.17 HMR vs. .17 WMR
 

Is one significantly better than the other? I'm looking at long-range varmit shooting. Always been partial to Ruger, but open to suggestions on a good over-the-counter brand and a good scope to put on it.

I used to be into guns pretty heavy (mostly hand guns) but archery has been my thing the last 20 years or so--I'm behind on the game.

I would ask myself one question........................


Which one will still be around 10 years from now ??

I brought a HMR !

I have no idea. Think the WMR will make the HMR obsolete?

I don't think either round is going to disappear if that's what you mean by obsolete. 22 Mag has been around forever and fills a valuable rimfire niche with regard to short range power, etc. from 125 yards or less. It can also be shot out of several 22 revolvers for versatility. The 17 HMR isn't going to disappear either and is probably the 2nd most popular rimfire caliber after 22 LR. You won't go wrong with either and could reasonably afford both (always nice to have more guns).

Your decision will probably be more affected by what size varmints you want to shoot and what you mean by long range. The 22 mag obviously has more power but starts losing in the trajectory department much beyond 125 yards. The 17 HMR obviously has frangible ammo if you're concerned about ricochets when shooting at ground squirrels in an alfalfa field. I've found more 17 HMR ammo for sale on store shelves than 22 mag in the current buying frenzy/panic but that scarcity will likely get fixed in the next 2-5 years (probably after the next Presidential election). JMHO and YMMV of course.

I would look at a 222 or 223 before either of the 17's, and first choice would be the 222. Extended range and less wind drift.

Got a .223. It's overkill for crows, which is what I want the .17 for. Range of 200 yds or less, usually. The .17 is quieter and less chance of a ricochet as well. I live out in the country, but I do have neighbors. Sometimes a .22 LR is fine, but often it's not quite enough.

Crows are about the only thing I need it for, so I don't seem me spending the money for both--especially when there are so many longbows and recurves I want to own yet...and a few pistols.

Gotcha LBR. My next choice would be a 22 hornet. Quiet and lots of umph for more than crows. Easy to load for too. Sold mine, and am regretting it to this day. Just not a fan of the 17's.

The HMR with the 17 gr v-max's will shine on crows at 200, the 17 WSM has more power but not enough to be worth the risk of it not making it and they discontinue making ammo, sorta like a modern day 5mm mag.
RR

I love the 17HMR and use it with a suppressor. Very accurate with the Hornady 17Gr. I shoot everything from tree rats to hogs. All head shots. Everything sleeps with it.

Thanks for the input!

Problem solved. My little (younger) brother surprised me with an early Christmas present--a .17 HMR. How I just have to decide on a scope for it!

Ditto! Ditto!

So is it going by WMR or WSM? When I see WMR, I think of the 22WMR, which is akin to the HMR, whereas the 17WSM is a unique cartridge not related to the 22WMR.

Sounds like the point is moot since LBR got a "Hummer" already, but I'd comment that I'm not quite sure that I think the 17WSM is going to go away. As long as we can get out of this Rimfire shortage, I think it fills a perfect niche that will give it staying power. I'm really sad to see the 17HM2 go away, as I REALLY loved that round - I'd LOVE to have a Ruger SP101 6" or a Mark II (not III, but I'd take it) in .17HM2.

The 17WSM stands above all other rimfires, quite likely at a level that can't be accomplished in heavier caliber rimfires. It still doesn't quite reach centerfire level numbers, but it's certainly far enough ahead of the other rimfires to make a difference.

If it weren't for the feeding issues that I'm hearing about the B-mags, the fact that they don't have one in Stainless/laminate yet, and the fact that I 'need' about 3 other rifles first, I'd have a 17WSM myself!!! (That being said with a 17HMR and 22WMR in the safe already).

From what I read and herd first hand from people that have a 17 wsm it is not vary accurate. The 17 hmr shoots circles around it. Last week at cabelas in Delaware they had problems 50 box's of winchester 17 and 17 gr ammo but no rifles.

If a 17WSM isn't very accurate, and a 17HMR "Shoots circles around it," then doesn't that mean the 17HMR is LESS accurate? :p

What specifically is wrong with the 17WSM's that's causing the problem? I only know one fella with a B-Mag, he says when it feeds, it shoots lights out, just that it has a bit of a problem repeating. I'd be pretty surprised to hear the Savage is putting out rifles that aren't accurate, even if it is a new cartridge and new action.

I read from outdoorlife don't remember which month but they did a review on the winchester low wall and it was not accurate for what the rifle was. They also stated that the Bmag they used was not that accurate either. The person I talked to had a savage and got ride of it because it shoot real bad compared to his savage 17 hmr. He had no feeding problem with the mag.

I assumed that this article would be one that you were referencing...

The "poor accuracy" of the 17WSM in the 1885 Low wall was this:

"Accuracy at 100 yards with the 25 grain bullet was a bit over an inch"... "Average 5-shot group at 100 yards with Winchester’s 25-grain load was 1.197 in.; the smallest group was .942 in."...

Pretty hard to complain about a ~1MOA RIMFIRE RIFLE, especially considering that the B-mag is still south of $400 for a stainless model.

They don't state how poorly the 20grn load shoots, but if they're complaining about 1MOA at 100yrds, I'll take it.

It is, however, one of the uglier rifles I've seen, even for a Savage. Right up there with a BLR in my book.

Picked up a Stainless Savage B-Mag 17WSM last night and 500rnds. Range and field reports to follow.

(And for the record, yes, I still think it's one of the ugliest rifles ever conceived...)