View Poll Results: 17 vs 22
.17 HMR
8
57.14%
.22 WMR
6
42.86%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
.17 HMR vs .22 HMR
11-15-2011, 08:16 PM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
.17 HMR vs .22 HMR
.17 HMR vs .22 WMR
.17 HMR
17@2550
20@2375
.22 WMR
30@2200
40@1910
What's your preference?
Any reason to get one over the other?
I figure both will plink/kill squirrels, and what can the .22 WMR kill that the .17 HMR won't?
So go with velocity?
.17 HMR
17@2550
20@2375
.22 WMR
30@2200
40@1910
What's your preference?
Any reason to get one over the other?
I figure both will plink/kill squirrels, and what can the .22 WMR kill that the .17 HMR won't?
So go with velocity?
Last edited by salukipv1; 11-15-2011 at 08:19 PM.
11-15-2011, 08:59 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,482
The .17 is fine for very small varmits- i.e. groundhogs and smaller. But for all-around use I would pick the .22 mag. That way, if a coyote (which, by the way is the most common varmit in my parts) comes around, you can pop him too....
11-16-2011, 05:53 AM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,320
I dont have alot of experience with a 22 mag but I have spent alittle time shooting both thru a chronograph. Lots with the 17HMR.
In my rifles the quoted fps for the 17 HMR was actually considerably lower than what I got. My 17 gr. Vmaxs were going 2650 and more. I love the accuracy of the 17 providing there is no wind...like a dart.
I never had that kind of accuracy with either of my 22 mags and normally the bullet speeds were not up to specs falling 100-120 fps short of what it says on the box for 40 gr. bullets.
With all that I would still rather have the 22 mag if I thought I would be shooting anything over 12 lbs or so.
In my rifles the quoted fps for the 17 HMR was actually considerably lower than what I got. My 17 gr. Vmaxs were going 2650 and more. I love the accuracy of the 17 providing there is no wind...like a dart.
I never had that kind of accuracy with either of my 22 mags and normally the bullet speeds were not up to specs falling 100-120 fps short of what it says on the box for 40 gr. bullets.
With all that I would still rather have the 22 mag if I thought I would be shooting anything over 12 lbs or so.
11-16-2011, 05:57 AM
#4
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 753
i love my hmr, but its really destructive on small game like squirrel. I think if squirrel and rabbit and plinking are your main plans for the gun, go 17hm2...less destructive, cheaper ammo, nice flat shooting round out to 100 yards.
11-16-2011, 09:14 AM
#5
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 5,130
For accuracy and speed, hard to beat the .17HMR out to 100-150 yards.
I agree that it's intended for varmint & small game under +/- 10 lbs.
BTW - I rarely see coyotes walking through the area where I'm shooting (ground squirrels in my case) my .17HMR/.22lr or my .204 - for those long shots !
I agree that it's intended for varmint & small game under +/- 10 lbs.
BTW - I rarely see coyotes walking through the area where I'm shooting (ground squirrels in my case) my .17HMR/.22lr or my .204 - for those long shots !
11-22-2011, 04:03 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Titusville Florida
Posts: 1,727
My opinion, fwiw. The .22mag can definately handle larger game, but if I had that need I would probably get a .22 hornet. Anyone who hunts small game with a rifle NEEDS a .17hmr. Yes it does quite a bit of damage to squirrels, but I don't eat the heads or ribs anyway. It's just awesome to be able to snipe at squirrels out to 150+ yards away. A lot of guys will balk at the cost of ammo, but it's not fair to compare the .17 with a .22LR. The .17hmr performs more like a centerfire that you can't reload, and they're no more expensive than buying a box of .38 special or 9mm rounds.
