Originally Posted by Nomercy448

I think there are several reasons why they went with the 17cal over a 20 or 22, and by and large, I agree with the logic. Ultimately, getting THAT MUCH energy (hitting the 'warm and fuzzy 3000fps' mark) out of a 33-38grn bullet would just be asking too much from a rimfire case.

The real point I'd be looking at is I honestly don't think the .17Hornady Hornet is sweating the .17WSMR for one second.

Sure, the ballistics don't seem that far apart, but when you're talking about 3000fps with a 20grn, vs 3500fps in the 17H, or 3000fps with a 30grn vs 20grn, there's a big gap between these two. Big enough to make me, as a predator and small game hunter, realize that I'm far better off with the .17H over the WSM.

Then factor in that I can reload my .17H and customize my load for supreme accuracy, AND reduce my 'cost per shot', there's just no comparing the two.

The guys that DON'T consider those types of factors are the guys that don't shoot that much and just read the hype on the page, not the type of guy that would be reloading anyway.

I've used the same arguement when you compare performance of the .204Ruger to the .17Remington. You often hear that guys get a lot of run off coyotes with the 204, but the lowly .17 Remington puts them in the dirt. Why? Because of who is buying the two. New fad buyers that don't know where to place a lightweight bullet on a coyote will buy the .204R based on a Poster Ad, whereas the guys shooting the .17 Rem have likely ruined more hides in a year with an over-powered rifle cartridge than the other guy would ever even see in a life-time.

There's a reason to buy the .17WSM, it's going to be a great 'long range for rimfire' small game cartridge. But if you're looking for small game precision ammo with great ballistics and the best in the biz fur-friendliness, you're looking at a .17H or .17rem, discluding any rimfire altogether.