I'm a new member here so please forgive if this has been discussed before. I'm trying to decide which way to go-either the .204 or .17 hornet. Primarily a ground squirrel gun shooting out to about 200 yds. I've seen ballistic comparisons on the HMR's (which I'm shooting now) and 22-250 but the .204 wasn't in the mix. Any help on where I can find comparisons would be appreciated.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
.204 Ruger vrs. .17 Hornet
- Thread starter randyman
- Start date
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
204 edge's out the 17 Hornet in the velocity department. I kinda think the 17 Hornet might be one of those short lived cartridges having to compete with 17 HMR. One good thing. Both 204 & 17 Hornet are center fires if you ever intend on home reloading some day..
Parent case: 204s >222 Rem Mag. ___17 Hornet >Winchester 22 Hornet.
BTW: Welcome to the form Randyman. Always good to have another opinion here.
Parent case: 204s >222 Rem Mag. ___17 Hornet >Winchester 22 Hornet.
BTW: Welcome to the form Randyman. Always good to have another opinion here.
Last edited:
Like Scorch said: Apples vs. oranges. I own three .204s. Tried the .17HH when it first came out in a p.o.s. Savage 25; couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Wasn't gettin' it with our big Eastern woodchucks, but a switch to the venerable .22 Hornet with about any bullet puts them down nicely, and with (curiously) a less loud report than its 17 cal. brother. The only reason I shoot a Hornet is for its relative "quietness" and sharp trajectory drop for shooting near built-up areas; if a shooter had only wide-open spaces there would be no reason to own anything but the .204, as a person would soon be wishing for more power and reach with only a Hornet at one's disposal. Also, you never know when a larger critter like a coyote might come into scope view - it might die only from laughter if you'd take a poke with the little .17H.
Plus, the .204 still has such little recoil that a shooter can see his hits through the scope with most loads.
Plus, the .204 still has such little recoil that a shooter can see his hits through the scope with most loads.
Last edited:
I would always go with a center fire over a rim-fire because of the ability to reload the ammo.
I used to kill coyotes with a 22 WMR and when I got my 222 (SAKO) I gave up on the 22 WMR because I could reload the 222 cheaper than I could buy the rim 22WMRs. That was back in 1983.
Another one to look at for inexpensive shooting is the 221 Fireball.
And these is nothing wrong with the 223 either.
I used to kill coyotes with a 22 WMR and when I got my 222 (SAKO) I gave up on the 22 WMR because I could reload the 222 cheaper than I could buy the rim 22WMRs. That was back in 1983.
Another one to look at for inexpensive shooting is the 221 Fireball.
And these is nothing wrong with the 223 either.
"...Apples vs. oranges..." Yep and the answer is which one is easier to find ammo/brass for, locally.
Lot of "Out of stock - No Backorder" for .204 loaded ammo on Midway's site. More options than the 5 available loads for the .17 though. Not much in the way of brass for either.
Neither of 'em is going to be as easy to feed as your .22-250.
Lot of "Out of stock - No Backorder" for .204 loaded ammo on Midway's site. More options than the 5 available loads for the .17 though. Not much in the way of brass for either.
Neither of 'em is going to be as easy to feed as your .22-250.
The .17 Hornet would be just about perfect for those small 200 yard rodents. using it you should able to spot your hits.
The .204 Ruger gets out to 400 yards but at a cost of more blast, more powder, and unless a heavy rifle is used hits cannot be easily spotted.
Can't comment on ammo availability, but my LGS has .204 in stock.
Using tiny powder charges of whatever they may be over 500 rounds of .17 Hornet rounds could be produced from 1 lb. of powder. My .204R gets 250 rounds from 1 lb. of powder @ 28 grains per H CFE223.
The .204 Ruger gets out to 400 yards but at a cost of more blast, more powder, and unless a heavy rifle is used hits cannot be easily spotted.
Can't comment on ammo availability, but my LGS has .204 in stock.
Using tiny powder charges of whatever they may be over 500 rounds of .17 Hornet rounds could be produced from 1 lb. of powder. My .204R gets 250 rounds from 1 lb. of powder @ 28 grains per H CFE223.
603Country
New member
Between the two the OP mentioned, I'd go with the 204. But, when I went through the same sort of thought process, I looked at the Hornet, the 204, the 17, the Fireball, and even the 222, but finally decided to settle on the 223. The 223 is just so much more flexible on bullet options. And you can shoot a 35 gr bullet about as fast as the 204 can.