Thread: .17 WSM thoughts?

Hi Team

Thinking of buying a .17 WSM Rifle and appreciate your opinions on;
- The round itself?
- The available rifles Savage and Ruger 77 (can you get a 77 in NZ)?

Rgds Qdos

I would like one so only speaking from the outside. If you reload then it probably isn't worth it. Just go to a 17 hornet.
If you don't want to feck around reloading then they could be worth a go. Big issue is rifles. There aren't that many around but you do see the odd Ruger-they are pricey.
A nice forum member let me have a shot out of his B mag at the range one day. he is very happy with it.
Big one is the stupid plastic stocks on them. really need one with the boyds laminate.
Another one to think of on the cheap is a break open H+R/New England 17hmr and get it reamed out. Also have to modify the extractor to fit and possibly the spring so potentially a bit of fecking around.
the Rugers also apparently don't always shoot much better than a B mag so can be hard to justify paying quite a bit extra coin for them

If you can find a Ruger it’s the better option, my mate picked one up second hand and it was still pricey. I’ve had two b mags. Standard barrel plastic stock, the stock is total crap. Flexes with two fingers twisting it. There are stiffeners for sale on tm not sure how effective they are. People also pack them out with resin. Can’t emphasise how crap the stock is. Currently have the stainless bull barrel in a Boyd’s stock which is a factory option although I had to import the stock myself as it had the crap plastic one from new. I still have to bed it but it’s very accurate and for a rim fire kills stuff at silly ranges no problem. Unsurprisingly wind has a significant effect but it makes it fun/challenging once you get used to it. We don’t have all the ammo choices as overseas, I’ve found hornady to be best for accuracy. If you have long range vermin to shoot it’s good. Certainly has enough oomph to head shoot goats and smaller deer at close range -not that I have or would. Has more energy than my 22 hornet.

Friend of mine brought one mid last year, savage with grey pepper laminated Boyd's stock, accutrigger etc. ( from Fish City Hamilton I think ) wasn't too bad a price, got a new DPT suppressor and brought it down to central for a big shoot last year.
We probably rattled through 500 odd rounds in 4 days with it.
It is a step up in performance over the 17HMR but I fail to see a lot of use for the round to be honest in NZ.
Other than maybe wallaby it's going to be going head to head with the HMR , other than a bit of an increase in range it has no real world advantages.
It cost's more to run, it's to light for ethical Deer or goat shooting, ammo is harder to obtain outside of main centres and rifle choice is limited.
I really do wonder if it's nothing more than a marketing ploy and it won't go the way of the 17 HMR2.
Impressive performance but not a big enough jump over the 17 HMR and not enough to foot it with the 204 , 222, 223 , ...just my thoughts .

In my opinion the .17 WSM is a little noisy tack driver, super accurate and personally, I would say get it suppressed. Then you wont be disappointed, it makes the hmr look silly. Savage over Ruger.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Appreciate the advice/perspectives.

Rgds

what is the advantage of this over 223?

A friend of mine is looking at spending big bucks on an ar15 pattern one to get a peppy semi.
For a walk around rifle it should be good fun with almost ar15 ish performance for small critters

I'd suggest watching this
https://youtu.be/t9w8NNjvvfk
I used to want a 17 wsm until I started looking more into it. The numbers are better from the hornet except for ammo price if your not reloading. Top of my head your paying about $1 a round or just under for .17wsm with not much selection. Its the same ol story, what are you wanting from the rifle. Is it velocity, distance, accuracy or something different. Everytime you look theres always something a little bit better. I went from wanting an HMR to wanting a WSM then a Hornet next thing you know I've brought a 22-250 after walking in to buy a 223.......now I own .17 Hornet as well. On a side note theres a .17 Remington for sale on trademe, has a brand new barrel on it. Would be a nice addition

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

what is the advantage of this over 223?

Factory ammo is cheaper and don't have to worry about reloading.
It wont be as loud and will recoil less.
Rifles can be smaller and lighter than a 223 sized rifle.

223 is far more versatile in that it can be used for goats and deer, but it's not really meant to compete against 223.
17 or 22 Hornet would be a fairer comparison or 17/221 Fireball, 204 Ruger type cartridges.
It has the advantage of cheaper factory ammo that the above options but at the disadvantage of not being able to reload to get maximum accuracy.

Remember its a rimfire cartridge, basically a hot rod 17hmr, not really fair to compare it to centrefire cartridges other than the 17 Hornet.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

Factory ammo is cheaper and don't have to worry about reloading.
It wont be as loud and will recoil less.
Rifles can be smaller and lighter than a 223 sized rifle.

223 is far more versatile in that it can be used for goats and deer, but it's not really meant to compete against 223.
17 or 22 Hornet would be a fairer comparison or 17/221 Fireball, 204 Ruger type cartridges.
It has the advantage of cheaper factory ammo that the above options but at the disadvantage of not being able to reload to get maximum accuracy.

Remember its a rimfire cartridge, basically a hot rod 17hmr, not really fair to compare it to centrefire cartridges other than the 17 Hornet.

This is my justification.
if you shoot a shit ton, you would probably want to reload then the centerfires reign supreme in all ways, more rifles to pick from , projectiles etc.
If you want a cranky 17 cal that you don't have to go looking for brass if you are spotlighting etc and you don't go through a bunch of ammo then it looks a lot more viable.
BUT there are bugger all rifles to pick from and in the Ruger's case it used to be cheaper to by a 17 hornet then a 17wsm.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Price - Due to the limited choices available, the prices of 17wsm ammo are somewhat fixed at about $0.8~1 per round. 223 on the other hand has huge amount of choices. you can get expensive ones at 2 dollars, or bulk from Belmont at less than 60c each. I do not really see the price advantage in favour of 17 WSM. I think as far as rifles goes you can find cheaper 223 than 17 WSM just because the amount of choices.

2. Convenience - I have not studied this in any great level of detail but it seems to me that 17 WSM rifles are not smaller than 223. Most 223 rifles have 20~24 inch barrel on a short action. I suppose 17WSM has a smaller action but otherwise equivalent barrel length. I suppose 17 WSM rifle can be a bit smaller but I dont think by much. I would imaging recoil is less, but it is not like 223 causes anyone recoil issues in the first place. I can see it may be slightly less loud but I cannot see by much. they shoot at about the same speed do they not? one is 4.5mm and one is 5.5 mm

3. Performance - mimms 2 said the difference is 1000 fps. I do not understand this statement. Do they not both shoot at around 2600~3000 FPS? I would have thought that 223 would retain better trajectory and power at longer range because it has better BC.

I am happy to be corrected.

Personally I feel that 17 WSM is filling a gap between 17hmr and 223, which no one was complaining about it being a gap in the first place.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Here are my thoughts:

1. Price - Due to the limited choices available, the prices of 17wsm ammo are somewhat fixed at about $0.8~1 per round. 223 on the other hand has huge amount of choices. you can get expensive ones at 2 dollars, or bulk from Belmont at less than 60c each. I do not really see the price advantage in favour of 17 WSM. I think as far as rifles goes you can find cheaper 223 than 17 WSM just because the amount of choices.

2. Convenience - I have not studied this in any great level of detail but it seems to me that 17 WSM rifles are not smaller than 223. Most 223 rifles have 20~24 inch barrel on a short action. I suppose 17WSM has a smaller action but otherwise equivalent barrel length. I suppose 17 WSM rifle can be a bit smaller but I dont think by much. I would imaging recoil is less, but it is not like 223 causes anyone recoil issues in the first place. I can see it may be slightly less loud but I cannot see by much. they shoot at about the same speed do they not? one is 4.5mm and one is 5.5 mm

3. Performance - mimms 2 said the difference is 1000 fps. I do not understand this statement. Do they not both shoot at around 2600~3000 FPS? I would have thought that 223 would retain better trajectory and power at longer range because it has better BC.

I am happy to be corrected.

Personally I feel that 17 WSM is filling a gap between 17hmr and 223, which no one was complaining about it being a gap in the first place.

The 17WSM competes in a category that is not popular/common in NZ, folk who shoot a lot of small and medium varmint swear by cartridges smaller than 223.
Less powder also heat up your barrel less which is factor with light profile barrels or high volumes of shooting, whether that be effecting accuracy or mirage off the barrel/suppressor.

In many cases NZ just doesn't have the same varmint/game animals that other countries do, so the smallest centrefire cartridges make less sense here.

17WSM will be a lot quieter than 223 unsupressed, the difference between 22lr, 17hmr and 223 is substantial, it's more than just the speed of the projectile that contribute to noise levels.
Whilst 223 recoil isn't typically an issue, less recoil is always preferred.

There is a big thread running on this cartridge on AHN forum if your interested. Ruger rifle seems to be most popular.

Originally Posted by Qdos

Thanks for your thoughts!

Appreciate the advice/perspectives.

Rgds

Look at a 204!!