New .17 Wsm (Winchester Super Magnum) Videos

[Alsone 789]

Ron Spomper Outdoors in the US got their hands on a Savage B Mag rifle and posted a video of the effects of .22 vs .17 HMR vs .17 WSM all vs water filled bottles.

 

Nothing spectacular, but you can clearly see the difference in effects of HMR vs WSM.

 

Also sounds very quiet:

 

 

 

It's also interesting as you can hear the .22 ricochet.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Alsone

[Alsone 789]

..and another one that shows the damage difference even better:

 

Edited June 9, 2013 by Alsone

[Deker 3,478]

I'm not really following this, I think it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that two similar types of bullet, but one carrying approx. twice the energy of the other is likely to do more damage, do we need a video to show this?

 

and...BOTH of those were about as UNscientific as you can get, even different containers on the first.

 

For those that may find this a surprise try a .22lr and a .243 next to it, which do you think may do the most damage?

[Alsone 789]

The tests are relevent in so far as this is a new rimfire round coming out and so it makes sense to compare it back to back to with the existing .22 and .17HMR.

 

There are a lot of people interested in this little round as potentially its a game changer for rimfire: - .22 Hornet CF performance in a .17 rimfire package.

 

As for the actual tests, well if you request them to repeat the test with ballistic gel then maybe we can have a more scientific look at it. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the videos or the tests.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Alsone

[hutchey 147]

not bad but are they over here yet? wonder how the FLO's will treat them?

[Deker 3,478]

The tests are relevent in so far as this is a new rimfire round coming out and so it makes sense to compare it back to back to with the existing .22 and .17HMR. as I have already said above "I think it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that two similar types of bullet, but one carrying approx. twice the energy of the other is likely to do more damage, do we need a video to show this?"

 

 

There are a lot of people interested in this little round as potentially its a game changer for rimfire: - .22 Hornet CF performance in a .17 rimfire package. And neither of those vids will show them anything they can't already work out!

 

As for the actual tests, well if you request them to repeat the test with ballistic gel then maybe we can have a more scientific look at it. That and more would be the only thing that may benefit some, proper results and effect! Unfortunately, I didn't produce the videos or the tests.

[charlie caller 3,654]

The tests are relevent in so far as this is a new rimfire round coming out and so it makes sense to compare it back to back to with the existing .22 and .17HMR.

 

There are a lot of people interested in this little round as potentially its a game changer for rimfire: - .22 Hornet CF performance in a .17 rimfire package.

 

As for the actual tests, well if you request them to repeat the test with ballistic gel then maybe we can have a more scientific look at it. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the videos or the tests.

No it does not have .22 hornet performance, 20 grain bullet at 3000 fps compared to a 35 grain bullet at 3100fps you do the maths

Edited June 9, 2013 by charlie caller

[Deker 3,478]

 

The tests are relevent in so far as this is a new rimfire round coming out and so it makes sense to compare it back to back to with the existing .22 and .17HMR.

 

There are a lot of people interested in this little round as potentially its a game changer for rimfire: - .22 Hornet CF performance in a .17 rimfire package.

 

As for the actual tests, well if you request them to repeat the test with ballistic gel then maybe we can have a more scientific look at it. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the videos or the tests.

No it does not have .22 hornet performance, 20 grain bullet at 300 fps compared a 35 grain bullet at 3100fps you do the maths

 

You're right that 300fps 20g round doesn't really shape up against 3100fps 35g!

 

Where is the edit button when you need it?

[charlie caller 3,654]

Yes should have said 3000, but you get the idea Im sure, it is not a centerfire and never will be and no matter how much they push the rimfire envelope they will never achieve the same performance. If you must have a super fast fox slaying .17 buy a .17 rem and have done with it

Edited June 9, 2013 by charlie caller

[Deker 3,478]

Yes should have said 3000, but you get the idea Im sure, it is not a centerfire and never will be and no matter how much they push the rimfire envelope they will never achieve the same performance.

 

I hope you took on board my response was very tongue in cheek!

[Alsone 789]

 

The tests are relevent in so far as this is a new rimfire round coming out and so it makes sense to compare it back to back to with the existing .22 and .17HMR.

 

There are a lot of people interested in this little round as potentially its a game changer for rimfire: - .22 Hornet CF performance in a .17 rimfire package.

 

As for the actual tests, well if you request them to repeat the test with ballistic gel then maybe we can have a more scientific look at it. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the videos or the tests.

No it does not have .22 hornet performance, 20 grain bullet at 3000 fps compared to a 35 grain bullet at 3100fps you do the maths

 

 

According to the info released so far:

 

Apart from the heavier bullet they're almost identical in energy at 250 yards and the .17 WSM substancially outperforms the .22 Hornet for velocity.

 

The .17 WSM also outperforms the .22 Hornet for both bullet drop and windage by a factor of 2X at many ranges.

 

So lets put some figures out there from here: This source-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uno5EUyhH3c#!

 

Velocity vs Bullet Drop (150yd zero)

 

.17 WSM - red .22 Hornet (45gr) in green

 

Muzzle: 3,000 / 0.0 2.690 / 0.0

 

50 yds: 2,729 / 0.25 2,337 / 0.8

 

100 yds: 2,487 / 0.83 2,026 / 1.5

 

150 yds: 2,258 / 0.0 1,741 / 0.0

 

200 yds: 2,042 / -2.6 1,489 / -4.4

 

250 yds: 1,832 / -7.2 1,278 / -12.7

 

.17 WSM outperforms .22 Hornet hands down.

 

At almost all ranges, it has 600 fps more velocity and 1/2 the bullet drop.

 

 

Energy vs Wind Deflection @ 10 mph (150yd zero)

 

.17 WSM - red .22 Hornet (45gr) in green

 

Muzzle: 400 / 0.0 723 / 0.0

 

50 yds: 331 / 0.9 546 / 1.1

 

100 yds: 275 / 2.2 410 / 3.4

 

150 yds: 226 / 4.4 303 / 7.5

 

200 yds: 185 / 7.8 222 / 13.9

 

250 yds: 150 / 12.5 163 / 22.9

 

 

So on energy the .22 Hornet has a clear advantage close in but by 200 yards, they're almost even and the windage of the .17 WSM is 1/2 that of the .22 Hornet by 150 yards and 1/3 rd better at 100 yards.

 

Given that most people use the .22 Hornet as a longer range cartridge, at 150 yds its a choice of drop vs energy although the WSM has more than enough energy to smash a fox but by 200 yards, the WSM is almost matching the .22 Hornet for energy and substancially beating it for wind drift.

 

Cartridges 1/3rd the price.

 

There's also a 25 gr version.

 

So far as .17 HMR vs .17 WSM goes, Wsm has almost the same energy at 150 yds that HMR has at the muzzle!

 

BTW, I accept no responsibility for any inaacuracies in the data or in my copying of it.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Alsone

[Lewdan 17]

Seems a bit pointless to compare a .17 wsm against a .22 standard hornet round, if we are looking at new introduction products then should be compared to the .17 Hornet, this may be more usefull to guys going down the 17 cal road.

LD

[charlie caller 3,654]

I can see what you are saying on paper with pedestrian factory ammo, but the twenty grain bullet at 3000 fps is producing 399 ftlbs the hornet 35gn vmax at 3100 is producing 747 ftlbs so almost twice as much anyone who has a hornet should reload to get the best out of it not use mega expensive factory crap ammo, about 15pence per bang is achievable with the hornet, and of course you cant reload the nail gun, so lets face it the hornet pisses all over it.