Her name was Bella Twin, and it was a grizzly. Also, it's rumoured that the story is complete b.s. but I choose to believe because it's more fun that way. Also, there are people intentionally hunting wolves over bait at 100 yards with a .17hmr because it minimizes pelt damage. Personally I wouldn't, but they report it works well.
17 HMR or 22 WMR
- Thread starter CanXB
- Start date
Her name was Bella Twin, and it was a grizzly. Also, it's rumoured that the story is complete b.s. but I choose to believe because it's more fun that way. Also, there are people intentionally hunting wolves over bait at 100 yards with a .17hmr because it minimizes pelt damage. Personally I wouldn't, but they report it works well.
sportsmandiesel17
Member
- Location
- london ontario
what about 17 wsm? buddy has one and yes ammo isnt as readily available but has the weight of a 22wmr, the 17 size but is doing 3-500fps faster. i have a 17hmr savage and love it tho
Trajectory between the 2 are in favour of the 17.
The 22 Mag spits them out at around 1880 to 2200 FPS with a BC that is just slightly below that of the 17.
But the 17 can hit 2650 FPS... So while the 22 mag has more impact energy, the ballistics on the 17 are slightly better.
Secondly, with regard to the speed of sound... once the bullet drops into the speed of sound.. about 1200 FPS, accuracy will become a bit of a guessing game past that point.
So since the 17 starts out faster, it will go farther before dropping down to 1200 FPS.
A little fast math says the 17 wont drop to 1200 FPS until about 255 yards, so accuracy that far should be fairly linear. The 22 mag at 2200 FPS hits the speed of sound closer to 185 yards.
So inside 185 yards, it's probably a bit of a draw.
Between 185 and 255, the 17 has the accuracy advantage.
So this brings us to target size... while the 17 will be more accurate, that is relative to the target you want to hit.
In the case of a Coyote, you'd probably be just as likely to hit it with either as I don't see the accuracy degradation past the speed of sound enough to cause a miss on a target of that size. You might miss a pop can, but not a coyote.
The 22 Mag spits them out at around 1880 to 2200 FPS with a BC that is just slightly below that of the 17.
But the 17 can hit 2650 FPS... So while the 22 mag has more impact energy, the ballistics on the 17 are slightly better.
Secondly, with regard to the speed of sound... once the bullet drops into the speed of sound.. about 1200 FPS, accuracy will become a bit of a guessing game past that point.
So since the 17 starts out faster, it will go farther before dropping down to 1200 FPS.
A little fast math says the 17 wont drop to 1200 FPS until about 255 yards, so accuracy that far should be fairly linear. The 22 mag at 2200 FPS hits the speed of sound closer to 185 yards.
So inside 185 yards, it's probably a bit of a draw.
Between 185 and 255, the 17 has the accuracy advantage.
So this brings us to target size... while the 17 will be more accurate, that is relative to the target you want to hit.
In the case of a Coyote, you'd probably be just as likely to hit it with either as I don't see the accuracy degradation past the speed of sound enough to cause a miss on a target of that size. You might miss a pop can, but not a coyote.
Last edited:
Compared to the 22WMR, the 17HMR does better in the wind. The next best rimfire round is the standard velocity .22LR.
Compared to the 22WMR, the 17HMR does better in the wind. The next best rimfire round is the standard velocity .22LR.
I don't understand how that can be true. If the 22WMR is sending the same 40gr bullet out much faster than the 22lr, how could the 22lr's trajectory have less wind drift?
The Outsider
CGN Regular
I'll take the tried and true 22 mag any day. it's been around for decades for a reason.
The next logical step up for me would be a .223.
The next logical step up for me would be a .223.
I had a 452 in 22 WMR.
I would blow gophers in two chunks.
Was a great gun out to 150yrds.
Buddy has a savage 17hmr. It’s flatter shooting. But I would say the 22wmr had more power on the gopher
They both aren’t enough of a gap over the 22LR IMO
I got a 204 Ruger this season.
You wanna explod a gopher at 300yrds with ease this is the ticket
Step up to centre fire stuff.
I would blow gophers in two chunks.
Was a great gun out to 150yrds.
Buddy has a savage 17hmr. It’s flatter shooting. But I would say the 22wmr had more power on the gopher
They both aren’t enough of a gap over the 22LR IMO
I got a 204 Ruger this season.
You wanna explod a gopher at 300yrds with ease this is the ticket
Step up to centre fire stuff.
Simple physics...
From the time it leaves the muzzle until it impacts the target, it has spent a lot less time in the wind. Think of it this way; if you are swimming across a river with a strong current, and you are slower than your friend who is swimming across as well, you will drift further down stream than your friend will by the time you get across. If you are going to land in the same location, you would need to swim upstream to compensate for the wind.
This is why pilots use a "flight computer" when plotting a course. A faster aircraft would have "crab" into the wind less than a slow aircraft in order to maintain the plotted track on the chart.
The above explanation might make more sense if the slower bullet experienced more wind drift than the faster one. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, in a comparison of standard velocity .22LR and .22WMR, it is the faster .22WMR round that experiences more wind drift.
The basic reason the .22WMR, or even a high velocity .22LR, drifts more than SV .22LR has to do with drag. The bullets, similar in size, experience different drag. The faster bullets have more drag and more drag causes more deflection by the wind.
For more detailed explanations, see the following h t t p s ://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201168 especially post #2
h t t p s ://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=501239&page=2 especially post #29
h t t p ://team40x.com/wind/page8.html
h t t p ://www.gunsmoke.com/guns/1022/22drift_cross.html
On wind drift more generally see h t t p ://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/articles/article2.pdf
I think the 17 is a little bit illusive in the sense that it is designed to "look like" a modern centerfire round, so you would think high BC.
In reality, since it only weighs 17 grains, it does not actually have the BC that you might think, given its aerodynamic design.
While at a cursory glance, the less than ideally designed bullets of the 22 variety make up for the aerodynamic weakness through the heavier bullet weight.
So for that reason both 17 and 22 have similar BCs, and therefore if fired at the same velocity would have the same wind drift.
Since the 17 has a faster muzzle velocity it would have a slight wind drift advantage, but it's not much so hardly worth taking that into consideration as the deciding factor.
In reality, since it only weighs 17 grains, it does not actually have the BC that you might think, given its aerodynamic design.
While at a cursory glance, the less than ideally designed bullets of the 22 variety make up for the aerodynamic weakness through the heavier bullet weight.
So for that reason both 17 and 22 have similar BCs, and therefore if fired at the same velocity would have the same wind drift.
Since the 17 has a faster muzzle velocity it would have a slight wind drift advantage, but it's not much so hardly worth taking that into consideration as the deciding factor.
Last edited:
In order to avoid potentially specious generalization, it is possible to compare the wind drift of different rimfire rounds and their ballistic coefficients more precisely.
Here is a chart that compares wind drift for the more commonly used rimfire rounds. It is the same chart that has been in the sticky above since 2006.
The ammo that has the most wind deflection is HV 22LR ammo. The ammo that has the least wind deflection is 17HMR, followed by standard velocity 22LR despite its much longer time of flight and exposure to the wind. The explanation for these results has to do with the ballistic coefficient (BC) of the various ammos.
The BC of a bullet is essentially a measurement of how streamlined a bullet is, how well it flies through the air. It is a measurement that reflects how much air drag a bullet has. The higher the BC the better the bullet flies through the air. The BC of a bullet is derived from the bullet's sectional density (SD), which in turn is the relationship between the bullet's weight and diameter. BC can change with bullet shape and velocity; SD remains the same for bullets of the same weight and caliber.
The BC of the 17HMR, regardless of whether the bullet is 15.5, 17, or 20 grains, is invariably higher than the majority of the .22WMR ammos shown. This goes far to explain why the 17HMR experiences less wind drift than the 22 magnum round. The factor helping the SV 22LR perform so well in the wind is its relatively high ballistic coefficient.
Here are the ballistic coefficients of various rimfire rounds, of different weights and velocities.
17HMR
22WMR
22LR (for purposes of comparison)
Here is a chart that compares wind drift for the more commonly used rimfire rounds. It is the same chart that has been in the sticky above since 2006.
The ammo that has the most wind deflection is HV 22LR ammo. The ammo that has the least wind deflection is 17HMR, followed by standard velocity 22LR despite its much longer time of flight and exposure to the wind. The explanation for these results has to do with the ballistic coefficient (BC) of the various ammos.
The BC of a bullet is essentially a measurement of how streamlined a bullet is, how well it flies through the air. It is a measurement that reflects how much air drag a bullet has. The higher the BC the better the bullet flies through the air. The BC of a bullet is derived from the bullet's sectional density (SD), which in turn is the relationship between the bullet's weight and diameter. BC can change with bullet shape and velocity; SD remains the same for bullets of the same weight and caliber.
The BC of the 17HMR, regardless of whether the bullet is 15.5, 17, or 20 grains, is invariably higher than the majority of the .22WMR ammos shown. This goes far to explain why the 17HMR experiences less wind drift than the 22 magnum round. The factor helping the SV 22LR perform so well in the wind is its relatively high ballistic coefficient.
Here are the ballistic coefficients of various rimfire rounds, of different weights and velocities.
17HMR
22WMR
22LR (for purposes of comparison)
So the answer to my question a few posts back is, the chart was made with a crap BC 22WMR bullet vs a great BC 22lr bullet. Not a very fair comparison for the chart. Would make more sense to use the same BC bullets in the comparison. Or provide reasoning why it is representative, rather than misleading, to sample a higher BC 22lr round against a 22WMR round.
The BC it what it is and that means the majority of 22WMR ammos have a low ballistic coefficient. The result is that, while the 22WMR does better than HV 22LR in the wind, most 22WMR rounds do not fare as well as SV 22LR or 17HMR. If HV 22LR ammo does poorly in the wind because of its velocity, you can't expect even faster 22WMR ammo to excel in dealing with wind.
Last edited:
Higher drag does not directly equal more deflection; velocity does; the velocity of a projectile drops off more rapidly on a short, fat bullet than it does on a more streamlined bullet; that = more time between muzzle and target which = more time in the wind. If a short, fat bullet is driven at a speed that allows it to cover 100 yards in the same time as a long skinny one; the wind deflection will be equal (providing the wind remains constant.
How constant was the wind when the data was collected to plot these charts? I'm a sailor, and I have never seen a rock steady consitent wind that did not gust, puff and veer direction either a bit or a lot.
The wind was never there, yet still there as a predictable and constant factor. This is because no one actually sits and shoots different rounds in the wind, measures the results downrange and then plots the data in a graph. The graphs, indeed all the graphs on rimfire ballistics shown above in the "Rimfire Ballistic charts" sticky -- the Wind Deflection Chart, the Kinetic Energy Chart, the Rimfire Velocity Chart, the Rimfire Drop Chart -- are produced by computer software programs built on mathematical functions. The inputs vary according to the different ballistic generators available, but typically include caliber, muzzle velocity, bullet weight, and ballistic coefficient. Other factors can be included such as environmental ones, including wind, temperature, air pressure, and humidity. The ballistic chart generating tools are very useful, especially in long range shooting. They produce the most reliable and consistent ballistic information available. In short, the wind was quite constant.
Higher drag does directly lead to more wind drift. There's no way around it. This is not the "theory" of an individual or the unique product of certain advocates. It's the result of the principles of physics. Here's an explanation that is relevant and clear:
In flight, bullets are affected by three separate forces: gravity, air resistance and wind. Gravity pulls down on the bullet, causing it to drop below the line of sight. Air resistance (or "drag") slows the bullet with a force proportional to the square of the velocity. Wind makes the projectile drift from its normal still-air trajectory.
There are two key elements to understanding a bullet's susceptibility to wind drift. The first is its ballistic coefficient (BC), which combines the air resistance of the bullet shape (the drag coefficient) with its sectional density (the ratio of its frontal surface area to bullet mass), and is expressed by a figure providing the ratio of its ballistic efficiency compared to a standard theoretical reference projectile.
Sporting bullets have BCs in the range 0.12 to slightly over 1.00, with 1.00 being the most aerodynamic and 0.12 being the least. Bullets with higher ballistic coefficients have better air resistance, and the deceleration a bullet will experience due to drag is proportional to its BC.
In technical terms, wind drift is caused by drag. It is not, as is commonly thought, caused by wind pushing on the side of the bullet. Drag makes the bullet turn into the wind, keeping the center of air pressure on its nose.
This causes the bullet nose to angle into the wind and the base to be angled downwind. Since drag is the force slowing the bullet against the resistance of the air, the effect is to make it drift from its linear path in the downwind ("backward") direction. The greater the bullet's drag, the more it will drift.
Headwinds or tailwinds have similar but less obvious drag effects. A headwind will slightly increase the velocity of the bullet relative to the air it is passing though, which will increase the amount of drag and corresponding bullet drop.
A tailwind will reduce the drag and the bullet drop. In the real world, pure headwinds or tailwinds are rare since wind seldom is constant in force and direction and normally interacts with the terrain it is blowing over.
The second key element in a bullet's susceptibility to wind drift is its velocity. Here, unlike the complex physics of drag coefficients, the issue is simple. The longer the time any bullet is exposed to wind while in flight to the target, the more it will drift; the faster it gets there, the less it will drift.
While it is also true that drag increases as velocity increases, if you use bullets having high BCs to begin with, the benefit of the reduced flight time will outweigh any additional drag effect.
If you are seeking the maximum in wind resistance for varmint shooting, you need to pick the bullet with the highest ballistic coefficient (least drag) you can find for your cartridge of choice and push it to the highest velocity possible while maintaining the accuracy you need.
See h t t p s ://www.rifleshootermag.com/editorial/ammunition_rs_bulletvwind_200906/84226
coleman1495
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Whitecourt
This is incorrect. Your statement is contrary to what Bryan Litz wrote in his book “Applied Ballistics”
Wind deflection is a product of the difference of bullet flight time in a vacuum vs in air. Velocity does reduce wind deflection but not nearly as much as the BC of the bullet.
To further complicate matters, within the Transonic range of 0.8-1 mach (~900-1125 fps), the coefficient of drag changes significantly for very small changes in velocity. Since drag is a considerable component of wind deflection, projectiles traveling through the Transonic range will experience greater wind deflection than those that do not.
With regards to velocity, faster = less wind deflection is not an absolute. Indeed, a slower, heavier projectile with a greater BC *can* (not always...) outperform a faster, lighter projectile with a lesser BC. For any given projectile of a constant weight and BC, there will be a crossover point wherein an increase in velocity does overcome the drag component (BC and weight), and faster will = less wind deflection from that point, for that bullet.
Exterior ballistics is not as simple as "wind pushes the bullet" (which, of course, it does not actually do), yet a thorough discussion of the topic would involve more scientific jargon than the casual shooter would care to indulge. As few of us here have PhD's in physics, such discourse would quickly cause one's eyes to glaze over in disinterest.
With regards to velocity, faster = less wind deflection is not an absolute. Indeed, a slower, heavier projectile with a greater BC *can* (not always...) outperform a faster, lighter projectile with a lesser BC. For any given projectile of a constant weight and BC, there will be a crossover point wherein an increase in velocity does overcome the drag component (BC and weight), and faster will = less wind deflection from that point, for that bullet.
Exterior ballistics is not as simple as "wind pushes the bullet" (which, of course, it does not actually do), yet a thorough discussion of the topic would involve more scientific jargon than the casual shooter would care to indulge. As few of us here have PhD's in physics, such discourse would quickly cause one's eyes to glaze over in disinterest.
