Yeah on that, TBR. For a long time we had wild variations of accuracy. Tree squirrel heads are not a big challenge at 200 yards, either.It will be PDs and sage rats for me...the key words being "will be." In actuality, I use mine to shoot eggs at 200 yards. Only the most compatible lots of ammunition will make the grade on eggs @200 yds, but that's probably true of most applications other than larger vermin. One lot of 20 gr. ammunition, in American Eagle boxes, shoots lights out on the white orbs. A miss would be shooter error or crosswinds. The worst lots will seldom connect...maybe 25% hits?
I think a lot of us would have been thrilled if it were a 20 WSM shooting something like the Hornady 24gr NTX bullet at 3000FPS but like I used to tell my kid, you get what you get and ya don't throw a fit.The .17 WSM is a special purpose cartridge useful on non-edible varmints. It way too destructive on game like Squirrels. Would have been better if Winchester made a: .22 WSM rimfire or .25 WSM instead of another .17 caliber.
I'd put myself squarely in this camp.I think a lot of us would have been thrilled if it were a 20 WSM shooting something like the Hornady 24gr NTX bullet at 3000FPS but like I used to tell my kid, you get what you get and ya don't throw a fit.
Oh heck this is a super easy peasy fix, just buy a stainless Tikka 223 unscrew the barrel and sell it then get which ever length and contour 20 cal barrel suits your fancy and have it chambered in 204 Ruger, 20 Practical, 20-222, or 20-221 and you'll be off and running with a tack driver and not a great deal of money invested in a nice semi custom. :bthumb:Finding a sporter weight stainless 204 has proven difficult
TBR, all valid points, couldn't really argue with you on any of them if I wanted to. Kinda brings us back to what I said earlier about what I used to tell my kid, you get what you get and ya don't throw a fit. :FYou guys may be right about a .20 WSM. Something like that could have really taken off, but I think we would still have the usual suspects whining, "The ammunition sucks; the rifles suck, and the ones that don't suck are too expensive; the ammunition is going to disappear; it's dead on arrival," blah, blah, blah. And we would still have, "I'd buy it if it were a .22 WSM...or a .17 WSM...now, a .17 WSM would be something! That thing would probably break the 3000 FPS barrier, in a rimfire!"
So, in the end, we would have the same complaints, but it would be an even bigger oddball (to most US shooters, anyway) with fewer bullets suitable for the lower velocity, fewer cleaning rods, probably fewer manufacters and barrel makers willing to take a chance. And there still would not be that nice CZ 527-like, or enlarged 452-like, bolt action rifle in the $500 to $650 range that is what the .17 WSM really needs.
Personally, I would absolutely buy a 20 WSM, or a 22 WSM, but neither will likely happen. Why would anyone take the risk now after the cold, collective yawn from most people to the .17 WSM?