SmallCaliberCentral

darchell wrote:Its amazing how different barrels are. I am using 25.7 Grains of Benchmark and can only get 3615 at the muzzle. I went to 26+ and still was only around 3675. I am starting to wonder about my chronogragh.

Someone here mentioned to me (a while back) to hang a weight on the tripod just in case tha muzzle blast may be altering the readings. Also, you can check the light across the sensors and how far above the sensors the bullet is passing over.

On a different note, check your powder scale, the load could be off.

Jim

Some of us like the carnage, and some of us like a more sanitary result.

It has been my experience that the 204 and 223, as well as 17 Rem, 17 Fireball, etc., do not have the carnage factor that a hot 6mm does, especially at distances beyond 200 yards. Even the hot 22s, such as 220 Swift and 22-250, will not compare with a hot 6mm loaded with an explosive bullet.

However, keep this in mind: If you are going to eat them, do not complain. You may want to consider going to the 17 HMR for even less carnage and waste. The 17 HMR is quite a sanitary little killer on chucks, and can be effective to almost 200 yards, but do not hit them behind the boiler room.

Thanks for the thoughts. As for eating them I posted something on this a little while back. I did skin one out and its in the freezer. I haven't had time to try it yet. I also forgot to mention of the ten that I killed so far this year only one made it back in the hole. I think I may have "winged" him. There was a lot of blood back to the hole but I couldn't see him inside. I was not going to stick any of my digits in to look further. Given what the bullet is doing inside I figure I must have been off. Gonna try the one in the freezer soon and may be going for less carnage in the future.

I predict that you may find some recipes for rockchuck on the internet.

With regard to the one making it back into the hole: they are very tough if you hit them too far back at ranges beyond 200 yards or so. I hate to see them suffer, and never want to be inhumane to any creature. Unfortunately, I have seen them survive for too long if you hit them back behind the vitals.

One thing that occurred to me several years ago: If you are following a foraging chuck at over 200 or 300 yards, and squeeze off a shot just as he moves forward, you can calculate that your shot will tend to hit him too far back. As a result, you tend to get quite a few of these results. Accordingly, if the chuck is moving and foraging, I have tried to train myself to always focus the shot at the head, and then, if he does move at the shot, you will tend to hit him still in a vital area.

My scouting trip yesterday reveals that the numbers of chucks may be down this year in this area, for reasons I am not sure. The jacks are down and may be experiencing diseases such as tularemia. However, the ground squirrel populations seem to be quite good, and it appears that the Townsend ground squirrels have had good-sized litters: many young ones.

Well, I have seen as much as 300 fps difference between rifles with the same load, on the same day, at the same range. However, I doubt if that is happening here.

I'm using 27grs of Benchmark with 39gr Sierra's & just chronographed them again yesterday at exactly 3747 fps in 74 degree weather with a 26" barrel at a guess-ta-mated 500(?) ft above sea level.

I suspect the velocity difference in our 204's has more to do with Temperature and Elevation. Many of us have chrono'd considerable differences when loads are shot under 65 degrees and then above 90 or 95 degrees. Add several thousand feet elevation and we have even higher velocity.

In other words, if folks that are obtaining approx 3900 fps at hotter (90/95+) temps & at higer 3-6000' elevations were to chronograph them below 75 degrees & under 1000', I'd wager their velocities would be much closer to 3700 fps instead of 3900 fps.

But hey??

Frank

When we chronoed my dad's loads we were at about 4200 ft. and 45 degrees.

Verminator, those were probably with the 32 gr bullet I would assume. I have gotten over 4000 fps (can't recall exact velocity right now) and would be about right. The 39 & 40 is considerably heavier & thus slower however.

I meant that we were at about 4200 ft. ASL (above sea level).