Started By
Message

re: .17 WSM vs. .223/5.56

Posted on 8/10/13 at 10:10 pm to
Posted by CoastieGM
Member since Aug 2012
3185 posts
Posted on 8/10/13 at 10:10 pm to
In all seriousness, do you think .17 would do less damage to the meat than .223 FMJ?

Ammo costs about the same, and I already have a .223.

I just have zero knowledge of these 17's.
Posted by TigerOnThe Hill
Springhill, LA
Member since Sep 2008
6835 posts
Posted on 8/10/13 at 10:26 pm to
Coastie,
I don't have a 17 WSM, but I MIGHT get one later. Having said that I think the 17 WSM should be much better than the 223 Rem/5.56 in 2 situations:
1. Ground squirrel hunting (technically "Belding Ground Squirrels) at moderate ranges, i.e. 100-200 yds. At these ranges, one doesn't need the extra power and noise of the 223. At these ranges, it should also shoot flatter than the 17 HMR and the 17 Mach 2.
2. Close range prairie dog hunting (i.e 100-200 yards), as long as it's NOT windy, for same reasons as above.

Granted, that's a pretty limited niche, but since when does a caliber (especially a new one) have to be better than a different (older) caliber in order for us to buy it?!

W/ the "available" bullets at this point, I can't imagine the 17 WSM not being very destructive on all small game.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram