How would the Ruger .204 compare to the .22 Hornet on called in coyotes and similar sized critters? Pelt damage? Penetration? Ease of reloading? Lawdog

Based on its higher velocity, I'd say the .204 would be more destructive than a .22 K-Hornet using the same bullet.

George

And it would likely be way easier to reload due to the pesky hornet having such a wimpy neck/shoulder...

$bob$

The.204 would be easier to reload for ham handed clumsy types and probably have a range advantage of 150 yards or so, based on factory ammo offerings. I don't own a .204 of course, but from what I've read it starts to play second string to the .223 at about 300 yards...

I doubt you're going to see many exit wounds on a yote with the .204 inside of 300 yards if you're using light bullets.

22 hornet is useless on yotes, learned this the hardway, i know some annie oakley is gonna tell me i "aint hittin em in the right place" but have seen em hit in the right place and still run off.

Annie Oakley here Poulsbo, if they run away, HOW do you know they were hit in the right place????

K-22 Hornet,

I'll agree that the Hornet is quite a bit too little for 'yotes as poulsbo stated.

Coyotes are incredibly tough and have a very strong desire to live as do most predators.

I consider the 223 minimum medicine for them if at all possible.

There's nothing magic about a hornet or any other cartridge. Either you can carry a heavy enough bullet at a fast enough speed for instant kills from most any angle or you are undergunned.

Certianly there are multitudes of coyotes and deer too killed every year with even 22 rimfires but there are also multitudes wounded that crawl off to die in abject misery.

I ALSO almost always know exactly where my bullet will strike as my sear breaks and the bullet is propelled to the target. That comes from shooting a lot of game.

Use enough gun!



$bob$

Is there any comparison?

.204 Ruger (33 BTSP) Muz fps 4225...ft.lbs 3025....200 yard-fps 1308....ft/lbs 671

.22 Hornet (45 Sp).. Muz fps 2690.. ft.lbs 1502... 200 yard-fps 723.....ft/lbs 225

LD,

I am not trying to start an argument, but, I have shot several dozen coyotes with my Hornet. What you say is correct: use enough gun. The Hornet is adequate within its range, with the proper bullet and shot placement. I am much more selective about the range when I use the Hornet, than I am when I use my 270Win for coyotes or my 222Mag. To say the Hornet is 'useless on coyotes' is absolutely wrong.
Personally, with the Hornet, I try to keep my head-on shots under 100yds and broadside shots under 150yds. FWIW.

Sure, the .22 hornet is not adequate, yet there's guy's singing the praises of the .17 rimfire on coyote.
I think the .22 hornet is OK, the K hornet is certainly adequate,the .17 rimfire is not adequate whatsoever.

quote:

---

I don't own a .204 of course, but from what I've read it starts to play second string to the .223 at about 300 yards...

---

Take it from one that has both....there ain't a tinkers damn of difference between them. The .223 with 40 grain bullets can be pushed to 3,800'/sec and that's good enough to disect any prairie dog I shoot at out to 250 yards.

Neither the .223 or the .204 is much good beyond that range....except that you can get lucky and I'd rather be lucky with a .224 diameter bullet than a .204 diameter.

As to comparing a .204 Ruger to the .22 Hornet.......Why????? It's like comparing a jack knife to a machette.....both have their place and both are superb tools but they're not interchangable in my eyes. It's like comparing your wife to your mother-in-law.....totally different uses!!!

The .22 Hornet when used on CALLED IN coyotes(100 yards and less) works great. I have taken many a coyote with mine and haven't lost one yet. Most times they never run far either. I was just wondering if the .204 would be easier on pelts. I have tried .223 Rem., .22-250, .224 Weatherby, etc., etc., and all have one thing in common. Too hard on pelts. Lawdog

Take a 32 V-Max down to about 3,500ish and don't hit large bones and you'd probably do fine with the .20's but under a 100 I think the 40 V-Max in the Hornet would be a better fur gun.
Being a small caliber whacko my real suggestion would be a .17, Mach IV, Ackley Hornet or even the .17 Remington. Drop em like a rock and you'll have a heck of a time trying to find the hole.

i know the yotes were "hit in the right spot"because there is no recoil to that little pea shooter i could see the impact point through the scope, and they ran off i don't lose them now that i've got a real 22 cal center fire.

I've used the 40gr Vmax and BT in my Hornet, and did not like the results on coyotes. I lost a few, and I think the bullets hit the shoulder ball joints, and did not penetrate the vitals.
The Hornet is not, IMHO, a reliable +150yrd coyote round. Within it's limits, it works well, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-22hornet:
I've used the 40gr Vmax and BT in my Hornet, and did not like the results on coyotes. I lost a few, and I think the bullets hit the shoulder ball joints, and did not penetrate the vitals.
The Hornet is not, IMHO, a reliable +150yrd coyote round. Within it's limits, it works well, though.

---

Must be about the first time hearing of someone
shooting too far forward.
Don't know about coyotes but the old factory
hornet HPs were one shot kills on fullsized
wild stallions, when unaware and undisturbed,
low and just behind the sholder. (In the middle
of nowhere, the hornet was all I had.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by JAL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-22hornet:
I've used the 40gr Vmax and BT in my Hornet, and did not like the results on coyotes. I lost a few, and I think the bullets hit the shoulder ball joints, and did not penetrate the vitals.
The Hornet is not, IMHO, a reliable +150yrd coyote round. Within it's limits, it works well, though.

---

Must be about the first time hearing of someone
shooting too far forward.
Don't know about coyotes but the old factory
hornet HPs were one shot kills on fullsized
wild stallions, when unaware and undisturbed,
low and just behind the sholder. (In the middle
of nowhere, the hornet was all I had.)

---

I agree. Never seen the need to shoot one thru the shoulder when one thru the heart/lung area does the job very well. Lawdog

Yeah, in a perfect world all the called in coyotes will stop at 50 yards in the open and turn broadside for that heart/lung shot, however...most of the time though, they stop facing in my direction. As I said, I have not had good results with the lighter bullet i.e. 40gr Bt/Vmax from the Hornet in this situation. Now, same shot and bullet, but from my 222MAg, I have not lost any coyotes.
Based on my personal results, I do not use the 40gr BT/Vmax for coyotes in my Hornet anymore. I get better results from the 45gr Barnes Xlc or a 45gr softpoint.
As always, your results may vary.
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Is there any comparison?

.204 Ruger (33 BTSP) Muz fps 4225...ft.lbs 3025....200 yard-fps 1308....ft/lbs 671

.22 Hornet (45 Sp).. Muz fps 2690.. ft.lbs 1502... 200 yard-fps 723.....ft/lbs 225

What formula are you using for ft/lbs energy?

This is the one I use. I read this in a ballistics book:

bullet velocity X bullet velocity
(bullet velocity squared)
X bullet weight, divided by 450400 = ft/lbs of energy.

I checked it with manufactures listed velocities and energy values, it seems to be accurate. Am I doing something wrong?

Using my formula and your velocity numbers, I came up with:

.204 Ruger (33 BTSP) Muz fps 4225...ft.lbs 1308....200 yard-fps 1308....ft/lbs 125

.22 Hornet (45 Sp).. Muz fps 2690.. ft.lbs 723... 200 yard-fps 723.....ft/lbs 52

Using the same approximate values you listed for the .204 MV, "recalculated" for my .338 (3025/1308=2.3, 2.3 X 3900 ft/lbs., my .338 would have about 9000 ft/lbs energy@muzzle.

Something is wrong and I'm not sure exactly what.

quote:

Originally posted by 17rem:
Sure, the .22 hornet is not adequate, yet there's guy's singing the praises of the .17 rimfire on coyote.
I think the .22 hornet is OK, the K hornet is certainly adequate,the .17 rimfire is not adequate whatsoever.

If you are referring to me, I didn't say the 17HMR was the caliber I would choose to hunt coyotes, it is not.

I use a .223 and a 6mm Rem.

I said, "I know for a fact that a 17HMR, 22MAG and 22LR will kill a coyote out to 100 yards." And they will.

It it shot placement? Luck? Skill?

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Is there any comparison?

.204 Ruger (33 BTSP) Muz fps 4225...ft.lbs 3025....200 yard-fps 1308....ft/lbs 671

.22 Hornet (45 Sp).. Muz fps 2690.. ft.lbs 1502... 200 yard-fps 723.....ft/lbs 225

What formula are you using for ft/lbs energy?

This is the one I use. I read this in a ballistics book:

bullet velocity X bullet velocity
(bullet velocity squared)
X bullet weight, divided by 450400 = ft/lbs of energy.

I checked it with manufactures listed velocities and energy values, it seems to be accurate. Am I doing something wrong?

Using my formula and your velocity numbers, I came up with:

.204 Ruger (33 BTSP) Muz fps 4225...ft.lbs 1308....200 yard-fps 1308....ft/lbs 125

.22 Hornet (45 Sp).. Muz fps 2690.. ft.lbs 723... 200 yard-fps 723.....ft/lbs 52

Using the same approximate values you listed for the .204 MV, "recalculated" for my .338 (3025/1308=2.3, 2.3 X 3900 ft/lbs., my .338 would have about 9000 ft/lbs energy@muzzle.

Something is wrong and I'm not sure exactly what.

Flippy, You're probably right, the numbers I posted don't look close to being right. I just cut and pasted this off of one of the ammunition makers websites.

flippy,

Here is the comparison of the .204 and 22 Hornet.

BTW if you are using 500-600 grain bullets, or MV is in the 6000 fps range for your .338, you will have about 9000 ft.lbs of E. The formula is right, you must have a math error.

.204 Ruger, 32 gr. Horn. bullet
Range......Velocity.....Energy
(yards)... (ft/sec).....(ft-lbs)
0...........4225.0......1307.9
100.........3639.3.......970.4
200.........3124.3.......715.2
300.........2663.1.......519.6
400.........2248.0.......370.3
500.........1871.8.......256.7
600.........1540.9.......174.0
700.........1271.0.......118.4
800.........1085.1........86.3
900..........972.5........69.3
1000.........896.0........58.8

22 Hornet, 45 gr. Horn. bullet
Range......Velocity......Energy
(yards)....(ft/sec)......(ft-lbs)
0...........2690.0........723.0
100.........2256.6........508.8
200.........1865.4........347.7
300.........1523.5........231.9
400.........1248.7........155.9
500.........1066.3........113.6
600..........957.3.........91.6
700..........881.6.........77.6
800..........819.6.........67.1
900..........766.5.........58.7
1000.........719.4.........51.7

I edited this to try to spread out the data. This EVE software does not support more than one space, or tabs. Bummer for posting data. Hope this works.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by pdhntr1:
flippy,

Here is the comparison of the .204 and 22 Hornet.

BTW if you are using 500-600 grain bullets, or MV is in the 6000 fps range for your .338, you will have about 9000 ft.lbs of E. The formula is right, you must have a math error.

.204 Ruger, 32 gr. Horn. bullet
Range......Velocity.....Energy
(yards)... (ft/sec).....(ft-lbs)
0...........4225.0......1307.9
100.........3639.3.......970.4
200.........3124.3.......715.2
300.........2663.1.......519.6
400.........2248.0.......370.3
500.........1871.8.......256.7
600.........1540.9.......174.0
700.........1271.0.......118.4
800.........1085.1........86.3
900..........972.5........69.3
1000.........896.0........58.8

22 Hornet, 45 gr. Horn. bullet
Range......Velocity......Energy
(yards)....(ft/sec)......(ft-lbs)
0...........2690.0........723.0
100.........2256.6........508.8
200.........1865.4........347.7
300.........1523.5........231.9
400.........1248.7........155.9
500.........1066.3........113.6
600..........957.3.........91.6
700..........881.6.........77.6
800..........766.5.........58.7
1000.........719.4.........51.7

I edited this to try to spread out the data. This EVE software does not support more than one space, or tabs. Bummer for posting data. Hope this works.

Jim

MY formula works, I was using the numbers originally posted by Fjold, which he has said were screwed-up for the same reasons you stated.

Using the energy #'s he had against the numbers I came up with, his #'s came out to 2.3 times the actual #'s (the actual # published from the manufacturer).

2.3 X 3900 ft/lbs = 8970 ft/lbs.

Go to: www.beartoothbullets.com

They have ALL kinds of calculators available to use.

Oh yeah Jim, THANKS FOR THE DATA!!

I don't understand the 204 is it a solution to a non existent problem, so it sits between a .22 hornet and a .223. Is that where the great little round the .222 rem sits ?? which is suddenly out of favour.

The .204 Ruger is a larger cartridge than the .223 Remington!
In-fact, it's the same size as the 222 Remington Magnum!
But, it has a .204 diameter bullet!

Thanks for that !

Who makes .204" bullets and are they easy to get ??

Hornady, Sierra, Berger to name a few, and I have no trouble getting any of them, and besides a lot of people having trouble with the accuracy of the 40 grain Hornady, all the others supposedly are excellent.

The 32 grainers are in the low .2's for me and the Sierra 39's are also in the .2's.

This is one sizzling cartridge! I convinced it's better than a .223 in bullet weights 40 -50 grains and below! But I'm biased....

quote:

Originally posted by ReidH:
Hornady, Sierra, Berger to name a few, and I have no trouble getting any of them, and besides a lot of people having trouble with the accuracy of the 40 grain Hornady, all the others supposedly are excellent.

The 32 grainers are in the low .2's for me and the Sierra 39's are also in the .2's.

This is one sizzling cartridge! I convinced it's better than a .223 in bullet weights 40 -50 grains and below! But I'm biased....

Read the article in this months American Rifleman. (I just recieved it last week in the mail)

It gives some interesting load info and lists some bullet and barrel twist info.