Thinking about buying a 204
- Thread starter KyleWoods
- Start date
Cranesville Hunter
New member
Outstanding!
Well I got this big guy at 286 yards tonight. Missed once high and connected on the second. Love being able to see the impact through the scope.
I am also going to buy a magnetospeed Sporter chrono so I can accurately make a drop chart, holdover worked ok this time but I don't want to rely on it.
I am also going to buy a magnetospeed Sporter chrono so I can accurately make a drop chart, holdover worked ok this time but I don't want to rely on it.
Cranesville Hunter
New member
It did 't take long to connect! Congratulations.
Cranesville Hunter
New member
Sounds like you got her dialed in right. Love the .204!
btv
New member
Originally Posted By: KyleWoodsHello,
I am considering buying a 204 for groundhog hunting (300-400 yard max), I will not be walking around too much so I was thinking about buying a heavy barrel gun. I would like to be able to get a gun for $500-600 and a scope for $200-300. I was looking into the Savage package deals for around $500 but I was also looking at a Remington 700 SPS Varmint, CZ 527 Varmint and Tikka T3X Varmint. If anyone has a 204 in one of these models or has a different model that they like feel free to give advice.
I'm new to the forum . . . sorry for the question if this is addressed elsewhere.
What made you choose the Ruger 204 instead of say the HMR 17 Hornet? I'm also in the market for one or the other and was curious about what folks thought.
I am considering buying a 204 for groundhog hunting (300-400 yard max), I will not be walking around too much so I was thinking about buying a heavy barrel gun. I would like to be able to get a gun for $500-600 and a scope for $200-300. I was looking into the Savage package deals for around $500 but I was also looking at a Remington 700 SPS Varmint, CZ 527 Varmint and Tikka T3X Varmint. If anyone has a 204 in one of these models or has a different model that they like feel free to give advice.
I'm new to the forum . . . sorry for the question if this is addressed elsewhere.
What made you choose the Ruger 204 instead of say the HMR 17 Hornet? I'm also in the market for one or the other and was curious about what folks thought.
Originally Posted By: btvOriginally Posted By: KyleWoodsHello,
I am considering buying a 204 for groundhog hunting (300-400 yard max), I will not be walking around too much so I was thinking about buying a heavy barrel gun. I would like to be able to get a gun for $500-600 and a scope for $200-300. I was looking into the Savage package deals for around $500 but I was also looking at a Remington 700 SPS Varmint, CZ 527 Varmint and Tikka T3X Varmint. If anyone has a 204 in one of these models or has a different model that they like feel free to give advice.
I'm new to the forum . . . sorry for the question if this is addressed elsewhere.
What made you choose the Ruger 204 instead of say the HMR 17 Hornet? I'm also in the market for one or the other and was curious about what folks thought.
Hello and welcome, I am new here as well. One reason I went with the 204 is because you can kill at longer distances. A lot of my shooting is around 300 yards or farther and a 17 just wouldn't do it for me. Another reason is because the ballistics are very similar if not better than a 22-250, which is what I originally planned on getting until I read about the 204. While it doesn't shoot as heavy of a bullet, it bucks the wind better and bullet drop is slightly better depending on your load. Another plus is that it is a very flat shooter, I had originally zeroed my gun at 100 yards and shot at 200 to find that the POI was almost exactly the same, just a tad lower.
Another plus is that you get the long range ability with hardly an recoil, meaning you can see the groundhog drop through the scope.
Finally, I just got started into reloading and have heard that the 204 is real easy to load for and you can get some extremely accurate loads.
I am considering buying a 204 for groundhog hunting (300-400 yard max), I will not be walking around too much so I was thinking about buying a heavy barrel gun. I would like to be able to get a gun for $500-600 and a scope for $200-300. I was looking into the Savage package deals for around $500 but I was also looking at a Remington 700 SPS Varmint, CZ 527 Varmint and Tikka T3X Varmint. If anyone has a 204 in one of these models or has a different model that they like feel free to give advice.
I'm new to the forum . . . sorry for the question if this is addressed elsewhere.
What made you choose the Ruger 204 instead of say the HMR 17 Hornet? I'm also in the market for one or the other and was curious about what folks thought.
Hello and welcome, I am new here as well. One reason I went with the 204 is because you can kill at longer distances. A lot of my shooting is around 300 yards or farther and a 17 just wouldn't do it for me. Another reason is because the ballistics are very similar if not better than a 22-250, which is what I originally planned on getting until I read about the 204. While it doesn't shoot as heavy of a bullet, it bucks the wind better and bullet drop is slightly better depending on your load. Another plus is that it is a very flat shooter, I had originally zeroed my gun at 100 yards and shot at 200 to find that the POI was almost exactly the same, just a tad lower.
Another plus is that you get the long range ability with hardly an recoil, meaning you can see the groundhog drop through the scope.
Finally, I just got started into reloading and have heard that the 204 is real easy to load for and you can get some extremely accurate loads.
Last edited:
btv
New member
Originally Posted By: KyleWoods
Hello and welcome, I am new here as well. One reason I went with the 204 is because you can kill at longer distances. A lot of my shooting is around 300 yards or farther and a 17 just wouldn't do it for me. Another reason is because the ballistics are very similar if not better than a 22-250, which is what I originally planned on getting until I read about the 204. While it doesn't shoot as heavy of a bullet, it bucks the wind better and bullet drop is slightly better depending on your load. Another plus is that it is a very flat shooter, I had originally zeroed my gun at 100 yards and shot at 200 to find that the POI was almost exactly the same, just a tad lower.
Another plus is that you get the long range ability with hardly an recoil, meaning you can see the groundhog drop through the scope.
Finally, I just got started into reloading and have heard that the 204 is real easy to load for and you can get some extremely accurate loads.
Thanks . . . looks like the 204 just moved up on my list.
Hello and welcome, I am new here as well. One reason I went with the 204 is because you can kill at longer distances. A lot of my shooting is around 300 yards or farther and a 17 just wouldn't do it for me. Another reason is because the ballistics are very similar if not better than a 22-250, which is what I originally planned on getting until I read about the 204. While it doesn't shoot as heavy of a bullet, it bucks the wind better and bullet drop is slightly better depending on your load. Another plus is that it is a very flat shooter, I had originally zeroed my gun at 100 yards and shot at 200 to find that the POI was almost exactly the same, just a tad lower.
Another plus is that you get the long range ability with hardly an recoil, meaning you can see the groundhog drop through the scope.
Finally, I just got started into reloading and have heard that the 204 is real easy to load for and you can get some extremely accurate loads.
Thanks . . . looks like the 204 just moved up on my list.
btv
New member
Originally Posted By: pyscodog17HMR Hornet. Hmmmm haven't heard of this one yet.
Here's an older RifleShooter Article about the round . . .
Here's an older RifleShooter Article about the round . . .
Cranesville Hunter
New member
Originally Posted By: btvOriginally Posted By: pyscodog17HMR Hornet. Hmmmm haven't heard of this one yet.
Here's an older RifleShooter Article about the round . . .
Interesting article, thanks for sharing.
Here's an older RifleShooter Article about the round . . .
Interesting article, thanks for sharing.
Plant.One
Well-known member
you asked about the HMR 17 Hornet, which is a round that doesnt exist.
you have two rounds mixed up and mashed in together...
the 17 HMR is a rimfire round.
the 17 HH (hornady hornet) is a centerfire round.
both shoot similar weight projectiles, but the 17 HH is reloadable, and has a little better ballistic path than the 17hmr due to its velocity difference of (rougly) 1000 FPS.
i chose the 204 over the 17 hornet because i already owned a 223, so something with a ballistic path that's almost identical, but with half the bullet weight, just wasn't attractive to me.
the 204 ruger being over 4000 FPS in a very efficient lil cartridge, paired with a much flatter ballistic track is what made it attractive to me.
plus the fact that at those speeds the vmax act as mini-grenades
you have two rounds mixed up and mashed in together...
the 17 HMR is a rimfire round.
the 17 HH (hornady hornet) is a centerfire round.
both shoot similar weight projectiles, but the 17 HH is reloadable, and has a little better ballistic path than the 17hmr due to its velocity difference of (rougly) 1000 FPS.
i chose the 204 over the 17 hornet because i already owned a 223, so something with a ballistic path that's almost identical, but with half the bullet weight, just wasn't attractive to me.
the 204 ruger being over 4000 FPS in a very efficient lil cartridge, paired with a much flatter ballistic track is what made it attractive to me.
plus the fact that at those speeds the vmax act as mini-grenades
btv
New member
Originally Posted By: Plant.Oneyou asked about the HMR 17 Hornet, which is a round that doesnt exist.
you have two rounds mixed up and mashed in together...
the 17 HMR is a rimfire round.
the 17 HH (hornady hornet) is a centerfire round.
both shoot similar weight projectiles, but the 17 HH is reloadable, and has a little better ballistic path than the 17hmr due to its velocity difference of (rougly) 1000 FPS.
i chose the 204 over the 17 hornet because i already owned a 223, so something with a ballistic path that's almost identical, but with half the bullet weight, just wasn't attractive to me.
the 204 ruger being over 4000 FPS in a very efficient lil cartridge, paired with a much flatter ballistic track is what made it attractive to me.
plus the fact that at those speeds the vmax act as mini-grenades
My bad . . . that's how I had seen it described on another forum.
you have two rounds mixed up and mashed in together...
the 17 HMR is a rimfire round.
the 17 HH (hornady hornet) is a centerfire round.
both shoot similar weight projectiles, but the 17 HH is reloadable, and has a little better ballistic path than the 17hmr due to its velocity difference of (rougly) 1000 FPS.
i chose the 204 over the 17 hornet because i already owned a 223, so something with a ballistic path that's almost identical, but with half the bullet weight, just wasn't attractive to me.
the 204 ruger being over 4000 FPS in a very efficient lil cartridge, paired with a much flatter ballistic track is what made it attractive to me.
plus the fact that at those speeds the vmax act as mini-grenades
My bad . . . that's how I had seen it described on another forum.