.17 Fireball or .204 Ruger
- Thread starter Leif Cott
- Start date
You state you reload for your 22-250... so you could make accurate reduced loads from 22 magnum to 22 hornet velocities at 2500 fps with your bullet of choice for fox loads.
Have an 1880 fps load using a 60 gr Sierra in my .243 that groups under an inch/100 yds that works well on small game without causing excess damage and a 45 grain load for the .223 at 2300 fps also that is not destructive on small game...
Have an 1880 fps load using a 60 gr Sierra in my .243 that groups under an inch/100 yds that works well on small game without causing excess damage and a 45 grain load for the .223 at 2300 fps also that is not destructive on small game...
I would agree. It is performance not a few pennies on powder. 10% energy is quite significant. The .204 is quite the caliber.
Love my 204 ruger. Makes less noise than a .223 - next to no recoil out of my Sako M75V so I can see my hits through the scope. When I first started using it I would hold left or right to compensate for wind drift. I can attest that is round is barely affected by moderate winds.
30.5grs of BL-C(2) seems like an awful lot of powder. Heaviest loads I've seen are 28.8gr of Varget behind a 32gr BlitzKing which yields 3900fps
-or-
28gr of RE-15 behind a 39gr BlitzKing giving 3600fps. Both of these are maxium loads recommended by a Sierra reloading manual.
My fastest load to date is 4000fps using 27.9gr of Benchmark and a 32gr Nolser Spitzer ballistic tip, but as others have said, there really is no need to load to these velocities.
The seventeens are interesting calibres, but I've often wondered if your shot placement does not yield a bang-flop, what kind of blood trail is left behind from the tiny .17 entrance hole???
30.5grs of BL-C(2) seems like an awful lot of powder. Heaviest loads I've seen are 28.8gr of Varget behind a 32gr BlitzKing which yields 3900fps
-or-
28gr of RE-15 behind a 39gr BlitzKing giving 3600fps. Both of these are maxium loads recommended by a Sierra reloading manual.
My fastest load to date is 4000fps using 27.9gr of Benchmark and a 32gr Nolser Spitzer ballistic tip, but as others have said, there really is no need to load to these velocities.
The seventeens are interesting calibres, but I've often wondered if your shot placement does not yield a bang-flop, what kind of blood trail is left behind from the tiny .17 entrance hole???
I have been loading 29.0grs of Varget behind the 26gr BVG for 4150fps and 1/2" groups. I will probably back this load off a bit in the interest of barrel life. It is spectacular on gophers. Have a scope mounted video cam to try out this spring, will post results when available.
x2 best answer yet you got the best all around .22 caliber round now just use less powder 34gr H4350 and a 50gr vmax should fly around 2700-2800fps.
although if you want an excuse to buy another gun I say get a .17fireball for gophers and up to fox sized animals.
oh and dont look at the .204 according to some one in another thread its more powerful and faster then the .22-250 so if you dont like the carnage with the .22-250 stay away from the .204
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Basically a .204 Ruger, .204's based on the .222 Mag case, where as the .20 Tac's on the .223 case, we're talking basically nil difference. The .20 Tac does burn ever so slightly less powder for identical performance to the .204.
Just curious, when you say "burn out barrels" how many rounds are we talking here? 2000? 5000? 10000?
I just bought a Rem 700 in .204 and have been using 28.6gr of W748 with 32gr VMax bullets.
It shoots very well and I have shot one coyote at about 200 yards and it dropped it in its tracks. I couldn't find an entrance or exit wound (it was really mangy, so admittedly I didn't look too hard to find it).
I just bought a Rem 700 in .204 and have been using 28.6gr of W748 with 32gr VMax bullets.
It shoots very well and I have shot one coyote at about 200 yards and it dropped it in its tracks. I couldn't find an entrance or exit wound (it was really mangy, so admittedly I didn't look too hard to find it).
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Just like the 6.5-284, which is actually easier on barrels than the .204 Ruger, a decay in accuracy is usually noted at the 800-1000 round mark due to throat erosion. This isn't just with the .204, it's with any high velocity, powder for velocity design (as opposed to case geometry for velocity, though while still powder driven of course). .22-250, .220 Swift are similar to the .204 in this regard, the .17 Rem is worse (NOT the .17 Remington Fireball, a different cartridge all together).
Now, does it matter for a hunter? No, you probably won't even notice, the 800-1000 round accuracy decay will show up in benchrest not the field, you you should have several thousands rounds of acceptable accuracy. Smaller cases like the .20 Vartag will go considerably farther however before these effects take place or a rebarrel is necessary, along with the added benefit of longer shot strings before barrel cool down and much less muzzle blast. We have to remember, 10 grains more powder is a ENORMOUS amount of powder in a .223 class and smaller case. It's a big jump even in a Magnum case size.
The .204's accurate, and effective, it quite simply isn't efficient however. It's a classically American answer to the question of power; more gas. Honestly, it probably doesn't matter for regular hunters, I just like better performance.
Now, does it matter for a hunter? No, you probably won't even notice, the 800-1000 round accuracy decay will show up in benchrest not the field, you you should have several thousands rounds of acceptable accuracy. Smaller cases like the .20 Vartag will go considerably farther however before these effects take place or a rebarrel is necessary, along with the added benefit of longer shot strings before barrel cool down and much less muzzle blast. We have to remember, 10 grains more powder is a ENORMOUS amount of powder in a .223 class and smaller case. It's a big jump even in a Magnum case size.
The .204's accurate, and effective, it quite simply isn't efficient however. It's a classically American answer to the question of power; more gas. Honestly, it probably doesn't matter for regular hunters, I just like better performance.
I love my .204 so I'm biased, but if you already have a .22-250, it would be a bigger spread to buy the .17rem especially if you are shooting close(not great at further distances). I have a cheap rem sps and it shoots 35, 40 gr bergers and 39gr bk into 1/2" groups, with 2 different powders so I would say they are easy to reload for.
The .204ruger is no more of a barrel burner than the .223rem is. Look at some SAAMI presure tables & reloading data - virtually identical.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Nope, the .204's harder. The .204 funnels that burning powder down a smaller bore, and at a higher speed than the .223. Saying the .204's no harder on barrels than the .223 is like saying the .243 with 55gr 3800fps varmint loads is no harder on barrels than the .260 or 7mm-08. Same pressure, same load data. Although a component of the overall consideration, pressure and load data aren't expressly what determines throat erosion in your barrel.
Did you rebarrel the .204 you burned-out or did you have it recambered & reamed out to a larger calibre? I've got appoximately 1000 rounds through my Sako M75V and it still shoots and fouls like the day I bought it. I hope it stays that way or at least another thousand. Even if it does open up to 1" MOA or worse
it'll still be a good coyote gun. Plus I'll have an excuse to go buy a new firearm to take care of those pesky richardson ground squirrels .oh and dont look at the .204 according to some one in another thread its more powerful and faster then the .22-250 so if you dont like the carnage with the .22-250 stay away from the .204
You are a clown, a forum troll who looks for places to insert his opinion where it simply doesn't belong. And in this case you have added an extra bit of "fluff" to make your case. In my world that stuff isn't tolerated.
I said, the .204 is the fastest factory load made, I never made reference to reloading or used the word "powerful" if that is even a word used when adults discuss firearms. (I highlighted your BS for you).
With all things being equal, like calibers and bullet weight the .204 does not have the energy that the 22-250 has, I have all the fast rifles, including a 22-250 or two, I just happen to like the .204 and you seemed to take offence to that.
The 22-250 takes charge past about 300 yards, inside of that the .204 will do everything the 250 will, quieter, faster, less recoil and with less chance of ricochet. It carries less energy at longer distances, and does not serve that purpose well. Inside of 300 yards you will be hard pressed to find a cartridge that shoots flatter and can create the carnal damage a .204 can create.
The closest thing in speed to the .204 is the Swift, and it too carries way more energy than needed inside of 300 for predators. The 250 is fun, but 3rd from the fastest.(factory loads)
This is your last chance to reference me with one of your run-on sentences that lack punctuation before I give you the verbal spanking you seem to be asking for, and also seeming to deserve. You are the cancer that hurts forums like this, but now I am here too. Drop your juvenile BS, your lies have caught up to you.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Did you rebarrel the .204 you burned-out or did you have it recambered & reamed out to a larger calibre? I've got appoximately 1000 rounds through my Sako M75V and it still shoots and fouls like the day I bought it. I hope it stays that way or at least another thousand. Even if it does open up to 1" MOA or worse
Didn't bother with the .204, rebarreled to 1/9" .223 immediately, just needed the action. For hunting, your .204 will do just fine, there's just significantly better chamberings available, although as discussed in more expensive rifles.
