The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 3, 2014, 10:05 PM   #1
Elliottsdad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 110
.17 wsm revolver?

So I went out shooting with some friends last weekend, and someone brought a Savage bolt action rifle in .17 mag. I had heard of this 3,000 fps rimfire, but never seen one in person. It was impressive, to say the least.

Why does Ruger, Smith, or Taurus not chamber a revolver in this caliber? I kept thinking of a 4 inch 6/7 shot .17 mag version of a GP100 or K frame.. this would be a KILLER trail gun that would put .22lr (and 22 mag!) to shame, no?
Elliottsdad is offline  
Old November 3, 2014, 10:20 PM   #2
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,866
Probably why the .17HMR revolvers weren't too popular..... the bottle necked case.

High chamber pressure + bottle necked cases can be pretty trouble some getting un-stuck at times. Now I am not saying its not do-able, it just generally has issues due to variance in tolerances / craftsmanship.

I considered the .17 WSM... but the problem is the ammo is limited right now, expensive... and its still a rimfire so its not reloadable.

Firearms sales are still up right now, however its in the self defense / "tactical" markets.... probably not a great point in time for Ruger or SW to jump in the market with a niche gun like the one you suggest.

Not trying to put you down at all... I'd be interested in it too.... just my thinking as to why you probably won't see it.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old November 3, 2014, 10:43 PM   #3
ratshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 760
Ruger made a single six in 17 HMR as did NAA in their mini revolvers. I don't think they sold too well. The round is much better in a rifle. And no, they were not better than a 22 mag round in a handgun.

And I never read of a problem with the bottle necked cases but then again I didn't read much about them before they were just gone.
__________________
Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?

A village in Kenya called. They want their idiot back.
ratshooter is offline  
Old November 3, 2014, 10:45 PM   #4
RJay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,697
I was under the impression that Taurus also chambered a revolver in .17 HMR.. I don't think they sold a whole lot of them. I really believe that one in 17 WSM would lose so much velocity in a short barrel, a ,22 short might out preform it
__________________
Ron James
RJay is offline  
Old November 3, 2014, 10:48 PM   #5
Elliottsdad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 110
But isn't 17 WSM quite a step up from previous offerings in 17 HMR in performance? I think we might be talking about two different rounds here.. (and just because they have the same diameter pill does not make them the same, no?)
Elliottsdad is offline  
Old November 3, 2014, 10:57 PM   #6
ratshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 760
Elliot I think I misunderstood which .17 round you were talking about. You must be thinking of the new 17 round made from a nail gun case.

If thats so then it would be an even more unbalanced round for a 4" barreled handgun. The blast would be tremendous and the loss in velocity would negate all the advantage gained from the rifle lenght barrel.

If you want a better than 22/22mag trail gun try a 32mag in the ruger single six. And you don't need full power rounds to beat the pants off the 22 caliber guns.
__________________
Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?

A village in Kenya called. They want their idiot back.
ratshooter is offline  
Old November 3, 2014, 11:02 PM   #7
Cheapshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,713
Quote:
But isn't 17 WSM quite a step up from previous offerings in 17 HMR in performance? I think we might be talking about two different rounds here.. (and just because they have the same diameter pill does not make them the same, no?)
Maybe with little if any interest in one 17 caliber handgun, the gun companies aren't about to try another one. Especially one that hasn't really proved itself yet. Isn't the 17WSM still only chambered in one manufacturer's rifle?
__________________
Cheapshooter's rules of gun ownership #1: NEVER SELL OR TRADE ANYTHING!
Cheapshooter is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 01:22 AM   #8
JD0x0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2013
Posts: 1,030
Probably needs a 6''-10'' barrel to have a real practical advantage over a .17HMR revolver.
JD0x0 is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 06:07 AM   #9
peggysue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 186
Ruger single-six 17HMR
Taurus 17 Tracker 17 HMR Revoler
&W Model 647 17 HMR 12" Varminter
http://www.ruger.com/products/newMod...MR/models.html
peggysue is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 08:29 AM   #10
RKG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 286
Possibly those companies have someone on staff old enough to remember the S&W .22 Jet.
RKG is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 11:12 AM   #11
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,486
Bottleneck cartridges don't work well in revolvers and they don't work well in short barrels.

If somebody did make a 17 WSM revolver it would be loud and the flash would be impressive even in daylight.
natman is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 11:29 AM   #12
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,955
The problem with bottle-neck cases in a revolver is that when a cartridge is fired in a revolver (or in any gun), it will move back as much as the breech face will allow, and in a bottleneck case the shoulder will also expand forward. That is no problem in other gun types, but in a revolver, the fired case must also be able to move forward a tiny bit to allow the cylinder to turn. If shoulder expansion prevents that, the cylinder locks up and won't move.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 11:49 AM   #13
JD0x0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2013
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Ruger single-six 17HMR
Taurus 17 Tracker 17 HMR Revoler
&W Model 647 17 HMR 12" Varminter
Those revolvers are .17HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire)

This thread is about .17WSM which is a different cartridge. (Winchester Super Magnum)
JD0x0 is offline  
Old November 4, 2014, 06:18 PM   #14
peggysue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 186
Thus why nothing in 17WSM. It does not work in a short barrel revolver.
peggysue is offline  
Old November 6, 2014, 11:53 AM   #15
mhblaw
Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2009
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 66
Not to capture the thread, but I have a Ruger OMBH conversion to 25-20, a "bottleneck" cartridge. If one uses the proper powders, slower are best, there is no problem with case set back or jamming the cylinder.
mhblaw is offline  
Old November 6, 2014, 10:32 PM   #16
Super Sneaky Steve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 771
It may work good in a two shot derringer.
__________________
anti-state, anti-war, pro-market
Super Sneaky Steve is offline  
Old November 6, 2014, 10:49 PM   #17
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,299
Not all bottleneck cartridges are created equal when it come to being used in revolvers.

The issues that tended to plague the S&W Jet don't seem to be an issue with the .17 HRM.

I'd say the major reason is because of the shape of the case. The .22 Jet had a long, tapered body/shoulder (hard to say which it is), very much unlike the .17 HRM, which has a long, almost straight case body and a very short, sharp shoulder.

In the .22 Jet, there was a LOT of tapered shoulder area that allowed the case to push back against the recoil shield.

That's not the case with the .17. With virtually no shoulder, the force to push the case back against the recoil shield just doesn't seem to be there.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 6, 2014, 11:55 PM   #18
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,847
This is true. the jet was almost bell shaped. It genuinely did set back, and if the chamber had any oil or cleaner in it would slip back, drag on the face did cause problems. My father in law owned one but rarely fired it.

I've wondered how many revolvers are accurate enough to actually make a .17 caliber useful. I, for example, could never nail a squirrel with DA fire out of my smith .22 The .17 isn't big enough to practically use on much of anything bigger than prairie dogs, right?

It just seems that cartridge itself, not being powerful enough for larger game, isn't really accurate enough for smaller game, and I'm kinda doubtful about a lot of the handguns being put out today.

I think buckmark and ruger are a whole different matter, an eight to ten inch barrel, scoped, tuned, I guess it might turn out to be something really special.
briandg is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12431 seconds with 9 queries