.17 HMR vs. .17 WMR
10-27-2014, 07:18 PM
#1
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
.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 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.
10-28-2014, 09:40 AM
#4
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,382
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.
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.
10-28-2014, 12:26 PM
#6
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
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.
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.
10-28-2014, 01:21 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 3,649
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
RR
