17HMR vs .22 Magnum... - Page 2

FrankenMauser · February 10, 2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

I'm not sure why you say that 40 is "far more common". Hornady doesn't even make a 40, Federal only makes 40gr in FMJ and Remington makes three versions, one in 33gr and the other two are 40. Based on those 3 companies, the split is 50/50 for the two sizes.

Hornady's load is new (and the only one they make). Federal's 30gr loads have insanely horrible BCs (and don't perform any better than a SP). Remington's 33gr load is a different color tip, in Hornady's bullet.

Not that it matters much - They're all loaded by CCI.... Which you didn't include. The most common manufacturer of .17 HMR and .22 WMR ammo didn't even get a mention in your post. What about Winchester? Fiocchi? ArmsCor? RWS? PMC?

In the .22 WMR, 40gr projectiles outnumber your cited weights by a large amount.

**Brian Pfleuger** · February 10, 2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

Not that it matters much - They're all loaded by CCI.... Which you didn't include. The most common manufacturer of .17 HMR and .22 WMR ammo didn't even get a mention in your post.

Oh, yes... CCI.... the company that makes 6 loads in 22mag and.... 4 of them are 30 grain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

What about Winchester? Fiocchi? ArmsCor? RWS? PMC?

What about them? This isn't a PhD dissertation on the similarities and contrasts of 17HMR and 22mag. I generally make my comparisons based on information provided by Hornady because they happen to provide the easiest access to the ballistics information for their bullets.

Who EVER lists every manufacturer of ammunition in these discussions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

In the .22 WMR, 40gr projectiles outnumber your cited weights by a large amount.

Even if that were true, which I would dispute based on the facts above... but even if it were true.... the HMR has BETTER ballistics than the 40gr 22mag, generally speaking, so what's the point?

Plenty of energy in both rounds but the 17 has less recoil, flatter trajectory and better wind resistance all the way to 200 yards.

Really, where is the argument? Squirrels and woodchucks here, they're not hard to kill. For anything fox sized and smaller, the 17HMR generally does EVERYTHING better than the 22mag.

At 200 yards the 22mag might hit with 30 or so more ft/lbs than the 17. What exactly does 20ft/lbs more than dead look like? Dead is dead.

Lawyer Daggit · February 10, 2010, 06:28 PM

Since when is recoil an issue with a .22 mag.

I tend to place little stock on factory ballistics figures and energy figs.

These rounds are chalk and cheese.

One provides a laser like flight path and relatively poor killing performance unless its high capability for accuracy is utilised.

The .22 Magnum is as loaded (and I believe ammo with better projectiles will come now that the 17 HMR has shown that this case is being sold short by manufacturers) offers a poorer trajectory but significantly improved killing power.

With their current loadings these rounds tend to be used (by me and friends) differently and are not really comparable products. As I say they are chalk and cheese.

79ron79 · February 10, 2010, 07:01 PM

First post on here for me boys. Excellent forums you've put together. I have a Savage Mark II BTVS Bolt Action .17 HMR and can't see myself ever buying another rimfire rifle. Love it.

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 · February 10, 2010, 10:12 PM

G'day and welcome 79ron79 .
I see that you are still to learn that you can't have to many rimfires.

79ron79 · February 10, 2010, 10:17 PM

Well perhaps i have room for a semi rimfire in the safe....

FrankenMauser · February 10, 2010, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Oh, yes... CCI.... the company that makes 6 loads in 22mag and.... 4 of them are 30 grain?

What about them? This isn't a PhD dissertation on the similarities and contrasts of 17HMR and 22mag. I generally make my comparisons based on information provided by Hornady because they happen to provide the easiest access to the ballistics information for their bullets.

Who EVER lists every manufacturer of ammunition in these discussions?

Even if that were true, which I would dispute based on the facts above... but even if it were true.... the HMR has BETTER ballistics than the 40gr 22mag, generally speaking, so what's the point?

Plenty of energy in both rounds but the 17 has less recoil, flatter trajectory and better wind resistance all the way to 200 yards.

Really, where is the argument? Squirrels and woodchucks here, they're not hard to kill. For anything fox sized and smaller, the 17HMR generally does EVERYTHING better than the 22mag.

At 200 yards the 22mag might hit with 30 or so more ft/lbs than the 17. What exactly does 20ft/lbs more than dead look like? Dead is dead.

Re-read my post, with your eyes open.

In no way, was I arguing about the effectiveness of the cartridges. I was simply pointing out that your data was not properly representing the .22 WMR. If you want to argue about "averages"... use average data; not something from an extreme end of the spectrum.

Singlesix1954 · February 10, 2010, 11:00 PM

I have both, and shoot both. I like both. 17 HMR is a little more drifty in the wind, and 22 WMR has a little more knockdown power. I guess I like the 22WMR better because I'v been shooting it longer. I think it is the same old story as the 220 Swift and the 22-250 debate. Neither one is going to shoot it's self. The part that counts is how the person with the trigger uses it!

TheManHimself · February 10, 2010, 11:59 PM

The actual ballistic coefficient isn't all that different between .17HMR and premium ballistic tip .22 WMR bullets. Yes, .17HMR will shoot slightly flatter at range, but the heavier .22 cal bullets are less affected by wind, and since drop is more predictable than the wind, I think it's a no-brainer to trade bullet drop for less wind drift.

As to the choice of rifle... CZ American, Leupold FX-I 4x28mm. Beautiful, accurate rifle, extremely solid scope with the perfect combination of magnification, light transmission, and field of view for the farthest shots you'll ever make with a .22 magnum. At a total cost of $700 or less for all the small game/pest control rifle you'll ever need.

**Brian Pfleuger** · February 11, 2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

...but the heavier .22 cal bullets are less affected by wind, and since drop is more predictable than the wind, I think it's a no-brainer to trade bullet drop for less wind drift.

Really? Show me a chart. Every ballistics calculator that I've tried says that the 17 has LESS drift than the 22mag.

Come on guys.

The 22mag has MORE wind drift than the 17 in virtually every available loading. MORE WIND DRIFT, not less. My real life experience validates the charts. I've had no problems with wind drift with the 17 out to 200 yards or so.

Plus, the 22mag arrives on target several inches lower with the same zero at ranges beyond 125 yards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankenmauser

In no way, was I arguing about the effectiveness of the cartridges. I was simply pointing out that your data was not properly representing the .22 WMR. If you want to argue about "averages"... use average data; not something from an extreme end of the spectrum.

First off, I told you how I chose the numbers. I did NOT pick extreme ends of the spectrum. I think I showed fairly conclusively that there are MORE 30gr examples of 22mag than 40gr. What YOU happen to buy is not relevent.

Second, it doesn't MATTER. The 17 outperforms the 22mag in both wind drift and trajectory in virtually EVERY case, including the 40gr CCI loads that I had the "audacity" to leave out of my original chart.

Big Bill · February 11, 2010, 02:52 AM

I've got a marlin 917V that's a shooter - very accurate.

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firear...agnum/917v.asp

I put a nice 4X Bushnell on it. The gun is one of my favorite rimfires. I have five.

dropthehammer · February 11, 2010, 10:57 AM

Rumor has it that some gun makers are going to begin producing rifles in 5mm again now that ammo is being produced. In my opinion the 5mm is superior to the .17 or the 22mag, but thats just my opinion.

Lawyer Daggit · February 11, 2010, 01:12 PM

dropthehammer- from the figures I have seen I agree.

If ammo is reasonably priced, the performance difference is enough to justify buying another gun. (:

Strazznah · February 11, 2010, 02:32 PM

I have the Savage 93 .17HMR and it is one of the most fun and accurate rifles I have (including the AR-50, but that is a different thread). I personally like the pic that Tachunter posted of the squirrel, (I have ruined the day of more than a few woodpeckers...with similar results) .

I have never shot the .22mag. So I cannot compare. Bottom-line, By what you are comfortable with and shoot the hell out of it!

FrankenMauser · February 11, 2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

First off, I told you how I chose the numbers. I did NOT pick extreme ends of the spectrum. I think I showed fairly conclusively that there are MORE 30gr examples of 22mag than 40gr.

There may be more 30gr projectiles available, in the limited view you present. But, when looking at the most commonly available loads, the 40gr loads outnumber everything else (even 45gr stuff is more common than 30gr).

Quote:

What YOU happen to buy is not relevent.

That's exactly the argument I am making here. If you want to give a good representation of the .22 WMR to the readers here, you need to use common ammo. What YOU think is common, is not exactly correct.

Quit getting so worked up. Back off, and look at the data from an objective point of view. Right now, your data is biased. The .22 WMR may have more wind drift, but you aren't presenting evidence fairly.

You are using the most common .17 HMR bullet weight, but the lightest .22 WMR bullet weight. It is not a fair comparison. (Like I said - the .22 WMR might lose the battle, but it needs to be fought on even ground.)

If I told you my 100gr HP ballistics were a good representation of the .270 Winchester you wouldn't believe me. Why are we supposed to accept your view that the 30gr Hornady load is a fair representation of all .22 WMR ammo?

I know you are using "available" data from Hornady. If you can't find data on the other stuff... don't compare.

People are better off with limited data for properly selected ammo, than detailed data that's comparing apples to zebras.

radom · February 12, 2010, 12:17 AM

From what I have always seen the 40 grain load is the standard and has been for years. Now they have lighter loads for the mag but the 40 is still the standard load.

Adventurer 2 · February 14, 2010, 08:43 PM

I have owned rifles in both calibers.
There is a five page article in the March issue of Shooting Times which is worth reading. I agree with most of the article (don't care for Dynapoints). 15 different types of 22 WMR bullets are evaluated (28 grains to 50 grains). Have to thank the introduction of the 17 HMR for development in 22 WMR ammunition.
The last page of the article compares the 22 WMR to the 17 HMR:
17 HMR - less drop and wind drift at 150 yards
22 WMR - greater killing power at 150 yards and greater choice of bullet weights plus a shotshell (28 to 50 grains). Not mentioned but I think 17 HMR only is about a 5 grain variance (15 to 20 grains).

February 10, 2010, 10:12 PM	#30
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2008 Location: Far Nth Wst QLD Australia Posts: 970	G'day and welcome 79ron79 . I see that you are still to learn that you can't have to many rimfires. __________________ If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough! When you're confused, I'll try to use smaller words!!!

February 10, 2010, 11:00 PM	#33
Singlesix1954 Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2009 Location: Rural Ne Posts: 563	I have both, and shoot both. I like both. 17 HMR is a little more drifty in the wind, and 22 WMR has a little more knockdown power. I guess I like the 22WMR better because I'v been shooting it longer. I think it is the same old story as the 220 Swift and the 22-250 debate. Neither one is going to shoot it's self. The part that counts is how the person with the trigger uses it! __________________ Luke 22:36 Single six 1954

February 11, 2010, 02:52 AM	#36
Big Bill Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Location: Idaho Posts: 1,053	I've got a marlin 917V that's a shooter - very accurate. http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firear...agnum/917v.asp I put a nice 4X Bushnell on it. The gun is one of my favorite rimfires. I have five. __________________ There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr

February 11, 2010, 10:57 AM	#37
dropthehammer Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2009 Location: Suburb of Cleveland Ohio Posts: 108	5mm Rumor has it that some gun makers are going to begin producing rifles in 5mm again now that ammo is being produced. In my opinion the 5mm is superior to the .17 or the 22mag, but thats just my opinion.

February 11, 2010, 02:32 PM	#39
Strazznah Member Join Date: January 12, 2009 Location: O'Fallon, MO Posts: 43	.17HMR I have the Savage 93 .17HMR and it is one of the most fun and accurate rifles I have (including the AR-50, but that is a different thread). I personally like the pic that Tachunter posted of the squirrel, (I have ruined the day of more than a few woodpeckers...with similar results) . I have never shot the .22mag. So I cannot compare. Bottom-line, By what you are comfortable with and shoot the hell out of it! __________________ "As you swim the river of life, do the breast stroke. It helps to clear the turds from your path." -George Carlin

February 10, 2010, 06:28 PM	#28
Lawyer Daggit Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Posts: 1,181	Since when is recoil an issue with a .22 mag. I tend to place little stock on factory ballistics figures and energy figs. These rounds are chalk and cheese. One provides a laser like flight path and relatively poor killing performance unless its high capability for accuracy is utilised. The .22 Magnum is as loaded (and I believe ammo with better projectiles will come now that the 17 HMR has shown that this case is being sold short by manufacturers) offers a poorer trajectory but significantly improved killing power. With their current loadings these rounds tend to be used (by me and friends) differently and are not really comparable products. As I say they are chalk and cheese.

February 10, 2010, 07:01 PM	#29
79ron79 Junior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Location: Ontario Posts: 5	First post on here for me boys. Excellent forums you've put together. I have a Savage Mark II BTVS Bolt Action .17 HMR and can't see myself ever buying another rimfire rifle. Love it.

February 10, 2010, 10:17 PM	#31
79ron79 Junior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Location: Ontario Posts: 5	Well perhaps i have room for a semi rimfire in the safe....

February 10, 2010, 11:59 PM	#34
TheManHimself Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 2008 Posts: 731	The actual ballistic coefficient isn't all that different between .17HMR and premium ballistic tip .22 WMR bullets. Yes, .17HMR will shoot slightly flatter at range, but the heavier .22 cal bullets are less affected by wind, and since drop is more predictable than the wind, I think it's a no-brainer to trade bullet drop for less wind drift. As to the choice of rifle... CZ American, Leupold FX-I 4x28mm. Beautiful, accurate rifle, extremely solid scope with the perfect combination of magnification, light transmission, and field of view for the farthest shots you'll ever make with a .22 magnum. At a total cost of $700 or less for all the small game/pest control rifle you'll ever need.

February 11, 2010, 01:12 PM	#38
Lawyer Daggit Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Posts: 1,181	dropthehammer- from the figures I have seen I agree. If ammo is reasonably priced, the performance difference is enough to justify buying another gun. (:

February 12, 2010, 12:17 AM	#41
radom Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2000 Posts: 1,270	From what I have always seen the 40 grain load is the standard and has been for years. Now they have lighter loads for the mag but the 40 is still the standard load.

February 14, 2010, 08:43 PM	#42
Adventurer 2 Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2006 Posts: 497	I have owned rifles in both calibers. There is a five page article in the March issue of Shooting Times which is worth reading. I agree with most of the article (don't care for Dynapoints). 15 different types of 22 WMR bullets are evaluated (28 grains to 50 grains). Have to thank the introduction of the 17 HMR for development in 22 WMR ammunition. The last page of the article compares the 22 WMR to the 17 HMR: 17 HMR - less drop and wind drift at 150 yards 22 WMR - greater killing power at 150 yards and greater choice of bullet weights plus a shotshell (28 to 50 grains). Not mentioned but I think 17 HMR only is about a 5 grain variance (15 to 20 grains).