So Winchester has a new rimfire, smaller bullet, same case as 22lr. I have a feeling that it won't catch on, perhaps be like the 17 HM2. Small following but not real common. Time will tell, what do you guys think of the newest offering?
21Sharp, will it survive?
- Thread starter dead meat
- Start date
Two things will tell if it survives .#1 (has to be way better than what is available )2 (Price of a box of shells has to make it worth buying a rifle for it)Also a person doesn t want to buy a gun and a couple of years later having drive all over the place chasing down ammo
I only watched a brief youtube about the cartridge so I'm not very informed...but I was wondering what sort of niche it fills?
But I'm not much of a rimfire guy anyway. Although I always wanted a very reliable, Canada legal, non restricted AR15 style 17WSM with 30 round magazines....with copious ammo to go along with it.
But I'm not much of a rimfire guy anyway. Although I always wanted a very reliable, Canada legal, non restricted AR15 style 17WSM with 30 round magazines....with copious ammo to go along with it.
I've never had luck with Win rimfire ammo - just sayin'. That new rifle needs to be a garanteeed tack driver to get any action. Some WMR do OK, some don't - has a niche market and still not much ammo development after many years - about 64+.
I think ammo cost will play a big part. If they can make it like slightly more than comparable 22LR, it might do OK? But it seems like every time a manufacturer comes out with a new cartridge, even if it only offers a slight benefit over an existing one, they want to charge an arm and a leg for it. And then it dies off, because the additional cost outweighs the benefit.
I don't think it will do well wide spread. California it might survive or other lead free areas but I doubt it be masses produced by other makers
Add in rimfire ammo is only produced by a limited number of manufactures that would have to switch over their own lines to make it drives up cost
I think the 5mm magnum brought back with quality rifles would have sold much better
Add in rimfire ammo is only produced by a limited number of manufactures that would have to switch over their own lines to make it drives up cost
I think the 5mm magnum brought back with quality rifles would have sold much better
Lead free hunting. Especially with suppressors. 17HMR and 22WMR have lead-free options available, but their supersonic nature makes them less well suited for suppressed use.I only watched a brief youtube about the cartridge so I'm not very informed...but I was wondering what sort of niche it fills?
But I'm not much of a rimfire guy anyway. Although I always wanted a very reliable, Canada legal, non restricted AR15 style 17WSM with 30 round magazines....with copious ammo to go along with it.
17WSM still technically exists, so I suspect 21Sharp will be around for a while, but I also suspect it is going to be hard to find with little options in the way of guns and even less in the way of ammo choices. I expect a big push early, but 5 years from now I doubt its gonna be on most store shelves.
Thunderhog
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootneys
Wow! You are correct, that is absolute terrible accuracy!.....
Most Savage FVSR rimfire rifles are extremely accurate, including the 17 Mach II, 17 HMR, 22 WMR and 22 LR.
Maybe this particular rifle is a lemon, it does happen with all firearms manufactures, but pretty disappointing groups. He may have to test all the 21 Sharp bullet offerings to find out which ammo shoots.
Savage rimfires are inherently accurate firearms. Just not this guys rifle with his current ammo selection.......
I hope it does. Winchester makes inferior ammo to begin with. Not to be a good judge of this new cartridge even tho they are the designer.
22lr having the same bullet diameter as the case involving a heeled bullet in theory is a waste of potential and lead.
21 sharp won't replace the guns I have and I wouldn't rebarrel. The ammo should be and needs to be cheaper then 22lr
22lr having the same bullet diameter as the case involving a heeled bullet in theory is a waste of potential and lead.
21 sharp won't replace the guns I have and I wouldn't rebarrel. The ammo should be and needs to be cheaper then 22lr
In the Comments for that vid @recoilrob324 describes the specs for the bullet and the rifle. Sounds like it's a 'sloppy-fit' all 'round. And its running ca 1800+fps and with JHP, neither of which I've found to be extremely accurate in 22LR so Who knows? It's a shame that Savage made that rifle - hope it didn't come from Lakefield. It always could be just 'one bad sample' - I hope for Savage's sake. Even myS-64s shoot better than that.
Battlerifleelitist
CGN Regular
- Location
- Annapolis Valley, NS
21 sharp must go on, tbh it should've been the default instead of 22lr if it weren't for inertia. Heeled bullets are just AWFUL
however I guess I disagree with the .21 bore decision. Would maybe've been better to stick to .22 cal
however I guess I disagree with the .21 bore decision. Would maybe've been better to stick to .22 cal
The only niche it fills is California's ban on lead bullets but some of the 21 Sharp bullets contain lead.
No idea of cost. Winchester rifles would appear to be using their Wildcat magazines, and the accuracy from that line is not encouraging.
The review claims 1.5 MOA at 50 yards. Too gimmicky for my way of thinking.
Arguing the 22 long rifle has a history that is over a century old fails to gain any traction. It is a round that has seen considerable improvement over its history so it will remain hard to beat.
Why would they not try to improve the 17 HMR? The ballistic coefficient of 0.086 does not suggest any real advantage.
Peterson's and American Rifle offered no proof in the form of accuracy so they probably did not have anything good to say.
Thumbs down is my opinion
No idea of cost. Winchester rifles would appear to be using their Wildcat magazines, and the accuracy from that line is not encouraging.
The review claims 1.5 MOA at 50 yards. Too gimmicky for my way of thinking.
Arguing the 22 long rifle has a history that is over a century old fails to gain any traction. It is a round that has seen considerable improvement over its history so it will remain hard to beat.
Why would they not try to improve the 17 HMR? The ballistic coefficient of 0.086 does not suggest any real advantage.
Peterson's and American Rifle offered no proof in the form of accuracy so they probably did not have anything good to say.
Thumbs down is my opinion
17hmr already has lead free options, and the velocity makes it less ideal for suppressed use.
1.5moa @50 is fine if that's their cheap/bulk ammo. Winchester isn't exactly known for high end ammo. Get someone like Eley making the stuff and it could have potential.
