204 Ruger

Discussion in 'Long Range Hunting & Shooting' started by TOP_PREDATOR, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. TOP_PREDATOR

    TOP_PREDATOR Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Hello is anyone out there shooting with 204 ruger?I am in the maket for a varmint rifle and was looking at 22-250 or 220swift.204 looks good good on paper!
     
  2. Pahunter

    Pahunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    136
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    stick with a swift.
     
  3. Varmint Hunter

    Varmint Hunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    If you want to ZAP little critters out to 200yds or so the 204 Ruger should be fine. For shooting longer range you will find that the tiny 32gr bullets loose velocity very quickly and are rather wind sensitive.

    From 200yd to 450yds the 22-250 or 220 Swift with 50-60gr bullets win hands down.

    I might add, however, that I've killed groundhogs out to 350yds with my .221FB and a 40gr B-Tip,so its not impossible to stretch the practical limits of the 204 or any other cartridge. [​IMG]

    [ 10-07-2004: Message edited by: Varmint Hunter ]
     
  4. Jimno2506

    Jimno2506 New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    QUOTE
    From 200yd to 450yds the 22-250 or 220 Swift with 50-60gr bullets win hands down
    UNQUOTE

    Please tell me why you feel this way. Besides possible wind deflection (which can be equally learned for all trajectories) I personally don't see the "hands down" win.

    The 204 is flatter shooting than either you recommend. Has plenty of energy for varmint sized game.

    200 yards is far far far away from the lethal limit for small critters, coyotes...Maybe, but ground hogs, squirrels, and prairie dogs have been taken well further than twice that range.

    From Hornady's website
    .220 Swift, 50 gr. V-MAX MOLY
    100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
    0.80 0.00 -4.80 -14.80 -31.80

    .22-250 Rem., 40 gr. V-MAX
    100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
    0.60 0.00 -4.50 -14.20 -31.70

    204 RUGER 32 GR V-MAX
    100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
    0.6 0.00 -4.1 -13.1 -29.0

    With a lot less powder, recoil, throat erosion, and longer brass life.

    Please explain your position.

    Thanks
    Jim

    [ 10-15-2004: Message edited by: Jimno2506 ]

    [ 10-15-2004: Message edited by: Jimno2506 ]
     
  5. slygunner

    slygunner Member

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    TOP PREDATOR,
    I have a Rem.VS 22-250 and a Rem.ADL 204, I would recommend that you get a 22-250 before you get a 204. Yes the 204 looks good on paper but the 22-250 is a tried and true cartridge. I love my 204 and I did make a 627yrd shot on a whistle pig, but if I had to give one up it would be the 204.slygunner

    [ 10-15-2004: Message edited by: slygunner ]
     
  6. LB

    LB Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    423
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    This is one of those theoretical discusions, on paper. A 220 Swift and a 204 Ruger are so different that you cannot crunch those numbers and prove your point. There is nothing new, under the sun. In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking.

    You have wind to consider; and the various presentations. A 220 Swift is not a squirrel cartridge, and the Ruger (actually) is neither fish nor fowl. For me, at least, it is hard to define. I don't see it as a serious chambering for large predators; and this is where the Swift excells.

    So, if it drops an inch more, or an inch less at 500 yards, that doesn't begin to tell the whole story. The original question mentions that the man is interested in a 22-250 or a 220 Swift, but the 204 "looks good, on paper".

    That's about the only place it will compare to a Swift, IMHO.

    Good hunting. LB
     
  7. clarkston_cz

    clarkston_cz New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    But the .204 is soo cool [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Varmint Hunter

    Varmint Hunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Jimno2506

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Please tell me why you feel this way. Besides possible wind deflection (which can be equally learned for all trajectories) I personally don't see the "hands down" win. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    When shooting tiny (light) projectiles over long range wind is a significant factor. Contrary to your claim, wind can not "be equally learned for all trajectories". Wind is not a constant force, as gravity is. Wind is rarely consistent in velocity or direction over range. Wind is always a bit of a guessing game and is always changing. Even a wind guage accompanied with a directional flag only tells you the conditions at the bench.

    I am not too confident that the .204 has "plenty of energy" @ 400-500yds. Even the lowly groundhog takes a reasonable level of terminal energy to cause quick & humane death. Tiny pills need lots of velocity to promote lethal effect. In my experience anyway. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that there are much better cartridges for that type of shooting.

    Frankly, I don't see what the .204 can do that the millions and millions of .223 rifles can't do. My guess is that the .204 will have a short love affair with American shooters. Might just out-live the 7SUAM. [​IMG]

    VH

    [ 11-02-2004: Message edited by: Varmint Hunter ]
     
  9. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    166
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Please delete

    Please delete
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2009
  10. lead foot

    lead foot Active Member

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Yeah, I've been playing with the .204 for a couple weeks. In a nut shell, it's MOA, no better, no worse. My rifle is a 700 ADL synthetic converted to BDL in an HS Precision stock, Jewell HVR trigger, with a Leupold 6.5-20X in their dual dovetail b&r.

    It's pretty consistently MOA with both weights of Hornady factory ammo at 100 and 200 yards, the 40 grain load holds that to 300, haven't had time to try the 32 grain load at 300.

    Using once fired factory brass, I've loaded the 40 grain VMAX with H335 and H4895. Best loads so far are 26.5 gr H335 or 27.5 gr H4895. Again, MOA, not much better.

    I've also built a box of 50 cases from Remington .222 magnum brass by necking 'em down, then loading 25 grains of H335 behind a 40 grain VMAX rammed into the rifling. No problems there, accuracy seems about the same.

    The throat on my rifle is long and it's not possible to get as much bullet in the neck as I like without what I consider to be excessive jump.

    So far I think it's a pretty cool cartridge. I've smacked a couple ground squirrels with the 40 grain load. It is not explosive but it sure flings them a ways. The BC on the 40 grain bullet is higher than a 60 grain .224, yet it launches over 3700 fps. This means they managed to come up with .22-250 trajectory and sub .223 recoil. Nifty. However, it bears remembering that while it shoots flatter, it doesn't hit as hard downrange.

    I'm not sure ... good idea but it needs more accuracy to play on the same field with a good .223 or .22-250. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone but a pretty dedicated gun nut. Not sure I'll stick with it real long. But so far it's interesting.
     
  11. Varmint Hunter

    Varmint Hunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Sheldon,
    Sounds like you've got a few interesting guns there. I've always been impressed with both the 6mmBR and the 22BR. Hopefully the 20BR will share its accuracy.

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> What about a 1:9 twist .204 with 50 grain or heavier bullets? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nothing wrong with this combo except that it will not do anything the plain-jane .223 with a 50gr bullet can't do. In theory, the .204 50gr bullet would have a higher BC but a 50gr .224 bullet should be faster when fired from a case with similar capacity.

    Tom,

     
  12. LB

    LB Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    423
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    I'm with the above writer and his astute observations. What we have is a "mature" market, where every potential customer already has more guns than they (actually) need.

    I see no great ballistic advancement in the 204 Ruger, besides being a new toy........wait, my eyes are starting to glaze, I think I need one!

    Maybe I should get a second opinion; from my wife? [​IMG]

    Good hunting. LB
     
  13. lead foot

    lead foot Active Member

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Tom,

     
  14. LB

    LB Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    423
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>No, you're misunderstanding / taking what I said out of context / resorting to an apples to oranges comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Unless this is an argument that only interests a ballistic junkie, I fail to see the point. Read my first post:

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>This is one of those theoretical discusions, on paper. A 220 Swift and a 204 Ruger are so different that you cannot crunch those numbers and prove your point. There is nothing new, under the sun. In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    A comparable B.C.? Why bother? This is not going to prove anything and it enters the realm of apples and oranges.

    Let's keep our feet on the ground. Breathlessly necking a 223 to twenty caliber is not going to reverse the laws of Physics.

    LB <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    [​IMG]