What's happened?

Did everyone take a chill pill and fall asleep or something?

This post was just starting to get informative, and VG falls asleep???

quote:

Originally posted by rugeruser:
What's happened?

Did everyone take a chill pill and fall asleep or something?

This post was just starting to get informative, and VG falls asleep???

Actually, VG got himself rather banned from the site. A loss (probably temporary)to many, including myself!

Can't say I'll miss him, he might have been knowledgable, but he was a surly old curmudgeon who had a unique way of ramming his opinions down people's throats, and not listening to anything that came even close to rebutting or refuting his cherished 'knowledge'....

Graveyards are full of indispensable people...

Rugeruser, I may feel compelled to buy a .204 and name it VarmitGuy in memory of a true colony varmint shooter. Who knows what the future holds.

Whatever floats your boat I guess, I don't have an issue with the 204...

My issue is with VG - he may have a lot of knowledge, but his offensive and abusive posts are somewhat tiresome...

When personal invective enters any debate, reason goes out the window, and I've seen too many discussions on this forum get stifled by his attempts to belittle others for his own self aggrandisment.

Good riddance.

quote:

Originally posted by 308Sako:

Shots I've missed...

308Sako...

Can you 'splain somfin to me???

I miss a fair amount of shots, and my house doesn't look like yours... how come???



But wanting to get back to the original topic (what was it??).

I am a varmint shooter. I don't hunt deer (except with the front of my truck), or other big game.

All of my rifles are for target shooting and varmint shooting....

... and I think ALL of them have a place. I have shot feral dogs on a family member's dairy farm with a 40XB in 300 Win Mag at ranges from 500 to 800~ish, and it worked OK, though it was tiring at my end.

I did NOT find that the 178 A-Maxs worked well... Hornady said they would act like a varmint bullet, but they did not blow up like a varmint bullet. On some shots, they passed through the dogs and bounced off the ground and over the horizon. The 300 WM was put away very quickly.

That brought me down to a Rem 700 Sendero-II SF in 264 WM, with 95gr V-maxs @ 3600fps for feral dogs, and it's a big improvement... (not in the dog's opinion).

But I also shoot a 6mm Rem, a 6mm Ackley, a few .22-250s, a whole bunch of .223s, a .222, a few .218 Bees, a .22 Hornet, a .204, and have a new .17 Rem Fireball on order.

Obviously, my thoughts are that they all have a place. On some of the small farms in the middle of my state, even the .223 is a bit much in he noise department, and crows don't take much killing, so the .17 FB might open a few farms for me.

I have hunted PA, and what you use depends on the size of the farms... if they are large rolling fields, the .243 would be in place, but if they are small truck farms, a .204 might be a better choice.

I think it's not what's the best caliber - there are many fine varmint calibers - I think it's more a question of "Which caliber is best for my kinda fields?".

.

CatShooter,

Welcome to the forums.

I couldn't agree more with you about the specific application and the local tolerance for noise. The house of misses sits on the border of NY & Mass, just north of Lakeville CT. So I do understand the necessities. Back in the early '60's I began to shoot woodchucks on a farm in Bethel NY, right next to Max Yasgers before Woodstock, killed my first deer there to.

Now for the confession: I am so jealous of your .264 Sendero!

quote:

Originally posted by 308Sako:
Not trying to, but this question might stir one.

In my experience I have not found the .17 calibers all that effective, so I am predisposed to avoid sub .224 diameter chamberings for varmint shooting.

So what are the observed differences between a .223 or .22/250 and the most recent King the .204 Ruger? What makes the smaller, light bullets somehow more effective, paper ballistics?

Yeah, that ought to work!

308 Sako,

I must tell you I didn't understand your original question and I still don't. It has to do with your statement of "17 calibers". Please give me some latitude here, and maybe I can relate my confusion.

It is my understanding that there is 17 cal. centerfire and 17 cal. rimfire available. I have first hand experience with 17 CF and above shooting pds, but I don't have experience with 17 RF other than sighting them it, mounting scopes, shooting beer cans etc.

I recall a rancher I met last summer that had a problem with pds getting into an irrigated field next to his buildings. He told me we could shoot the field as long as we used "17s". I understood at once he was talking about a 17 RF and not the 17 Rem. In my opinion there is a significant difference. If we would have opened up on the field with 17 Rems he would have been questioning us what was going on.

Can you see my dilemma? You state you have not found the "17 calibers" to be effective, and then ask us to compare the 223, 22-250 and the 204??

If I have completely missed the point that you were just stirring a pot, then I will consider myself embarrassed once again and have learned another lesson in life.

Jim

Jim, Thanks for getting back on track here. My experience with .17's is on eastern woodchucks and the cartridges were the .17 Ackley Hornet and the .17 Rem. I like you have a passing exposure to the .17 HRM but no field experience with it. It was indeed also aimed as a question to get folks to relate their experience with the .204 Ruger, and other small bores in comparison to their experience with the larger .224 bore cartridges.

It wasn't meant to go down the path it took!

Thanks for the post...

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by 308Sako:
So what are the observed differences between a .223 or .22/250 and the most recent King the .204 Ruger? What makes the smaller, light bullets somehow more effective, paper ballistics?

Pretty straight forward and simple question.

Maybe a simple breakdown of the question might help...

a) So what are the observed differences between a .223 and the .204 Ruger? What makes the smaller, light bullets somehow more effective - [are those opinions based on] paper ballistics? or actual observed differences.

b) So what are the observed differences between a .22/250 and the .204 Ruger? What makes the smaller, light bullets somehow more effective - [are those opinions based on] paper ballistics? or actual observed differences.

Does that help?

In case anyone's wondering, I'm very interested in this topic.. I've seen soem good results with the 204, and I've seen some pretty ordinary results....