me send the rifle back and they pd. the postage. Got the rifle back in less than a week.Barrel and bolt were replaced. There customer service was impressive.All problems fixed! Any one else have a problem with the .17 Henry Lever Action. Or was mine a fluke Last edited by mr.t7024; 01-14-2010 at 09:19 PM..

01-14-2010, 03:18 PM	#3
mwmjones Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 3	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall I just spoke to a customer service rep at Remington and they are currently swapping out the barrels and converting this rifle to 22WMR at no cost Call them @ 1-800-243-9700 option #3 and have your serial # number ready to have them send you a postage paid mailing label Good Luck! Michael

01-14-2010, 08:25 PM	#7
LDBennett Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hesperia, CA Posts: 5,715	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall LurpyGeek said: *".... the brass begins moving backward in the chamber before pressures have subsided enough to be safe, leaving the shoulder, neck and base of the casing unsupported."* That's is exactly why the mass of the bolt and the force of the recoil spring (and the hammer spring too) are a balancing act against the pressures. The timing can be adjusted with those components to assure the bolt is closed long enough so that the remaining pressures will not bulge the case as the bolt opens. So if that timing is not possible (for whatever reason???) then the cartridge is not a good choice for a semi-auto blow back action. Remington apparently found that out as the 597 is a blow back operated semi-auto rifle. I still stand by my initial premiss that the cartridge is a poor design because it has an unusually high peak pressure that occurs as a fast spike. While some claim to love these two cartridges my preference is still the good old 22LR. The ammo choices are huge with 22LR whereas with the 17HM2 (I know little about the 17HMR) you have CCI/Hornady, Remington, and Eley. I have, as you indicated, had no trouble with my bolt 17HM2 but while ammo is available today it may not be tomorrow because the popularity of both of these 17 rimfire cartridge is hugely waning. That is the first sign that they will eventually quit making ammo. The cartridges, 17HM2 and 17HMR, were mistakes that we will have to pay for in the end. This is my opinion and, of course, you can have yours. LDBennett

01-15-2010, 08:12 AM	#8
mr.t7024 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Near a brook & pond in Ma Posts: 734	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall I am with LurpyGeek on this one. The Firearm makers should have had the specs on this cartridge, they should have built the firearm to handle it. I would like to know where the Remington folks had their heads on this one... just saying!

01-15-2010, 08:24 AM	#9
LDBennett Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hesperia, CA Posts: 5,715	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall The 597, like the Ruger 10/22, is a cheapy design. It doesn't surprise me that it too has problems with the 17 cal rimfires. It may be as I said before: That's is exactly why the mass of the bolt and the force of the recoil spring (and the hammer spring too) are a balancing act against the pressures. The timing can be adjusted with those components to assure the bolt is closed long enough so that the remaining pressures will not bulge the case as the bolt opens. So if that timing is not possible (for whatever reason???) then the cartridge is not a good choice for a semi-auto blow back action. LDBennett

01-15-2010, 09:46 AM	#10
LurpyGeek Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UT Posts: 1,436	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall LDB, I'm with you in that I prefer good old .22 LR. I've never really understood the niche that any .17 flavor fills. If I want to reach out further, I'll go centerfire. Also, I see what you're saying, but this is an issue that will occur with a bottle-necked case in any blow back operated action. The amount of force that a blow-back action can handle can be tuned with special attention to weights and spring tension, but the "timing" cannot be adjusted since by definition, the cartridge begins moving backward immediately upon firing. This is why there are so many different methods of delaying the extraction of cartridges until chamber pressures subside. My knowledge is by no means complete, but the only successful blow-back operated bottleneck cartridge I can think of is the 7.62x25mm Tokarev in various sub-machineguns. I don't know how this was accomplished, whether pressures were kept low or extra material was included in the casing in critical areas. Straight walled cartridges don't have these issues. This is why there are blow-back operated firearms in many pistol calibers (hi-point for example). Most bottlenecked calibers use something to delay the extraction of the casing whether it's short recoil, gas operation or some other method. I'm not sure .17 has enough power to be compatible with any of these methods. __________________ Knowing is half the battle... Of course, the other half is violence.

01-15-2010, 11:42 AM	#11
LDBennett Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hesperia, CA Posts: 5,715	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall LurpyGeek: If you make anyone of those components heavy enough then the bolt will not open at all. The area between wildly opening the bolt and not opening it at all is the timing and is controlled even in blowback operated guns. It can take time for the pressure to build to a point that it overcomes the inertia and the spring forces from the recoil spring and the hammer. I have never heard that the bolt starts moving immediately and that doesn't match the mechanics of the situation. Having said that, it may be that the delay in starting opening can only be so great that the bolt will never fully open or so little of a delay that the pressures are too high and the case bulges as it moves to the rear out of the chamber. That is, the "good" zone is miniscule. Analysis like this needs to be done by engineers who design guns. Obviously Remington didn't do this analysis adequately and it was never done by the guys modifying 10/22's. The fact that so few manufacturers (was it only Remington???) brought out a 17 cal rimfire blow back operated semi-auto may be revealing as to the toughness of the task and that the 10/22 modifiers were just blowing in the wind with their conversion. I don't know for sure but always suspected the 10/22 modifiers were not doing it right (no engineering, just trial and error with lots of error). But I have a hard time accepting your premiss that: "the cartridge begins moving backward immediately upon firing" That does not match the physic of it all, to me. Perhaps you would like to expound on the science of your premiss so I can understand it??? LDBennett Last edited by LDBennett; 01-15-2010 at 11:47 AM..

01-15-2010, 01:05 PM	#13
mr.t7024 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Near a brook & pond in Ma Posts: 734	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall Volquartsen uses the Ruger 10/22 action with their parts for a semi-auto .17 rimfire, !Expensive yes, but very shotable yes, for over 1000$ no.As far as the Ruger 10/22 being cheaply made, then LDB,that is your opinion and I wonder how many people would agree with you. I have yet to see one worn out.

01-15-2010, 02:16 PM	#14
MemphisJim1 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Suburban Memphis (Mississippi side) Posts: 58	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall Our long day's journey into night is almost over. Apparently Remington has changed its approach to the recall. They're now offering to re-barrel to .22WMR. To get a shipping label, call Remington at 1-800-243-9700, then #3 when the options come on. Have you rifle's serial number handy as they'll require it. I just made the call.

01-15-2010, 02:58 PM	#15
ponycar17 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: South Carolina Contributor Posts: 4,884	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall I don't know that I'd call the .17 HMR a mistake. I know a few people who enjoy the .17 HMR greatly, myself among those. The problem is, as everyone else said, about the blow back semi-auto and case pressures. The cartridges, I don't believe are at fault. The .17 HMR is not on par with centerfire calibers and isn't supposed to be, but it is a VERY flat shooting small game round that packs a significantly stiffer punch than .22 LR at all effective .22 LR ranges. The .17 HMR is a versatile round that can either be explosive with ballistic tipped ammo, very shocking with hollow points, very disruptive and heavily penetrating with jacketed soft points and hard penetrating with fmj ammo. I know little about the .17 HM2 but the .17 HMR has its place in the proper firearm. __________________ Arm yourself with intellectual Ammunition! Gunfacts 5.1 Myth-Busting Facts JustFacts.com on Gun Control Stopping Power, the Downloadable Book Last edited by ponycar17; 01-15-2010 at 10:01 PM..

01-16-2010, 04:00 PM	#17
mr.t7024 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Near a brook & pond in Ma Posts: 734	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall I would rarher use the term inexpensive, rather than cheap. To me, cheap takes on a completely different meaning.When I can pick up my 10-22 sporter, shoot it and it does not jam that means reliability,and that is not cheap. Being that, I believe semantics is our problem,not the 10-22. With that said,I hope y'all have a great day,take care and keep shooting!

01-17-2010, 07:25 AM	#18
LDBennett Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hesperia, CA Posts: 5,715	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall OK, lets get specific about the 10/22: Its tolerances are very loose. Its barrels only moderately accurate compared to a Volquartsen barrel or its own match barrel on the super target model. Its chamber is very loose so it feeds anything from almost any magazine. But I would add that my Volquartsenized 10/22 ONLY feeds ammo reliably from Ruger magazines due to the tight chamber dimensions. When modified to 17HM2 the headspace is often too much but interestingly the 22LR cartridge doesn't seem to care about the excessive headspace. (Headspace in this gun is investment cast into the bolt face). This modification to 17HM2 is my concern. It seems to give problems unless every detail is covered in the modification. I know some have been successful in the modification but others have not. More than one of these modified jewels badly splits cases. I'd hate to be a left hand shooter when one of these 17HM2 cases spits out its remaining contents through the ejection port and into the guys face! There are those here who po-po my concerns and claim theirs works but I'll not do one or suggest anyone else do one. Remington's removal of the 597 from the marketplace along with their claim that the 17 cartridges are not safe to shoot in any semi-auto gun adds credence to my decision. As I said, I have a 10/22 that has been Volquartsenized (barrel, stock, trigger parts... all Volquartsen). It shoots extremely accurately regardless that it has loose tolerances on its remaining Ruger parts. I like this gun... in 22LR, but would not consider ever modifying it to any 17 cal. rimfire cartridge. It has never bulged a case, it feed ammo well from RUGER magazines, and is astonishingly accurate, for a semi-auto gun. My measuring stick is a gun like the Browning Auto Take Down or an original Winchester Pump 22 (1890 or 1906 but not the Rossi or Taurus clones of those guns). Those are precision made guns but if made today (and the ATD is) they would be expensive (and the ATD IS!!) So you see I DO NOT hate 10/22's but do understand what they are and what they can successfully be made into, and it is not a 17 cal gun, in my opinion. And remember this is all MY opinion and yours may vary. LDBennett

01-17-2010, 09:32 AM	#19
300 H&H Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,796	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall The 17 HRM is the only rimfire to exceed the preasure of the 22WMR. (except the 5mm Remington mag.) it operates dangerously close to the design limit of the rimfire case. The case can only be so thick for the firing pin to be able to crush it, setting off the round. The 17HRM operates at 26,000 psi and the 22 WMR at 24,000. Hornaday wanted more performance and got it, but only with a price. In bolt actions it is fine, but in semi auto's it is too close to the limit. Out of battery firing, ie., excessive head space with this much preasure destroyes the case heads, and damages guns and shooters. It would work, but careless cleaning, or lack of cleaning contributes along with slack tolerances, common in semi auto actions, won't let it. These are the problems that have lead Remington to this recall. The 17 HRM is just a bit to close to the practical limits of the rimfire case. I hope the ammo is available for many years to come though. It would be a shame if it went away. Regards, Kirk Last edited by 300 H&H; 01-17-2010 at 09:46 AM..

01-17-2010, 07:35 PM	#21
mr.t7024 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Near a brook & pond in Ma Posts: 734	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall Popeye I agree!. I would still like to know where the folks at Remington had their heads. Marlin never made a semi-auto in 17HMR, I believe Ruger was going to, Remington did to their ultimate dismay! I find it difficult to believe Remington did not pay attention to the specs on that cartridge, I also find it difficult to believe they did not cross reference the specs to the 597. Making it right now,is a good thing. When I teach a firearm saftey course in Massachusetts, I stress Saftey, Remington did not with 17HMR 597. I am more than chagrined with their R&D. I am glad no one got hurt, that I know of, because of their stupidity.

11-10-2011, 11:26 AM	#22
pensacola don Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall I had a malfunction/premature ignition with a 597 17HMR. It blew the mag out, the bolt handle and extractor. No injuries. I contacted Remy. Their first question, "Was anybody hurt?", I felt it was honest. They sent prepaid postage. They were very timely in their response. They are sending a replacement rifle. I am well pleased!!! Thanks Remy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12-20-2011, 03:01 PM	#23
mrfreefall Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 1	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall 597 Investigation and Legal Action I have decided to pursue legal action because my 597 blew up and I cannot get fair compensation from Remington. My attorney has a long and successful history in gun cases. He and his team are investigating and would like to make contact with other 597 owners. If you would be willing to talk with him, please respond privately to me at mrfreefall@hotmail.com. Thanks!

12-21-2011, 07:52 PM	#25
Ledslnger V.I.P. Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: N Central, IA Posts: 415	Re: Remington 597 .17HMR Recall I have heard...since Volquartsen is somewhat local to me....(fairly close to my parents and some of my friends) that they "fix" Remington 597s for a fee. From the same people I heard they function superbly after they get them back. They won't tell you what they do to them I guess either. As far as cost I heard $150 roughly dropped off and picked up at their door. I haven't seen or shot one of them that has been "fixed", but as impressive a company as Volquartsen is I definitely would not discount their work.