Thread: .17 WSM thoughts?

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.