Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Terry Wieland, comments on .17 HMR in Rifle

In the back page article of the November 2011 Rifle, Terry Wieland comments about the .17 HMR being a "dandy 50 - 75-yard varmint round" based on his prairie dog experience. That is certainly about 100 yards less than my extensive experience. I figure he doesn't have much real experience........anyone want to chime in? After that comment I will generally figure
Terry is a writer, not a real user of what he writes about like Mule Deer.

From what I have read, Terry's experience with the .17 HMR consists of one afternoon of prairie dog shooting with a couple of other guys, one of whom owned the rifle. He didn't think it did a very good job then, but didn't mention which ammo was used. He might not have noticed.

My bet is that it was the hollow-point load, which don't expand very well on small varmints but penetrate deeper on larger varmints. In my experience (I bought a .17 HMR the year after it appeared and have been shooting it every year ever since) the plastic-tips are consistently effective on small varmints out to 200 yards. The longest prairie dog shot I've seen with the .17 HMR was 303, made by a friend using my rifle, and the dog flopped right over and didn't move.

Just another pompous Brit like the majority that I work with. Wizards with the English language. When I see his name I simply turn the page.

Sounds like he was talking about a fast stepping 22LR instead of the HMR. He obviously hasn't used one much.

Terry probably does not like it because the British or Germans did not invent it...LOL

FWIW, Dave Petzal and Layne Simpson have also gone on record talking down the merits of the 17HMR for the last 10 years.

Terry needs to drive out to western Kansas from St Louis so I can show him how effective the 17HMR can be on game up to the size of Blacktailed Jacks.

Shot with a 17g VMax Hornady 17HMR load at 175 paces- Shown is the exit wound.

Yeah- GREAT 50 to 75 yard rifle.

Hmm. Here's a direct quote from one of Layne's articles:

"The .17 HMR took off like a rocket, and as far as I know, it has yet to slow down. Why this is true is no big mystery. Loaded to a muzzle velocity of 2,550 fps with a 17-grain bullet, it shoots about as flat as traditional factory loadings of the .22 Hornet and .218 Bee and is incredibly accurate in a good rifle. Recoil is close to nonexistent, and as varmint cartridges go, its bark is quite soft. Since that tiny little bullet is easily blown off course, the .17 HMR is not a windy-day cartridge, but under calm conditions a good rifleman can spoil the day for prairie dogs and smaller varmints out to 200 very long paces. More distant hits are possible with this cartridge, but with the exception of smaller targets, such as flickertails and such, kills will not always be instant at much beyond 200 yards."

All of which pretty much mirrors my expernience.

I haven't seen anything from Petzal that runs the .17 HMR down, either. In fact in a piece on the Sako Quad rifle he singles it out for some praise.

Would be interested in seeing anything that contradicts this.

I love this part.-

"Since that tiny little bullet is easily blown off course, the .17 HMR is not a windy-day cartridge, but under calm conditions a good rifleman can spoil the day for prairie dogs and smaller varmints out to 200 very long paces."

The term "Damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

The amazing thing about his wind drift comments is the fact that he neglects to mention that NO OTHER rimfire load drifts less in wind than a 17G Vmax 17HMR load. That is the real purpose of the 17HMR- not to compete with much larger cased centerfires.

As to the "prairie dogs and smaller" comment I guess the Jackrabbit above at 175 yards never got the memo. He died purely from devine intervention- not the nickle sized exit wound that 17g vmax made..

His comments about the 17HMR remind me of people that claim the .243 is only a "nice varmint cartridge". Or that the .22 Hornet is a "nice 150 yard varmint round".

The gunsmith who made the loaner 17HMR rifle Simpson used on that first PD hunt reported in "Shooting times " was actually shooting with him that day. He said Simpson apparently did not see the same thing he did as to the killing effect of the round.

Simpson claimed the round did not kill as well as the 22 mag at 150 yards and yet the Gunsmith was so impressed with the 17HMR , it is the ONLY rimfire round he has used on PDs since then. The 'smith was so angry about Simpson's hatchet job on the round in the ST article he refused to ever send him another test rifle . And yes, Simpson was using the 17g Vmax loads on Prairie Dogs.

As to Petzal, he has gone on record as saying the 17s and .20 cal CENTERFIRES are all but worthless in his opinion compared to the .22 centerfires. Interesting he would speak well of the 17HMR when rounds with 3 times the power are still inadequate in his eyes. Sort of a lack of logic there.

If either writer has publicly come out and said anything good about the 17HMR it is wonderful that they have begun to see the light on the topic. Base on the totality of their past comments in print,however, I feel neither writer has no real love for 17HMR.

Jim,

I totally agree with you about the wind-drift--the .17 HMR does drift less in the wind than any other rimfire round. Still, it drifts more than the .22 Hornet, and if there's more than a little wind I much prefer the Hornet. But there are an awful lot of people who assume that light bullets drift more, when the two factors at work are ballistic coefficient and velocity. And the .17 HMR definitely beats any other rimfire in those departments.

I have not found the .17 HMR to be as effective on white-tailed jacks as the .22 Magnum, though it doesn't exactly nounce off either. Of course white-tails are somewhat bigger--and especially stouter--than blacktails.

I have shot prairie dogs alongside other people with the .17 HMR who claim it isn't as effective as the .22 Magnum, and wondering exactly what the hell they're seeing. In my experience it's noticeably better than the .22 Magnum, both because of fine accuracy and less wind drift--plus the explosiveness of the thin-jacketed 17-grain plastic tips.

There are some newer loads in the .22 Magnum that work pretty well when they hit something, but not all rifles shoot them all that well. And I have yet to see a .22 Magnum (including custom rifles) that shoots any better than the average off-the-rack .17 HMR, and most don't shoot nearly as well.

John.

I did not want to seem to be blind siding Simpson and Petzal unfairly.

Most of Simpson's writing I agree with based on what I have seen in the field.. It just seems like the whole idea of the 17HMR sort of deeply offended him from the start due to his affection for the .22 magnum. I will try to find a copy of his Shooting Times revue on the 17HMR in 2002. It was a doozy of biased reporting. To read his article, you'd think 17HMR slugs bounce off of stuff passed 100 yards.

Petzal has simply gone on record as seeing no hunting use for sub .22 cal rounds at all.

Gun writers are fallible human beings and no matter honestly they try to interpret the merits of various cartridges, personal biases do come into play.

I will give you the compliment that when such topics arise, you tend to try to provide both sides of the coin more than most writers.

Your are also a loyal advocate for your colleagues in a debate.

Good traits all.

I know a few guys that use 17HMR for grey squirrels and a couple of them have killed some at some pretty long range as
far as small game goes. Head shots only as body hits are
pretty destructive.

How would you know what a .17 HMR would do on a PD, you always forget your ammo...

Not always, just half the time!

sounds like a story to tell...

It's not as effective on big Eastern woodchucks as the .22 Mag. either but then the 5mm Rem. Mag. is notably superior to both.

Don't know Wieland personally but have read a lot of his stuff and to describe him as "writer, not a real user" strikes be as a bit unfair. I am also unable to categorically say it's not true, but I'll give him some benefit of the doubt and not judge on one or two comments. He may be stronger in some areas than others like most of us. I enjoyed his book, Dangerous Game Rifles.

Edited to add while I've a .17 HMR in an Anschutz and have used it on pds, mostly in typical western plains wind, my experience kind of mirrors Wieland's. I know JB has used it much more than I so I chalk my experience up to gusty winds and maybe trying to "push" it beyomd it's capabilities. I have found it very effective on late December pheasants in cold, still air when they feed out in a snow field and when they'll let me stalk to within 200 yds--very little meat spoilage with the little round.

George,

I think your assessment is quite fair. I don't think Terry is an avid varmint hunter, and he doesn't live where he can do a lot of it, like I do. But he does know shotgunning and big game hunting, and is especially familiar with larger-bore big game rifles.

Yeah, Terry is one of the good guys. Layne and Dave Petzal are, as well.

They are guys that you wouldn't mind having with you in the bottom of a bad canyon with a teetery bull elk down. No leg-holders there ... all gut pullers.

We have some really decent folks who are hunters first and writers second these days. We should celebrate them. And highly.

Steve

PS. All of us have said absolutely stupid things in print. I surely have, and that's a fact.

About Terry Wieland: he is not english but canadian by birth. Seem to have enough experience with guns and Africa, America, Europe and other places in the world. Surely most turned toward heavy caliber he was wery well considered by Arthur Alphin of A-Square. He wrote some pages in A Square reloading manual in collaboration with Boddington, Aagaard and Minton. For me not too bad a business card. Played also with handguns in IPSC even if he never became champion like Ross Seyfried was. So he has his opinion on the 17HMR but no need to bash him. For sure 17 is more than a 75m caliber, i know some little wild boars who did'nt like it and red foxes shot at 180m who felt where they were (forbidden to use in France cause it's rimfire)but Wieland opinion don't make him a "writer only man"...
Dom

After reading all the initial 17 HMR hoopla on internet sites and in gun mags, bought a new Savage 93 to see what the fuss was about.

Very accurate, fast and flat from the bench. Took it out that spring, killed a few woodchucks with it, wounded several more that "got away". Not much impressed with the original 17gr bullets on 'chucks.

Probably a terrific 200 yard PD or ground squirrel cartridge, but we have neither in PA. Ain't worth a rat's arse for short range woodchucks, in my humble opinion?

Given the cost of 17 HMR ammo, I'll stick with Mini Mags and an accurate 22, for pasture bank sneaks and 50 yard shots on woodchucks.

Just curious: Did any of the reviews you read highly recommend the .17 HMR for woodchucks?