I am looking into getting a groundhog gun was not sure which way I should go. A few weekends ago, I did some hunting with a friend of mine, and I used his Fireball and was quite impressed with it. Some things I liked about it; almost no noise, no recoil, you could see the hit in the scope. The problem is it might be a bit difficult to find one. So I was thinking maybe I will have to go with the 204 Ruger instead. Anybody have experience with either caliber? Any recommendations? How does a 204 compare? I would love to shoot one, but I don't know anybody who has one. I am not interested in going with a 22-250 or 223. I want as low noise as possible.
17 Fireball vs 204 Ruger
- Thread starter Jevyod
- Start date
mxsailor803
New member
I've been thinking about a .204 for quite awhile. Mainly i'm wanting it as a AR upper to use as a fun range gun and load testing. Be interesting to hear some comments.
I have both a .221 fireball and a .204 ruger. I would not consider either one of them as quiet.
I don't know what ranges you're looking at, but if you're shooting varmints under 150 yards, the .22 hornet would do fine. It is low noise, no recoil, great for populated areas, and cheap to re-load once you have the brass. (At 10 grains a charge, a pound of powder goes a long way.) I have two hornet rifles for those very reasons.
I haven't seen one yet, but another cartridge that you may want to consider is the new .17 hornet. I have heard rumors of a few savages trickling out in that chambering.
I don't know what ranges you're looking at, but if you're shooting varmints under 150 yards, the .22 hornet would do fine. It is low noise, no recoil, great for populated areas, and cheap to re-load once you have the brass. (At 10 grains a charge, a pound of powder goes a long way.) I have two hornet rifles for those very reasons.
I haven't seen one yet, but another cartridge that you may want to consider is the new .17 hornet. I have heard rumors of a few savages trickling out in that chambering.
I've used a .204 for a few years now, it is by far not a quiet round by any means.
I'm not real familiar with the .17, but I'm guessing gains could be made in wind resistance and longer range energy, albeit probably just a slight advantage to the .204. Both rounds will struggle in any significant amount of wind, but on those days I just take a heavier .223 or .243.
I love my .204 and its without a doubt a gun I will never part with. Hand loads and factory ammo have all shot sub MOA out of it so I couldn't ask for better accuracy.
Recoil is totally negligible, although sometimes the gun will pop a little bit and you may lose your target for a second, but generally you stay pretty much on target and can see impacts.
I'm pushing a 32 g Hornady Vmax at around 4-4100 fps out of it, as a result it shoots like a laser and I routinely kill groundhogs at 300-350. Out past 400 you really need to be dead on reading wind, that bullet just can't hang on at that range with the wind.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
I'm not real familiar with the .17, but I'm guessing gains could be made in wind resistance and longer range energy, albeit probably just a slight advantage to the .204. Both rounds will struggle in any significant amount of wind, but on those days I just take a heavier .223 or .243.
I love my .204 and its without a doubt a gun I will never part with. Hand loads and factory ammo have all shot sub MOA out of it so I couldn't ask for better accuracy.
Recoil is totally negligible, although sometimes the gun will pop a little bit and you may lose your target for a second, but generally you stay pretty much on target and can see impacts.
I'm pushing a 32 g Hornady Vmax at around 4-4100 fps out of it, as a result it shoots like a laser and I routinely kill groundhogs at 300-350. Out past 400 you really need to be dead on reading wind, that bullet just can't hang on at that range with the wind.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
I'd say they're pretty close as far as noise goes, (250 maybe a little louder I always have ear pro on so its hard for me to judge)
I know my dad always comments on how loud my .204 is even when I'm on the other side of the farm ( 3/4 mile away)
I'm sure some will disagree, either way the hot 22-250's and .204's just flat out crack when they go off.
Personally I don't use the .204 for yotes, but I've heard of many people doing so with good results. I generally rely on my .243 for that purpose as it has more than enough energy at any range I decide to shoot them at.
The .204 would serve you perfectly for a 400 yard gun though, just put some good glass on it, in my opinion that can make or break a good gun.
I know my dad always comments on how loud my .204 is even when I'm on the other side of the farm ( 3/4 mile away)
I'm sure some will disagree, either way the hot 22-250's and .204's just flat out crack when they go off.
Personally I don't use the .204 for yotes, but I've heard of many people doing so with good results. I generally rely on my .243 for that purpose as it has more than enough energy at any range I decide to shoot them at.
The .204 would serve you perfectly for a 400 yard gun though, just put some good glass on it, in my opinion that can make or break a good gun.
22-rimfire
New member
I pretty much agree with Kimber84. I don't know about 400 yds, but certainly 200 yds would not be a problem. I know one person in PA who hunts deer with his 204 Ruger.
If we're talking g-hogs and p-dogs ( when i think varmints thats what i think) the .204 will do it all day long. I would never push it that far on yotes though.
@jevyod: Since you're talking 400 yards, I'll weigh back in and change my vote for the .204 ruger. With heavier bullets, it should be perfectly okay for coyotes. Hornady makes 40 and 45 grain, .204 diameter bullets.
Edit for philosophical comment: I know there a legions of varmint hunters, here, who can make 400 yard shots on mouse size targets all day long with aplomb. I confess to being less of a marksman, but still... those small targets get VERY small beyond 250 yards. I have centerfire rifles from .22 hornet to .220 swift. If I had to downsize to nothing but a target barreled .223, I would not feel like I was giving up very much in terms of practicality, range, and performance. In any case, a .204 ruger will do you fine.
Edit for philosophical comment: I know there a legions of varmint hunters, here, who can make 400 yard shots on mouse size targets all day long with aplomb. I confess to being less of a marksman, but still... those small targets get VERY small beyond 250 yards. I have centerfire rifles from .22 hornet to .220 swift. If I had to downsize to nothing but a target barreled .223, I would not feel like I was giving up very much in terms of practicality, range, and performance. In any case, a .204 ruger will do you fine.
Last edited:
trg42wraglefragle
New member
I would definitely choose 204 Ruger over 17FB, it offers advantages in every area with no real disadvantages. Apart from noise and recoil which there wont be a huge difference anyway.
I'd find it hard to choose between 204 Ruger and 22-250 for your purpose, the 32gr 20cal offers similar ballistics to a 22-250 with a 55gr bullet, and with the 50-55gr 20cal bullet, get similar ballistics to a 70-75gr bullet in the 22-250.
I don't know what requirements you need for shooting coyotes as I don't have any to shoot. But for smaller than that varmints I'd opt for the 204 Ruger, less recoil, cheaper to reload, longer barrel life and fits into an AR15.
I'd find it hard to choose between 204 Ruger and 22-250 for your purpose, the 32gr 20cal offers similar ballistics to a 22-250 with a 55gr bullet, and with the 50-55gr 20cal bullet, get similar ballistics to a 70-75gr bullet in the 22-250.
I don't know what requirements you need for shooting coyotes as I don't have any to shoot. But for smaller than that varmints I'd opt for the 204 Ruger, less recoil, cheaper to reload, longer barrel life and fits into an AR15.
603Country
New member
I'd go with the 204, but quite honestly the 223 will push a 40 gr bullet about the same as the 204 and will also give you the option of much heavier bullets. I had that discussion with the Brother-in-law and after he heard my opinion, he went ahead and bought the 204. Oh, well...
True. But a .204 will push a 32g at 4100 fps...
. But your logic is why I have two .223's and a .204 Magnum Wheel Man
New member
I have a 17 Fireball that I just love ( converted a 17 Remington with a shot out barrel to a 17 Fireball with a new barrel & 17 Fireball reamer, a new mag spring & follower, & a spacer block ) IMO, the 17 Fireball is the most balanced of the 17's... that said, since Remington dropped it almost as fast as they released it, I'd probably not go with one, unless you like custom stuff & reloading 
204 Ruger is pretty firmly planted now, ammo & guns generally available... ( took me over a year to accumulate 300 unfired 17 Fireball cases, & had to buy loaded ammo to get the next 200 ) cases of either are pretty easy to form, but I always prefer correct headstamp if possible...
204 Ruger is pretty firmly planted now, ammo & guns generally available... ( took me over a year to accumulate 300 unfired 17 Fireball cases, & had to buy loaded ammo to get the next 200 ) cases of either are pretty easy to form, but I always prefer correct headstamp if possible...