Thoughts on Ruger204vs .17HMR

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have both and the .204 is more destructive by far. Hunting p dogs with the 17hmr wasnt good for me with HP ammo. Had to go with v-max's to get cleaner kills. That 204 is one flat shooting round!
 
Two completely different cartridges.
There is more than 1300 fps difference between the two. If you want to eat the bunny, the 17hmr.
If your trying to cut them in half, 204 ruger.
I've never had a chance to take a shot on anything at this distance, but I've heard that a 200yd kill shot on small game can be accurately achieved with the 17 hmr. The 204 is going to reach well past that.
 
I have the 17m2, 17hmr, .223 and the .204.

My two most used are the 17m2 and the .204. These cover everything in the varmint business for me.
 
.204 will do much more for you. They are both fun to shoot. I also have both. When I really want to kill something, I go with the 204. Both are extremely accurate. Factory loads shot fairly well for me, but it was fun to work up reloads. I don't load to factory velocities, but my most accurate load turned out to be with 40 gr BTs and Varget at 3550 FPS.

I believe you will be happy with your choice. You can always buy a 17HMR later.

Have Fun
 
We just used .17HMR, .223's, and a .204 on a prairie dog hunt. The .17 is nice at shorter ranges, but runs out of power at maybe 150ish, depending on wind. The .204 was making hits at 400+/-.
 
We just used .17HMR, .223's, and a .204 on a prairie dog hunt. The .17 is nice at shorter ranges, but runs out of power at maybe 150ish, depending on wind. The .204 was making hits at 400+/-.

How did the 204 compare to the 223 on the p-dog hunt?
 
Ruger .204 has a bit of a reputation as a barrel burner, but in my experience it is no better or worse than any of the other super .20's in that regard. 3,000 rounds or so for match shooting. 5-6K for varmint hunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top