17rem vs .204

[.270]

IM looking for a new varmint gun. I have a 223 I just wnat something different and I like the idea of watching the red mist in my scope. I do not reload yet I may soon if I ever get the money to get started. What would be the best choice for me now as I don't reload?

[warf73]

204 all the way.

The 204 is produced by Federal, Hornady,Remington and Wincheseter.
The 17 is produced by Remington only unless you custom.
Not only that but 204 ammo is $12-$14 a box 17 is $17-$18.(all was for box of 20)
Warf

[dawgmaster]

Well 270...I can't help yah here really cause I asked mysely that same question and you know what I ended up doing? Buying both calibres!!!
Remington XR-100 in 204
Remington 700 VS in 17
Probably take the 204 if I could only have one though.

[Dogshooter]

Brass is more readily available for the 204 and I have found 204 factory a lot more places than 17. I just got Winchester new unprimed brass at Cabela's for $11/100. good luck finding 17 for that.

[trotterlg]

A 17 Remington is not really comparable to a .204.  A 17 Remington is really the ultimate varmint rifle.  Mine really likes the 22.5gr bullets, they move out at about 4250 fps so shoot flatter and faster than a .204.  A 204 is really a necked up 17 remington case.  Even compared to a .204 the 17 remington has much less recoil, kind of like shooting a laser, pull the trigger and a little hole just appears in what you are shooting.  If you are wanting something a little bigger than a .17 then a 22-250 with a nice slow twist barrel shooting light bullets will smoke a .204 any day.  Between the 17 and 204 are the 19 Calhoon's,  If you are going to re-load they could be fun.  If you are wanting a Varmint rifle, go all the way with it, there are plenty of cheap .223's around if you just want a general puprose plinker.  Larry

P.S. Just run that cheap .204 brass through your 17 Remington dies and you have cheap .17 Remington brass.

[Dogshooter]

I have both, myself and in my particular rifles, the 204 beats the 17. My 17 is a Sako Hunter model and the 204 is a Kimber. Both have 24" barrels and I reload for both. Have been reloading the 17 for a LONG time and just started on the 204 this year. On any given day in a prarie dog town, the 204 has better terminal performance on dogs out to 400 yards and after that the 204 walks off and leaves the 17 in the dust. I have seen better terminal performance on coyotes at all ranges with the 204. I honestly don't remember what round is the base for 17 Rem but the 204 is based off of the 222 Mag case. Never set the two that close to compare. Either way, I'd rather have the 204 if I only had one.

[tuck2]

The 223 Rem case is 1.796 in long, the 17 Rem is 1.796 in long and the 204 Ruger case is 1.850 inches long. I have rifles in the three rounds.  For prairie dog shooting the 204 Ruger round is the best of the three. I live in prairie dog country and will shot between 1,000 to 3,000 a year. For spring prairie dog pup shooting out to 150 Yds the 17 HM2 and 17 HMR rifles are fun to use. Over 150 Yds the 221 Fire ball and 204 Ruger Rifles will be in my pickup.

[Coyotejunki]

The
223 Rem case is     1.760"
17 Rem  case is      1.796"
204 Ruger case is   1.850"

Since you don't reload yet, I would go with the 204 Ruger, Just plain more available cartridges. I own both and actually use the 204 brass for both the 204 and the 17 Rem.

[acloco]

I own a 223.  AWESOME!  Farthest kill, 550 yards.  17 Rem will be here Wednesday, hope to shoot on Friday or Saturday.

My next purchase will be a 204 as well.

If the 17 or 204 improves the performance on longer range kills, I will let you know.....looks like others have already found out!

[nofun1]

I'm glad someone brought up a 19 Calhoon. That is bar none my new favorite gun, based on a CZ 527. Jim does an awsome job and engineering goes right down to the customized bore guides he makes. the 19 calhoon is my funnest and most accurate gun. Look into the 221 Fireball also. its my #2 gun. But if your choice is 204 or 17, than the answer is yes. you cant go wrong

[rangerruck]

th 204 has better s.d.  and b.c. than the 17. the 204 has more bullet options.  the 17 will need to be cleadned more , to keep fouling down and accuracy up. the 17 will require a whole new set of cleaning equipment. if you must get a 17, get a rimfire. The 204 is not over bore, the 17rem is.the 204 is cheaper.  thats enough.

[Catfish]

   To say you should get a .204 because the sd and bc are better than the .17 doesn`t win the arguement because the .22 has a better sd and bc than a .204 and they are cheaper and easier to find than the .204 componants. I have 3 different .17 cal rounds I load and shoot. My favorit is the .17 Ackley Hornet. I also have a .204 in a CZ that is my present carry gun most of the time. I also have 5 different .22 cal. rounds I load and shoot, 6 if you count rimfire.
   I said all of that to say all of this. There really just isn`t that much difference in the preformance of all of the varment rounds I load. Yes I can show you On Paper, where 1 round has the advantage of another, But, most of the time in the field, most of the shots will be at a range that any will do the job. Yes this was said by a guy that is seriously considering a .22-284 so that I will be able to push an 80 gn. .22 cal bullet at 3,500 fps. for the best in long range small cal. accuracy.
   When we start talking about the small advantage one has over another and really buying into that and spending our money on the newest and latest and greatest the gun is no longer a tool but a toy. And he who dies with the most toys wins!
   Now for my oppenion. For PD`s and groundhogs the .17 Rem. will do anything the .204 wil do. For coyote I think that the .204 has a very slight edge. If you reload ammo availablity is of no consern, if not it is. Both are great rounds and you can`t go wrong.

[handirifle]

The 204 was made from 222 Mag brass, necked down to 20 cal.  The 17 rem is a necked down 223 brass.

[trotterlg]

Handirifle:  Not really, a 17 remington case is quite a bit longer than a .223 case.  Larry

[Catfish]

I load and shoot both the .17 Rem. and the .17-223. To look at the rounds they are very hard to tell appart, but neather will fit in the other chamber. That and if you try to form .17 Rem. brass from .223 brass your cases will come out several .001 shorter than the trim to lenth, they are better formed from .222 mag. brass, which is what I used to form my .204 brass from befor it became available.

[cgillette]

imho I think you should go with the 20. Reloading the 17 can be just a little bit of a challange.  The 20 grain pills are just a little hard to find. As the brass and ammo is getting easy to find for the 20 go that way. As for me and I reload I will shoot the 17. All things given give me the 22-250 for max splat factor. cgillette

[handirifle]

Handirifle:  Not really, a 17 remington case is quite a bit longer than a .223 case.  Larry

I stand corrected on the 17 Rem.  I always thought it was formed from the 223. 

[acloco]

Shot on Friday....

I like the 17 because I can watch the hit - NO recoil.  At 500 yards, the 223 is back to battery position...any less yardage and I do not get to see the carnage.

17 Remington at 383 yards (25 gr Hornady HP).


223 at 400 yards (55 gr Nosler BT).