Groundhog rifles ... any advice

but after doing my reseach and talking to a few people i think im going to end up going with a savage .204 25 lv - still doing some looking on scopes tho .. got to have a nice set of glass on it thats a give in
 
No matter what you do for a gun, check out Mueller scopes. They're not $1000 optical quality but they don't cost it either. I have an Eradicator on my .204 and I'm very impressed with it for $200. If your max shot is 200 yards, you certainly don't need the Eradicator's 25x but there are plenty of others in the lineup. Even so, I like magnification, so I might do 25x even for 200 yard shots.
 
As to your original questions, I would suggest looking for a Remington model 788. They usually run from $300 to $425. There are plenty in .22-250 and also .223. They are known for superior accuracy. Better than the 700, usually. As for the cartridges, The .22-250 is a very good varmint cartridge. As far as wearing out barrels, the modern powders available have reduced the throat erosion that used to be fairly common with this and the .220 Swift. And also, it seems the legal beagles have convinced the factories to down-load the cartridges from what they used to be loaded to.
If you handload or intend to, the 788 has a rear locking bolt and so will limit case life to about 5 loadings. Rifles with mauser style bolts ( 700 Remington, Savages, Model 70 Winchesters, etc.) can usually be loaded 7 or 8 times, depending on what level you load them to. If you load to the max, you may only get 3 or 4 loadings before case head separations show up.
The Savage rifles are also very accurate and reasonably priced. Either one will usually shoot sub one inch groups with about any ammo you choose.....John
 
lucky Dog (hunter)

So I take it to mean that you have a Model 70 in 257 Roberts? Lucky indeed. I have to pay a barrel maker to put one on my commercial Mauser action to get to the same place as you are with your rig.
telling us that your Winchester is a Pre-64 would just be cruel.:mad:
Ed
 
I used to hunt groundhogs,we called them woodchucks. And you can eat them, Cube the meat and soak it in brine for 24hrs before cooking and it does passably well, but beef, it ain't!

My varmint rifles are a .22 Hornet, 221 Fireball, .222 Rem, .223 Rem, .22-250, have used .243 Win, 6mm Rem, & .25-06 for looong range. And of course .22LR for short range pests.

Don't know about the .204 Ruger, I'm pretty wedded to the .22 bore for varmints to 3-400yds.

.22 Hornet is a great round, but factory ammo is far from cheap, and its a bit tricky to reload for. .22-250 has been my favorite for decades.

You can get a bolt gun in .22-250 from virtually every maker. Single shots too. The extra 400-600fps over the .223 is more than just a bit useful when the range stretches.

On the other hand, nothing disassembles a woodchuck like an 87gr HP .25-06!
But there's no free lunch. Cost, recoil, blast are all factors. Barrel life has never been a factor to me. I've never burnt one out, but then, I don't loet them get very hot, either. And max loads, often are not quite as accurate as a slighly slower load. Case life is better too.
 
I killed two this past weekend. One with a Sheridan Blue Streak .20 cal. and the other with a .22 revolver both within 30 yards of course. How do you guys see ground hogs 500 yards away?
 
Peetza, if you want to talk apples to apples, then give the 223 the same twist barrel and feed it the same weight of pills as the 204. I have shot 40's out of my 223, set it down, & picked up my 204 also shooting 40's. Let me tell you, it would take a chronograph to tell the difference in them. You guys cripple the 223 by thinking it needs an uber fast barrel twist to shoot 60+ grain bullets & then bag on it because it gets outrun by all the other varmint calibers. It can be very, very close to 204 performance if configured in a comparable manner as a 204.
 
Chett,

Easy!! I used to go to soybean fields late in the afternoon and just watch along the edges of the field. You will be surprised how far away you can see a groundhog when you just look for movement. It is the movement that gets your attention. Then you scan with the binoculars.

Then, you estimate the range. When I used to hunt, I would walk the fields and tune my range estimating before groundhog season.

Piece of cake. For me, groundhog season was fairly short. When the beans really started growing, they rapidly got too tall to see the hogs.

Geetarman:D
 
For years I wondered why anybody would want a puny little cartridge like the 223. I resisted the urge to get one. Well, now I have one, and I'm really fond of it. It's easy to reload and doesn't need much powder. If the shots are going to be 300 yards or more, I'll take the Swift with me, but most of that decision is based on the Swift having a better scope. I could be happy with just the 223, but happily...I don't have to be. I can kill the PD's with the 223 or I can blow them into dust with the Swift. It's good to have options.
 
We dont have Groundhogs or Prairie Dogs but we have plenty of rabbits and IMO for a longrange Varmint rifle you cant beat the .204. There is something about watching a rabbit through the scope at 250-300 yards do a triple backflip while exploding that I really like. While they have about the same range (the .204 and the 22-250) thats one thing the .204 has over the 22-250, you can easily see your hits through the scope of the .204 its not so easy to do with the 22-250. If your only going after small game like Groundhogs and Prairie Dogs then go the .204. As far as guns go IMO you cant go past the Tikka T3 Varmint or Super Varmint rifle, Good stock, great barrell and probably the best trigger on an production rifle (that can be adjusted nice and light), and the best accuracy guarantee (by far) of any production rifle on the market (besides a Sako). Theres nothing to upgrade on a Tikka, just buy it adjust the trigger so its light, put on a good scope and mounts and go shooting.
 
mdd said:
Peetza, if you want to talk apples to apples, then give the 223 the same twist barrel and feed it the same weight of pills as the 204. I have shot 40's out of my 223, set it down, & picked up my 204 also shooting 40's. Let me tell you, it would take a chronograph to tell the difference in them. You guys cripple the 223 by thinking it needs an uber fast barrel twist to shoot 60+ grain bullets & then bag on it because it gets outrun by all the other varmint calibers. It can be very, very close to 204 performance if configured in a comparable manner as a 204.
Click to expand...

Unless you can see the bullets, I'm pretty sure it takes a chronograph to distinguish any two cartridges. That's pretty much why they MAKE chronographs. You can't tell just by looking, hearing, feeling....

Anyway, on the "very, very close to .204 performance", I guess it depends on how you define "very" and "close".

Using the fastest velocity listed by Hodgdon for 40gr .223, which is 3,666 fps, versus the .204 39gr published factory velocity of 3,900fps, JBM ballistics calculator gives the following numbers with a 10mph wind:

.223

300 yards, 2.6 low, 11.4 drift, 350, 7.2 low, 16.1 drift, 400, 13.7 low, 21.9 drift, 450, 22.4 low, 28.9 drift, 500, 33.7 low, 37.3 drift


.204

300 yards, .9 low, 8.1 drift, 350, 4.2 low, 11.5 drift, 400, 8.9 low, 15.7 drift, 450, 15.2 low, 20.8 drift, 500, 23.4 low, 27.5 drift.

So, the .204 maintains a distinct advantage at 300 yards, almost 2 inches at what is not "long range" by most standards and a HUGE advantage at 500 yards, of 10 inches less drop and 10 inches less wind drift.


You can believe what you want, but those numbers are ANYTHING BUT very, very close in my world.
 
Hornady's website is what I went off of. I have several hundred rounds of hornady factory 40 gr 204 ammo and also shoot 40 grain vmax in the 223. Their ballistics tables show the 204 @ 3900 fps and the 223 & 3800 fps. 2.6% spread. That, along with my side-by-side comparisons, lead me to believe they can be much closer than what anyone gives the 223 credit for.
 
I reload so I have a Model 1885 high wall in .22-250. The best shot I have made so far was a ground squirrel at 317 yards. It's good out further than that but I haven't had any longer shots present themselves... BTW, It is death on coyotes....
 
Well I dont shoot'em @ 400yds. But I'll tell you a T-3 22.250 or My AR 15 223 will tear them off the red dirt hills here in GA. at 300yds. The 450.00 TC. VENTURE DOES A FINE job as well.;):D
 
mdd said:
Hornady's website is what I went off of. I have several hundred rounds of hornady factory 40 gr 204 ammo and also shoot 40 grain vmax in the 223. Their ballistics tables show the 204 @ 3900 fps and the 223 & 3800 fps. 2.6% spread. That, along with my side-by-side comparisons, lead me to believe they can be much closer than what anyone gives the 223 credit for.
Click to expand...

The speed difference alone doesn't tell the story. A 40gr .204 bullet has a higher BC than a 40 gr .223 bullet. That means it starts out 100fps faster (at least) and loses less speed than the .223.

Even using 3,800 as a muzzle velocity, at 300 yards, the 223 40gr is going 2437fps and carrying 527ft/lbs of energy. The .204 at that range is going 2702fps and carrying 632 ft/lbs. Your 2.6% is now 9.9%, with nearly 17% less energy.

By 400 yards, the .223 is going 2061fps and carrying 377ft/lbs while the .204 is at 2511fps with 546ft/lbs. The difference is now 18% in speed and 31% less energy for the .223.
 
Hmmm. Lookin kinda like a win for peetzakiller & the 204 ain't it. In the interest of just being stubborn, I still like my 223. Apparently though I've over-estimated its abilities in comparison to the 204. Thanks for taking the time to post all the data points & put my train of thought back on the right track.
 
mdd said:
Hmmm. Lookin kinda like a win for peetzakiller & the 204 ain't it. In the interest of just being stubborn, I still like my 223. Apparently though I've over-estimated its abilities in comparison to the 204. Thanks for taking the time to post all the data points & put my train of thought back on the right track.
Click to expand...

It's always nice to have a civil conversation. :)

Even I will concede that the difference only matters at ranges beyond 250 yards or so. Certainly anything under 200 is irrelevant.

On the flip side, centerfire anything is "overkill" at ranges 200 and under.

That's where we argue 22Mag vs 17HMR. ;)
 
By 400 yards, the .223 is going 2061fps and carrying 377ft/lbs while the .204 is at 2511fps with 546ft/lbs. The difference is now 18% in speed and 31% less energy for the .223.
Click to expand...

Now is the groundhog going to be able to measure the difference in ft/lbs?

And can he really move that much more with the difference in velocity?

With practice, (and here is still the kicker for me) practice 223 ammo is considerably less expensive than the 204, either are still very sound options.

We could all just use a Barrett .50 BMG and really do it right!
 
AZAK said:
Now is the groundhog going to be able to measure the difference in ft/lbs?

And can he really move that much more with the difference in velocity?

With practice, (and here is still the kicker for me) practice 223 ammo is considerably less expensive than the 204, either are still very sound options.

We could all just use a Barrett .50 BMG and really do it right!
Click to expand...

At those distances, the answer could be yes, depending on where it's hit and bullet construction. 377 ft/lbs is not a lot. It all depends.... But, wherever the line is where performance becomes marginal for less than perfect hits, the .204 adds a solid 100 yards over the 223.

And yes, if you have to buy "practice ammo" 223 is cheaper but, like I said before, if you shoot that much then you can save a ton reloading, which instantly equalizes the price and opens up a whole 'nother world... A world where I wouldn't recommend the .204 or the .223. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top