204 yah or nay?

This is my recent experience using a 35 Whelen and my trusty shooting chrony: The Lyman #47 Reloaders Handbook states that with 31 grains of 2400 the MV should be 1547 fps using a 158 grain hp 38 caliber pistol bullet. I am getting 2399 fps averages only using 29 grains of 2400! And this is out of 2 completely different cans and years of manufacture of 2400. (This is my fireform loads and, yes, this is making me a little nervious but man they are accurate for what they are) The book and the chrony DOESN'T ADD UP. The 250 grain RN 35 Caliber Bullets shoot just over 100 fps faster than the book states they should with that particular loading, also. But nowhere have extreme pressure signs been evident on either loading. This is not the first time I have witnessed a decidedly different result in my 19 year handloading career from the published data and actual data upon shooting but probably the most dramatic. My .223's also are markedly different from book to range.
This is not the 204 Ruger but I hope it helps those who are wondering that all may not be as it seems just because it is written in a reloading manual.
 
Sorry, I couldn't resist /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://www.gun-tests.com/pub/16_6/features/5169-1.html

This article compares the new .204 and .223 wssm to the old dog 22-250. Guess which one they say is "still king".

Oohhh Boooy ! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif now I gone and "done'r"
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Remember all you .204 shooters whom I am gaining much respect for. I did not write this .........( blasphmeme) article. I think you .204 shooters need to team up on the ignorant bastard who tested and wrote such non-sence. As I am sure you can hear the cheers and applaud of the 22-250 shooters in the background.

I know how much you guys .......sorry "ya'all" like gun articles and such. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sorry (he,he) I just could not help it. I guess I got a little "pot stir'er" in me.

I can hear the "ouch !" from the .204 clan from here (grin)
 
Last edited:
Silver fox, thanks for the info. I think I'll try the 39gr sierra's for a change, always up for something new. I usually use 40gr v-max in .223 and love them. Have killed lots of prarie dogs with them and 2 yotes. The dogs had some great aerials and the yotes dropped in their tracks with no exit and very un-noticible entrance. lots of people talk down the v-max but I really like them. They're all I use in my varmint rifles! Thanks again!
 
bill1227-- I don't think I, nor BCB, or any othe other posters who like the .204 Ruger or other .204 caliber rifles have said that the old dog 22-250 is dead and gone. We just don't like to stand by wringing our hands when we read something we think or know needs to be corrected or verified. As I said before, I own a Tikka Master Sporter in 22-250 and I enjoy shooting that very much, but not as much as my .204 Ruger and .17 Remington.

As far as the article you linked us to, it looks like you have to be a subscriber or sign up for the "FREE 14-day trial subscription" to read the "meat" of that article and I'm not willing to pay the fare to do that, nor am I willing to give them any personal information to get their "FREE" trial subscription. The "teaser" gives absolutely no information (none, nada, zero, zip) to prove anything one way or the other about whether Quote:
Varmint Cartridges: The .22-250 Still Reigns; Ruger’s .204 Is Hot

. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

So, while the title is titilating, it really doesn't give any of us any information upon which we can form any kind of decision. It is a waste of time, but thanks for trying to "stir the pot," as you put it. Your attempt to "stir the pot" did get this response from me, so that should satisfy your desire to be the "stir'er of the pot." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
Maybe about the best way to do this is to just post One View of all of this - in this case Remington's. Hopefully using Remington's ammo data won't cause owners of other makes of rifles, ammo, etc. to jump up and down and cry foul, but I doubt that it will unless they just want to "stir the pot" or whatever else they want to do.

For the "pot stirrers", about a year and a half ago, most of the gun writers were convinced the new 204 Ruger would "revolutionize" predator/varmint shooting to use one of the words expressed in an early article. I really didn't buy that either, so I hung on to a few other rifles I had, including a couple of other 20 caliber cartridges, a couple of 17's, a 22-250, and a few other .224", 6MM, and .257" cartridges.

I'm using this data as it should eliminate all questions about chronographs, ballistic programs, etc., etc., as it all should have been prepared as "apples and apples and apples". For the specifics of what was done you can look for yourself on Remington's web site under "Ballistics". If anyone has problems with any of the numbers, take it up with Remington. This is what I got at the time I prepared the data.

WARNING: These charts also include 223 Remington data in them. IT IS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE INTENTION OF CAUSING A MAJOR UPRISING ON THE PART OF 223 REM OWNERS. IT IS MERELY INCLUDED BECAUSE I PREPARED THIS DATA A WHILE BACK FOR A FRIEND WHO WAS INTERESTED IN REAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE THREE CARTRIDGES.

The first chart shows a comparison of velocities for the three cartridges out to 500 yards.



The second chart shows a comparison of the energy of the various bullets at distances out to 500 yards.



This third chart shows both the short range and long range trajectory ballistics of the three cartridges. Please notice that the zeroed distance for the 204 Ruger and the 223 Rem is 200 yards in the Long Range Table and the 22-250 is zeroed at 250 yards. I applolgize in advance for Remington making such a "screw up" as that to allow in one discrepancy in the data, but that's what THEY did and I don't have any ties at all with Remington. If you want to make that data all the same, a good ballistics program will further enlighten you on the dfferences. The internet has several good free ones available.

About the only statement I've made here in this thread - that incidently has taken on new meaning to some - is that the real beauty of the 20 calibers comes from using the heavier bullets with a better ballistic coefficient for longer range shooting.

If you will look at the data for the 204 Ruger only, you will see that by 300 yards the velocity of the heavier, higher BC, 40 grain bullet has overcome the velocity of the lighter 32 grain bullet. Also, at 400 yards it practically equals, and between 400 and 500 yards the heavier 40 grain bullet overcomes the trajectory of the lighter 32 grain bullet. If these charts were extended further in distance, the differences in velocity and trajectory between the lighter and heavier .204" diameter bullets would become even more pronounced.



I never have nor do I ever plan to regularily shoot at a coyote much beyond 300 yards unless under ideal conditions - he's standing broadside to me and I have a good rest to shoot from. I don't hunt coyotes with a heavy barreled rifle sitting at a bench, so that limits what I do in those situations. However, when I'm shooting at PD's, the ballistic advantage of the heavier, higher BC .204" bullet can be utilized when you have one of those "arrogant" PD's at 680 yards who "defies" you to hit him.

EDIT: In addition, when a bullet manufacturer finally turns out a good heavy jacketed, lead tipped 20 caliber bullet, many of the problems folks have had with the 204 Ruger will vanish in trying to use a light jacketed varmint bullet as a hunting bullet. I hand swage my own, and its not a hard thing for a bullet manufacturer to do.

Beyond this, I don't know what more to add other than this comment: If I had to choose only one varmint caliber and had to live with it, it wouldn't be either of the two that folks have been argueing about here.

But, that's just MY personal choice. Beside, to quote someone from a few days ago - I don't remember who it was /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif - : "Dead is dead.......who cares? I don't."

I hope the rest of you can live happily ever after with your choice if you choose to live with just one. - BCB
 
Last season I gave the 204 an honest whirl. I was shooting a Remington LVSF and using the Hornady factory ammo. During paper testing the 32gr bullets shot in the same place as did the 40's. My primary use for the rig was killing coyotes and cats. I found the 204 to be too small and not enough knock down for my purposes. Animals were shot anywhere from 30 yards to a tad over 300. Too many runners for me with well placed shots. Like many other cartriges there are many who deeply love the 204. Personally, I wouldn't shoot another at anything larger than a jackrabbit. Each has his own opinion like on the BC of the bullets. What looks good on paper doesn't always come out so hot on live targets. To me the 204 is like the 17 Remington, just too small for my shooting but each has it's own following as I am a big Swift fan. Sold the 204 and bought another Swift.
 
Bob:

I must have been editing when you were posting. I added my thoughts near the end of my post above yours on the very problem you discussed in your thread.

It's a valid criticism that some have experienced with the 204 Ruger - also, others have had better luck with the same bullets. But, that's probably a whole 'nuther issue, huh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

- BCB
 
Quote:
bill1227-- I don't think I, nor BCB, or any othe other posters who like the .204 Ruger or other .204 caliber rifles have said that the old dog 22-250 is dead and gone. We just don't like to stand by wringing our hands when we read something we think or know needs to be corrected or verified. As I said before, I own a Tikka Master Sporter in 22-250 and I enjoy shooting that very much, but not as much as my .204 Ruger and .17 Remington.

As far as the article you linked us to, it looks like you have to be a subscriber or sign up for the "FREE 14-day trial subscription" to read the "meat" of that article and I'm not willing to pay the fare to do that, nor am I willing to give them any personal information to get their "FREE" trial subscription. The "teaser" gives absolutely no information (none, nada, zero, zip) to prove anything one way or the other about whether Quote:
Varmint Cartridges: The .22-250 Still Reigns; Ruger’s .204 Is Hot

. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

So, while the title is titilating, it really doesn't give any of us any information upon which we can form any kind of decision. It is a waste of time, but thanks for trying to "stir the pot," as you put it. Your attempt to "stir the pot" did get this response from me, so that should satisfy your desire to be the "stir'er of the pot." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif



Silver Fox,
Trust me you don't want to know the ....."rest of the story /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" It gets worst....accuracy 22-250 won, chronograph data @ 10' with factory ammo........22-250 was highest fps with a Hornady 40 grain ....do I dare say it........ moly at 4152 fps compared to 4060 for the 32 Grain Hornady V-Max from the .204 Ruger 77 Target (KM77VT). Then the 22-250 shot more grains etc. etc. The .204 did come out better than the .223 wssm however. Which was also chronographed lower than published. In fact they said only the 22-250 was on the mark for that. They did not even get into the whole kill power and available ammo thing.........thankfully.
I do think they should have at least crowned the .204 "queen" however......... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Oh well.......I did not write the garbage. It's just comparison between the new stuff and the old dog I suppose.

I just thought some of the .204 shooters would enjoy the reading. I certainly didn't want to stir anything up /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I better go before I here those high pitched rounds comming my way. Luckly, I am a good 300 yards away and there is a breeze. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Take it light(oooops sorry didn't mean anything by that...... "light") guy's.

He,he,he (VBG), I know I am a D.H. but, that's Mr. D.H. to the .204 clan.

hey anyone want to go hunting with me (grin)......off to the chuck field for the last 1 1/2 hour................se ya /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif Bayou Boy, you are my pal so realize I am just blowing smoke........got to go shoot chucks now....by
 
Bill 1227,
you know some people read about what a gun will do and others actually know by using it and shooting it.

Bob Addy,
you got to learn where to aim pal. I know aguy who shot a coyote with a 270 and it run off and he didn't get it, He didn't aim very well either.

"the howler"
 
Wow, quite a thread. I bought a .204 this spring. I bought it as sort of an experiment. Wanted to see for myself what was fact and what was fiction. Quite frankly I didn't expect to like it and was probably one of the biggest skeptics. Only ammo I've used is factory 40 gr. V-Max. Sighted it in, cleaned it, shot it some more at the range just to get a few more rounds through it and that was the break in. Took it out to shoot groundhogs. It didn't do quite the damage that my 22-250 did but darn close. It performed well. I didn't have any groundhogs survive a hit. Didn't have any crawl back to their holes. I didn't know how it was going to do on coyotes and honestly I had doubts.

Well, so far it appears my fears were unfounded. The little .204 has went 8 for 8 bang flops on coyotes. Dropped them in their tracks. I haven't had any "bullet splash" or lack of penetration. Some were pass throughs. So far no runners. If anything, so far the .204 has surpassed my expectations. I don't know if I just got lucky with rifle/bullet/scope combination or what but I'm just tickled with this rifle. It's been one of those rare rifles that just point, shoot, and hit with ease. For once I got lucky and actually got a "shooter" right off the shelf. I planned on changing the scope because I don't care for the marginal quality optics of the Burris Ballisti-Plex I put on but I don't want to mess with the "mojo" I got going right now. lol! I know that 8 coyotes is very early in the game to draw any conclusions and my opinion could certainly take a 360 farther down the road. But for now I am honestly impressed. I think it is only going to get better with the wider selection of bullets sure to come.

I don't put much stock in ballistics and such. I have nothing against it and it makes for interesting reading, but I'd rather just see how it pans out in the field before drawing any conclusions. So far the .204 has been at least as effective as the 22-250 I've shot for years and years. Enough people have had positive results that it's obvious something is there. I'll never get rid of my 22-250 but I don't see myself selling my .204 anytime soon either.

I think a big thanks is due for Silverfox, BCB and others who posted good helpful info on the .204. It takes time to write these posts and gun magazines are pretty useless when it comes to providing quality information. The stuff here is free and much easier to digest.

Oh....I guess that would be a "yah". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Good hunting
 
Howler, I have pics of dogs that have lungs hanging out, heart areas blown up and a few bullet splashes on the shoulders. I know where to aim and where to put a bullet. My number of kills attest to that. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif I used 40gr bullets since I solely intended shooting yotes. I still prefer the 223 over the 204 just for bullet weights and knock down. More than likely I'll use a Swift. As I said, to all his own. Some have great success with the little pills. I had some for awhile. It just wasn't a consistent performer for me that other cartridges are.
 
Looking back to the poster's original question of .204 or 22-250 and then reviewing the many responses to the thread. A couple things stand out. From the pro .204 crowd you see allot of "all most as..........the 22-250" and "nearly as ..........the 22-250". Yet other than recoil you don't see that from the 22-250 crowd. Frankly some really are not "all most as the 22-250" either but, thats what they like to say.

.204 / killing power all most as the 22-250
.204 / accuracy " " " "
.204 / factory rifles " " " "
.204 / long distance shooting " " " "
.204 / factory ammo " " " "
.204 / ammo price " " " "
.204 / bullets available " " " "
.204 / Shooting various grain ammo " " " "
.204 / reloading I can get it " " " "
ETC.
ETC
ETC.
Then you get down to....
.204 / Muzzle Blast.........draw (pick which loud boom you want high pitch or low)
and finally
22-250 / Recoil all most as the .204

The 22-250 has a track record decades long in field hunting and bench rest competition and shoots a broad range of ammo. The .204 has little track record but, came with a marketing plan making several assumptions (barrel life,etc.) that Ruger & Hornady promptly released to magazines to get sales started in the right way (don't blame them). In my opinion most bought one because of marketing, particularly "speed or feet per second" of the 32 grain. Early testing from the non-bias showed the fps of the 32 grain V-Max as less than published in fact less than the 22-250/ 40 grain V Max for the speed crowd. I find it interesting that Hornady also marketed a propriety powder charge to help with early ammo sales and slow down the re-loaders. It was not long before they came out with a 40 grain, many say because of penetration issue's with the hyper expanding 32 grain. Of course this was after the speed marketing was well in place. I believe (from experience seeing) that 90 % of those shooting the .204 still use the 32 grain and many gun shops only carry that for ammo. I believe(those I know did) that approx. that same percent purchased it because of the speed marketing . The other 10% are avid small boar shooters and varmint rifle collectors. Basically one can shoot a narrow range of ammo with the .204 which only goes up to 40 grains and starts at 32. Despite the broad grain range of ammo 90% of 22-250 shooters use between 50 to 60 grain ammo. Unless punching paper or saving a pelt at 100 yards. They don't buy it for the speed of the 40 grain, that it can shoot. They buy it for the distance accuracy and proven kill power of the 50-60 grain ammo. Same with the Swift. From there the 250 shooter goes up in grains with a faster twist barrel.

Being that this is "Predator Master's" there are many coyote guru's here and some professional guides. Few recommend or will vouch for less than 50 grain ammo with the common calibers recommended being .223 , 22-250, 220 Swift and then up from there .243 etc. For larger varmints such as woodchucks at long distance (for accuracy and kill power before they hit the hole) most including myself would recommend 50 some grains and every gun shop here(woodchuck & yote country no prairie dogs or small varmints) will hand a prospect a 22-250 or 220 Swift first...........still.

So going back to the poster's original question ".204 or 22-250" . My vote goes to the 22-250 unless you want "all most as" or "nearly as the 22-250". The 22-250 if you plan on hunting coyote's........period. That's as honest as I can be. Personally I would take a .223 over the .204 . The .204 is a buzz currently because it's new in varmint class. It is cool for a long distance small varmint add on caliber.

In a few years the buzz of the .204 will have ended. It will take it;s place as a popular light caliber varmint round between the .17 Rem and .223 (the .222 is dieing) just as the manufactures intended. I doubt it will ever see much distance Varmint class factory bench rest. I follow the posting results of this class(larger shoots posted on the net) and of the few .204's that enter(maybe 1 per shoot) they will be at the bottom, well below the 22-250's and Swifts (just not enough grains).
 
Last edited:
You know, its amazing what you can do with a .22 Hornet /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif.
I have one and find its knock down power out to 200yds, DEADLY /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif.
With a 45 grain soft point or 46 grain Winchester hallow point. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
No word of a lie, even threw the shoulder /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I LOVE IT /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif
I have a .22-250 too and at 500yds for yotes, LOVE THAT ROUND too.
To me, in my experience they both have the same knock down power, just at different distances /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
.22 Hornet max 200yds and .22-250 max 600yds.
I have already mentioned my cousins experiences with the .204 on this thread /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif, enough said.
 
Last edited:
Great thread. I haven't even shot the .204 yet, so I can't say Yah or Nay, but I sure was given a lot of food for thought. Personally, I love a good ballistic argument being a ballistic geek myself (no offense taken, Bill). Frankly, what this thread gave me was a yen for the 20 Tactical, which I was just reading about in Small Caliber News and was mentioned by BCB. Thanks to all for all your thought and work in this thread. Really, if this whole thread were edited down and morphed together (minus a few high-blood pressure moments), you guys have produced a heck of a resource on the topic. --Mykal
 
The 204 is a mainstay already. Didn't even take 25yrs either. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Either way the real answer is that neither rds are worth a dang if you push it past it's limits. That is if the 22-250 has any limits. You just need to decide what you need then get that one.


BTW-- Hornady released the 32gr ammo & the 40gr ammo at the same time. Here in east central Ohio I walked out of a gunshop with a box of 40's & 2 boxes of the 32's back in late April 2004. I guess the penetration issue was there from the beginning. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Good observation, Glen.

Concerning the introduction by Hornady of the 40 grain bullets, I had been shooting 20 caliber rifles for several years before the introduction of the 204 Ruger. Prior to its introduction, 20 caliber shooters relied on Hornady (33 grain VMax) and Berger (36 grain HP) as well as a few custom bullet makers like Russ Lucas in Montana (no longer in business) and Steve Schroeder in San Diego to keep our various 20 caliber cartridges fed. Some, like me, even hand swaged our own 20 caliber bullets.

At nearly the same time that the new 204 Ruger round was introduced AND long before any rifles were on dealer shelves, Hornady announced that it was going to discontinue the 33 grain bullet and replace it with two new offerings - a 32 grain VMax and a 40 gain VMax. They also stated that bullets would not be available to reloaders immediately as they were trying to produce enough ammo to meet projected sales numbers when the new rifles hit the market.

I live near a large metro area of our country and frequently frequent /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif all the good gun shops in the area. I'm retired and with not a lot of other important things to do (my concept - not necessarily my wife's /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif), I kept a constant vigil for a 204 Ruger rifle as I told myself I was going to support Ruger and Hornady early on for bringing out a factory 20 caliber cartridge.

The very day that a large local 4 gun store chain received their first 204 Ruger rifles, I bought one. I also bought two boxes of factory ammo (Hornady) to help get me started with brass. I had a choice between 32 grain ammo and 40 grain ammo - right from the git go - and bought a box of both. This was in March 2004.

As a result, I have a little trouble accepting the other poster's view of how the 40 grain bullet was announced by Hornady after poor penetration results showed up with the 32 grain bullets. It is true that after that the 32 grain ammo was much more readily available, but the 40 grain bullet was not an attempt to plug any hole that showed up along the way.

When I mentioned my purchase on the internet at another web site that night, one of the most often heard responses was along the lines of, "Where do you live? I haven't seen any rifles in my area, yet." So, I really don't think I bought my first rifle after a lot of other shooters had already experienced bad things with the 32 grain bullet. For a fact, I know I didn't.

It's a fact that some folks like Bob Addy have had and have documented their less than great performance with the 204 on coyotes, and I doubt that very few folks here would not accept Bob's experience. It has not been good, and Bob has stated that several times on this forum in the past year. I commented on that very issue early on in this thread and again while Bob and I were both posting yesterday.

Bob's experience is real and valid.

Other folks have had real and valid experiences the other way. As a result, those are both facts which maybe point to the inconsistency of available bullets, but should not be used to condemn the cartridge. My position on the need for a good factory 20 caliber hunting bullets has been stated numerous times in the past year since the factory cartridge was made available.

Some of the other information presented here is not the real facts and therefore is not valid.

On the hand loading issue, I was never slowed up by Hornady supposedly using a special blend powder. That was pretty much an advertised concept (by Hornady) that was well known. In addition, some early shooters did get less than the advertised velocity when they ran factory loads over a chrony. To me, that was not a real startling revelation. Neither was the fact that some folks did.

However, the new powder blend did not keep me from having some neck swaged 222 Rem Mag brass already loaded with 33 grain Hornady bullets as well as some of my own 38 grain hand swaged bullets (using Benchmark powder) to try in my new rifle when I got one - again in early March 2004.

So, hopefully the wise reader will be able to sort out some of the real facts from what is not a fact but is more opinion than anything else. Opinion is great as long as it's stated as that. And, I fully realize the topics I have mentioned here started with the words, "In my opinion". However, after that, opinions and supposed facts were run together into one thought without regard for the difference.

As I've said before, I wouldn't even choose one of the two cartridges in question here if I could only have one predator/varmint rifle.

However, I hate to see the truth getting revised as it has been here at times in this thread with no regard to what the real truth might be, as well as seeing other folk's experiences with the 204 Ruger cartridge being brought into question because they've been good.

Again, just my take on the whole issue. - BCB

Edited for spelling. - BCB
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, Trivial as this may be in regards to the .204, 32 grain and latter 40 grain. I did not say "released" as in "to the public" or "on shevles".

You may want to check your .204 history books because mine show's what I wrote not what you may have read into.

Many .204's were tested along with articles written before it was on shelves with the available ammo.........32 grain.

Suggestions were made and maybe just maybe what I wrote was true........hey.

The test article above amongst others also states this.

I can understand how you could mis-understand what I wrote however because of your first time buying lesson.

Things are getting trivial as is this 70 something reply fine thread is getting old. It would seem about every "i" in regards to the .204 and 22-250 has been dotted.

Surprised on the "history thing" though of your beloved .204 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif and a fine varmint rifle it is.

Also Bayou Boy I agree with your statement "My position on the need for a good factory 20 caliber hunting bullets has been stated numerous times in the past year since the factory cartridge was made available" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top