.22wmr Rifle

yubabill

There's very little difference between 17HMR and 22WMR IMHO.

Never owned 22WMR but shot with a guy who reliably head-shot rabbits to 120yds from standing with it.

I had a 17HMR and always got a pain after shooting rabbits at 150yds, so re-zeroed it to 100yds. It just took too much effort and my reasoning was that it's easier just to get a bit closer (often got a brain ache after concentrating so hard). I didn't trust the HMR in the wind at those ranges and never went beyond - there wasn't a lot of them around back then and not much info available, but I do know that the guy who bought it off me got reliable results out to 200yds).

The limit to any calibre's accuracy is the point where the bullet enters the trans-sonic zone, as the bullet gets buffeted by its own shock wave as it slows. This is when bullet design and size (mass) become important. I don't know the relevant ballistics of when HMR or WMR become subsonic (HMR will be further) but this will be the practical limit to accuracy for both.

My biggest headache with HMR was wind, never actually had a miss because of it, but the reason was that I refused to shoot longer range in the wind. I would have confidence in both cals with moderate wind to about 120 yds, but that's only a personal opinion.

the thing i really disliked about the HMR was that ballistic tips would blow up on grass, if you were trying to shoot through it (which I was used to doing with 22LR). I know there were HP's for the HMR, but you lost a bit of accuracy and I never took to them. Some guys swear by them, I know. And then to top the pudding, HMR ammo is way overpriced here in ROI.

The best argument was made earlier - go with your gut choice, because you will never be happy if you don't.

You won't really go wrong with either.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

The limit to any calibre's accuracy is the point where the bullet enters the trans-sonic zone, as the bullet gets buffeted by its own shock wave as it slows. This is when bullet design and size (mass) become important. I don't know the relevant ballistics of when HMR or WMR become subsonic (HMR will be further) but this will be the practical limit to accuracy for both.

I think this is another of those 'internet tales' or what used to be called 'pub talk' in days of old.

If indeed the accuracy of a bullet makes it useless as it passes down from being supersonic to sub-sonic, it would happen to all bullets. This means that long range shooting for a lot of calibers would be impossible.

Strangely at ranges of 1500 to well over 2000 even 3000 yards the .338 and .50 are used quite successfully with bullet drops of hundreds of feet and velocities well below the supersonic threshold. For instance a .50 caliber is travelling at approximately 950ft per second at 2000 yards where I believe it is used quite successfully and often so we hear.

A .303 was the common caliber at long range shooting ranges which some shot at one mile. At that distance the .303 is well below supersonic. They were shooting this far successfully for over 100 years now.

Bullet drop and speed affects all bullets. The enemy of any caliber is wind and the ability of the person behind the scope. Lighter weighted which usually means smaller calibers are affected by the wind more simply because they weigh less.

The point you raise suits those who prefer some calibers over others. Every caliber has its uses and merits. But physics sorts out the differences.

cookimonster

The best argument was made earlier - go with your gut choice, because you will never be happy if you don't.

....as above, absolutely. I some what fell into that when I got into centrefire rifles, I should have gone with my gut feeling. Now I'm a bit more care free and after a bit of due diligence I get what makes my heart flutter.


I have been watching this thread with interest and will offer my two cents. Purely on anecdotal evidence I believe that a lot of negative press on the likes of older calibres and ammunition stems from persisting stories from the past. Accuracy and consistency jumped leaps and bounds during the latter half of the 20th Century in both firearms and ammunition production which brought massive improvements to the older chestnuts.
Sometimes we expect too much out of various calibres and often unfairly compare them to other calibres. If you look over the history and development of certain calibres or cartridges you will actually see that many advancements only give us marginal gains in energy or useable distance compared to its closest comparable anno type. For example the HMR gains approx 25 yards over the WMR when comparing them as like for like use wise. Over here we are limited to our prey that the WMR and HMR were designed for, so rabbit, corvids and foxs would be our main targets while in the US you can almost treble or more the various species and thier sizes/weights they hunt with either calibre. Also the way a person hunts effects the effectiveness of the calibre especially on smaller targets, if pot hunting rabbits and you want to head shoot then (if not dialing etc) this smaller target area will limit your maximum rangeif you want to point and shoot (MPBR). However if it is just pest control with no meat retrieval your target area is increased and the range can increase. Remember we are dealing with some ammo that was developed when scopes were not common or if used were low powered 3x or 4x, whereas today we are using much more sophisticated optics.
So inclusion the older stuff with modern firearms, improved ammunition and capable optics are well able to hold their own and in some cases outshine the new comers.


Now I'm off to find a 7×57mm Mauser or a 275 Rigby to scratch my itch 🙄

Bog Trotter99

I can also add that possibly before the past 20 years that the word 'fieldcraft' was a well respected skill. It basically meant that you never shot your prey under over a hundred or so yards. This meant your skill was to get as close to your target as possible and not take pot shots. Would this be why the favoured zeroing of scopes in is 100 yards? Dunno?

Most calibers will do the job at 100 yards and there is no need to try and outwit the wind as is done most times unsuccessfully at longer ranges. So getting up close was always the thing to do.

cookimonster

Extreme long distance shooting benefits from 'special' bullets that have being designed to transition below the speed of sound with minimal distribution to its trajectory. If memory serves me right the concept gave rise to boat tailed bullets that are long and slender, usually long for calibre and often not compatible with standard chambers or magazines.
As the bullet goes sub sonic the chasing shock wave passes in frount of it, but like the bow of a boat it glides evenly around it with out effecting stability. Now a stubby bullet such as a standard hunting 30-06 150 grain soft point usually had a flat wide base and not a very aerodynamic tip so at the transition point it's more susceptible to the passing shock wave.
Having said that, the thought process would imply that shooters using boat tails for short to medium ranges see no benefits of its stability and therefore don't need such technology.
Given the extreme distances that some of these calibres are used over you have to look at the target size they are hitting, yes there's plenty of utube videos of lads knocking near cans at 1000 yards but more commonly they are hitting torso sized steal plates and at further distance these targets are measured in multiple of feet and not inches.
Theres plenty of irrefutable evidence between bullet design- calibre/lenght/shape that shows that they contribute to accuracy when driving them at extreme ranges.

Bog Trotter99

cookimonster wrote: »

Extreme long distance shooting benefits from 'special' bullets that have being designed to transition below the speed of sound with minimal distribution to its trajectory. If memory serves me right the concept gave rise to boat tailed bullets that are long and slender, usually long for calibre and often not compatible with standard chambers or magazines.
As the bullet goes sub sonic the chasing shock wave passes in frount of it, but like the bow of a boat it glides evenly around it with out effecting stability. Now a stubby bullet such as a standard hunting 30-06 150 grain soft point usually had a flat wide base and not a very aerodynamic tip so at the transition point it's more susceptible to the passing shock wave.
Having said that, the thought process would imply that shooters using boat tails for short to medium ranges see no benefits of its stability and therefore don't need such technology.
Given the extreme distances that some of these calibres are used over you have to look at the target size they are hitting, yes there's plenty of utube videos of lads knocking near cans at 1000 yards but more commonly they are hitting torso sized steal plates and at further distance these targets are measured in multiple of feet and not inches.
Theres plenty of irrefutable evidence between bullet design- calibre/lenght/shape that shows that they contribute to accuracy when driving them at extreme ranges.

That also comes into it, but dont forget when shooting at a mile started 100+ years ago, there was no fmj and bullets were made from lead and either black powder or cordite.

Anyway it rubbishes the claims 'in Ireland' that wmr is a spent obsolete caliber, cant shoot straight, tumbles, cant do this and cant do that etc etc etc etc etc.

yubabill

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I think this is another of those 'internet tales' or what used to be called 'pub talk' in days of old.

If indeed the accuracy of a bullet makes it useless as it passes down from being supersonic to sub-sonic, it would happen to all bullets. This means that long range shooting for a lot of calibers would be impossible.

Strangely at ranges of 1500 to well over 2000 even 3000 yards the .338 and .50 are used quite successfully with bullet drops of hundreds of feet and velocities well below the supersonic threshold. For instance a .50 caliber is travelling at approximately 950ft per second at 2000 yards where I believe it is used quite successfully and often so we hear.

A .303 was the common caliber at long range shooting ranges which some shot at one mile. At that distance the .303 is well below supersonic. They were shooting this far successfully for over 100 years now.

Bullet drop and speed affects all bullets. The enemy of any caliber is wind and the ability of the person behind the scope. Lighter weighted which usually means smaller calibers are affected by the wind more simply because they weigh less.

The point you raise suits those who prefer some calibers over others. Every caliber has its uses and merits. But physics sorts out the differences.

You don't have to take my word for it - get a 22LR, some CCI Stingers (supersonic at the muzzle) and some standard or low velocity ammo to compare it with; shoot both for groups at 50 yds, then shoot both at 100yds. The Stingers will lose more accuracy after about 80yds - that's where they go trans-sonic.

Long range shooters use well-designed bullets with sufficient mass to reduce the trans-sonic effect. The 303 has inbuilt defence against this, as have many full bore loads, as has the 17 pounder, the 40mm Bofors........

The problem mainly lies with smaller calibres.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

You don't have to take my word for it - get a 22LR, some CCI Stingers (supersonic at the muzzle) and some standard or low velocity ammo to compare it with; shoot both for groups at 50 yds, then shoot both at 100yds. The Stingers will lose more accuracy after about 80yds - that's where they go trans-sonic.

Long range shooters use well-designed bullets with sufficient mass to reduce the trans-sonic effect. The 303 has inbuilt defence against this, as have many full bore loads, as has the 17 pounder, the 40mm Bofors........

The problem mainly lies with smaller calibres.

Perhaps its just that as the bullets slow, the smaller the bullet the more the wind affects it?

Paul Harrell......200 and 300 yard........Open iron sights......12 gauge slug through a SMOOTHBORE shotgun.........supersonic at the muzzle and definitely not at the target.......ugly bullet shape regards ballistics.........kind of destroys the 'transonic' effect and puts more into 'weight punching through air' .... possibly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvC2o00O_M


It is an endless discussion but one thing is for sure. There is nothing at all wrong or disadvantaged by wmr rifles within the practical ranges it will be used.

On the same point the wmr is just changing from supersonic at approx 150 yards and still delivering higher ft-ibs at that range and of course less affected by wind at this range also. A range it could be used at very effectively. Is it better or worse ............than what?

yubabill

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Perhaps its just that as the bullets slow, the smaller the bullet the more the wind affects it?

That's basically it.

The wind is actually the bullet's own bow-wave.

The bow-wave catches up with the slowing bullet and interferes with it for a very small period of time.

Won't make much difference to 22Mag, as you pointed out.

Mellor

yubabill wrote: »

The wind is actually the bullet's own bow-wave.

The bow-wave catches up with the slowing bullet and interferes with it for a very small period of time.

Reminds me of incident with one of the first Mach 1 fighter jets the US Navy had.
During testing, they tested speed of the plane in during a big dive, during which the pilot shot a few bursts. As he was pulling out, something went wrong, engine failed. Emergency landing.

Turns out the plane was shot down by it's own bullets. As the bullets went subsonic, the Mach 1.1 fighter caught up to them.

cookimonster

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Paul Harrell......200 and 300 yard........Open iron sights......12 gauge slug through a SMOOTHBORE shotgun.........supersonic at the muzzle and definitely not at the target.......ugly bullet shape regards ballistics.........kind of destroys the 'transonic' effect and puts more into 'weight punching through air' .... possibly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvC2o00O_M

I only got around to watching the vid (don't you just love a Paul Harrell video, great dead pan persona). In my own opinion this video exactly shows how design and shape effects accuracy. At two hundred yards the slugs don't seem to have an issue with cross wind as they are consistent but the grouping is dreadful. That grouping is certainly not down to shooter error or equipment having seen Mr Harrell punch many holes in paper with various calibres and firearms. At 300 yards even if zeroed in correctly that type of grouping makes it all but useless for precision shots. These slugs are designed for short ranges and are accurate at these distances.

Bog Trotter99

cookimonster wrote: »

I only got around to watching the vid (don't you just love a Paul Harrell video, great dead pan persona). In my own opinion this video exactly shows how design and shape effects accuracy. At two hundred yards the slugs don't seem to have an issue with cross wind as they are consistent but the groping is dreadful. That grouping is certainly not down to shooter error or equipment having seen Mr Harrell punch many holes in paper with various calibres and firearms. At 300 yards even if zeroed in correctly that type of grouping makes it all but useless for precision shots. These slugs are designed for short ranges and are accurate at these distances.

Actually I think he does some great stuff. But the Yanks have that much choice he gets involved in so many varied shooting things.

But on his video.............He was shooting with open sights and perhaps would have done far better with a scope? Also it was smooth bore. So I think he was shooting at its maximum usuable range. But as you say shorter ranges for accuracy.