.17 wsm revolver?

E

Elliottsdad

New member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:eek:
 
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?)
 
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.
 
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?)
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
Ruger single-six 17HMR
Taurus 17 Tracker 17 HMR Revoler
&W Model 647 17 HMR 12" Varminter
Click to expand...

Those revolvers are .17HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire)

This thread is about .17WSM which is a different cartridge. (Winchester Super Magnum)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top