Re: Ruger 10/22 .17HM2 Conversion?
The first .17HMR semiauto to hit the market was the Remington 597. When it started having <span style="font-weight: bold">KBs!</span>, there was a lot of finger-pointing, mostly between Remington and Hornady. Remington issued a "voluntary recall" of the .17HMR 597 and Ruger scrapped the planned 10/17. The ammo companies issued notices that their .17HMR bullets shouldn't be fired in any autoloading rifle not approved for its use by the manufacturer.
My suspicion from the start was that Remington had let a few rifles with "out of spec" chambers get out of the house. For one thing, many of the rifles that <span style="font-weight: bold">KB!</span>ed did so on multiple occasions. Others had run thousands of rounds with no problems. This led me to suspect the rifles more than the ammo.
I think the cartridge was somewhat stigmatized because Remington dealt with the problem in a ham-fisted fashion. First, if there was a real, universal problem, would the recall have been "voluntary"? And they only offered $200 in credit with Remington, not a full-fledged refund, and $250 for the HB models, but MSRP on the HB was more than $500.
There was enough hue and cry from 597 owners that Remington finally decided to sweeten the pot and offered to re-barrel the rifles in .22WMR of the same profile as the OE barrel. But there were many 597 owners -- like me -- whose .17HMR shot close to 1" @100 yards and were none to keen on swapping it for a .22WMR that could be expected to group closer to two inches than to one.
So I E-mailed Volquartsen, fishing for some insider information. Scott answered and said the primary problems with the Remingtons were headspace specs and manufacturing tolerances, and that neither would be the case his his rifles.
Long story short, I think all the machinations tarnished the reputation of an excellent cartridge for no good reason.