204 vs 22-250 in accuracy

Get one of each and let us know . All kidding aside . I would bet a lot would depend on the rifle , the person shooting the rifle and the ammunition being used .

If you purchased two Cooper rifles , one in 22-250 and one in .204 Ruger , they would probably both be very accurate rifles .
A lot of it depends on what you want and how much you want to spend .
 
For 30 years a 22-250 was my go to the woods coyote gun. Five years ago for a change I went to the 243. Last year I bought a CZ 527 Varmint. It was about a 500 dollar bill and it's one of the most accurate guns I've shot in the last 35 years.

Not only is it accurate with dime sized groups, but recoil is low enough that you can see the hits thru the scope. Consider it shoots as flat as any 22-250 or 220 Swift I've owned and I see no downside to the 204.

Here's my first five shot groups from Reloads.

CZ52720440grHorn09-09-063.jpg


This is the little beauty that's doing it.

CZ527-204-2.jpg


CZ 527 Varmint, 204 Ruger, 8 by 32 Tasco Target scope.
Ruger # 1B, 243, 3 by 9 Weaver Classic scope.
Remington VLS heavy bbl, 243, BSA 6 by 24 scope.
Remington 280 Mountain rifle, Simmons AETEC 2.8 to 10 scope.
Remington Model 7 carbine, 308, Leupold fixed four power.
Remington Classic 8mm Rem magnum, Simmons AETEC 2.8 by 10.
CZ 452 Lux 22lr., 2.5 to 10 Weaver Classic scope.
 
The 204 40gr vs the 22-250 50gr seem to be best ballistics on paper. The 204 appears to be fairly faster than the 22-250 & but is less in energy at 100-200 yards but becomes much closer in energy at 300 yards plus. Compare the ballistics below from remington's web site & decide for yourself. The bottom 2 lines are 204 ballistics.

http://www.remington.com/products/ammuni...PRA204A*PRA204B
 
Last edited:
Jack and CWeeks, is the "more accurate" because of the operator "percieved flich"?

Again late at night where I'm at just trying to understand...
 
Well that could be a reason, but for me if there is less recoil there is less rifle movement in general causing less variability in groups. Less movement at the source means less movement from the point of intended impact.
2 things to remember though in what I said. First, all things must be equall and second, everything on this sight must be taken in the right light meaning the info you get here is mostly opinion of how we see it.
 

I have both a 204 Ruger, in a Model 16 Savage, and a 22-250
Rem, in a Howa 1500 Varminter. In these two rifles, accuracy
wise, they are a dead heat. The Howa trigger has been tuned
to be considerably better than the Savage "Accu-Crap" trigger.
I am not a big fan of Savage triggers /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif So which
one would I choose, and why? I would choose the 204 Ruger,
and suffer all of the comments from the 22-250 diehards /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why? Well it is flatter shooting, and has less wind drift,
on average, when comparing .204 caliber class bullets, with
.223 caliber class bullets, fired through these two
chambers. The recoil is almost non-existent. In varmint
hunting, the 204 Ruger can do anything the 22-250 Rem. can
do, and do it with less drop, less drift, less powder, and
less recoil. Accuracy in these two cartridges, which both
seem easy to find accurate loads for, is not the
distinguishing factor in my mind. Better ballistics,
and less recoil, is a distinguishing pair of factors.

FWIW, I had re-barreled my first 22-250 Rem. chambered
Savage, to 6mm Rem., and had kind of put the 22-250
stuff on the shelf. I purchased a 204 Ruger, and had
decided that this rifle easily replaced the 22-250, where
I intended to use the 22-250. Then I won this 22-250 Rem.
chambered Howa 1500 Varminter, at a DU banquet. OK, now
I am back in the 22-250 game. I would have considered the
rifle as trade material, if I hadn't started shooting it.
It was EXTREMELY accurate, and the trigger work, brought
the trigger down to less than a 1 lb. This rifle kind
of brought me back to the fold of the 22-250 shooters,
but if I have to get down to only one small bore bolt
action rifle, the 204 Ruger, would probably be the last
rifle in the safe.

Squeeze
 
I have to dissagree with Jacks comment about all things being equal the one with less recoil is more accurate.I have shot pleanty of rifles and have found that some rigs are junk couldn't hit the preverbial side of the barn.I have shot 22rm that fell into that catagory and in the same breath I have shot 338 win mags that were outstanding shooters.So it has more to do with the guy behind the trigger (imho)than the caliber .All guns recoil its how you deal with the recoil that puts the bullets where they go...
 
Lone1dog, Neither is noted as a benchrest cartridge so I doubt if there is much difference in inherent accuracy. From my experence both can be plenty accurate enough for predator hunting which is what this forum is supposed to be about. My personal opinion is I'd take a 204 way before 22-250. Denny
 
I have one of each. As far as accuracy goes both shoot exceptionaly well. My 22-250 is slightly more accurate but my .204 doesn't have any upgrades (it needs a stock and a timney trigger). However it was easier finding a good load for my .204 with a bullet and velocity figure I wanted. I've only tried one powder!!(H4895)
 
Once again Jack nails it.
"everything else being equal, the caliber with less recoil will be more accurate"

recoil equals movement.
CD
 
Basically, it's a combination of bullet weight and velocity. If the velocity of the bullets are the same in each caliber, the cartridge with the heavier bullet will produce the most recoil. If the bullet weights are the same, the cartridge with the higher velocity will recoil more. That's disregarding the "jet effect" of the gases from the muzzle, of course, in contributing to recoil. A cartridge expelling more gas will have a greater "jet effect" from the muzzle. In other words, because of the "jet effect" it's possible for a .300 Win Mag, shooting a 110 grain bullet at 3100 fps. MV, to recoil more than a .308 Win, shooting a 110 grain gullet at 3100 fps., due to the greater amount of powder gases generated in the .300 Win. Mag to achieve the same velocity as the .308 Win.

And, that's also assuming that each gun weighs the same.
 
When it comes to accuracy in a firearm. It's not so much the caliber as it is the barrel, powder or bullet. When you buy an off the rack rifle, sometimes your are the bug and sometimes your the windshield.
 
I was just being contencious(grin) A caliber is just a hole size as compared to cartridges.
While I understand recoil having an effect on a shooters performance I do not believe it has an effect on accuracy. For example the 222 Remington is not as accurate as the 22PPC.
To answer the original question the 22-250 would probally win a ultimate accuracy contest as there are more accurate bullets available for it and it has proved itself as being very accurate. For the purposes of this board there is likely no difference.
 
The bullet is long down the barrel before there is any felt recoil. Its recoil anticipation which has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of a rifle merely the skill of the shooter. The bullet from a 22-250 will be a yard out of the barrel in .001 seconds.
 
I have to say I own both of these calibers myself and they are both very good shooters but god I love my 22-250. Just my .02
 
Back
Top