From what I have seen so far, the rifles in. 204 is looking good if it is chambered in. But I reckon that if a rifle can be found at the right price, a conversion to. Given the rifles appearance it looked to be looked after, but well used, so that fits. As it happens, the owner told me the barrel was worn out anyway. 223 isn't it?Īs for my project, for the second time, it is on hold, as the rifle I saw for sale has been sold. 204 is superior, from all reports.Īs for the 20 Prac, it is made from a necked down. 17 though, with good results had from some specialist projectiles, such as 30gn etc, which give a better BC. 20 cal 40gn Hornady V Max has a better BC than a. Not sure how much this matters in the field though. 17 is the projectiles do not have the best ballistics when compared to. 17, but it would have to be considerably less than. I have not looked at what projectiles are available for the. 17 is an option.223 does have the advantage of components being many and varied, and priced well. 204.īut if it turned out to be accurate, then keeping it as a. That is why I have not narrowed my choice to a particular calibre, as if it is worn out and needs rebarelling it can be made into. 17 recently, which showed signs of wear, but he just kept working at getting the barrel clean, which took him ages, and that was all that was wrong with it. I recall one of our members on here bought a. Not all of course, but a rifle in "Fair" condition could go either way. I am assuming that this rifle, and many others of that vintage, and going to have barrels that have seen better days. Ammo cost is not an issue for me, as I am a reloader, so after initial cost of brass it is not a concern. Bit of nostalgia maybe? I wonder with modern barrels, powder, projectiles etc how the fouling problem has changed - it can only be better you would think. 223 would be better choices than 17 rem in my opinion Baronvonrort Staff Sergeant 223 would be the cheapest option for ammo if reloading or buying factory ammo. 223 with starting loads so that could be the cheapest option when considering cost of rifle and glass. 243 would shoot 55-58 gr Varmageddon and Vmax a few hundred feet per second quicker than the. I would avoid the 17 Remington because factory ammo costs a fortune, if you're reloading it would be much cheaper so it comes down to how much you really want a 17 rem. So for shooting small projectiles at foxes etc, what would you choose and why? 243, so not interested in going bigger, this is purely a varmint rifle. I know that I can buy plenty of other stuff for half of what this will cost, but that is not the point. 243, and am looking for a matching rifle in a smaller calibre. Like a lot of projects, this one does not make a lot of sense economically. So for shooting small projectiles at foxes etc, what would you choose and why? GQshayne Sergeant 17, and would want to keep it? Let me know if you are a fan. So what do we think? It could be re-barrelled with a stainless barrel, and modern powders and cleaners are better than they were. The rifle I want is not that common, so not a heap to choose from. No details of why as yet, but guessing barrel, as it looks ok in photos. And needed lots of cleaning.Īnd so I have seen a rifle in. Personally, my memories of it were a fussy, barrel wearing calibre that did not like any wind. 17 seem to be cheaper, I guess it is not such a popular cartridge now. 17 I thought would need to be rechambered. Depending on what rifle I found I was then considering the calibre - if it was. 222 Magnum, but I have not seen one anyway. I have been looking for an old Tikka chambered in 17, 222, or.
0 kommentar(er)
