I recently acquired Stevens 44 1/2 that was restored by CPA some years ago and chambered in 17 Ackley Hornet.  While the cartridge is interesting, as I unsderstand, the 17 Hornady Hornet is practically the same thing but with a shorter length and wider diameter case at the shoulder.  While I fully appreciate the Ackley version and would be content using it well enough alone, I also feel the alure of a factory made and readily available case such as the Hornady.  As described in lterature on the rounds, an Ackley barrel can be rechambered for the Hornady round by setting the barrel back one thread and rechambering.  Does anyone have any experience with either or both these rounds and know their pros and cons?  If so, I would appreciate hearing about it.  As always, thanks much in advance for your help and advice.   

+ 1, have the Ackley version, put together long before the Hornady. Making cases is really simple for the Ackley, but being able to buy factory cases would be even easier. Not sure of their availability right now though. I guess I just like the Ackley name attached to boot!!! loads of fun whatever decision you make.

I recently purchased a Ruger No.1 that has been re-bareled for 17 Ackley Hornet. It came with forming dies and a die set and I had plenty of hornet brass plus many, many 17 projectiles in various weights. My reading suggested there was practically no difference in the two but if I was going to barrel something now it would be the 17 Hornady as brass is preformed, available and dies sets more easily obtainable than 17AH. They are a hoot to shoot and can recommend it as lots of fun.

If what you have shoots up to your own expectations why make a change. Even though you might be only turning the barrel back a turn possibly two everything else also changes. Forearm won't fit, scope mounts will be moved back, extractor needs to be re-cut and other issues might also pop up. Such as if the barrel is a round and it has quite abit of taper the forearm radius may now be to large. Even though it will also have to be shortened for the attachment screws to fit. I know removing 62.5 thousands or possibly twice that much to set the barrel back and to get it re-clocked exactly right. Doesn't sound like that much but it can end up effecting quite allot including having to re-doing your head spacing and having to modify they extractor itself. One also needs to look at how much shoulder contact to the action will still be there especially if its a round tapered barrel. And if it would end up actually looking right. These are just issues that I have had to deal with over the years and probably the worst outcomes to think about.

JLouis wrote on Jul 7^th, 2021 at 12:43pm:


Yeah, and I do appreciate the logistics of all that

There are a lot of if's in Jlouis's possible scenario, it may not be near as big a job, but that being said, the cost of a set of dies for the Ackley will be considerably less than the work involved to set back and rechamber, unless you are capable of doing the work required. As I noted, the job of forming the Ackley cases is minimal, and the difference in performance is negligible. But ultimately the choice is yours. If it were mine to make, I would stick to the Ackley, and bring a smile to his and my face.

Good advise, JLouis.

No apology needed Krag and no misrepresentation on my behalf. Worst case would be a tapered round barrel or full octagon in regards to the forearm barrel channel. And best case a half octagon to round either way everything else mentioned would take place when setting a barrel back. I have done several and that is what I personally have come across when setting a barrel on a completely finished rifle back and then re-chambering it.