17HMR vs 22WMR

This is my first post so don't get mad if i do something wrong. But i'll use it for varmints out to 75 yards. i was thinking a 17 but i'll only be shooting to around 75 yards max so maybe the 22 with more power would be better? Idk what do u guys think?
 
a 22 should do for most varmints at that range. i have both the 17hmr and 22 mag and like them both. 17hmr are more expensive to shoot and maybe slightly more accurate than a 22 mag. the 22 mags have closed the gap between them with some of the newer bullets. i think the 22mag is better suited for larger animals at longer range. i could talk myself into either, i think the deciding factor is the cost of ammo and how much you plan to shoot. you have got yourself in a pleasant mess, i don;t think you can go wrong with either choice.
 
If its for small varmints, like prairie dogs and crows etc I'd go 17hmr.
Where I am the ammo is about the same price, and for small varmint both will do the job.

If you were to change your situation and start shooting out to longer ranges then the 17hmr will be better, its a lot flatter shooting and bucks the wind better.
And yes it does buck the wind better, as the 17cal bullets are a much better design with a higher BC than the short fat 22wmr bullets.
Better BC with higher velocities mean better wind bucking, even the new 30gr Vmax 22wmr bullets don't compete vey well with the 17hmr.
 
I bought a Sako .17hmr about 6 months ago and have been impressed with its accuracy. Great rifle for doing what it was designed to do - taking small varmits such as rabbits out to 150 yards. I have also used the .17hmr on feral goats & mid sized pigs. Whilst the .17hmr will work with properly placed head shots on feral goats & trotter size pigs, the little .17 bullet doesn't work so well with chest shots on this sized game, where a .22 magnum will work in a pinch.
 
I had a very accurate Marlin M25 22wmr. Replaced it with a 17hmr and never looked back. I will say that if your eating what you kill then the 17hmr requires head shots. There is extensive meat damage with the 17hmr.
 
IMHO
The 17HMR is a death ray on small varmints(groundhog size and under) at 100-150 yards. I use it to dispose of such critters around homesteads because of it's mild report and the fact that it seldom passes through and/or ricochets if it strikes the ground.
I tried the 22 mag back in the 80's with disappointing results. I realize the ammo has improved considerably since then but I hesitate to buy back into a setup that failed earlier.
If 75 yards is your maximum, a 22lr is adequate for most uses. It does have a much greater tendency to bounce when it hits the ground.
 
For your use you'll be tickeled with either one.I own both & have took critters from squirrels to hogs to gators.Get the one you like the most both will do you a fine job,have a BLAST!!!
 
They both have their merits, but I prefer the .22 WMR. However since good ammunition for both is about the same as what I can reload .223 for I've parked my magnum rimfire rifle. I get to shoot farther than 75 yards though and have used the .22 WMR on prairie dogs at twice that distance quite effectively.
 
They both work well. The question is smaller and faster vs bigger and slower.

Though both are pretty small rounds compared to center fires.
 
Honestly for small varmints out to 75 (even 85 or 90) yards just use a .22lr. Now if you're looking for an excuse to buy another gun I'll vote for a .17hmr. IMO, with the new breed of .22lr (like the Velocitors) a .22M has lost much appeal while the .17hmr is a completely different animal. Flat trajectory and accurate.

LK
 
They will both work fine, but I'd just go with the .22WMR. More energy on target and would work quite well at the distance like you mentioned. Some people covet the 17HMR and by no means is it a bad round, I just prefer .22WMR. My lack of experience with the .17HMR might be affecting my opinion. :rolleyes:

The truth is, you can't go wrong with either. But as others have said, cost is also noticeably different. I guess if you wan't something more "exotic", go for the .17HMR, if not, go for .22WMR.
 
Thanks everyone, I was on my way to get a .22 WMR and my friend made me shoot his 17 and I fell in love with it. Yesterday I ordered a savage with a bull barrel and synthetic stock.
 
Not saying the OP made the wrong decision picking the 17 HMR, but there was some serious misinformation in this posting:

Honestly for small varmints out to 75 (even 85 or 90) yards just use a .22lr. Now if you're looking for an excuse to buy another gun I'll vote for a .17hmr. IMO, with the new breed of .22lr (like the Velocitors) a .22M has lost much appeal while the .17hmr is a completely different animal. Flat trajectory and accurate.

The .17 HRM only beats the fastest .22 HMR loads by 350 fps with 17 grain bullets and 175 fps with 20 grain bullets vs. the .22 WMR with 30 grain bullets. That said the .22 WMR is nearly 600 fps faster than the .22 LR fastest loads and the WMR is nearly 800 fps faster than the Velocitors which aren't all that fast at 1435 fps. The average 30 grain WMR is 2200 fps and the 40 grain 1875 fps, the 32 grain stingers run at 1640 fps, and the average 40 grain .22 LR load is doing 1200 fps. So as a varmint round the .22 LR isn't even in the same league as the HMR and WMR.
 
The .17 HRM only beats the fastest .22 HMR loads by 350 fps with 17 grain bullets and 175 fps with 20 grain bullets vs. the .22 WMR with 30 grain bullets. That said the .22 WMR is nearly 600 fps faster than the .22 LR fastest loads and the WMR is nearly 800 fps faster than the Velocitors which aren't all that fast at 1435 fps. The average 30 grain WMR is 2200 fps and the 40 grain 1875 fps, the 32 grain stingers run at 1640 fps, and the average 40 grain .22 LR load is doing 1200 fps. So as a varmint round the .22 LR isn't even in the same league as the HMR and WMR.

Ya have to compare apples to apples which you are not. The facts are that the 30gr or similar lightweight .22 cal rimfire bullets pretty well stink ballistically once you get down range. They dump velocity and energy at an alarming rate. You can't (or I should say "shouldn't") compare any lightweight .22M to 40 gr .22lrs. Compare lightweight to lightweight or 40 gr to 40 gr and the numbers are much closer than the ones you used. Basically, taking energy, trajectory and intended critters into the mix a .22M gains you about 50 yards over the .22lr. Didn't say the .22M wasn't more, I said what you gain isn't worth it. Is 50 yards worth the cost of another gun and more expensive ammo? To a few yes, to the masses no.

Where as, basically due to trajectory and better bullet design, the .17hmr far exceeds either of the .22 cal rimfires beyond 100 yards. That doesn't even bring into account the inherent accuracy the .17hmr has over it's larger counter parts.

The .22M is a little different, the .17hmr is a whole nother animal.

LK
 
Ya have to compare apples to apples which you are not.

Yes I did a very much apples to apples comparison if you had read my post you would see I put 40 grain .22 WMR in there.

Velocitors which aren't all that fast at 1435 fps. The average 30 grain WMR is 2200 fps and the 40 grain 1875 fps

You made this statement:

the new breed of .22lr (like the Velocitors) a .22M has lost much appeal

So using your ammunition choice

CCI Maxi-Mag 40 grain TMJ or Hollowpoint 1875 fps 312 fpe
CCI Velocitors 40 grain are 1435 fps 183 fpe
CCI Velocitor are 440 fps slower and lacks 119 fpe


Fastest 30 grain ammunition I could find at Midway USA.
Winchester .22 WMR 30 grain V-Max 2250 fps 337 fpe
Aquila .22 lr 30 grain plated bullet 1750 fps 204 fpe
Aquila is 500 fps slower and lacks 133 fpe

With the .22 LR you only get lead or plated lead bullets that are either round nose or trunticated cone with or without hollow points. With a .22 WMR you get actual copper jacketed bullets of much better designs that have much better BC than offered in .22 LR. So that allows the .22 WMR to keep its velocity and energy much longer than any of the .22 LR rounds that is out there. So regarless of how fast the .22 LR starts out it will always bleed off velocity faster.

So if you look at the number, your statement doesn't hold up about the .22 WMR. It offers quite a bit of performance gains over the .22 lr. The biggest detractor for me on both the .22 WMR and .17 HRM is the price. I can reload 50 rounds of .223 or .204 for the same price as 50 rounds of the premium rimfire magnums.
 
I love my Savage in .17HMR. If vaporizing vermin is your cup of tea the .17gr V-Max is the ticket. Average 100 yard groups in my rifle rarely exceed .5 inches with me having a great day behind the glass those groups have shrunk to .25 inches so for accuracy the .17hmr is dang hard to beat by anyone's standards. Now if dealing with larger critters (bobcats and such) or if pelt damage is a concern the .22 mag would probably be better.
 
I never, and I repeat never, said the .22m wasn't more powerful than a .22lr. Read my posts:
Didn't say the .22M wasn't more, I said what you gain isn't worth it. Is 50 yards worth the cost of another gun and more expensive ammo? To a few yes, to the masses no.
On the other hand while you brought up 40gr .22M once but you never ever compared apples to apples.

.22lr:
CCI Stinger (32gr) = 1640
Aguila Super Max (30gr) 1750
Aguila Interceptor (40gr) = 1470
CCI Velocitors (40gr) = 1435

.22M:
CCI or Winchestor (40gr) = 1875
CCI or Winchestor (30gr) = 2200

So if you compare Apples to apples the lightweight .22M offers a 450fps(25%)increase over a lightweight .22lr, the 40 grainers offers a 405fps (28%) increase vs. a 40gr .22lr. You posted both 600 and 800fps gains. Who was misleading who?

Enter ballistics into things and you'll see the .22m only gains you, as I already stated, about 50 yards. Throw the .17hmr into the mix and you gain approx. another 50 yards (trajectory AND accuracy). When compared to a .22lr I'll take an additional 100 yards vs. 50 anyday. The newish, high end .22lrs and the HMR has relegated the .22M to an even smaller niche market than it was before.

LK
 
Last edited:
Didn't say the .22M wasn't more, I said what you gain isn't worth it. Is 50 yards worth the cost of another gun and more expensive ammo? To a few yes, to the masses no.
But the OP didn't state he was using or had a .22 lr , plus nothing will beat the .22 lr for edible game. Since he bought the HMR he pretty much relegated himself to expensive ammunition. That said the 40 grain rounds aren't that much more expensive than your Velocitors or any other non bulk rimfire ammunition, and the offer the advantage of more energy delivered to the target at 100 yards or less (OP's specified range) than even the HMR and probably a little beyond 100 yards.

I hadn't sorted through all 122 choice of LR ammunition on Midway when I came up with the 800 and 600. However the 30 grain bullets out of the .22 WMR are 800+ fps faster when you use the 2250 fps Winchester load and 765 fps (nearly 800) with the standard 2200 fps 30 grain loads from most other manufactures than the Velocitor (your first choice) and 500 and 450 fps respectively over the Aquila 30 grain load. The 40 grain load is 440 fps faster than the Velocitor, don't ask me why I said 600 (sometimes I type faster than I think). However Winchester has a TMJ 40 grain round with a MV of 1910, 475 fps faster than the Velocitor and 440 fps faster than Aquila.

All I know is 450-500, and 440-475 fps difference between 30 and 40 grain bullets is something that will never be overcome. And these differences are HUGE when talking rimfire cartridges. 50 yards is far more of a difference in rimfires than if we were talking about centerfire cartridges and speeds approaching or exceeding 3000 fps and with ballistic coefficients in the .300-.500+ instead of the .100's that the rimfires offer.

As far as the .17 HMR being more accurate it isn't, it does have the flatter trajectory but that doesn't make it more accurate. It just came along at a time when sub $300 rifles were shooting as well as far more expensive rimfire rifles of just 10 years earlier. In fact I'll put my .22 WMR pre accutrigger Savage BV up against any other rimfire of similar quality for accuracy at 50 and 100 yards. Plus I'm pretty consistant at keeping it minute of prairie dog out to 200 yards I may not do it as easily as the HMR but I can get it done.

Manufacturing is at a point where sub moa rifles are more common than ever as long as the nut behind the trigger is doing the job. The .22 LR came out in 1887 and the .22 WMR in 1959, and it wasn't until 2002 for the .17 HMR. If you wanted a sub moa shooter you almost needed a custom rifle for a rimfire before. Plus if anything else the advent of the HMR has brought new life to the WMR cartridge by changing the way we think about rimfire rifles.
 
Last edited:
I have phased out 17HMR and 22WMR.
I still have the guns, they just don't get to go hunting.
Few [less than 100 per hour] and far [75 to 230 yards] rodents are shot with .223 handloads.
Lots [more than 100 per hour] of close [less than 75 yards] rodents are shot with 22LR.

223 and 22LR does it better, and there is no use for 17HMR or 22WMR for hunting, but 17HMR and 22WMR do get to go to the range sometimes.
 
IMHO, buy both. One can never have enough guns. :D

If only one is an option, and 150 yards is your range, go with the .17
 
Back
Top