Spike Camp

.17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR

.17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« on: March 15, 2010, 04:43:15 AM »
I want to buy a new rifle for varmints and predators and am torn between the .17 Remington and .204 Ruger.  I haven't had any experience with either of these and am looking for info on your experiences with either to compare in addition to the ballistics.  Another caliber I am kicking around is the .17 HMR.
Nothing is better than a Weatherby, big bore magnum, or a Colt.

Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2010, 07:06:40 AM »
Chris:The only one I have had any experiences with is the .17HMR.Others here will fully disagree but I was very disappointed in mine(ballisics did not hold up as I had hoped and accuracy was not that great at 100 yds),perhaps I was just expecting too much).Ammunition is very expensive for what you are getting out of it also.I would think one of the others as I have heard a lot of good things about the .204.I have always had one in the back of my mine.Now you have me thinking about it again.Keep us posted on what you get and how it shoots.
Faster horses,younger women,older whiskey,and more money.

Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2010, 11:11:03 AM »
Roger: I agree with u on the 17HMR,I too am disappointed with the ballistics and accuracy with the 17HMR's I have,and ammo is expensive.
Chris: I have a 204 ruger and a 17 remington,and in my opinion,go with the 204.The 204 has more choices of factory ammo,and way more choices of bullets for reloading.Quite a few different powders work well in the 204 also.With the 17 rem,not that much choice in factory ammo,or bullets for reloading,actually quite hard to find depending on where you live.I also find in reloading the 17 rem,is that you have to be careful on the powder you use,some powders will give you some really nasty high pressure spikes near max loads.



Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2010, 02:43:36 PM »
Chris :  I don't have any of them I'm kind of like you waiting and watching if it's a caliber I would be interested in so far nothing has came along to make me switch from a 243.  I do have varmit hunting friends that have all of them and to be honest, and I'm looking at it as strictly a coyote small varmit gun.  The 17 rem not many of my friends use them anymore, the 17 HMR  a lot of my friends bought them when they first came out, and doesn't get the coyotes down everytime and some run off, I wasn't too impressed, the 204 flat hammers them but still blows thru sometimes.   The 22-250 is a great cartridge, but still cannot compete with a 243  especially during long range windy conditions. My friends use look at me with my 243 while we shoot ground squirrels & P-dogs long range 400 + and became believers. Some have now switched over to the 243 and 6mm.   It still tears up a coyote got to try some of those Barnes varmit grenades one of these days. I don't keep them anyways so  it's a moot point for me just something else to try.  I guess it depends on range and what you are looking for.  Ron


Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2010, 03:47:24 PM »
Just sold all my 17 Remington stuff. and if I was to start over I would go the 204 only for ammo availability? to me a 218 bee, or a 22 hornet a 223, and a 22-250 fill the bill nicely and if you need more for windy conditions the 243 gets the nod!   the 17 hmr. ::)..go with a 22 mag instead.......Jim


  • ***
  • 109
    • View Profile
Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2010, 04:06:11 PM »
The 204 Ruger is a very popular coyote caliber around here,with the right bullets it puts them down right there and doesnt tear them up bad,my predator rifle shoots a 150 gr sst at about 3400 fps with 77 grs of imr 4831,bucks the wind real good. ;D
Now is the good old days.

Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2010, 06:34:02 PM »
The other day my Brother bought a Savage 93-17 and took it to the range.  The gun grouped pretty well for a brand new gun and not having the barrel broken in, 3/4 to one inch groups at 100 yards.  If I was going to go with a Savage I think I would go with the Classic or bull barrel wood stock model.  As for the price of 17 HRM ammo, I can get a 50 round box of Hornady 17 grain bullets for $12.00 which at least for me isn't too bad.  I do have a .243 Winchester and my Dad has a .220 Swift and .22-250 so what ever I choose would be a new and different toy to use.  I will be hunting in Pennsylvania for coyotes, woodchuck, crows,  and maybe a rabbit or two. 

I guess one of the reasons I am considering the .17 Remington is for the fact that it isn't something you see very often and that has peaked my curiousity.  I have done my homework and know the limited selection of brass and heads for the .17 caliber but am confident I can get it through my favorite place to buy my supplies, MidwayUSA.    As for the suggestion to go with a .22 Magnum I noticed that ammo for that is about the same price as the .17 HMR.  I also recall reading, I believe it was in the most recent issue of the book Cartridges of the World, that the .17 HMR drops 10 inches less than the .22 Magnum at 200 yards.  I haven't researched this yet and quite honestly wouldn't be taking a 200 yard shot with either of them and find that a bit extreme. 

This rifle will be used out to 100 yards and mostly less than that, if I am going to go beyone that I will go with my .243 Winchester even over the bigger .22s because if the better balistics.  So I am still kicking this around.  I wish I could do the easy solution and buy one of each.   ;)
Nothing is better than a Weatherby, big bore magnum, or a Colt.


Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2010, 07:50:30 PM »
Chris :  That's actually really good 100 yd groups considering it's a rimfire although I wouldn't expect that for 5 shots in all guns & ammo. The 22 WMR I have has never shoot quite that good although it's a little more powerful.  Given your ranges you might want to look at a 22 Hornet or a few other smaller capacity 22 like Fuonlynu suggested.  I have always thought a TC Contender in those smaller rounds to be a ball.  I haven't shot that many , but scoped  223 or smaller in a TC is absolutely fun to shoot and extremely accurate.  I don't have one, but it's one on a list of a few I do want to get.  Jim is way more knowledgable on that one.  I always thought it would be cool to have several stocks/barrels one one platform.     Ron


Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2010, 08:22:42 PM »
I use my 17hmr on groundhogs out to around 125 yards with great results. I've had phenominal results at longer ranges with my .204 and consider it a better round for coyotes. Haven't had the pleasure of owning the .17 in centerfire so no comment.
Best wishes with whatever you decide upon.


  • ****
  • 310
    • View Profile
Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2010, 09:06:46 PM »
I vote for the 17Rem.  I reload mine and its the best shooter of all my rifles. After all its all about bullet placement! Whatever you get make sure you can support it.

Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2010, 08:55:33 PM »
I love my .17 HMR. It's a Savage and shoots really well, especially when you consider it's price tag. As far as I know it is good out to around 150 yards, I am sure you can shoot it further if you want, but the .204 and .17 Rem should give you a definite advantage in terms of range. I use my .17 for squirrels and have no problem stopping ground hogs in their tracks, but all my shots have been within 100 yards. The groups at the range are impressive at 50 & 100 yards as well. $13 per 50 rounds of ammo beats the price of any centerfire ammo I have seen, unless you reload.

Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2012, 06:01:44 PM »
I have a 22-250, 17 Rem, and 17 HMR...... the hmr is fine for jackrabbits and prairie dogs out to a little over 100 yards....provided you KNOW the distance and drop... on wild dogs....... id rather use my bow than that thing. The 17 Rem is a good little round if you can find the ammo, or don't mind the high price for brass. My only issue with it is that after about 10 to 15 rounds I need to clean the barrel or I can't hit a flock of circus tents at 100 yards..... it is easily messed up with a little barrel fouling..... in my opinion..... the 22-250 is the more reliable, and easily obtainable gun...... and it lays out bobcars and dogs like lightning ...... happy hunting
Colt Army


  • ***
  • 220
    • View Profile
Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2012, 06:38:10 PM »
Go .204 if you're going after coyotes, the extra bullet weight comes in handy when making longer shots.

  Another .17 you may want to consider is the .17 Hornet.  Savage is supposed to be rolling out the rifles in the next month or two and Hornady advertises 3650 fps with a 20 grain bullet.

  My personal favorite for coyotes and is the 22-250 though I seriously considered the .204 when I bought my 22-250.  What influenced me was the extra bullet weight and larger choice of bullets and powders for reloading.

Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2012, 07:05:34 PM »
Centerfires and rimfires are in 2 different leagues IMO.

of the rimfires, 22lr, 22mag, 17hmr, I think I'd pick the 17hmr. but that would mostly be for plinking and squirrels, not coyotes.

The .204ruger for coyotes would be good, w/40gr is actually higher BC's than the .223's

I think the .223rem is still the best option overall I think, at least when we're talking less than 300yds, and in an AR15 a sweet yote setup!

22-250 and 243win are great options too.

you really won't go wrong with any of the 204, 223, 22-250, 243 if you ask me.

223rem ammo is by far the cheapest.

the 204 is cool, something new/different, fast, higher bc's than the 223.
the 22-250 imo is the longer range 223rem, although when you want to shoot past 300yds, I'd probably want a 243win anyway when talking yotes, when talking prairie dogs past 300 I'd probably want the 204, less kick, less powder, etc...

good luck!

oh and to answer your question/post...

17 vs 204, get the 204ruger!
get the 17hmr if you want that too, but they're 2 different setups, I'd get a 17hmr instead of a .22lr but if you already have a .22lr would i get a 17hmr? maybe. but if you want to shoot varmints/coyotes get the 204 ruger not the 17hmr.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 07:08:18 PM by HuskyMusky »


  • *****
  • 1843
    • View Profile
Re: .17 Remington vs .204 Ruger vs .17 HMR
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2012, 07:29:20 PM »
If I had to choose from those three it would be the 204.  It's parent case is the 222 Rem mag. The two I use mostly are the 222 Rem Mag and the 6mm Rem.  I could live with a 223 and a 243 with no problems.  I'd pick those over the 17 and 20 anyday.