I am looking for a new coyote/fox gun. I am currently using a 22-250 and feel that it is overkill, most of my shots are under 150. Don't even consider shooting a fox with the 250 way too much damage. I do reload, so ammo availability isn't really an issue. I am very interested in the .17 Remington Fireball, but have heard great things about the .204 Ruger as well. Any advice/help would be great, what do you guys think?
.17 Fireball or .204 Ruger
- Thread starter Leif Cott
- Start date
I load my 204 with 39gr SBK for coyotes, haven't shot a fox yet but haven't had more than a few pieces of shrapnel exit the yotes, shots from 75 to 200 yds, most have dropped within 5 to 10 yds of where they were hit.
Your right it is a retarded question
The Chinese eat dog and they say it tastes ok. Ive heard gopher stew tastes ok and I eat rabbit and Ive eaten gator.
Back to the original question, if all your shots are under 150 yds then the .17 fireball would likely be a good choice, the .17 will reach much further but is more apt to be affected by wind drift. If you want to stretch it out further then I would go with the .204. If you are looking for a less expensive alternative the .17 HMR would likely do the trick out to 150. I have a .204 and am quite happy with it, and talked with a fellow that has a .17 fireball and wind drift was his main concern.
Personally I wouldn't reccomend the 17HMR for dogs, at 100 plus yds I had gophers running down their hole after a solid hit. Sold the POS and bought my 204. I won't even use my 26gr BVG loads on coyotes cause IMO the bullet is to light for a reliable kill. The 39gr SBK works great.
Wind drift is of little concern with the .17's out to around 300 yrds. Duration of flight NOT bullet weight is the critical factor. Given conventional bullet design (read non-VLD type) a 25 grn bullet will be offset by wind to the same degree as a 250 grn bullet given the same flight duration. Heavy bullets retain more energy thus do not slow down as fast as those of lighter design therefore given the same start speed the heavyer bullet will not shed it's energy/speed as quickly. At 300yrds it would then seem the heavyer bullet drifted less (which it would) BUT the time of flight would have been lower for the heavy bullet due to velocity retention. That said a .17 fireball with a 25 grn bullet leaves the bbl at approx 3800 fps. Wind drift would be approx the same as a .300 mag with a 180 grn bullet leaving the bbl @ 3000 fps at 300yrds. While the heavy bullet retains velocity/ energy, the light bullet at higher initial velocity levels the playing feild in terms of flight duration/ wind drift.
At the end of the day the .17 fireball would be my choice, given your criteria. A slightly better choice, given you handload would be a .17 Rem.
At the end of the day the .17 fireball would be my choice, given your criteria. A slightly better choice, given you handload would be a .17 Rem.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
.17 Mach IV (Fireball) for sure out of these two. The .204's a "gas burner" in my humble opinion, and there's more sensible rounds to do its job. Honestly, one of the best comes from combining the two, the .20 VarTag. It's a .20 cal on the .221 Fireball case (the parent case of the .17 you speak of). Pretty much the perfect balance for that case, good for fox, bobcat, coyote.
I love the .204 caliber. What is a gas burner? It has one helluva velocity and can be utilized with heavier grains than an HMR. It has a nice niche but is a bit light for cats. I know it drops coyotes no problem withing 100 yards.
I looked at both, weighed my options and chose the .204 ruger. The .204 is chambered in most rifles, has a large following, is a very accurate round and fast as hell (close to 4300 fps). Every week I shoot around 4 coyotes and Im yet to have a runner, my farthest shot so far on a dog is 235 and it dropped stone cold dead.
Im yet to shoot a gopher but from what I hear its reall messy. I shot a magpie yesterday and it was pretty much a cloud of feathers and red mist after impact, was really cool
I know a fellow that hunts coyotes with the .17 fireball here in the Jaw and he's very happy with it, drops em on impact.
Both cals are fun shooting rounds that allow the shooter to actually see impact shots with all rifles whether sporter or heavy barrell.
Im yet to shoot a gopher but from what I hear its reall messy. I shot a magpie yesterday and it was pretty much a cloud of feathers and red mist after impact, was really cool
I know a fellow that hunts coyotes with the .17 fireball here in the Jaw and he's very happy with it, drops em on impact.
Both cals are fun shooting rounds that allow the shooter to actually see impact shots with all rifles whether sporter or heavy barrell.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Means it burns more powder than it needs to essentially, just like my F150, inefficient but effective.
The .204 Ruger gets ~3900fps with a 36gr HP on ~30.5grs of of BL-C(2), where as a .20 Vartag gets ~3700fps on 20.5grs of N130. 30% more powder burned in the .204 for 5% more velocity, or more appropriately perhaps, 30% more powder burned for 10% more energy.
The .204 Ruger is basically a model case for the principle of diminishing returns. You make a lot more noise, more recoil, more barrel heat, burn out barrels faster, and burn 1/3rd more powder to get a 5% increase in velocity, or 10% increase in energy (however you prefer to view it).
The case geometry of the .204 Ruger is terrible, looong and skinny. I have no aversion to wildcats and have designed a couple, not trying to make this sound like a resume, just outlining where I coming from when I criticize factory marketing-first cartridges. Many here will prefer mainstream and be happy with what the big guys offer and that's that. However, better cartridges are out there, they just don't make it into mainstream guns typically, you need to go niche, like with Cooper's Model 38, which chambers the .20 Vartag as a factory offering. Dies are readily available, and cases are formed with one pass through a sizing die.
The .17 Mach IV (Fireball, as Rem's branded it) is a more efficient offering than the .204, and while still inferior to the Vartag better than the .204, this is just my small change. Of course, the .204 will take bigger game, but in a Varmint rifle, there's a solid ceiling anyhow and my .17's perform well under it.
The 20 Vartag may be more effecient but at what cost?? Look at the rifles chambered for that round, a Cooper starts at over $1600, dies at $100+ I can come in under half that for a nice Remington that shoots .50 MOA and spend the next $800 on powder, new barrell, scopes??
I checked out the 20 Vartag and it just looks like a 20 cal cartridge thats slower then the .204?? I don't think the miniscule amount of extra powder in the .204 will break anyone at the bank.
Cheers!!
I checked out the 20 Vartag and it just looks like a 20 cal cartridge thats slower then the .204?? I don't think the miniscule amount of extra powder in the .204 will break anyone at the bank.
Cheers!!
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The Vartag is smaller than the .204, in fact much smaller, and yet only slower by a measly 5%. The cost of powder isn't the concern, though for every 3 lbs of powder burnt shooting a Vartag you get one free so to speak compared to the .204 if you want to look at it that way. The noise/blast, barrel life, and barrel heat are far more reasonable (you can shoot more rounds in a string with a Vartag by good measure than you can with a .204 on a prarie dog hill before sitting out to cool the barrel).
My .221 Fireball, which is ever so slightly noisier than a Vartag and is the parent case for it, has much, much less muzzle blast than a .204 Ruger. Does it matter? Debatable, the .204's no sledgehammer, but is the smaller case nicer to shoot? Yes, hands down. The Vartag's even better.
Quite simply, the Vartag's a better gun, in my opinion, than the .204 because of efficiency and better case design. Is it better for you? Probably not if the cost of the Cooper or rebarreling with a match barrel is expensive to you. No off the shelf ammo either. For me, I like the best cartridge to do the job, the differences in cost aren't so much of a concern. I'm also a minimalist, I can't justify burning that much more barrel throat and powder to get a 5% increase, and I like high quality guns, so my Cooper M38 was a wise investment for me. Others mileage may vary...
My .221 Fireball, which is ever so slightly noisier than a Vartag and is the parent case for it, has much, much less muzzle blast than a .204 Ruger. Does it matter? Debatable, the .204's no sledgehammer, but is the smaller case nicer to shoot? Yes, hands down. The Vartag's even better.
Quite simply, the Vartag's a better gun, in my opinion, than the .204 because of efficiency and better case design. Is it better for you? Probably not if the cost of the Cooper or rebarreling with a match barrel is expensive to you. No off the shelf ammo either. For me, I like the best cartridge to do the job, the differences in cost aren't so much of a concern. I'm also a minimalist, I can't justify burning that much more barrel throat and powder to get a 5% increase, and I like high quality guns, so my Cooper M38 was a wise investment for me. Others mileage may vary...
The Vartag is smaller than the .204, in fact much smaller, and yet only slower by a measly 5%. The cost of powder isn't the concern, though for every 3 lbs of powder burnt shooting a Vartag you get one free so to speak compared to the .204 if you want to look at it that way. The noise/blast, barrel life, and barrel heat are far more reasonable (you can shoot more rounds in a string with a Vartag by good measure than you can with a .204 on a prarie dog hill before sitting out to cool the barrel).
My .221 Fireball, which is ever so slightly noisier than a Vartag and is the parent case for it, has much, much less muzzle blast than a .204 Ruger. Does it matter? Debatable, the .204's no sledgehammer, but is the smaller case nicer to shoot? Yes, hands down. The Vartag's even better.
Quite simply, the Vartag's a better gun, in my opinion, than the .204 because of efficiency and better case design. Is it better for you? Probably not if the cost of the Cooper or rebarreling with a match barrel is expensive to you. No off the shelf ammo either. For me, I like the best cartridge to do the job, the differences in cost aren't so much of a concern. I'm also a minimalist, I can't justify burning that much more barrel throat and powder to get a 5% increase, and I like high quality guns, so my Cooper M38 was a wise investment for me. Others mileage may vary...
Interesting points. For me its all about going out and shooting coyotes I may be shooting a cheap Remington LVSF but hey it shoots 1/2 inch groups on average and is the one of fastest varmint cartridges out there, 4300 fps aint a slug
Cheers!!
This is with my .204 at about 175 yrds with 32grain Vmaxs' handloaded with less powder to get longer barrel life. (About 3500 FPS)
No experience with a .17...but I loooove my Ruger M77 MkII "Target" with the heavy 26" barrel. I have no doubt I can drop a 'yote at extended ranges with a 39gr or 40gr bullet.
No experience with a .17...but I loooove my Ruger M77 MkII "Target" with the heavy 26" barrel. I have no doubt I can drop a 'yote at extended ranges with a 39gr or 40gr bullet.
