CZ 455 vs Savage Bmag Range Report
- Thread starter Dixiedog1
- Start date
Squeeze
New member
Dixie,
Thanks for doing the work, and posting the results. I find it humorous the posts from RePete, obviously strongly biased against, accusing you of bias for...
So here is my experience. I was considering buying a Savage Model 93, in 17 HMR. I had a few in my hands, and was just trying to decide which one I would buy, being partial to SS and grey laminated wood, I was thinking the next chunk of gun cash to come my way, it would get purchased. But at a recent DU banquet, I won a Savage B.Mag, SS Heavy barrel, synthetic stock. I put a Nikon 6-18x Buckmaster on it, and when I found ammo, started shooting it. OK the plastic stock is pretty low quality, and very flexible. So I had to decide, stock upgrade, or use it as trade material for the Model 93 purchase. After shooting about 100 rounds through it, I ordered a Boyds grey laminate thumbhole stock, and have retired all plans to buy a 17 HMR. With Hornady getting into 17 WSM ammo manufacturing, I am looking forward to having more choices, and that will go along way to help with the cartridges popularity. I predict it is here to stay, and will outlast the predictions of it's death. This kind of reminds me of those that predicted the death of the 300 WSM...Being one of the most popular cartridges in rifle sales today, we can see that some crystal balls are definitely fogged by biases and personal preferences.
FWIW, every time I think I need a CZ rifle, I go fondle a few, and fail to come away impressed. The backwards safety, the rough action, poor trigger(non-set trigger models), and the rather average at best fit an finish, have not had me pay the price for one. But I keep reading about how great of rifles CZ makes, and I will keep going to gun stores to fondle them, and maybe one day one will come home with me.
Squeeze
RePete
New member
Originally Posted By: Squeeze
Dixie,
Thanks for doing the work, and posting the results. I find it humorous the posts from RePete, obviously strongly biased against, accusing you of bias for...
Go back and read my first reply again (slowly) and you'll see that I didn't say a word about rifle manufacturers. I simply said I didn't see a point to this so called test. To make a comparison, the cartriges have to be comparable and these two aren't.
At that point I was automatically a Koolaid drinker because I wasn't awe struck with his findings.
Dixie had been setting this thing up for weeks and anyone that couldn't see that is either blind or,,,, well,,,, lets just say blind and leave it at that.
The only thing to be learned from this charade is DD's predetermined OPINION of one rifle over the other,,, and it's just that,,, an OPINION. Not a scientific fact or well researched thesis,,, just an opinion that obviously, only he is entitled to have.
Dixie,
Thanks for doing the work, and posting the results. I find it humorous the posts from RePete, obviously strongly biased against, accusing you of bias for...
Go back and read my first reply again (slowly) and you'll see that I didn't say a word about rifle manufacturers. I simply said I didn't see a point to this so called test. To make a comparison, the cartriges have to be comparable and these two aren't.
At that point I was automatically a Koolaid drinker because I wasn't awe struck with his findings.
Dixie had been setting this thing up for weeks and anyone that couldn't see that is either blind or,,,, well,,,, lets just say blind and leave it at that.
The only thing to be learned from this charade is DD's predetermined OPINION of one rifle over the other,,, and it's just that,,, an OPINION. Not a scientific fact or well researched thesis,,, just an opinion that obviously, only he is entitled to have.
Dixiedog1
Active member
Repete I don't believe I said one rifle or the other was better. I did state there were things about the CZ that weren't great including the fail to feed ammo...that's not opinion but a fact. The trigger is also not nearly as good as Savage's trigger...it's heavier and has a bit of creep, I'm sure with work the trigger and ammo feed problems can be rectified but from the manufacturer they are what I have reported.
I don't care for the stock on the Bmag and although the Accutrigger is far better pull weight and creep wise compared to the CZ I still don't like the "safety blade" built into the Accutriggers.
The targets are what they are and the chips fell where they did, on average the CZ did shoot a better group...not blown out of the park better but still had some gains. I didn't try to shoot 3 shot groups on separate targets or in anyway try to impact the outcome. This is simply information for others.
Now for your reference to manufacturers
Originally Posted By: RePete
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
It's amazing how you reference homosexuality and scrapping with the firearm but if it makes you feel better to do so then I guess you should do so loud and proud.
I don't care for the stock on the Bmag and although the Accutrigger is far better pull weight and creep wise compared to the CZ I still don't like the "safety blade" built into the Accutriggers.
The targets are what they are and the chips fell where they did, on average the CZ did shoot a better group...not blown out of the park better but still had some gains. I didn't try to shoot 3 shot groups on separate targets or in anyway try to impact the outcome. This is simply information for others.
Now for your reference to manufacturers
Originally Posted By: RePete
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
It's amazing how you reference homosexuality and scrapping with the firearm but if it makes you feel better to do so then I guess you should do so loud and proud.
Squeeze
New member
RePete,
It wasn't your questioning the test that got me to reply. I agree it was an apples to oranges comparison, relative to cartridges, but I also understand Dixie's choices were limited as there isn't a CZ offering in 17 WSM. This post is the one I was referring to:
Originally Posted By: RePeteOriginally Posted By: Dixiedog1 Guess the apple is only rotten when it's a completely unbiased comparison from somebody not sipping Koolaid from the correct pitcher.
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
Again, I believe your predictions of the 17 WSM dying are a bit premature, given Hornady is getting in the game. After market suppliers have come out with 17 WSM options, and I would not be surprised to see at least one rifle maker, besides Savage, offer one in the next year. And one final point, your bias against Savage is clear. The humorous part was your accusing Dixie of a CZ bias. ;-)
Squeeze
I don't know why you guys don't like the BMag had mine out today 3/4" group with 25gr., 1/2" with 20gr.at 25 yards did almost as well with my 22 pistol. I'm thinking about a wood stock but what if I spend the money and it doesn't help. I think it would be less painful to just beat myself with a stick then get this thing out of the safe every few months for another try.
Leadbelly
New member
Now Dix come on bub, you've gotten a hard time for awhile now about the B-mag. A lot of it from CZ owners. I really felt your review was biased.
I really wanted to like the b-mag when it came out. When I first got to handle one I really wasn't impressed and the newer one haven't changed that. The simple fact is there's a lot of companies shipping out subpar products today in the hope someone will buy it and not return it. Savage is at the forefront of this in regards to the b-mag.
The reason for hornady jumping in to manufacture .17wsm is not because another company is going to build one, it's because savage thinks Olin cannot manufacture good ammo, and this might fix the flood of b-mag returns. This is more or less a last ditch effort to save a subpar rifle. I really hope savage learns it lesson when it's all said and done and the last ditch turd polishing campaign ends.
I really wanted to like the b-mag when it came out. When I first got to handle one I really wasn't impressed and the newer one haven't changed that. The simple fact is there's a lot of companies shipping out subpar products today in the hope someone will buy it and not return it. Savage is at the forefront of this in regards to the b-mag.
The reason for hornady jumping in to manufacture .17wsm is not because another company is going to build one, it's because savage thinks Olin cannot manufacture good ammo, and this might fix the flood of b-mag returns. This is more or less a last ditch effort to save a subpar rifle. I really hope savage learns it lesson when it's all said and done and the last ditch turd polishing campaign ends.
Eric_Mayer
Active member
Originally Posted By: Leadbelly
The reason for hornady jumping in to manufacture .17wsm is not because another company is going to build one, it's because savage thinks Olin cannot manufacture good ammo, and this might fix the flood of b-mag returns. This is more or less a last ditch effort to save a subpar rifle. I really hope savage learns it lesson when it's all said and done and the last ditch turd polishing campaign ends.
Hornady does not manufacture their own rimfire ammo. Winchester is making the 17WSM ammo for Hornady and CCI (ATK) makes the 17HMR ammo for Hornady.
Eric
The reason for hornady jumping in to manufacture .17wsm is not because another company is going to build one, it's because savage thinks Olin cannot manufacture good ammo, and this might fix the flood of b-mag returns. This is more or less a last ditch effort to save a subpar rifle. I really hope savage learns it lesson when it's all said and done and the last ditch turd polishing campaign ends.
Hornady does not manufacture their own rimfire ammo. Winchester is making the 17WSM ammo for Hornady and CCI (ATK) makes the 17HMR ammo for Hornady.
Eric
Leadbelly
New member
Never mentioned that Eric, but I'm sure CCI will be making the brass and loading it to hornady's spec. The Winchester stuff has issues, split necks , poor accuracy in some guns, etc. If Winchester is in fact making the brass for hornady then it would be a big mistake on hornady's part! Savage would like to keep the b-mag going and in stead of fixing what people don't like about it they will see if another brand ammo might fix the complaints and returns. This is just a final push by savage to keep the b-mag alive.
When I look back on the .17wsm now, I ask myself why did they even bother? Aside from a few states like Tennessee that are rimfire only during deer season, and the fact that most rimfires aren't reliable coyote rounds, there isn't a real demand for the wsm. Would it have been smarter for Olin to simply neck down the .17hmr further to a .14 cal? A .14wmr would have near muzzle velocities of the .17 wsm and we all know speed sells. Existing actions and common cases seem to keep cartridges alive if they start off on the wrong foot. Plus I think a .14 rimfire might have something to offer trappers, coon hunters and colony varmints shooters.Of course bullets aren't available comercially, and accuracy issues may occur early in production, but the same happened when the .17 Remington was the new kid on the block. Also instead of having threads about the chittiest rifle produced since the H&R handi we would have .14WMR for moose??? Threads. Heck they could've even made a .20 cal on the 22 WMR case! Oh wait a minute they did.
When I look back on the .17wsm now, I ask myself why did they even bother? Aside from a few states like Tennessee that are rimfire only during deer season, and the fact that most rimfires aren't reliable coyote rounds, there isn't a real demand for the wsm. Would it have been smarter for Olin to simply neck down the .17hmr further to a .14 cal? A .14wmr would have near muzzle velocities of the .17 wsm and we all know speed sells. Existing actions and common cases seem to keep cartridges alive if they start off on the wrong foot. Plus I think a .14 rimfire might have something to offer trappers, coon hunters and colony varmints shooters.Of course bullets aren't available comercially, and accuracy issues may occur early in production, but the same happened when the .17 Remington was the new kid on the block. Also instead of having threads about the chittiest rifle produced since the H&R handi we would have .14WMR for moose??? Threads. Heck they could've even made a .20 cal on the 22 WMR case! Oh wait a minute they did.
Eric_Mayer
Active member
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyNever mentioned that Eric, but I'm sure CCI will be making the brass and loading it to hornady's spec.
We will have to agree to disagree on that point. You must be privy to information that I don't have.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyThe Winchester stuff has issues, split necks , poor accuracy in some guns, etc. If Winchester is in fact making the brass for hornady then it would be a big mistake on hornady's part!
Although I did not experience the number of issues some people have reported, the newer lots seem to offer better results, with less of the issues you mentioned above (based on other shooter's comments).
People also seem to forget that the Hornady 17HMR ammo (made by CCI) had some issues as well and still has them pop-up occasionally.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellySavage would like to keep the b-mag going and in stead of fixing what people don't like about it they will see if another brand ammo might fix the complaints and returns. This is just a final push by savage to keep the b-mag alive.
I have both the original B.MAG and one of the newer heavy barrel stainless rifles. Both shoot well for me.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyWhen I look back on the .17wsm now, I ask myself why did they even bother? Aside from a few states like Tennessee that are rimfire only during deer season, and the fact that most rimfires aren't reliable coyote rounds, there isn't a real demand for the wsm. Would it have been smarter for Olin to simply neck down the .17hmr further to a .14 cal? A .14wmr would have near muzzle velocities of the .17 wsm and we all know speed sells. Existing actions and common cases seem to keep cartridges alive if they start off on the wrong foot. Plus I think a .14 rimfire might have something to offer trappers, coon hunters and colony varmints shooters.Of course bullets aren't available comercially, and accuracy issues may occur early in production, but the same happened when the .17 Remington was the new kid on the block. Also instead of having threads about the chittiest rifle produced since the H&R handi we would have .14WMR for moose??? Threads.
Again, we will have to disagree on another point. The demand for this cartridge is high, but will probably settle down as Winchester ramps up production.
The .14 is available as a centerfire wildcat, and although there is a decent following, it would never be possible to mass produce. The 17WSM has brass readily available and bullets being made by a company that has a proven product. The .14 has neither and no one who could ramp up production to manufacture a new bullet.
Originally Posted By: Leadbelly Heck they could've even made a .20 cal on the 22WMR case! Oh wait a minute they did.
If you are speaking about the 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum, then you are mistaken. It is not based on the .22WMR case. It was a case developed specifically for the cartridge. Whether someone else comes out with a .20 caliber in the future, based on the 22WMR, that is a distinct possibility.
Eric
We will have to agree to disagree on that point. You must be privy to information that I don't have.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyThe Winchester stuff has issues, split necks , poor accuracy in some guns, etc. If Winchester is in fact making the brass for hornady then it would be a big mistake on hornady's part!
Although I did not experience the number of issues some people have reported, the newer lots seem to offer better results, with less of the issues you mentioned above (based on other shooter's comments).
People also seem to forget that the Hornady 17HMR ammo (made by CCI) had some issues as well and still has them pop-up occasionally.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellySavage would like to keep the b-mag going and in stead of fixing what people don't like about it they will see if another brand ammo might fix the complaints and returns. This is just a final push by savage to keep the b-mag alive.
I have both the original B.MAG and one of the newer heavy barrel stainless rifles. Both shoot well for me.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyWhen I look back on the .17wsm now, I ask myself why did they even bother? Aside from a few states like Tennessee that are rimfire only during deer season, and the fact that most rimfires aren't reliable coyote rounds, there isn't a real demand for the wsm. Would it have been smarter for Olin to simply neck down the .17hmr further to a .14 cal? A .14wmr would have near muzzle velocities of the .17 wsm and we all know speed sells. Existing actions and common cases seem to keep cartridges alive if they start off on the wrong foot. Plus I think a .14 rimfire might have something to offer trappers, coon hunters and colony varmints shooters.Of course bullets aren't available comercially, and accuracy issues may occur early in production, but the same happened when the .17 Remington was the new kid on the block. Also instead of having threads about the chittiest rifle produced since the H&R handi we would have .14WMR for moose??? Threads.
Again, we will have to disagree on another point. The demand for this cartridge is high, but will probably settle down as Winchester ramps up production.
The .14 is available as a centerfire wildcat, and although there is a decent following, it would never be possible to mass produce. The 17WSM has brass readily available and bullets being made by a company that has a proven product. The .14 has neither and no one who could ramp up production to manufacture a new bullet.
Originally Posted By: Leadbelly Heck they could've even made a .20 cal on the 22WMR case! Oh wait a minute they did.
If you are speaking about the 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum, then you are mistaken. It is not based on the .22WMR case. It was a case developed specifically for the cartridge. Whether someone else comes out with a .20 caliber in the future, based on the 22WMR, that is a distinct possibility.
Eric
RePete
New member
Originally Posted By: Dixiedog1
Now for your reference to manufacturers
Originally Posted By: RePete
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
Nice spin but I said that I didn't make reference to either manufacturer in my "original reply". FYI "original" means first.
That was where you immediately labeled me a "Koolaid drinker" (which I assume implies that I can't think for myself) because I saw no validity to your thinly veiled "comparison" (AND STILL DON'T).
By all means carry on though because I'm sure someone somewhere that knows absolutely nothing about firearms will learn something from your efforts.
If not, maybe you can conduct another in-depth comparison of a 12.00 trigger spring kit for a CZ vs a 100.00 stock for your beloved Savage.
Now for your reference to manufacturers
Originally Posted By: RePete
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
Nice spin but I said that I didn't make reference to either manufacturer in my "original reply". FYI "original" means first.
That was where you immediately labeled me a "Koolaid drinker" (which I assume implies that I can't think for myself) because I saw no validity to your thinly veiled "comparison" (AND STILL DON'T).
By all means carry on though because I'm sure someone somewhere that knows absolutely nothing about firearms will learn something from your efforts.
If not, maybe you can conduct another in-depth comparison of a 12.00 trigger spring kit for a CZ vs a 100.00 stock for your beloved Savage.
Last edited:
Dixiedog1
Active member
Originally Posted By: RePeteOriginally Posted By: Dixiedog1
Now for your reference to manufacturers
Originally Posted By: RePete
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
Nice spin but I said that I didn't make reference to either manufacturer in my "original reply". FYI "original" means first.
That was where you immediately labeled me a "Koolaid drinker" (which I assume implies that I can't think for myself) because I saw no validity to your thinly veiled "comparison" (AND STILL DON'T).
By all means carry on though because I'm sure someone somewhere that knows absolutely nothing about firearms will learn something from your efforts.
If not, maybe you can conduct another in-depth comparison of a 12.00 trigger spring kit for a CZ vs a 100.00 stock for your beloved Savage.
Wasn't your original post edited?
OK since now it's coming back to price point like I mentioned in the past...might as well tally it up
CZ $500+$12 spring $512
Savage $300+100 stock $400
I agree a stock is more money but the rifle is purchased at significantly less cost. Performance per dollar can't be completely overlooked, if it was then nobody would by Savages....or CZ's for that matter when they could just purchase a far better Annie
As far as you not seeing the value in the comparison, that is fine....it's the internet and amazingly enough there's no process for your approval on what people post. If you don't like a Savage buy a CZ...if you don't like the review or agree with it fine that's your right.
Now for your reference to manufacturers
Originally Posted By: RePete
I don't see it as "completely unbiased". You've clearly been looking for a reason not to like the CZ before you even laid hands on it.
Tell ya what,,,, get a national magazine to take you serious and publish your "scientific comparison" and then we'll talk.
On the other hand,,, if you're just looking to convince the "Koolaid drinkers" that the Bfag is anything more than just more plastic crap from Salvage,,,, we're not impressed.
The 17HH is still alive because CZ and Ruger are chambering rifles for that cartrige.
The WSM is dying because only Savage took it up, and even then, the roll out was on par with Obama Care.
Nice spin but I said that I didn't make reference to either manufacturer in my "original reply". FYI "original" means first.
That was where you immediately labeled me a "Koolaid drinker" (which I assume implies that I can't think for myself) because I saw no validity to your thinly veiled "comparison" (AND STILL DON'T).
By all means carry on though because I'm sure someone somewhere that knows absolutely nothing about firearms will learn something from your efforts.
If not, maybe you can conduct another in-depth comparison of a 12.00 trigger spring kit for a CZ vs a 100.00 stock for your beloved Savage.
Wasn't your original post edited?
OK since now it's coming back to price point like I mentioned in the past...might as well tally it up
CZ $500+$12 spring $512
Savage $300+100 stock $400
I agree a stock is more money but the rifle is purchased at significantly less cost. Performance per dollar can't be completely overlooked, if it was then nobody would by Savages....or CZ's for that matter when they could just purchase a far better Annie
As far as you not seeing the value in the comparison, that is fine....it's the internet and amazingly enough there's no process for your approval on what people post. If you don't like a Savage buy a CZ...if you don't like the review or agree with it fine that's your right.
Leadbelly
New member
Originally Posted By: Eric_MayerOriginally Posted By: LeadbellyNever mentioned that Eric, but I'm sure CCI will be making the brass and loading it to hornady's spec.
We will have to agree to disagree on that point. You must be privy to information that I don't have.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyThe Winchester stuff has issues, split necks , poor accuracy in some guns, etc. If Winchester is in fact making the brass for hornady then it would be a big mistake on hornady's part!
Although I did not experience the number of issues some people have reported, the newer lots seem to offer better results, with less of the issues you mentioned above (based on other shooter's comments).
People also seem to forget that the Hornady 17HMR ammo (made by CCI) had some issues as well and still has them pop-up occasionally.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellySavage would like to keep the b-mag going and in stead of fixing what people don't like about it they will see if another brand ammo might fix the complaints and returns. This is just a final push by savage to keep the b-mag alive.
I have both the original B.MAG and one of the newer heavy barrel stainless rifles. Both shoot well for me.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyWhen I look back on the .17wsm now, I ask myself why did they even bother? Aside from a few states like Tennessee that are rimfire only during deer season, and the fact that most rimfires aren't reliable coyote rounds, there isn't a real demand for the wsm. Would it have been smarter for Olin to simply neck down the .17hmr further to a .14 cal? A .14wmr would have near muzzle velocities of the .17 wsm and we all know speed sells. Existing actions and common cases seem to keep cartridges alive if they start off on the wrong foot. Plus I think a .14 rimfire might have something to offer trappers, coon hunters and colony varmints shooters.Of course bullets aren't available comercially, and accuracy issues may occur early in production, but the same happened when the .17 Remington was the new kid on the block. Also instead of having threads about the chittiest rifle produced since the H&R handi we would have .14WMR for moose??? Threads.
Again, we will have to disagree on another point. The demand for this cartridge is high, but will probably settle down as Winchester ramps up production.
The .14 is available as a centerfire wildcat, and although there is a decent following, it would never be possible to mass produce. The 17WSM has brass readily available and bullets being made by a company that has a proven product. The .14 has neither and no one who could ramp up production to manufacture a new bullet.
Originally Posted By: Leadbelly Heck they could've even made a .20 cal on the 22WMR case! Oh wait a minute they did.
If you are speaking about the 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum, then you are mistaken. It is not based on the .22WMR case. It was a case developed specifically for the cartridge. Whether someone else comes out with a .20 caliber in the future, based on the 22WMR, that is a distinct possibility.
Eric
Eric,
How would it be impossible to produce a .14 cal rimfire? Yes swaging dies and barrels would have to be produced, as well as a lengthy R&D for both. I'm sure it could've been pulled off much easier than building a new rimfire action by a company that hasn't any new innovations since the early 20th century.
The b-mag was doomed by its maker, not buy those of us that don't care for it. Bolt action rifles that cock on close have never done well in the USA. Add to that a subpar stock that is subpar compared to junky plastic stocks most of us have bought for years, a chamber that looks like one could hook it up to your shop compressor and give your workshop a good cleaning. Feeding problems that most of us savage owners are accustom to now, poor accuracy that most of us aren't.
I'm glad your rifles are shooters and wouldn't expect anything less from savage to send someone who is reviewing the rifle online for them. But the fact is most of us who gave the rifle a chance aren't happy with it and we are tired of hearing about. Everyone pushing this thing is at the point now of trying to put whip cream and sprinkles on a turd.
The HMR had a lot of hiccups when it was born, no doubt about that. But it didn't tank like the b-mag in less than a year. Mainly because there was more than two rifles released chambered for it. Yes the hornady ammo had split necks early on that was fixed soon. Heck I didn't even own a hummer til recently. Didn't think I'd like it, but now I've got one it does have some usefulness. What I'm getting at is the round is more than likely sound. The ammo is affordable, and I'd really like to see it stick around myself, but it's more than likely not going to happen.
I think Dix really likes his b-mag and I've made a point to not make negative post against him. Plus I don't think the guys on the payroll. But most of us that are posting negative comments about the rifle are doing so cause that's how we feel, not because we are trying to sell something. Look we've had gun magazines for years try to tell us what to buy. Since the internet and forums have come around word of mouth from real users has changed what these gun companies can push and what can be kept quiet.
I've even heard a guy that helped to do a online review of a FX boss airgun, that the reviewer was pushing as a predator gun say it just didn't have the power to get the job done months after the review
what I'm saying is just beware of who's pushing what!
We will have to agree to disagree on that point. You must be privy to information that I don't have.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyThe Winchester stuff has issues, split necks , poor accuracy in some guns, etc. If Winchester is in fact making the brass for hornady then it would be a big mistake on hornady's part!
Although I did not experience the number of issues some people have reported, the newer lots seem to offer better results, with less of the issues you mentioned above (based on other shooter's comments).
People also seem to forget that the Hornady 17HMR ammo (made by CCI) had some issues as well and still has them pop-up occasionally.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellySavage would like to keep the b-mag going and in stead of fixing what people don't like about it they will see if another brand ammo might fix the complaints and returns. This is just a final push by savage to keep the b-mag alive.
I have both the original B.MAG and one of the newer heavy barrel stainless rifles. Both shoot well for me.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyWhen I look back on the .17wsm now, I ask myself why did they even bother? Aside from a few states like Tennessee that are rimfire only during deer season, and the fact that most rimfires aren't reliable coyote rounds, there isn't a real demand for the wsm. Would it have been smarter for Olin to simply neck down the .17hmr further to a .14 cal? A .14wmr would have near muzzle velocities of the .17 wsm and we all know speed sells. Existing actions and common cases seem to keep cartridges alive if they start off on the wrong foot. Plus I think a .14 rimfire might have something to offer trappers, coon hunters and colony varmints shooters.Of course bullets aren't available comercially, and accuracy issues may occur early in production, but the same happened when the .17 Remington was the new kid on the block. Also instead of having threads about the chittiest rifle produced since the H&R handi we would have .14WMR for moose??? Threads.
Again, we will have to disagree on another point. The demand for this cartridge is high, but will probably settle down as Winchester ramps up production.
The .14 is available as a centerfire wildcat, and although there is a decent following, it would never be possible to mass produce. The 17WSM has brass readily available and bullets being made by a company that has a proven product. The .14 has neither and no one who could ramp up production to manufacture a new bullet.
Originally Posted By: Leadbelly Heck they could've even made a .20 cal on the 22WMR case! Oh wait a minute they did.
If you are speaking about the 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum, then you are mistaken. It is not based on the .22WMR case. It was a case developed specifically for the cartridge. Whether someone else comes out with a .20 caliber in the future, based on the 22WMR, that is a distinct possibility.
Eric
Eric,
How would it be impossible to produce a .14 cal rimfire? Yes swaging dies and barrels would have to be produced, as well as a lengthy R&D for both. I'm sure it could've been pulled off much easier than building a new rimfire action by a company that hasn't any new innovations since the early 20th century.
The b-mag was doomed by its maker, not buy those of us that don't care for it. Bolt action rifles that cock on close have never done well in the USA. Add to that a subpar stock that is subpar compared to junky plastic stocks most of us have bought for years, a chamber that looks like one could hook it up to your shop compressor and give your workshop a good cleaning. Feeding problems that most of us savage owners are accustom to now, poor accuracy that most of us aren't.
I'm glad your rifles are shooters and wouldn't expect anything less from savage to send someone who is reviewing the rifle online for them. But the fact is most of us who gave the rifle a chance aren't happy with it and we are tired of hearing about. Everyone pushing this thing is at the point now of trying to put whip cream and sprinkles on a turd.
The HMR had a lot of hiccups when it was born, no doubt about that. But it didn't tank like the b-mag in less than a year. Mainly because there was more than two rifles released chambered for it. Yes the hornady ammo had split necks early on that was fixed soon. Heck I didn't even own a hummer til recently. Didn't think I'd like it, but now I've got one it does have some usefulness. What I'm getting at is the round is more than likely sound. The ammo is affordable, and I'd really like to see it stick around myself, but it's more than likely not going to happen.
I think Dix really likes his b-mag and I've made a point to not make negative post against him. Plus I don't think the guys on the payroll. But most of us that are posting negative comments about the rifle are doing so cause that's how we feel, not because we are trying to sell something. Look we've had gun magazines for years try to tell us what to buy. Since the internet and forums have come around word of mouth from real users has changed what these gun companies can push and what can be kept quiet.
I've even heard a guy that helped to do a online review of a FX boss airgun, that the reviewer was pushing as a predator gun say it just didn't have the power to get the job done months after the review
Eric_Mayer
Active member
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyEric,
How would it be impossible to produce a .14 cal rimfire?
That's not what I said. I said, "...it would never be possible to mass produce". Produce and mass produce are two different things. Without the components already being mass produced out in the world, it would be a folly for any company to take it on. For example, the reason Hornady sells ammo with their name on it, is to sell their bullets. Since you may disagree with me on that, let me quote Jason Hornady himself: "Our business is bullets. Our ammunition and reloading tool business makes the consumption of bullets easier".
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyI'm glad your rifles are shooters and wouldn't expect anything less from savage to send someone who is reviewing the rifle online for them.
The original B.MAG I own, was purchased on GunBroker and shipped to my FFL here in California.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyBut the fact is most of us who gave the rifle a chance aren't happy with it and we are tired of hearing about. Everyone pushing this thing is at the point now of trying to put whip cream and sprinkles on a turd.
PM has already ridiculed, shut-up and driven away most of the folks that used to be on PM, who would post positive results about their B.MAGs. Do you now want a complete cleansing, just because you disagree?
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyThe HMR had a lot of hiccups when it was born, no doubt about that. *snip* Yes the hornady ammo had split necks early on that was fixed soon.
People are currently running into issues with the Hornady 17HMR ammo. Within the last year, there have been reports of squibs, misfires and blow-ups.
If you don't know the history behind the 17 Rimfire Magnum, take a look at the January 1992 Shooting Times magazine. How many issues do you think were worked out in the 10 years before Hornady brought their version to the masses?
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyBut most of us that are posting negative comments about the rifle are doing so cause that's how we feel, not because we are trying to sell something. Look we've had gun magazines for years try to tell us what to buy. Since the internet and forums have come around word of mouth from real users has changed what these gun companies can push and what can be kept quiet.
Videos, images and social media will always back-up or discount what is written. That is the positive of new media and will eventually be the downfall of print media.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyI've even heard a guy that helped to do a online review of a FX boss airgun, that the reviewer was pushing as a predator gun say it just didn't have the power to get the job done months after the review
what I'm saying is just beware of who's pushing what!
If someone changes their mind based on new information, then that is their prerogative.
Eric
How would it be impossible to produce a .14 cal rimfire?
That's not what I said. I said, "...it would never be possible to mass produce". Produce and mass produce are two different things. Without the components already being mass produced out in the world, it would be a folly for any company to take it on. For example, the reason Hornady sells ammo with their name on it, is to sell their bullets. Since you may disagree with me on that, let me quote Jason Hornady himself: "Our business is bullets. Our ammunition and reloading tool business makes the consumption of bullets easier".
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyI'm glad your rifles are shooters and wouldn't expect anything less from savage to send someone who is reviewing the rifle online for them.
The original B.MAG I own, was purchased on GunBroker and shipped to my FFL here in California.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyBut the fact is most of us who gave the rifle a chance aren't happy with it and we are tired of hearing about. Everyone pushing this thing is at the point now of trying to put whip cream and sprinkles on a turd.
PM has already ridiculed, shut-up and driven away most of the folks that used to be on PM, who would post positive results about their B.MAGs. Do you now want a complete cleansing, just because you disagree?
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyThe HMR had a lot of hiccups when it was born, no doubt about that. *snip* Yes the hornady ammo had split necks early on that was fixed soon.
People are currently running into issues with the Hornady 17HMR ammo. Within the last year, there have been reports of squibs, misfires and blow-ups.
If you don't know the history behind the 17 Rimfire Magnum, take a look at the January 1992 Shooting Times magazine. How many issues do you think were worked out in the 10 years before Hornady brought their version to the masses?
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyBut most of us that are posting negative comments about the rifle are doing so cause that's how we feel, not because we are trying to sell something. Look we've had gun magazines for years try to tell us what to buy. Since the internet and forums have come around word of mouth from real users has changed what these gun companies can push and what can be kept quiet.
Videos, images and social media will always back-up or discount what is written. That is the positive of new media and will eventually be the downfall of print media.
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyI've even heard a guy that helped to do a online review of a FX boss airgun, that the reviewer was pushing as a predator gun say it just didn't have the power to get the job done months after the review
If someone changes their mind based on new information, then that is their prerogative.
Eric
Last edited:
RePete
New member
Quote: And one final point, your bias against Savage is clear.
Squeeze
True but the difference is,,, instead of being mealy mouthed about it,,, I come right out and say it. DD's bias might be PC, but it's clear as day and if you doubt it, do a search of his posts.
This is the last of the time I plan to waste on this crap but for the record,,,, I'd love to see the WSM succeed, especially if Ruger would chamber a nice wood stocked 77/17 with that slick rotary magazine in it.
Squeeze
True but the difference is,,, instead of being mealy mouthed about it,,, I come right out and say it. DD's bias might be PC, but it's clear as day and if you doubt it, do a search of his posts.
This is the last of the time I plan to waste on this crap but for the record,,,, I'd love to see the WSM succeed, especially if Ruger would chamber a nice wood stocked 77/17 with that slick rotary magazine in it.