22. wmr barrel lenght

nigdonn

Well-Known Member
Hi lads can anyone advice me on the shortest effective barrel lenght for a 22wmr. i am changing my 17hmr for a .22 wmr and have a chance at an anschuts 1515/1516 set trigger its 16" barrel is the only thing that i am not sure about.will it affect accuracy and velocity and by how much.
thanks for your help in advance.Rifle is to be used from the jeep for vermin control.



Nigdonn.
 
Hi lads can anyone advice me on the shortest effective barrel lenght for a 22wmr. i am changing my 17hmr for a .22 wmr and have a chance at an anschuts 1515/1516 set trigger its 16" barrel is the only thing that i am not sure about.will it affect accuracy and velocity and by how much.
thanks for your help in advance.Rifle is to be used from the jeep for vermin control.
Nigdonn.

Dont, you will regret it, the 17HMR is a superior cartridge in all aspects, i know i found out the hard way.

Ian.
 
And for the Contrarian's View:

Trade it! I own three 17HMR's that never see use but have no less than seven 22WMR's.

A caveat is that if you can only get ONE kind of ammo, or have very limited access to 22WMR ammo, you should try some in the intended rifle first. They can be finicky. My daughter's Anny only liked two brands: Remington Premier 33 grain and Federal 30 grain classic. My CZ digests everything and is VERY accurate. My Savage Striker handgun (10") is also accurate with about everything. It depends on the gun. If you trade, be prepared to do some leg work but once you find the right ammo, you will find it very consistent. FWIW I hardly ever shoot 40 grain anymore. Thirty grain Federals HP's shoot tiny groups at over 2325 fps. Lights out on prairiedogs and rabbits.~Muir
 
Dont, you will regret it, the 17HMR is a superior cartridge in all aspects, i know i found out the hard way.

Ian.

Really? Not sure about every aspect..

Depends entirely on what you plan to shoot with it and at what distance and conditions
I have both.
I was a big fan of the HMR when they came out but its just not as fancy as the marketeers would have you believe
HMR rarely comes out now...I will use it on a nice calm day when the crows/magpies are out between 100-175yds unless I have the .222 within 6ft of me!
HMR is pointless on rabbits IMO unless you have no reason to pick them up (and expensive if you do!) and genuinely can't get within 100yds of them and not up to the job of regular foxing

WMR trumps HMR by some margin for energy across the full trajectory. Thats it as far as I am concerned
The larger drop at range is easily accounted for.
My WMR is more accurate than the HMR, doubt it is the rifle as its a Sako Quad so I can only assume its the ammo....a known failing
Never had a squib though thankfully
WMR is not affected by wind or the slightest blade of grass as much
Its Much cheaper to feed (which I don't understand at the bullets are twice as heavy as the HMR!)
If you have a decent supply of RFD's locally you will find much more selection of ammo from VMax, GamePoint, HollowPoint ranging from 33gr up to 50gr. 40gr does the job

WMR despatches bunnies without disembowelling them but has the punch to drop a fox without worry of surface splash wounds.
It was my urban fox calibre of choice for several years


as to the original question
plenty of WMR and HMR's been chopped down to less than 16" without issue
 
17 HMR is balistically superior to the 22WMR in all aspects except it is a little down on energy, as for saying the 22WMR is more accurate, you must have a really $hit HMR, no way is the WMR capable of duplicating the accuracy of the HMR its just not as inherently accurate.

Ian.
 
Having used the .17 HMR for some considerable time, and have after selling that on for a Sako WMR which I use full time, the Hornady 30 grn BT as standard ammo after trying all the other brands, there is one conclusion through time used and accuracy, the WMR easily outshines the 17, for rabbits they are about the same

The 17 is not a foxing rifle I guess some would say look at the energy from the 17 but a 17 or 20 grn round which flutters around like a butterfly in a light breeze doesn't cut the mustard, The WMR I have found a good all rounder for rabbit or fox and a perfect calibre out to a 100 and extremely accurate and does the job admirably, the 17 doesn't have the terminal energy, accuracy. (Apart from ideal conditions) WMR will punch out to a hundred, it will go farther if your in to elevation, the WMR is by far the best all round for rabbits and foxes, I definitely wouldn't be without mine.

I have used a considerable amount of ammunition through both calibres

Friend of mine has a reduced barrel sako in synthetic, my thoughts were he altered the balance, for the worse, although the accuracy was still bang on, I have two quads in LR and WMR in wood and varmint barrels and the set up is bang on, can't see the need to shorten, balance and accuracy is faultless

atb

phil
 
Last edited:
The WMR is just great , seems to moderate better than the HMR (don't know why?) I run a 16" barrel and it's fine , a great handy rim fire with great accuracy (30-33g ammo) and the punch for Charlie if required .

you may loose a little velocity (but I doubt it at 16") and as long as it's shortened and recur owned properly accuracy will be the same or better (shorter barrels seem to shoot well in my experience)
 
17 HMR is balistically superior to the 22WMR in all aspects except it is a little down on energy, as for saying the 22WMR is more accurate, you must have a really $hit HMR, no way is the WMR capable of duplicating the accuracy of the HMR its just not as inherently accurate.

Ian.
What makes the 22WMR "inherently" inaccurate?? Or not as inherently accurate?? Straight case? Lack of a boat tail bullet?? If those were what made a cartridge inaccurate then a 22LR with it's heeled lead bullet should be little better than a thrown stone.

You are right in a different sense. The 17HMR has the potential of being more accurate, or uniformly accurate, than the 22WMR. The reason is that there is one manufacturer of 17HMR ammunition being used in one very specific chamber with specific throating, and specific bore and groove dimensions. The 22WMR is plagued with almost 40 years of *******ization. Guns made with .220" grooves, .223" grooves, and .224" grooves. All different bore diameters; companies adapting their 22LR barrels to 22WMR with simply a reamer.

It is because of this that if you are going to buy a 22WMR, you must be willing to seek out the most accurate ammunition. Like a CF weapon you need to find what works in your specific gun. ~Muir
 
This is my Remington 597 in .22WMR. It's a great little foxer for ground that's restricted to rimfire. The barrel is 16". Shortening it reduced the velocity slightly but improved accuracy markedly -due to a better crown certainly and a stiffer barrel probably- and it now shoots well inside an inch at 100 yds with Remington Premier 33-grain polymer tipped loads. It's effectiveness on foxes has therefore been enhanced rather than diminished by the change.
View attachment 36504
 
Hi lads thanks great imput.The rifle will be used for rabbits and sub 120 yard fox work as i have a 22.250 for way out yonder.i would agree that the 17hmr is way over rated and NOT suitable for any kind of fox control at all unless you stick the barrel up its nose!! im going with the anny in 16" and i have a good supply of ammo i think i will try maxi mag +v 30 gr first

Thanks again lads Nigdonn

22.250/243/30-06 /303. 17hmr? soon to be .22wmr.
 
17 HMR is balistically superior to the 22WMR in all aspects except it is a little down on energy, as for saying the 22WMR is more accurate, you must have a really $hit HMR, no way is the WMR capable of duplicating the accuracy of the HMR its just not as inherently accurate.

Ian.


Mine are both Sako Quad from new
Tried CCI, Hornady (red and blue) and Remington ammo in the HMR in 17 and 20gr - 5-10 shot groups never went lower than 3/4"-1" (1"-2+" inches with the really ****ty hornady stuff!)

I can replicate that with some marked improvement with the WMR shooting 33gr Remington Accutip - 1/2"-3/4", more relevant is it keeps this from box to box, something the HMR has never done. add that to the energy advantage and bullet choice and its a no brainer IMO
(by contrast the .22lr and .17M2 Quad barrels will single hole on a good day.

I have yet to see anyone shoot any kind of HMR rifle or ammo at 100yds and produce the 1/4" bughole groups that get talked about

BC doesn't jump out as a marketing point:
http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/rimfire/34454-22-ballistics-info.html

17gr .17 VMax BC 0.125
20gr .20 HP XTP BC 0.125

33gr .22 WMR VMax BC 0.137
40gr .22 WMR Predator Magnum BC 0.183
50gr .22 WMR Jacketed HP BC 0.158

I am happy with my choice and work I have done to try to get all my rimfires to as accurate as possible. There is just a point when you decide that you can't do any more and you hit the plateau.

If yours shoots sub 1/2" groups at 100yds thats great, hold on to it!! you are in the serious minority though

Its not just me either, read any of the field test reports written by people with little to prove, testing ammo against each other and the HMR rarely if ever produces groups sizes that the keyboard warriors would have you believe

http://www.varmintal.com/17hmr.htm -
Group No.ShooterGroup Size (in)Comments
1Al1.45Starting with a clean barrel. About 100 rounds through the barrel. Only cleaned with EEZOX.
2Al1.17Variable winds, 3-5 mph, for Groups 1 - 6
3Al1.5
4Al0.71Cleaned with Sweet's 7.62 then cleaned with Shooters Choice MC#7/Kroil (half & half) mix
5Al1.07
6Al1.03
7Dale0.91Day 2. Calm winds for Groups 7 - 11
8Dale0.83
9Al0.73Shooting over the Chrony
10Dale0.59
11Dale1.06
Average 1.005Overall average group size Min=0.59 Max=1.5
Average 0.866Average with no wind & after cleaning with Sweet's 7.62 & SC/K Min=0.59 Max=1.07

http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_17HMR_ammo.htm

  • HORNADY - smallest group 5/8"; largest group 1 3/4"; mean average group = 1 1/8".
  • REMINGTON - smallest group 13/16"; largest group 2 3/8"; mean average group = 1 13/32".
  • FEDERAL - smallest group 11/16"; largest group 2 3/4"; mean average group = 1 13/32".
  • CCI - smallest group 1/2"; largest group 2 1/4"; mean average group = 1 17/32".

http://www.varminter.com/forums/topic/15171-17-hmr-ammowhich-one-do-i-use/
-- CCI Tnt = 13/16 of inch group w/a flyer to 1 3/16 in
-- Winchester V-Max = 2 inch group w/a flyer to 2 7/16 in
-- CCI V-Max = 2 5/8 inch group
-- Federal V-Max = 1 7/8 inch group
-- Hornady XTP = 1 inch group
-- Hornady V-Max = 1 11/16 inch group


 
Well!! where were all you 22WMR fans when i mentioned that i was going to sell my 17HMR and buy one a few years ago? it looks like you only start extolling the virtues of your beloved WMR when someone slags it off.
When i did this all the 17HMR fans came out telling me i am making big mistake but i ignored then researched everything i could find on the internet about the 22WMR then went out and bought one.
My idea was to get a rifle that would do everything the HMR would do but with a bit more clout, 22WMR looked like it fitted the bill perfectly.
I bought a Ruger 77/22 a very handsome rifle and four brands of ammo, now my opinion of Rugers is that you have a 50-50 chance of getting a good one but i took the risk.
I thought i had a bad one as accuracy was abysmal, the RWS 40g ammo showing bext results of the four with groups @ 100yds ranging from 1 3/4" to 2 1/4" not good enough in my book and now where as accurate as my CZ 17HMR that i traded in.
I researched the the rifle in depth and carried out all the accurising tricks i had read about to improve the accuracy, it made no difference.
I even stumped up for a Lilja custom drop in barrel, it made no difference, the only conclusion i could gain from this was that the cartridge was rubbish,
My confidence in the rifle/ammo combo was nill, occaisionally i even started to doubt my own ability, so it had to go.
I traded it in against a new CZ 455 17HMR and with my favourite brand of ammo the first groups were in the 1/2" to 3/4" bracket, what a great feeling to have an accurate rifle once again, rifle/ammo accuracy is the most important factor in its use to me.
I am now shooting CCI 20g game points that consistntly put 5 into half an inch @ 100yds all the time when the conditions are good
As you can see my own experience with the 22WMR was not good and i wasted a year and quite a bit of money trying to sort it out

Ian.
 
1 3/4" to 2 1/4" not good enough

don't blame you. not a pleasant experience
2+ inches in any rifle of any calibre/cartridge is pretty bad

shame as the "clout" you were looking for is the best part.
I used it as a walked up fox rifle on golf courses and loved the fact it was a rimfire, very light, didn't get grumpy when I lost a empty case in the grass.
never headshot anything. they all dropped very quickly if not on the spot.

my contrasting experience with .17 was poor. hated using it in windy conditions and had some very poor terminal effects
 
well I must have got the better deal of the 50-50 lottery !

I run a ruger 77/22 stainless lam , I've shortened it and had it bedded and with the 30-33g stuff it will group under an inch if I do my bit, i'd like a nicer stock but that will have to wait till I have finished my other projects.

all in all it's a cracking little rifle imho !

interestingly the 40g rws stuff was rubbish in mine to!

the lighter hornady stuff is just great !
 
Hi lads thanks great imput.The rifle will be used for rabbits and sub 120 yard fox work as i have a 22.250 for way out yonder.i would agree that the 17hmr is way over rated and NOT suitable for any kind of fox control at all unless you stick the barrel up its nose!! im going with the anny in 16" and i have a good supply of ammo i think i will try maxi mag +v 30 gr first

Thanks again lads Nigdonn

22.250/243/30-06 /303. 17hmr? soon to be .22wmr.
Not quite true I've dropped plenty of foxes with my .17hmr out to 100yds with well placed head shots, only one I ever needed two shots on and that was a chest shot, never tried that again and I have never lost one, they go down like a sack of **** if you aim between the eyes.
 
... if you aim between the eyes.

IME this is almost the worst place to aim. A fox's skull is thickest here and has a well-defined ridge that is quite capable of deflecting a bullet. I once hit one here with a 55-grainer from a .223 at just under 100 yards, It dropped on the spot, only to get up again a minute or so later and run off... and if he hadn't still been a bit dazed I'd have had a harder time than I did dropping him for good with another round. On inspection of the carcase, I found that the first bullet had sheared off the ridge and gouged right through the skull, but had not fragmented or punctured the brain case.

I'm glad to hear you've had some success with this point of aim, but the experience described above leads me to see it as less advisable, especially with a light bullet such as the HMR shoots, than a shot to the back of the head, under the ear, or into the boiler room.
 
Search on here for details of me skimming one off a fox skull facing me and standing slightly above me!!
if they move on grass a poor angle on frontal plate is a runner waiting to happen
 
Point taken as I suppose any shot has the potential to go wrong, all i've ever had is no sign of entry and blood leaking from the ears and very dead foxes, i certainly wouldn't recommend any one uses it as a go to fox rifle but it certainly can deal with them at sensible ranges when out on the bunnies and the opportunity arises, should think there is far more running around with shotgun pellets in their asses than misplaced .17hmr bullets.
 
Point taken as I suppose any shot has the potential to go wrong, all I've ever had is no sign of entry and blood leaking from the ears and very dead foxes, I certainly wouldn't recommend any one uses it as a go to fox rifle but it certainly can deal with them at sensible ranges when out on the bunnies and the opportunity arises, should think there is far more running around with shotgun pellets in their asses than misplaced .17hmr bullets.

Agreed, I just think a between-the-eyes shot has more potential -if perfectly placed- to go wrong than other sensible alternatives. If a head-on head-only shot is all that's available, I'd shoot at an eye rather than between the two, as the eye socket is concave and the bone behind the eye is comparatively thin so the chances of the bullet entering the cranium are consequently greater.
 
I don't know about that one with rapid expansion on what is a relativley large eye would there be enough retained weight to enter the cranium after entry, initial penetration is about all they have going for such a small bullet and also between the eyes gives a small margin for error, IMO, I can see how a glancing shot across the head may have problems but square on it's one dead fox .
 
Back
Top