Winchester 21 Sharp
- Thread starter AP2020
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
comfisherman
Well-Known Member
Im a heavy rimfire addict, in absolutely no form of recovery.... this one makes sense on the narrow bandwidth of non lead states. It's still going to be an uphill battle for this one. Like 17 Aguilla battle...
They do a decent enough job on non tox for the 17s and wmr, so unless production goes high enough to get costs way down it's boxed in on the performance envelope.
I've already stacked a 1022 in the closest as soon as someone makes a conversion barrel for the ruger, but it's probably going to compete for safe space with the 5mm and 17 aguilla in the dusty side of my safe.
They do a decent enough job on non tox for the 17s and wmr, so unless production goes high enough to get costs way down it's boxed in on the performance envelope.
I've already stacked a 1022 in the closest as soon as someone makes a conversion barrel for the ruger, but it's probably going to compete for safe space with the 5mm and 17 aguilla in the dusty side of my safe.
AP2020
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 20
So my take, if Federal/Remington get on board through licensing, then it has a chance. Winchester does not have the best track record in terms of supplying ammo [look at 17WSM and 400 Legend].
Supposedly, the non-heeled bullet of the 21 Sharp is cheaper to produce than the heeled 22LR bullet.
comfisherman
Well-Known Member
It maybe be cheaper to produce mono bullets straight vs heeled, but clearly on the lead side of things healed is produced cheap.
I'd actually argue that it's gonna take more factors than just being picked up by the conglomerate that is cci/rem/fed. The 17 hm2 had pressure issues and could not be straight barrel swap adopted. It really curtailed it's adoption, and it had 3x companies jump on production. The 17 wsm was initially hamstrung by lack of available platforms. It took years for non b mag options to surface, as well as a single source of ammo.
For this to work it's going to have to work in current production rifles, have readily available ammo, multiple companies adopting it, and have no quirks in cross pattern adoption.
Personally it does nothing, including non toxic varmints, that practically appeals to me. Nothing my 17 hm2, hmr, wsm, 22 wmr or 22lr doesn't have covered. I'll still get one to try as my 591 and 17 Aguilla barrel need company....
I'd of loved to see 20 cal rimfire, but on a bigger casing.
I'd actually argue that it's gonna take more factors than just being picked up by the conglomerate that is cci/rem/fed. The 17 hm2 had pressure issues and could not be straight barrel swap adopted. It really curtailed it's adoption, and it had 3x companies jump on production. The 17 wsm was initially hamstrung by lack of available platforms. It took years for non b mag options to surface, as well as a single source of ammo.
For this to work it's going to have to work in current production rifles, have readily available ammo, multiple companies adopting it, and have no quirks in cross pattern adoption.
Personally it does nothing, including non toxic varmints, that practically appeals to me. Nothing my 17 hm2, hmr, wsm, 22 wmr or 22lr doesn't have covered. I'll still get one to try as my 591 and 17 Aguilla barrel need company....
I'd of loved to see 20 cal rimfire, but on a bigger casing.
Axl
Well-Known Member
There is no licensing required. The 21 Sharp is SAMMI, so anybody that is able, can make cartridges and guns for it.
comfisherman
Well-Known Member
Big bore rimfire would be fun, especially given the rimfire only hunting areas that exist.
5mm is interesting, it's surprising how the new cartridges have skewed to the 17. Seems like the .204 cal would have been a better choice for the 17 wsm.
This one has some strikes, it's understandable why they made it the caliber they did. But it's going to definitely limit what folks jump in the conversion game.
Sammi helps, were a year on since it was first cataloged initial launch wasnt exactly the fanfare of the last three rimfires. Be interesting to see what the Goliath of ruger does.
5mm is interesting, it's surprising how the new cartridges have skewed to the 17. Seems like the .204 cal would have been a better choice for the 17 wsm.
This one has some strikes, it's understandable why they made it the caliber they did. But it's going to definitely limit what folks jump in the conversion game.
Sammi helps, were a year on since it was first cataloged initial launch wasnt exactly the fanfare of the last three rimfires. Be interesting to see what the Goliath of ruger does.
Amen absolutely yes to this a bunch of times
I understand it is probably economical and makes sense from a manufacturing and logistics view to use the .22 LR case.
I would think if they had made a .22 WMR short it would be better.
You can still use the projectiles they are forecasting plus the legacy projectiles from the .22 WMR. It would probably be compatible with existing .22 WMR firearms.
As it is the .21 Sharp will require new firearms or rebarreling. It will probably be able to be chambered in a .22 LR firearm but would not work with the larger bore size.
Or why not just come up with some new projectiles that will work in the .22 WMR. You want more velocity than a .22 LR and monolithic bullets there you go.
I am not sure how this is a vast enough improvement on .22 LR to sell enough guns to make it work.
We will have the .22 LR, .21 Sharp, .22 WMR. None of them will be compatible in the same firearm. At least with some revolvers you can swap cylinders to make .22 LR and .22 WMR share the same firearm.
I would think if they had made a .22 WMR short it would be better.
You can still use the projectiles they are forecasting plus the legacy projectiles from the .22 WMR. It would probably be compatible with existing .22 WMR firearms.
As it is the .21 Sharp will require new firearms or rebarreling. It will probably be able to be chambered in a .22 LR firearm but would not work with the larger bore size.
Or why not just come up with some new projectiles that will work in the .22 WMR. You want more velocity than a .22 LR and monolithic bullets there you go.
I am not sure how this is a vast enough improvement on .22 LR to sell enough guns to make it work.
We will have the .22 LR, .21 Sharp, .22 WMR. None of them will be compatible in the same firearm. At least with some revolvers you can swap cylinders to make .22 LR and .22 WMR share the same firearm.
comfisherman
Well-Known Member
Plus side of the 21 is that it won't require a rework of any existing magazines especially rotary.
Downside would be oddball bore size, so available bore blanks and off the shelf bullets available to other companies will be limited. While being Sammi it's fair game, cost to entry will be barrel tooling for gun co's and whole new bullet diameter for an ammo maker.
Both issues are solvable but the greater question is "why". Looking at the cci/speer/winchester/federal near hegemony, they produce the lions share of domestic non toxic 17 hmr, hm2, and 22 wmr. Why on earth would they want to adopt new tooling for a competitiors new mousetrap. Going to take a tremendous amount of sales to get enough fomo for them to wade in.
Have a childhood friend with a 19 calhoon.... it's not exactly a plethora of barrel mfgs lining up to make barrels for it. Heck half the companies don't even bother with 204 or 17 as the sales are to small enough volume. I'm sure someone will tool up, but not likely a large number. Trickle down effect will mean even less boutique companies are less likely to source hard to find blanks.
Seems like had they just added a little shoulder ala 17 hm2 and worked on the pressure spike issue they could have gone .204 diameter and solved most the negatives. At any rate it will get bought, tried, and likely relegated to the dustbin of the 17 Aguilla.
Downside would be oddball bore size, so available bore blanks and off the shelf bullets available to other companies will be limited. While being Sammi it's fair game, cost to entry will be barrel tooling for gun co's and whole new bullet diameter for an ammo maker.
Both issues are solvable but the greater question is "why". Looking at the cci/speer/winchester/federal near hegemony, they produce the lions share of domestic non toxic 17 hmr, hm2, and 22 wmr. Why on earth would they want to adopt new tooling for a competitiors new mousetrap. Going to take a tremendous amount of sales to get enough fomo for them to wade in.
Have a childhood friend with a 19 calhoon.... it's not exactly a plethora of barrel mfgs lining up to make barrels for it. Heck half the companies don't even bother with 204 or 17 as the sales are to small enough volume. I'm sure someone will tool up, but not likely a large number. Trickle down effect will mean even less boutique companies are less likely to source hard to find blanks.
Seems like had they just added a little shoulder ala 17 hm2 and worked on the pressure spike issue they could have gone .204 diameter and solved most the negatives. At any rate it will get bought, tried, and likely relegated to the dustbin of the 17 Aguilla.
I agree. I maybe a fudd and I am skeptical of a lot of new chamberings but this one misses so many marks. Like you said go a bit smaller and you hit on some bore sizes that are a bit mor popular. I would shorten the .22 WMR so you hit a bit larger popular bore size.
I am not sure how they could not just figure out how to make heeled bullets in the materials they wand and just produce .22 LR in the solids or spire points.
I believe they wanted monolithic or spirepoint in a non heeled bullet. At least that is what it seems like to me. Just use the .22 WMR case and you have something compatible with existing firearms without the heeled bullet. The .21 Sharp will not be compatible with .22 LR anyway.
