22 mag vs 17 wsm testing for large game

[@kirkgordon4469]

I've had a 22 mag Marlin stainless bull barrel for more than 25 yrs now and it's taken thousands of small game up to 250lb hogs and a few axis deer in that time. Never had an issue pulling 100+ yrd head shots with it and have varmint hunted with the friends and family that own the 17s. There's no comparison the 22 mag drops critters with a thud and the 17 although very fast and flat shooting as it is most animals run a long ways before falling over. Just saying my experience with the two. Hands down the 22 mag is king !

[@markloomis1415]

I would agree to point but, I think you're referring to the .17 HMR. I Love the 22mag and have taken prairie dogs and woodchucks out to 200yds with the 30gr Vmax and compared to the 17HMR the 22mag seems to hit harder and the 22mag is much more versatile having ballistic tips, hollow points, solids, and even shot shells available! But the 17WSM is a totally different cartridge than the 17HMR or the 22mag and was designed to be the ultimate long range rimfire for varmint hunting. When I go out west for prairie dogs I used to take 3 or 4 varmint rifles from the 22mag and 17HMR to the 222 rem and the 22/250 and even the 240 weatherby. Nowadays all I take is my ruger 17wsm and shoot all day out to 300yds and let the brass fly cause I don't have to reload them and the barrel barely gets warm!

[@raymondcamp8212]

The bmag is way better than the 22 mag from my experience

[@jasonhansford935]

This was a very interesting and informative video. The video footage was exceptional. I have both guns and always ask myself the same question, this illustrates it !!! Keep it up and thanks

[@bigpoppa6998]

Very good test . I own both guns the 22 mag is a good caliber. But the 17wsm is by far flatter shooter an Nasty accurate.

[@jadoncramer6512]

Don’t get penetration and damage confused. It dumped all its energy and damage instead of drilling a small hole

[@benschildgen4994]

I often look at speed and foot pounds of energy. However, one thing I often overlook is tissue damage and the bigger wound cavity causes for bleeding for better kills. Also I believe in never substitute horsepower with poor marksmanship. I really love your videos and has made me think over some things that I have been doing.

[@sdkarns69]

There-s a huge difference between bullets. The ballistic tip did exactly what it was supposed to do. It is supposed to transfer energy as quickly as possible. We have no idea what the .22 hollow point did. Did it even mushroom?

[@h2recoveryteam2]

First time watching your videos. I am a big time varmint hunter. When the 17's first came out I did not even look at them. Mind you I use a full custom built Rem 700 in 22-250 and reload for it. I also hunt in populated fields. Meaning cows, horses or what ever livestock are present. I have to have a bullet that will not pass through my target. My 22-250 rounds. OMG, a blade of grass will destroy the bullet on impact. Designed that way for a reason. So I do not kill with a pass through round. When the 17 WSM came out. I did a lot of research on it and found a go between or another round to use when close to houses for noise and pass through. I used a 22 mag for a long time. It would pass through an animal and I did not like that. The 17 WSM is an awesome caliber just for this. It transfers most of it's energy on impact and only a few times has passed through an animal. Most of the time it is a one hole wonder. This actual effect numbers. I have never heard of that. But with today's terms, I feel it is someone not wanting to admit that their caliber of choice using this math is still good. Not saying that it is fake. It just seems that way to me. Some formula that they come up with to still say theirs is better. I know math does not lie. But sounds like 32 degree's with a wind chill of 25 to me. What is it 32 or 25? Cold is cold.

[@johnnelson6021]

I'm sure if they made a tougher round for the 17 it would have way way more penetration as with any solid round. sir you have some super great videos, thank you for all of your time breaking everything down step by step. 👍👍

[@outdooradventures1696]

Thank You John Nelson for your kind words. Much appreciated 👍

[@14goldmedals]

A proper comparison is the 17 HMR vs 22 WMR using one of the lighter WMR bullets. The 17 WSM is in it's own class.

[@steveray8022]

The first thing you handy cap the 22. mag. by the heavy bullet. A 40-grain bullet would help it at the 100 yards to my thinking. The velocity would be closer. The 22mag. 2100 40-grain to 17WSM. 2600 25-grain.

[@davidtheelect893]

Add a 10 mph cross wind to the test and see how much you like the 17.

[@LemonySnicket-EUC]

Doesn't the .17 have better ballistic coefficient ?

[@nyjetsfan4455]

It moves only 4 inches at 200 yards so id say the 17wsm is pretty good and that is at a 10mph crosswinds

[@woofbark4475]

One of the only pigs i shot was at about 30 metres. The pig dropped on the spot. The projectile went in at least 14cm according to my measuring stick. The second one i shot was actually much closer and it ran about 10 meters and dropped. This running however had occurred when with larger centrefire rounds. Naturally, it depends on shot placement. Don't know how well the .17wsm would go out further but i certainly wouldn't like to be the target. And it's great to watch the shot hits due to virtually no recoil. The bmag is boar MOA so it works for me and is probably 3 times as light as larger centrefires.

[@johninphx9360]

Good information , thanks! I found the .22mag is most effective with the light 30gr or 35 gr ammo.

[@charlesabtjr.5563]

I don't have a 17 to 22 mag comparison but I do have a Savage 22 mag. I sighted in at 100yds with CCI 40 grain. Then I fired a group with Hornady 30 grain. the 30 grain hit the target 3 1/2" above the 40 grain shots at the same 100 yds. So I think a comparison should be make between the 17 and 22 using a wider range of grain weights. I do think the 17 with its lighter grain and faster velocity would still be better.

[@dwightmcclure9843]

My 50 years experience shooting groundhogs or woodchucks on farms has me mostly shooting the .17 WSM because of effective range ( 200 meters) and the nature of the crop eating preys toughness. Next the .22 Mag. effective out to 125 Meters, much past that bullet drop becomes an issue. The .17HMR is dead on out to 100 meters except in wind. Had an issue once where over an acre of young broccoli got eaten overnight and given the terrain, number, and brains of the critters closest I could get was 350 meters using a 220 Swift. Any farmers knows these critters are wise and difficult to take out in groups. Obviously the 220 Swift is always going to work; but not a truck tool. Actually had to call in State extension service who pumped poison gas in the holes. Always found the .22 LR only useful in that my stalk improved as a kid. Head only with these critters and .22 LR. Anything larger than the groundhog(Va.)/woodchuck(Ma.) and it's 5.56 on the farms.

[@australianmade2659]

I don’t have a 17. But I do like the 22 vmax. It still does the job. Mostly the 22lr does most things I need for small pest control. Otherwise the 223 is cheap to run.

[@magaman6353]

My experience with a 22 mag. in a HK300 semi, 15 shot mag. was that it was pathetic in terms of killing power. Very disappointed. Moved up to a 222 Rem., 223 Rem & 220 Swift. End of problem.

[@davidcall8138]

Great presentation. I agree the large weight 22 mag bullet will penetrate more, however most hunters are shooting small game and the .17 WSM 25 grain deliveries more energy and energy is stopping power. If the bullet goes though the small game that is not stopping power, like hunting with a FMJ vs. a JSP of JHP. I do not hunt much any more due to heath issues, I mostly shot targets and steels, but I would vote for the 17 wsm , until some one comes up with a 22 version of the 17 WSM ??? Maybe not a bad idea???

[@mikemagnum7987]

".22 Super Hornet Rimfire".... ;)

[@dhern2613]

So my question regarding this fascination with dumping all energy within the first inch of penetration is, why? The heart is not always within the first inch of fur skin fat and ribs. Vital organs like lungs, spine, vital veins. This might be all good if you do succeed with a clean head or heart shot. And that is obviously what we all plan to do. To hunt don't you want an initial explosive power dump but then also have residual energy and expanded projectile to make as much damage as possible on its continued path to reach all the vitals?

[@Physics072]

Just watch some videos of the 17 wsm hitting animals. It will expload them from the inside. They drop dead. So if you want to kill an animal the 22 wsm is superior. But if you want to kill yet not damage the meat as much then the 22 mag is the way to go because the 17 wsm is far too powerful and destroys the animal.

[@FORDEVR]

I just purchased a 17wsm and can’t wait to try it on a yote. Previously I used a .204 with a 32 vmax. At 100 to 300 yards it enters and starts to expand at about 2 inches and then explodes in the heart and lungs. I love the round but some areas I hunt don’t allow centerfire rounds so the 17 wsm will be a welcomed rifle/calibre😍 I don’t think the focus is on dumping it in the first inch but in the first 5 inches so the heart and lungs suffer heavy damage but the bullet doesn’t exit or do pelt damage. I think this round (20 gr vmax) is gonna be a deadly, pelt friendly round as long as I do my part and deliver it to the right place.

[@danieldesimonedanny1827]

Some day I want to try a true rifle bullet in a .22 mag case.

[@bootsandall3612]

Google MarkandSam after work. He is playing with the idea.

[@maverickpaladin4155]

I'd be curious to see an apples to apples comparison...same manufacturer, same bullet design. I don't know if that's possible, but it would be interesting.

[@markhansen8078]

The 22 mag in a solid is a potent little bullet. The problem with hollow points at these speeds is they explode upon contact. The only real viable option is a solid bullet if you don't want massive tissue damage from bullet fragmentation. I am using CCI 22 magnum. The hollow points are for varmints and solids for hunting.

[@outdooradventures1696]

Mark Hansen. I agree with you 100 percent. In fact, I am editing footage for my next video the features the 22 mag cci total metal jacket. Please look for it in the next few days. 👍

[@markhansen8078]

Great. I think it will be informative and helpful to many hunters. I learned this for myself a couple of decades ago hunting in Ohio with a .22 magnum. I put my 22 mag away for a long time but have it out again. I now live in Florida and small game season is open and includes harvesting wild pigs. The catch is you can't use center fire calibers. The .22 mag solids are going to back into the field. If I take a pig with it I'll let you know. MH

[@danwilliams6175]

Ballistic gel tests would be worth watching.

[@margaretchriskurtz3819]

how about the 30 grain ballistic tip cci round for the 22 mag? i bet it is twice the round that puny .17 is.

[@cancermonkey7334]

Baja Dan I’m betting Margaret&chris is/are the same person.

[@brianmachado4533]

Seems to me that the 17 was far more devastating while the 33 mag penetrated well beyond the point where it was effective.

[@MrJtin69]

Wrong thinking

[@koreyandmel]

I've seen Groundhog hunts on YT with both rounds. I have seen consistent devastating 1 shot kills at over 150m with the 17wsm. Massive energy dump. Massive damage. From the 22wmr I have seen much lower energy dumps, requiring up to three shots to kill at 75m. The energy TRANSFER combined with the flat shooting characteristics of the 17wsm make it a clear winner for me. But what about windage? Sure, the 17 has half the weight of the 22, but it is also in flight for a much shorter duration.......

[@ei513563854]

The 17 is a great round, seen many examples of how potent it is. Unfortunately I’m too far invested in the 22 WMR, which by the way also has a respectable history.

[@bryantbutlermf]

Same I have too much energy and time into my mag there’s no point in getting anything else

[@refaiabdeen5943]

Cheers Mate! Much appreciated. Which caliber would you recommend for all purpose use? Cheers.

[@noahbergman19]

Normal .22mag has 320 foot pounds

[@bugler6447]

The 17 WSM did what it is designed to do, it was much more destructive and dumped all of its energy where it should. Hunting coyotes and cats who are very tough you want the most violent bullet performance you can get. Just because the 22 mag penetrated all three jugs doesnt suggest it will kill more efficiently. Full penetration without good bullet performance goes not equal the most lethal. I have shot coyotes at 100 yrds with my 220 Swift using a pointed soft point 50 gr bullet and had the coyote run a couple hundred yards before expiring due to the bullet not able to expand. I have shot coyotes at 200 yrds with my 17 WSM using the 20 gr Vmax and had them drop in there tracks. It is all about speed and bullet performance in my experience.

[@jabomorrison154]

If you choose a lighter bullet for the 22 mag it will do more explosion and more ftp of energy. Plus I'll never get any .17 caliber gun because with 2 to 3 mph wind it will throw the bullet off

[@anthonyk6265]

22 mag all day!

[@henryvandervort9891]

You have to keep it the same bullet ,hollow point hollow point . Keep up the good work I've enjoyed your video

[@carlcasey4177]

I think most people are missing the fact that the 17 wsm ballistic round is meant to kinda explode after impact. Pretty sure if he shot a penetrating round it would go through all jugs

[@victorjohnson7512]

They need to make a 22 supermag.

[@fabulousoffroaddesigns5080]

No they need a 30 gr lead free 17 WSM with a 600+ G1 BC.

[@cz1mmt]

Interesting but the faster a bullet travels the more resistance water provides. Ballistic gel or wrapped meat would be a better test for hunting purposes.

[@luketilley9137]

Great video. Seems the 17WSM is a beast but, I hunt with the 22mag. I also have a 17hmr and some of my friends have the 17wsm and the hmr is a tack driver! 3 rounds touching at 100yrds. If I could find a wsm that would shoot as accurate as the hmr, I'd buy one! Somebody help me out please! I really want a wsm but, I need it to be as accurate as my hmr!

[@Don-kr5tp]

mossberg 640 Chuckster

[@otero2235]

Ive never shot a 22 Mag rifle that didnt spit them out at about 2000 fps.

[@dustinweaver2288]

Thanks for the info, looking forward to your next video... Can you compare 22mag to 17hmr... And 22-250 to 204

[@dalerichardson2750]

speed+energy=kills, mass+penetration+kills, I like both, but I love the violence if light, fast bullets. also heavy, fragmenting, fast bullets. Hell, I love them all.

[@jamesstratton4488]

Thanks

[@bhud1972]

I am thinking about testing the 22mag and 17hmr on hogs. Ear hole or temple shots. I would try a .17wsm, but don’t own one of those.

[@justanobserver530]

Animal flesh is thicker than water. I've seen many videos that "prove " the same thing for 17hmr. Sometime I will do the Paul Harrell meat test and find out the real answers. Just one example, 17hmr will go through a treated 6x6 but the 22wmr will not. Animals are not made of wood but they're not made of water or jello either.

[@carllee3465]

The 17wsm blow them to jug up like it was hit with a 3006

[@joesimons7387]

What fire arms did you use for the test? That could make a big difference.

[@loganclunan1110]

22mag with cci stinger shoot through two water jugs at 100 yards over here????

[@Physics072]

The wsm rounds have ballistic tips. They are not meant to do a pass through shot they are meant to expload in the animal or jug. If the WSM was a full metal jacket it would go through all 3 jugs easy but would do far less damage to jug 1. That is the trouble with the 22 mag it is not a ballistic tip so it does not transfer all its energy to jug 1 or the animal. But if you need to penatrate like Rhino hyde then the 22 mag would be better.

[@johnnelson6021]

Bob you are absolutely right sir

[@oneangrycanadian6205]

I’ll take my 17wsm for all the energy dumping power

[@dhern2613]

I always thought it was better for the round to continue to pass through and damage as many vital organs as possible, rather than stop in the first layer of tissue.

[@MillennialRebelion]

You want it to penetrate and open up, the bigger the temporary Cavity the more damage you've actually done

[@nanoriderflex8336]

That may or may not be a good thing. If the bullet passes all the way through, then you lose energy due to the continuation of the bullet. If the bullet stays lodged in whatever you are shooting, then you know that all the energy was absorbed by it and could be causing even more damage due to cavity size and shock.

[@MillennialRebelion]

90% of 22wmr ammunition brands have much higher fps than that

[@davidsomerset8411]

He stacked the deck against the 22wmr he used 50 grain not 40 grain bullets

[@crunch9876]

Where did you find such a week .22 mag bullet?

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

Remember the mag is a 50gr. bullet.

[@slysphinx]

The goal should be to have the bullet dump all of its energy inside the animal. Assuming that the target animal is a coyote, with a body mass and body depth similar to a gallon water jug, the WSM achieved that goal admirably, whereas the MAG passed through the jugs and expended a lot of its energy outside the target..

[@caseyb1346]

The .22 mag is meant to be more general purpose then the .17 HMR. You can kill small deer and pigs with a .22 mag at close range, where the .17 hmr just doesn't have the penetration. You can even use .22 mag for self defense in a pinch where .17 hmr would honestly be worse then .22 lr because of its low penetration.

[@danielsteiner7634]

Dumping all its energy isn't everything a bullet needs to penetrate and cause tissue damage to put it down quick. If penetration is too light you risk the animal getting up a running on you. This is the concept behind the 300 Blackout. A wimpy round velocity wise but a very heavy bullet to penetrate and do some damage.

[@jimjakosh2506]

You should test some 22 mag that is 2250 fps.In a test done by WhoTeeWho, the 17 wsm went through 1 full milk jug and the 22 mag went through 4!

[@bluemule3927]

he tested a 17HMR...NOT a 17 WSM

[@dncook1955]

Great video, thanks for sharing.

[@davidtheelect893]

Compare a 40 or 33 grain 22 mag. Bullet with the 17.

[@curtisjacobson7338]

Have a 22 volt I have been watching videos on the 17 and 22 I seen some 17s that I think I will be buying thanks for the video

[@anthonyfairbanks2952]

Love my 17wsm but soon as i shot my bullets up for the 17wsm gonna go trade it for a 22 mag

[@joehart6406]

My box of hornaday 22mag 30gr v max is rated at 2200fps i thought the 17wsm was rated higher maybe that was a lighter bullet

[@LemonySnicket-EUC]

The lighter one is @3000fps

[@randystockton624]

It seems the 17wsm has greater energy at 150 + yards. The 22mag with heavier bullet is great but after 150 yards seems like the 17wsm would be better..just like the 5.56 compare to 7.62×39 the 5.62 has more energy at 400 yards because of the high veloicy but out to 300 yards the 7.62×39 does more penetration and damage. Hard to believe but the the results of the test and u know the military going to do the extensive test more than anybody...

[@marcosmecima3666]

17 wsm vs 5.7x28 would be interesting, ammo would be cheaper, no?

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

I think, even though the energy of the 17WSM involved the 3rd jug, but the projectile by not "getting there" would make it inferior to the 22WMR. The energy alone will not likely be the reason for a dead animal. On the other hand, the 22mag. with full penetration and even exit, will kill. *This of course, with each caliber hitting the vitals.*

[@pigeonsniper667]

The width of the milk jug is receiving almost 100% of the 17 WSM bullet. If you do not understand what that means I will put it in a simple real life explanation. I shoot coyotes with a 17 WSM and the occasional small wolf. A 20 grain round makes a hole in one side and turns the chest cavity into a jelly jar. At 150 yards my round is turning the coyote's heart and lungs into jelly. The hydrostatic shock from the round will drop a wolf like turning off a switch. You don't want a round that gives you only partial energy transfer and then exits. You want four to six inches of penetration and 100% energy transfer.

[@scottkarns7283]

This!!!

[@kerrypurcell6022]

my 17 wsm,,kills elk much better than a 6.5 creedmoor,,,,,has higher down range energy,,,a lot of people are switching to it for all big game ,,,speed kills,

[@MegaJmfg]

So at 200 yards the 17 has more energy than the 22 at barrel!!???

[@MegaJmfg]

No I did my math wrong lol

[@MegaJmfg]

Still love the 17wsm

[@williamtarr9758]

They need to make a 40 grain bullet for the 17

[@MrJgrobey]

Two very different types of bullet construction. Not an apples to apples comparrison.

[@georgezink6338]

How come ruger and all other mfg.are not making good rifles for the 17wsm

[@mikemagnum7987]

Check out the Ruger model 77/17 . Savage also cambers rifles in this caliber. Volquartsen also, but they are likely very expensive, quite well worth the investment, but outside of what I consider the "Workin Man's Budget".

[@Josh-dp4iv]

Ok question.. isnt the .17 wsm a centerfire cartridge?? If so why aren't you putting it against the .22 hornet which is the very close to the same as the .17wsm?

[@Lobotomy2901]

.17wsm is a rimfire. It’s a .27cal nail gun cartridge necked down to .17, meaning thicker brass capable of handling higher pressures.

[@Farmboy1966]

Rim fire

[@robertstack2144]

@@Farmboy1966 same. Think along your lines......nobody wants to talk about .22 hornet center fire reloadable.

[@robertstack2144]

You're thinking now.

[@richcooke9241]

A sample of one?

[@georgezink6338]

They need to load 25 gr.berger.in 17wsm.then look out .coyotes boars you name it

[@varmintdel1]

The Taylor Knock out calculations collaborate your findings. chuckhawks.com/taylor_KO_factor.htm, www.n4lcd.com/calc/. ( .22 bullet diameter = .224, .17 bullet diameter = .172 ).

[@outdooradventures1696]

Thank you varmintdel1 for both being a loyal subscriber and for the good info. Greatly appreciated 🙂👍

[@minionman6177]

Endless commentary on the internet about 'stopping power' vs energy. It all goes back to Newtons equations. Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared. Everybody loves that one with the square velocity. Folks forget about the other side of the same coin..momentum. Momentum = mass x velocity. Compare the 7.62 ak vs 5.56 ar, the AR has more energy at all ranges but the AK has more momentum. Looks like the same story here. But what is momentum and what is energy in practical terms?

[@rickpetry2760]

Minion Man

[@caseyb1346]

The killing power of a bullet depends on wound cavity and penetration. Penetration is generally more important, because you must hit the vitals to score a clean kill. Vitals are often hidden behind layers of bone, fat and gristle that must be over come. As such very fast bullets like 5.56 and .17 hmr tend to suffer because their high velocity causes them to experience much more friction when hitting a fluid, like flesh. This causes the round to deform violently or even disintegrate, which obviously is very detrimental to penetration.

[@robertstack2144]

Same samo.

[@carpingnyland8518]

I was trying to figure out what "actual effect" meant in the video. Then, I played around with his definition: actual effect = mass*energy = M*(1/2)M*V^2 = (1/2)M^2V^2 = (1/2)(MV)^2 = (1/2)Momentum^2 So, if something has higher momentum, it will have higher 'actual effect' as well. In fact, by squaring, it places a greater emphasis on the difference. E.g., 10% more momentum = 21% more 'actual effect', 50% more momentum = 125% more 'actual effect', and so on.

[@randystennes6996]

I love how people keep hacking on the old 22mag but it keeps out performing the 17..lol

[@philipfreeman72]

2 holes beats 1 .