The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

FirstFreedom · November 21, 2005, 10:25 AM

Sounds like you live in varminter's paradise - where is that?

The .17 HMR would be a good choice for those purposes, 'cept for beaver - though it would likely work fine, they can get large (up to 60 lbs, nearly twice the weight of a coyote), and I'd rather have a .22 hornet or better for a beaver, particularly if I wanted to find it and eat it (I hear they are quite tasty).

A .223 rem, however, would probably be the best overall compromise for the uses you describe - not the .22 hornet since you mentioned cheap ammo.

Also, cheapie Winchester white box ammo comes in .22-250, so that along with .223 would be your good long range choice. Still, either is more $$ for ammo than .17 HMR. In the long run run, for a complete varmint battery, in addition to a .22lr, I'd look to get three - one from each category:

1. A .17 hmr (or .22 mag) for out to 125-150 yards (cheap ammo), and fine for ranges within which one with average skill (such as myself) can actually make consistent hits at.
2. A .223 (or .22-250 or even a .204 ruger if you reload) for out to 250-300 yards
3. A .243 (or .25-06) for out to 400-500 yards.

The latter will buck the wind at longer distances, but it still takes quite a lot of skill and a very good rest to make hits at those ranges, as you know. So I'd lean towards 1 and/or 2 for starters.

P.S. I like the .22mag round a lot, perhaps even more than the .17hmr. But I'd wager that the .17hmr will NOT die - it is very very popular - this transcends a fad that enjoys short-lived popularity, it seems to me. It's a very nice caliber for making not much noise, and extending your range a little, if you want to shoot something like a crow which you do not plan to eat. Plus it seems to be a 'proven' fact, not mere anecdote, that .17s are consistently more accurate rifles than the same gun chambered in .22 mag, due to the necked cartridges keeping the round still when the firing pin strikes the rimfire.

I'm undecided as to whether the .204 ruger will die. It SHOULD die, since it is so very close to so many other cartridges - nearly identical to the .20 tactical, which died, and serves the same function as a .22-250, on a minutely smaller scale, and it's also basically the same as .17 Rem, except on a minutely larger scale. But it may remain, due to the aggressive marketing and resulting popularity.

November 21, 2005, 10:25 AM	#17
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	Sounds like you live in varminter's paradise - where is that? The .17 HMR would be a good choice for those purposes, 'cept for beaver - though it would likely work fine, they can get large (up to 60 lbs, nearly twice the weight of a coyote), and I'd rather have a .22 hornet or better for a beaver, particularly if I wanted to find it and eat it (I hear they are quite tasty). A .223 rem, however, would probably be the best overall compromise for the uses you describe - not the .22 hornet since you mentioned cheap ammo. Also, cheapie Winchester white box ammo comes in .22-250, so that along with .223 would be your good long range choice. Still, either is more $$ for ammo than .17 HMR. In the long run run, for a complete varmint battery, in addition to a .22lr, I'd look to get three - one from each category: 1. A .17 hmr (or .22 mag) for out to 125-150 yards (cheap ammo), and fine for ranges within which one with average skill (such as myself) can actually make consistent hits at. 2. A .223 (or .22-250 or even a .204 ruger if you reload) for out to 250-300 yards 3. A .243 (or .25-06) for out to 400-500 yards. The latter will buck the wind at longer distances, but it still takes quite a lot of skill and a very good rest to make hits at those ranges, as you know. So I'd lean towards 1 and/or 2 for starters. P.S. I like the .22mag round a lot, perhaps even more than the .17hmr. But I'd wager that the .17hmr will NOT die - it is very very popular - this transcends a fad that enjoys short-lived popularity, it seems to me. It's a very nice caliber for making not much noise, and extending your range a little, if you want to shoot something like a crow which you do not plan to eat. Plus it seems to be a 'proven' fact, not mere anecdote, that .17s are consistently more accurate rifles than the same gun chambered in .22 mag, due to the necked cartridges keeping the round still when the firing pin strikes the rimfire. I'm undecided as to whether the .204 ruger will die. It SHOULD die, since it is so very close to so many other cartridges - nearly identical to the .20 tactical, which died, and serves the same function as a .22-250, on a minutely smaller scale, and it's also basically the same as .17 Rem, except on a minutely larger scale. But it may remain, due to the aggressive marketing and resulting popularity.