Reply With Quote
I am an avowed fan of the .17 sub-caliber and as much as I hate to admit it, I am pleased to see this very honest assessment of both rifle and round. There is clearly a shade of understatement regarding the merits of the .17 hornet here; it is well in excess of 500 fps (elevation and load dependent) faster than the WSM and can be much more accurate. Brass apparently lasts forever in the M25 and costs about 1/5th the price-per-round to reload once the brass cost has been accounted for (say 2 reloads worth) relative to the WSM. I'm no fan of the m25 action but it's a **** sight smoother than the b-mag. I'm no hater of .223 either. Both rounds (.223, .17 hdy hornet) are amongst my very favorites and clearly own any terrain the WSM sought to discover. It seems the .17 WSM is the answer to a question no one asked, and while I applaud the innovation, innovation for its own sake is not a business case. Even after the hangover of .17 HMR (relative to the .22 WMR), it is obvious that the round is a true innovation and will be with us for a long time. The WSM, not so much. I hope this investment doesn't force Savage to step harder on the throttle in the race to the bottom along the rest of its lineup to cover the loss.
Bookmarks