.22wmr v's .17hmr

[wpcexpert]

No, the .17 wouldn't be my first choice for a coyote. Those guys are too unpredictable with their movements. I would want something I would put behind the shoulder. I was just making reference to it's penetration capabilities.

 

[Bud Helms]

All it does if give the Point Blank range performance of the cartridge. If im at point blank range, my .357 Mag or .44 Mag do the talking not a .17HMR or .22WMR.

A typical misuse of the term point blank range. For example, how far beyond the muzzle does point blank range extend?

BTW, this is on topic.

 

[Adventurer 2]

precision shooter - I think your 22 mag velocity is for a handgun -
My Ruger 77/22 mag rifle chronos 30 grainers at almost 2300 feet per second. 50 grainers are over 1500 feet per second. That is a 20" barrel.

My 1 7/8" 22 mag revovler can send a 30 grainer at over 1200 feet per second.

 

[Come and take it.]

A typical misuse of the term point blank range. For example, how far beyond the muzzle does point blank range extend?

BTW, this is on topic.

I hate pendantics. Its obvious to me what precision shooter meant by point blank. It has often times been a term misused but easily understood by most shooters to be literally a few yards from the muzzle or less.

Technically point blank range is the distance at which a sighted in rifle can still be aimed and its point of impact and point of aim will be close enough to hit the target it was designed for.

Out of the same gun and load the point blank range for a squirrel will be closer than it would for the vitals of a deer.

On the thing about momentum is just as pendantic. The fact is that Kinetic energy measured in foot lbs is actually criticized by several knowledgable physicist who believe that joules are a far understandable measurment.

A lot of people actually believe that 3000 ft lbs of Kinetic energy can actually move a 3000 lb object 1 foot.

This is completely false. However if you use the figures from momentum than a projectile that has 100 lb ft of momentum can actually under frictionless conditions transfer that momentum from a high velocity projectile to a 100 lb object and accelerate it to 1 foot per second if it does not deform from the impact.

Kinetic energy therefore as it is measured in foot lbs can be deceptive to a layman. This is the point I was trying to make. Momentum is far more understandable when using feet and lbs. Otherwise joules should be the accepted measurement.

This is all relevant to the topic as we are comparing a highly energetic but low momentum projectile to highly energetic but high momentum projectile.

The heavier hunting projectile will deliver a far greater wallop to the target.

My experience with the 17 hmr is that it is at its best beyond 50 yards as it allows the projectile to slow down a little bit so it wont be so explosive on body fat. This is why I am switching to 20 grain bullets.

 

[precision_shooter]

For those that seem concerned with Muzzle performance

Straight from Hornady's website:

17HMR - Velocity/Energy
17gr. 2550/245
20gr. 2375/250

22WMR - Velocity/Energy
30gr. 2200/322

From Winchester's Website

17HMR statistics mirror Hornady's website

22WMR - Velocity/Energy
Muzzle 40gr. JHP 1910/324
100 yd 40gr. JHP 1326/156

Muzzle 34gr. JHP 2120/338
100 yd 34gr. JHP 1435/155

Now, I ask you. When you are talking about energy to take down a deer the usual consensus is you want at least 1000 ft lbs when the bullet reaches the target. So where in that does Muzzle Performance "point blank" even matter? It doesn't... All that matters is your projectile has enough energy left by the time it reaches it's target to cause sufficient damage to make a humane kill.

 

[LanceOregon]

Now, I ask you. When you are talking about energy to take down a deer the usual consensus is you want at least 1000 ft lbs when the bullet reaches the target. Now, I ask you. When you are talking about energy to take down a deer the usual consensus is you want at least 1000 ft lbs when the bullet reaches the target

Talk about interjecting totally irrelevant and pointless information into a discussion!! What does deer hunting and these rimfire calibers have in any way at all to do with one another?? ANSWER: NOTHING!

So where in that does Muzzle Performance "point blank" even matter? It doesn't...

Of course it does. For if you shoot an animal at 30 yards, the performance the bullet has will be much closer to the muzzle performance, than the 100 yard figure that you claim is the only relevant figure.

Have you done much hunting with both .22 WMR and .17 HMR rimfire rifles? Have you been able to actually compare their performance in the field when killing small game?

These are short range calibers. And it is not that hard to get up close to many types of rodents. They are often not that bright.

The impression that I get from you is that all of your personal hunting experience is with hunting big game at longer ranges.


--

 

[JohnKSa]

A lot of people actually believe that 3000 ft lbs of Kinetic energy can actually move a 3000 lb object 1 foot.

It can. A ftlb of kinetic energy can lift one pound one foot in the air.

NOW, there are reasons why a projectile with 3000ftlbs of kinetic energy doesn't usually move a 3000lb object significantly when it hits it, the biggest reason is collisions in the real world are elastic, not inelastic, and that means that both the object and the projectile typically deform and absorb all or most of the energy rather than expending it by moving the target.

...several knowledgable physicist who believe that joules are a far understandable measurment.

Joules and ftlbs both refer to kinetic energy, they are just different units of measurement. In the same way that inches and centimeters both refer to distance but are just different units of measurement.

You can take any kinetic energy quantity expressed in ftlbs and convert it to joules by multiplying by about 1.3558 Likewise you can convert any measurement in joules to ft lbs by dividing by about 1.3558

However if you use the figures from momentum than a projectile that has 100 lb ft of momentum can actually under frictionless conditions transfer that momentum from a high velocity projectile to a 100 lb object and accelerate it to 1 foot per second if it does not deform from the impact.

The emphasized portion is the key in both situations. If you allow the impact to deform the target/projectile then the results are different. Whether you're talking about energy or momentum. What you're doing is comparing an ideal, inelastic momentum transfer to a real world, elastic energy transfer problem and then stating that the energy definition is flawed because the ideal momentum transfer problem works exactly the way the math says it will while the energy transfer problem doesn't work right.

If you had the mathematical knowledge/skill/resources to work out the real world, elastic energy transfer problem you would find that the math and the definitions work just fine. But that would be a truly challenging problem indeed. Just as the momentum transfer problem would be very complex if you didn't make the assumptions that turned it into an ideal, simple, inelastic momentum transfer problem.

Kinetic energy therefore as it is measured in foot lbs can be deceptive to a layman. This is the point I was trying to make. Momentum is far more understandable when using feet and lbs. Otherwise joules should be the accepted measurement.

This is nonsensical. If you're used to the standard unit system commonly used in the U.S. then it doesn't make sense to express kinetic energy in joules any more than it makes sense to express momentum in newton seconds.

 

[murphyboy88]

in my opinion a centerfire cartrige is better.. for the game you are going after i would suggest a 22 hornet if price is no object(the bullets are a bit spendy and a pain to reload) or a 223 but you cant go wrong with a good 22 lr

 

[Come and take it.]

It can. A ftlb of kinetic energy can lift one pound one foot in the air.

That is simply not true.

 

[murphyboy88]

everyone is talking about foot pounds and jules and whatknot, i suggest the man test out the calibers for himself and see which he prefers instead of relying on statisics

 

[JohnKSa]

That is simply not true.

You're wrong. I don't know how you formed your ideas about energy but they are obviously inconsistent with scientific fact.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/El-Ex/Energy.html
"One foot-pound is the amount of energy that can move a weight of one pound a distance of one foot."

http://www.rprogress.org/energyfootprint/basics/?id=2d
"Thus, one foot-pound of energy is needed to raise a one-pound object one foot upward against Earth's gravitation field"

http://www.tpub.com/fireman/23.htm
"Notice that mechanical potential energy, mechanical kinetic energy, and work are all measured in the same unit, ft-lb. One ft-lb of work is done when a force of 1 pound acts through a distance of 1 foot."

 

[murphyboy88]

obviously everyone is debating too much over energy... the calibers need to be tested in the field before descisions are made

 

[JohnKSa]

Perhaps in the ideal case. In the real world it's a rare shooter who has the time and finances to field test every caliber that interests him before making a decision.

 

[murphyboy88]

a valid point but i own both and i believe each funtions in its own particular way and each has upsides and downsides... the biggest downfall to the 17 hmr in my eyes would be the price of ammunition, almost twice that of the 22 magnum

 

[FishEngineer]

.22 Mag used to be my go to crow gun until the .17HMR came along.

I've found the .17 to be flatter shooting and more accurate. All this hogwash about being more susceptible to wind is wives tale nonsense. The bullet's mass has nothing to do with it (contrary to the wives tale) but rather the BC. Sure, mass figures in to BC calculation but it doesn't govern it.

Nothing wrong with either one but I think the .17 has the edge.

 

[Logs]

I have both .17 and .22 mag and I can't tell any difference when hunting crows. Both work like a champ under a 100 yards.

I shoot my .22 mag more only because the ammo is almost half the cost. I can buy .22 mag for $6.50 a box and .17 is around $12-14 a box.

 

[a7mmnut]

Wow. All I know is that at a distance of 30-35 yards, 4,000 ft/lbs. will move a 235 lb. 14 pointer to the ground faster than recoil recovery can be accomplished--if the round is placed squarely high in the shoulder blade. No exit wound necessary. That taught me a lot about kinetics, bullet design, what defines the "vitals area", and other such foolishness as you may read here from time to time. -7-

 

[FishEngineer]

I just priced .22WMR and .17HMR and found 50 rounds of Hornady around $9-10 with the .22 being slightly cheaper. Cheapest .22WMR I saw was Fiocchi at about $7.50.

Again, nothing wrong with either but IMO the .17 has a slight edge as it shoots flatter and has a lower BC.

 

[mikejonestkd]

JohnKSa is spot on with his explanation of energy.

Neither the 17HMr or the .22Mag are major players in the energy game, but both are decent for shorter ranges and smaller varmints.

 

[aushunter]

conclusion

Thanks again all for the lessons in kenetics & muzzle velocities etc, I have bought the .17 & look forward to my first shoot this weekend.
I also forgot to mention that I will also use this rifle at the range a lot for which I think it will be excellent, so killing power is not formost but is still a factor as I will still hunt with this rifle on rabbits as well as I have said.
As stated before if I'm have any concerns on taking on something with more mass I will turn to the .22-250 & if thats not enought then I will turn to the6.5X55 & if Im going to take a deer or similar then I'll pull out the .270.
Having choice is a great thing!!!
Thanks again, great feedback & great site.

Cheers.