17-204

Discussion in 'Small Stuff--22s, 20s, and 17s' started by hoghunter, Aug 1, 2011.

  1. hoghunter

    hoghunter

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    43
    anyone shooting a 17-204? Need loading data if ya!ll have any thanks
     
  2. maxscm

    maxscm Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    185
    You may check on www.saubier.com site for that info,,
    awesome caliber!
     
  3. Catfish

    Catfish

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    399
    You just invented the 17 Remington.
     
  4. Hal

    Hal

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    432
    Sorry I posted incorrect info.

    Hal
     
  5. Silverfox

    Silverfox Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Hal--Not trying to be argumentative, but I have always been led to believe that the .17 Remington casing was based on the old .222 Remington magnum and the .204 Ruger casing is based on that same .222 Remington magnum casing as well. If you try to form a .17 Remington casing out of a .223 casing it will be shorter than the factory .17 Remington casings. Check it out at this link:

    http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1862456/1
     
  6. Hal

    Hal

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    432
    Silverfox

    Your correct, my mistake. Thanks for catching that.

    Hal
     
  7. vernahll2

    vernahll2

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Wow. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about Remingtons, Hal.
     
  8. HawkI

    HawkI

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Todd Kindler's 17 VLR (17-223 Imp) perhaps would be a good starting point for data for this cartridge (17-204).

    I load for both the 17 Rem and 17-222 Mag. and can assure you they are not the same cartridge, as the 17 Rem. has less capacity, a longer neck and shorter case length, but as noted in the link the 17 Rem. is longer than the 223 case.

    They may seem miniscule to the eye, but when max loads are approached the 17-222 Mag bests the 17 Rem. by 100-200 fps..

    A 17-204 would get a smidge more if throating were similar.
     
  9. Catfish

    Catfish

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    399
    I have never loaded for a 17 -222 mag, or a 17 mag. as they were know back in the day. I have had and loaded for the 17 MK1V, 17 Rem., the 17-223 and the 17 AH. I have also formed alot of 17 Rem. brass from 222 mag. brass. I think my favorite of the bunch is the 17 AH. While the smallest 17 case I have loaded, it will still push a 19 gr. Calhoon bullet to 3,600 fps. and has a max point blank range of around 290 yrds., all on 10 .4 grs. of powder and a carbine lenth barrel. Don`t sell any of the 17`s short.
     
  10. DOGCAPPER

    DOGCAPPER

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    338
    HOGHUNTER: I own a 17 Mag (mfg designation) built on full length 222 mag case....I use 748 Win powder because it meters better, gives high velocity,and very accurate.
    24 gr gives 4000 fps+ but is not where to start....That load is too hot to use if you value your rifle and personal appendages..23 grains give 3900 fps and will kill Florida deer with 1 shot just behind the shoulder...Also does not tear turkeys apart...Builder was Brown out of Texas...Sako small action Unknown barrel sub sporter size like a pencil barrel nice blond stock.....Lasst time out my daughters first deer hunt...
    we filled three doe tags for a friend with three shots.....LT
     
  11. Silverfox

    Silverfox Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    HawkI--
    I don't believe anyone stated that the .17 Remington casing and the .222 Remington Magnum casing were "the same cartridge." I said that the .222 Remington Magnum casing was the parent casing of the .17 Remington casing and also the parent casing of the .204 Ruger casing.

    Here's a series of photos I took while forming WW .204 Ruger brass down to .17 Remington.

    First, I used a .17 Remington body die and ran the casings up into the die just enough to size the necks down a bit. A WW .204 Ruger casing is on the left side of every one of these photos for comparison:

    [​IMG]

    Step #2: I ran the casings up into my .17 Remington #1 form die:

    [​IMG]

    Step #3: I ran the casings into my .17 Remington trim die:

    [​IMG]

    Step #4: Trim the brass to a length longer than max SAAMI length—I was trimming it to 1.810" to 1.815", but in the future I will trim the brass to 1.83" to 1.835", because when I fire formed the brass many of the casings wound up slightly shorter than the trim-to length of 1.786".

    The 5th step was to run the casings into my .17 Remington full length die:

    [​IMG]

    These casings have slightly less volume than factory .17 Remington casings and as a result require lighter weight powder charges than maximum listed loads for factory .17 Remington casings--way less powder.

    I just remembered I also formed some .222 Reington Magnum casings down to .17 Remington. You can see the transformation from .222 Rem Mag to .17 Remington in this photo below. The .222 Rem Mag casing is on the right and the formed .17 Rem casing is on the left-hand side of the photo:

    [​IMG]

    [Edited to add the .222 Rem Mag to .17 Remington photo at 12:35 p.m. on 8/15/2011.]
     
  12. HawkI

    HawkI

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Silverfox,

    I believe Catfish told the gent that he just had "just invented the 17 Remington"; no harm done, just clarifying.

    [​IMG]

    Left to right the 17FB, 17 Rem., 17-222 Mag and 222 Mag.

    Using 204 cases proved to be much less a chore for 17-222 Mag cases; a 17-204 would be a snap with bushing dies.
     
  13. 300meter

    300meter Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    Curious, why you would spend that much time forming 17 Rem brass from 204 cases when you can buy 17 Rem brass new? Isn't that why too much time at the loading bench?
     
  14. Silverfox

    Silverfox Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    300meter-
    I bought my first .17 Remington back in the early 1980s and acquired a large quantity of .17 Remington brass over the years, maybe in the area of 1,500 to 2,000 casings. A few years ago, I built a .17 Remington with a .1945" neck. The brass has to be turned so the neck wall thickness is .0095". I had quite a number of .17 Remington casings that did not have neck walls that measured >=.0095!!! I have a great big box of culls from that brass that measure <.1945" in neck wall thickness. I bought a brand new bag of .17 Remington brass and it had 101 casings in it. ONLY ONE OF THOSE CASINGS HAD NECK WALLS >=.0095" all the way around!!! Crappy quality control in my opinion. I corresponded with Remington and they said the measurements I was getting were well within their acceptable specifications!!! Right then and there I decided that the next .17 Remington I built would NOT be using .17 Remington brass!!!

    Yes, I spent a lot of time at the loading bench, BUT I DON'T THINK I SPENT TOO MUCH TIME there. I wanted quality brass to make high-quality loaded rounds.

    I finally got around to collecting enough money to build a .17 Remington on a Stiller Predator repeater action in December of 2009. I wanted quality brass, not junk brass. I wanted the brass to have neck walls thick enough so I could turn them down to .0125" in thickness. That last bag of factory Remington brass just wasn’t up to the quality standards for my new build and the old brass I had on hand wasn’t much better. Since the .222 Remington Magnum casings are the parent casing for both the .204 Ruger and the .17 Remington, I decided to use WW .204 Ruger brass and form it down to use in my .17 Remington. Yes, it was a bunch of work, but after the forming, annealing, neck turning, etc., I had brass that I could be proud of that was worthy to be used in my Predator action. I had Dave Kiff at Pacific Tool & Gauge build a chamber reamer with a .201" neck. Loaded rounds measure .197" in diameter at the neck with most bullets.

    That's my loooooong winded story and I'm sticking to it!!!
     
  15. 300meter

    300meter Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    Sounds like you are doing a first class job. I suspected you weren't satisfied with the Remington quality. Keep us posted on how everything works out.
     
  16. Silverfox

    Silverfox Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    300meter--I guess I had better apologize to the thread starter for hijacking the thread, but I want to answer 300meter one more time.

    I have been shooting the Predator action .17 Remington using the WW .204 Ruger brass formed to .17 Rem since the summer of 2010 and it is one heck of a great prairie dog eradicator. I was using 25 gr. V-Max bullets coated with hBN, but have switched to 29 gr. FB HP VLD Genco bullets. Here's a typical target shot with the 25 gr. V-Max bullets coated with hBN. I might go back to these bullets once I use up the Gencos--they are DEVASTATING on prairie dogs!!!

    [​IMG]

    I had purchased about 400 of the Genco bullets a while back and tried them in a barrel that had some serious heat cracking in the throat. Those 29 gr. Gencos were not reaching the target because of the damage caused by the rough barrel. I had that barrel set back about 2 inches and still had problems with the bullets evaporating. So, I put those bullets aside until I built this Predator action .17 Remington and they are now working just fine in the new barrel. Here's the last target I shot with the load I am using now:

    [​IMG]

    I also have about 700 of the 30 gr. Starke FB HP bullets I will probably use in this rifle once I shoot all the Genco bullets: Here's a target showing the only group I shot with this bullet. I didn't have the chronograph set up that day, but I'll try a couple more loads with a bit more powder and chronograph those test shots.

    [​IMG]

    This same rifle handled the 29 gr. BTHP Kindler bullets pretty well too. I only tried two different loads with those bullets and this was the best group of the two tests. This is also a VERY HOT LOAD for this rifle--TOO HOT!!!

    [​IMG]

    Anyway, I am pleased with the casings I formed out of WW .204 Ruger brass. I am also pleased with the performance of this action, barrel, scope, and stock combination.
     
  17. Tom Flemons

    Tom Flemons

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    I am shooting a 17-204 custom with 27 inch barrel. 1-9 twist.

    the only load I am shooting so far is;
    30gr Berger moly coated bullet
    Rem 71/2 primer
    Rem 204 necked down new brass
    H414 28.5 grains.

    Have only shot targets so far but like the load.
     
  18. DOGCAPPER

    DOGCAPPER

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    338
    Hi Tom. Larry Taylor. Finished the 17 204 with the reamer/go guage You sold me .Working fine. Got some cases fire formed sort of. Cautious with no data.
    I will need a die set as my 222 Mag 17 dies wont fit. Who did your loading dies?
     
  19. vlcakc

    vlcakc Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    166
    I had a 17/204 built last summer on a Remmy 700 action, Lilja Rem Varmint contour 9 twist barrel, Jewell BR trigger, PT&G bolt and McMillan Edge BR stock. With very limited testing I shot some 5-shot groups less than 0.5", a couple waaay less. I started with 17 Rem manual loads with H380 and 25 gr Hdy HP bullets and worked up. AA2700 also shot extremely well with the 25 gr Hdy HP's. I have some other loads to test with other powders waiting for better weather. Also have some Berger 25 gr HP's to load. No chrono data as yet. Vic
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page