.22-250 vs .204 Ruger vs .22 Hornet

[JoeWilliams]

Wife is looking for something to replace her .17 HMR with. She's looking for something that can be reloaded, and has a little more oomph. Requirements are for mild recoil, muzzle blast that isn't excessive, is accurate and is something that "not everyone else has," which is why the .223 isn't included.

Uses are for 100-200 yard target shooting, groundhogs, coyotes, and foxes.

I was thinking either the .22-250 or .22 Hornet would fill the bill nicely. I've also taken a brief look at the .204 Ruger. Don't know a whole bunch about any of the calibers, so seeking input.

Rifle is likely to be a single shot, H&R or T/C.

[kevindsingleton]

I have a CZ 550 Varmint in .22-250, and it fits the bill for all your requirements. It's easy to load, and has low recoil in an appropriate rifle. I consider it to have low muzzle blast, but that's too subjective to really say.

I believe it's the largest cartridge case of the three you mentioned, which means it holds more powder, and gets more velocity from the same bullets.

The .204 might be able to be loaded faster, but you can look that up.

The .22-250 is not a new cartridge, so, if you're looking for new and exciting, you'll have to look elsewhere. It is fast and flat-shooting, though, particularly at 200 yards or less. I load 40 grain moly-coated hollowpoints to over 4000 fps, and get bullet drop of about 4 inches at 300 yards.

I shoot off a rest, and get 1-hole groups at 100 and 200 yards (we can't shoot paper at 300 yards on my range).

[Pukindog]

The .22-250 is one of the largest factory offerings in .22 cal. it was originally a wildcat that has beeen adopted by the factories. Of three you mentioned it has the most muzzle blast and recoil. ( recoil here is only a comparitive term ). The selection of bullets is wide. Depends alot on the twist. Velocities are high. Brass life is good. Loading data profuse. barrel life is quite acceptible providing you don't shoot scorchers all the time. Of the three it has the longest range potential. Just about all arms makers offer a .22-250
Factory ammo is readily available.
The .22 Hornet has been around for many years. one of the first varmint cartridges. Low noise, blast, and recoil. Brass life is not very good. Cases are thin and need to be replaced after 4 or 5 loadings. ( at least in my Hornet). Lots of data available. Bullets selection usually will have to be kept below 50 grs. Economical cartridge to reload. Barrel life is quite good. factory ammo is available. Not too many factory rifles built today.
The .204 Ruger is the newest of the three loads. Excellent cartridge to reload. Has about the same blast, noise level as a .223. Recoil is minimal. Wide selection of bullets for reloading. Not very many factory loads to choose from. Brass life is good. Barrel life is good. Good long range potential but not like the .22-250. Many arms makers are producing the .204.
If I may make a suggestion I would pick a CZ 527 in .222 Remington. Not as noisy as a .22-250, more powerful then a .22 Hornet, easier to load for then the .204. The .222 has been around a long time. It was the choice of many
bench shooters. Very accurate and it is not very common today. Great cartridge, especially if you are going to handload.

Jeff

[Tomcat088]

Pukin gave some good advice. I probably wouldn't even really look at the .22 hornet. He did mention another cartridge that alot of people love, although I'm not more fond of the .222 than I am the .22-250. I've never thought that the recoild of the .22-250 even with heavier bullets, hot loads, in a sporter weight rifle was all that bad. It will cost a bit more powder to load the .22-250 and they are a little bit louder. Part of whether you will want the .204 or the .22-250 will depend on what kind of wind conditions you will be shooting in. Drop is easy to account for, although even with heavier bullets, the .22-250 basically has the same drop; with lighter bullets it has less. The wind is what eats you up, especially at longer ranges, and the heavier the bullet is that you're shooting; the less wind drift. Or if you wanted to shoot lighter bullets faster than you could with the .204, then you will still have less wind drift. Somewhere around here I did a pretty detailed comparison between the two cartridges and their ballistics. I'll find it and post it up here.

[Tomcat088]

Well, this isn't the post that I was thinking of, I'll have to keep looking. Here is a little bit more info from another post on the cartridges with some numbers. http://forum.pafoa.org/rifles-42/15884-22x250.html . You can also keep in mind that these are comparing factory loadings. When you start talking about reloading for it, I think the .22-250 has the edge. I know lots of reloaders who have had problems getting faster velocities than the factory .204 loadings because they're not using powder blends. Anyway it's just some more info to read up on to help you make your decision.

Ok, I finally found the thread that I was thinking of where I did a bit more of a comparison with some numbers. This is kind of my thoughts on the .204 vs. .22-250 in terms of ballistics. Anyway, just some more things to think about. http://forum.pafoa.org/rifles-42/393...le-page-5.html

[mikenteri]

Wife is looking for something to replace her .17 HMR with. She's looking for something that can be reloaded, and has a little more oomph. Requirements are for mild recoil, muzzle blast that isn't excessive, is accurate and is something that "not everyone else has," which is why the .223 isn't included.

Uses are for 100-200 yard target shooting, groundhogs, coyotes, and foxes.

I was thinking either the .22-250 or .22 Hornet would fill the bill nicely. I've also taken a brief look at the .204 Ruger. Don't know a whole bunch about any of the calibers, so seeking input.

Rifle is likely to be a single shot, H&R or T/C.

I own a 22-250 as well and did own a 22 Hornet. I now carry the 204. If you are going to reload the 204 is the way to go. It will out peform both the other calibers without a doubt. The 32 grain at 4225 tends not group as well. Slow it down to about 4000 and the group get's tight. The 40 grain at 3800 groups very well. I have the Remington heavy barrell 26" No recoil she would be very pleased with this one.

[Xringshooter]

I have a .204 Ruger in the Savage 12FV (heavy barrel, Accu-Trigger)) and I don't feel any recoil al all. I sighted mine in at 175 yds and with factory ammo I can place 5 rounds touching each other at those kinds of distances. Can't wait to see what handloading will do.

[Mush]

204 Ruger has little if any recoil and hits hard for less powder than the 22-250. The bullet selection is less than the 22 caliber but I get ground hog headshots out to 250 yards. So far, not one ground hog has complained of the less number of bullet selection than the 22 caliber....

[ReconLdr]

Here is one that you didn't list:
.17 Remington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
.17 Remington
Type Hunting (varmint)
Place of origin USA
Production history
Designer Remington
Designed 1971
Manufacturer Remington
Produced 1971
Specifications
Parent case 223
Bullet diameter .172 in (4.4 mm)
Neck diameter .199 in (5.1 mm)
Shoulder diameter .356 in (9.0 mm)
Base diameter .376 in (9.6 mm)
Rim diameter .378 in (9.6 mm)
Case length 1.796 in (45.6 mm)
Rifling twist 1-10
Primer type small rifle
Ballistic performance
Bullet weight/type Velocity Energy
20 gr (1.3 g) BT 4,436 ft/s (1,352 m/s) 874 ft·lbf (1,185 J)
25 gr (1.6 g) HP 4,123 ft/s (1,257 m/s) 944 ft·lbf (1,280 J)
30 gr (1.9 g) HP 3,839 ft/s (1,170 m/s) 982 ft·lbf (1,331 J)
Source: Hodgdon [1]

The .17 Remington was introduced in 1971 by Remington Arms Company for their model 700 rifles.

It is based on the .223 Remington, necked down to .172in (4.37 mm), with the shoulder moved back[2]. It was designed exclusively as a varmint round, though it is suitable for smaller predators. There are those such as P.O. Ackley who used it on much larger game, but such use is typically not recommended.

Extremely high initial velocity (over 4000 ft/s 1200 m/s), flat trajectory and very low recoil are the .17 Rem's primary attributes. It has a maximum effective range of about 500 yards (450 m) on prairie dog-sized animals, but the small bullets' poor ballistic coefficients and sectional densities mean they are highly susceptible to crosswinds at such distances.

The smaller .172 bullet typically has a much lower ballistic coefficient than other typical varmint calibers, such as the .22's. Because of this, the .172 bullet loses velocity slightly sooner and is more sensitive to wind; but by no means does this render the cartridge useless. The advantages of this cartridge are low recoil, flat trajectory, and minimal entrance wounds. A significant disadvantage is the rapid rate at which such a small-calibre rifle barrel accumulates gilding metal fouling, which is very detrimental to accuracy and may also eventually result in exponentially increasing, dangerous bore pressures caused by the fouling's constriction of the bore. Many .17 users[who?] report optimum accuracy when the bore is thoroughly cleaned after every 10 shots.[citation needed]

The .17 Remington is also one of the few cartridges in which powder charge weight is often greater than bullet weight. Though this condition has been known to degrade accuracy, the .17 Remington is noted for exceptional accuracy.[citation needed] This reputation for accuracy is undoubtedly due in no small part to the fact that only good quality bolt action and single shot rifles have been so chambered.

This is a caliber that very few people have. Of all my shooting buddies, only one guy "had" one. (he passed away over the summer) I only shot the rifle a few times over the years, but he loved it. I was thinking about doing a rifle in this caliber later...

[Pukindog]

I have several .17 CF rifles; .17 Rem, .17 Ackley Hornet, .17 Mach IV, but, my .19's will do everything the .17's will do; only better. There is a .17-223. Not the same as the .17 Rem. Also, the early rifles did foul considerably. This was due to rough barrels ( poor technology at the time) and improperly constructed bullets. The new .17's with good barrels and bullets do not foul nearly as much as the early guns.

Jeff