17 Wsm

[alan81 110]

there's no way a .22 WMR did that damage iv shot thousands of rabbits with both hollow point and v-max and I never saw that damage.

[charlie caller 3,654]

That is what a .22 hornet does with 35 grain vmax, exactly why I switched to the Sierra 45 grain varminter, super accurate, it would head shoot bunnies time after time at 200 yards.

[Alsone 789]

there's no way a .22 WMR did that damage iv shot thousands of rabbits with both hollow point and v-max and I never saw that damage.

 

I would have said its typical of .223 / .243 but knowing Deker likes Hornet, that's what I guessed. I must admit it looks a bit heavy for Hornet although with no hands on experience of the calibre I couldn't comment.

[charlie caller 3,654]

Well I can and that is what 35 grain vmax do, very explosive and foxes feel like a hot water bottle inside.

[Alsone 789]

Well I can and that is what 35 grain vmax do, very explosive and foxes feel like a hot water bottle inside.

 

Well can't fault it at that rate. Every calibre has its place.The main advantage of wsm is its rimfire package unless you reload. It gives people who don't reload a very cheap and powerful cartridge with centrefire range and velocity, and exceptional ballistics. Its one I would certainly consider for bunnies at range (non eating) or fox at medium range as the vids appear to show its working very well.

 

However, as my requirements would on the permission I have in mind include long range fox and even small deer, I'd be more inclined towards .243 unless I had to bash a lot of bunnies in which case ammo costs come into play and wsm would be re-visited.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Alsone

[alan81 110]

yea iv seen the .22 Hornet on rabbit and fox its a great little foxing gun but far to much for rabbit. as I see it the only firearms suitable for rabbit are the .22 LR, .22 WMR and .17 HMR. anything more is to much unless its strictly used for head shots. what's the point in obliterating countless numbers of animals that could go to good use.

[charlie caller 3,654]

A .22 hornet is fine on rabbits providing you head shoot them, and I head shot a lot up to and probably a bit more than 200 yards with mine, but I was shooting super accurate home loads, that .17 certainly seems to work, would I have one in place of a hornet? Probably not, I would have the daddy of .17s the .17 rem, but then I do enjoy reloading, so for the none reloader its probably a good choice, IF your firearms dept will sanction it for foxes, if not I fail to see the point of it, a hornet wins everytime.

Edited October 6, 2013 by charlie caller

[matt_hooks 188]

 

Well as I've said befoe the Honet is Ok but the trouble is for new certificate holders many forces only want new people to hold rimfire. .17WSM bridges the gap by giving a rimfire with centrefire performance.

 

I gather in my area they only now sanction centrefire for fox but as we know many areas sanction HMR for fox and insist on people having rimfire at 1st.

in your area ? i live in yorkshire ....and have fox on .17 ..........since renewing my licence it has come back with the following ......under all calibers it says

...........any lawful quarry suitable for that caliber..........seems the police have put the onus on the shooter what is suitable.......the .17 is not illegal on fox......but wether its suitable or not is your choice under the circumstances when shooting

 

Someone else has probably commented on this already, but yet another case of a firearms licensing department taking an extremely good idea and altering it from the form of words set out by ACPO and the HO into something altogether less useful.

The wording as sanctioned by ACPO FELWG, ACPO and the HO is "and any other lawful quarry". Nothing about "suitable for the calibre". If you shoot something with a caliber that is patently not suitable for the quarry, then it is NOt lawful quarry. Why do they need to fiddle?

[Deker 3,478]

 

there's no way a .22 WMR did that damage iv shot thousands of rabbits with both hollow point and v-max and I never saw that damage.

 

I would have said its typical of .223 / .243 but knowing Deker likes Hornet, that's what I guessed. I must admit it looks a bit heavy for Hornet although with no hands on experience of the calibre I couldn't comment.

 

 

#54 I don't have anything between my .22WMR and my .223. (and never have!)

[Alsone 789]

If you shoot something with a caliber that is patently not suitable for the quarry, then it is NOt lawful quarry. Why do they need to fiddle?

 

 

Sorry not trying to be clever here but do you have authority for that?

 

As I see it, shooting something with an unsuitable calibre doesn't render it unlawful quarry. So far as I'm aware the only UK species for which a minimum calibre is specified is deer and outside of that all quarry that is lawful to be shot with a rifle is lawful to shoot with any calibre.

 

The only caveat here is you can be charged with causing unnecessary suffering if you shoot something with too small a calibre and it isn't killed cleanly as a result. However, the mere act of shooting it isn't unlawful as its up to the police to actually prove it suffered unnecessarily so if eg you shot a wild bore with a .17 and it died instantly, there would be no case to answer although doing so would be very unwise both from a safety and legal pov.

 

The overall point though is shooting a quarry with too small a calibre doesn't render the quarry unlawful so far as I'm aware.

 

I'm guessing that;s why they've put any suitable quarry for that calibre, on Delwels certificate. However, I doubt the BASC would support the use of such wording and would probably advise acceptance of such as unwise as its open to interpretation.

 

I would have said its typical of .223 / .243 but knowing Deker likes Hornet, that's what I guessed. I must admit it looks a bit heavy for Hornet although with no hands on experience of the calibre I couldn't comment.

 

 

#54 I don't have anything between my .22WMR and my .223. (and never have!)

 

 

I'm pretty sure that in other posts you always promoted Hornet along with CC. I naturally assumed you had one but maybe you just favoured it as an intermediate calibre. If I'm wrong I apologise.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Alsone

[Deker 3,478]

 

 

I would have said its typical of .223 / .243 but knowing Deker likes Hornet, that's what I guessed. I must admit it looks a bit heavy for Hornet although with no hands on experience of the calibre I couldn't comment.

 

 

#54 I don't have anything between my .22WMR and my .223. (and never have!)

 

 

I'm pretty sure that in other posts you always promoted Hornet along with CC. I naturally assumed you had one but maybe you just favoured it as an intermediate calibre. If I'm wrong I apologise.

 

 

I think you are getting me mixed up with someone else!

 

There is nothing wrong with the Hornet and some find a use for it, so that's fine, I am neither a fan or detractor of the calibre (17 or 22).

 

I have 8 rifles on my FAC, and nothing between a WMR and .223 (and never have), on the face of it that seems a BIG gap of circa 1000ft lb, the reality is, despite the fact I have been doing this the odd year or two, been on a LOT of different sites and dealt with a lot of different problems, I have NEVER been in a situation where I said, "damn, this job needs a Hornet!"

 

Perhaps if I was down to 3 rifles it may well be a .22lr, a Hornet and a .243 or.308, I would suggest the vast majority of people would be able to deal with almost anything with that selection.

[matt_hooks 188]

Alsone, sorry, I think I worded my previous post poorly. There is no such thing as "too small a round" for a particular animal per-se. I've seen big red stags shot and cleanly killed with a .22LR (in a farm setting, so perfectly legal).

 

My point was that, if you shoot something and cause un-necessary suffering because you have used too small a round then it wouldn't be classed as "lawful quarry" (by my understanding, as the shooting occasioned an offence to be committed.)

[Alsone 789]

Shooting Times have reviewed the Savage .17 WSM.

 

Conclusion:

 

 

I’m more excited about the B-MAG rifle—and the cartridge it houses—than I have been over any new Savage rifle in many years. It’s different, it’s innovative, it’s pleasant to shoot, and it’s a very capable deterrent to furry nuisances. At less than $350 and chambered for a fairly inexpensive cartridge that outperforms anything short of hot centerfire .17s, it deserves a place on the gun rack of every serious varmint shooter.

Were a couple of niggles with a bur on the extractor bolt and a sliiped spring in the magazine though.

Review here: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2013/08/06/savage-b-mag-review/