204 ruger or 22-250 for pairedogs/groundhogs

M

mitchell

New member
I’m in the market for a new varmint gun for of about 0-350 yards i have a 243win that is better then i am and works farther out then I’m comfortable ,so for closer ranges what cartridge would you get : the 204 ruger or the 22-250??

i will reload for either one i end up getting, so ammo prices and availability is not a big deal.

do either of these cartridges have more inherit accuracy then the other??

any info on these two cartridges would be very nice. thank you
 
In my mind as a handloader and the ability to load light 55-65 gr. bullets in the 243 the 22-250 is same/same as the 243 and on the losing end balistically. I'd go with the 204,its lighter bullets, and much smaller powder charges if I already had a 243.
 
Agree with Chuckaholic, with the ranges you're wanting to shoot, load that 243 up with 55 grain Noslers and use 44.5 grains of H-4895 or 45.0 grains of Varget and you can push them at 4000fps! Flat shootin' and that'll blow a chuck and a prairie dog all to pieces!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I don't have a 204,so I can't comment, except that I do know this about them: Some people are having difficulty acheiving the velocity from handloaded ammo VS.the listed velocity that you can get outta the factory ammo
(because it's blended). Check with Silverfox on this forum, as he has some good data and seems to know what he's talking about. He's cracked the nut on getting the factory advertised velocity.
I'm a 22-250 and 243Improved guy. I shoot the 55 Noslers in my 243AI at 4200fps and it puts the mully on the rockchucks!
 
mitchell-- I have to concur with the two posters above and recommend you go with the .204 Ruger instead of the 22-250. I shoot a .243, a couple of 22-250s, the Savage 12VLP in .204 Ruger and also have a custom built .17 Remington.

The .17 Remington can hold its own against most of the calibers listed above if they are shooting the lighter bullets with the lower BCs. If you get a fast twist .243 or 22-250, and begin shooting bullets with high BCs, then the edge would go to to those calibers on the flatness of trajectory and lack of wind drift.

OK, comparing the 22-250 and the .204 Ruger out of the box, as I said, I would take the .204 Ruger. The amount of recoil is a lot lower for the .204 Ruger and you can usually see the bullets hit your target--red mist!!! Not so with the 22-250.

There are a variety of bullets now available for the .204 Ruger (not as many as for the 22-250 yet) and since you are going to reload for this rifle, you can shoot any bullet weight you want from 30 gr, 32 gr., 33 gr., 35 gr., 39 gr., 40 gr. and 50 gr. I think there are some custom bullet makers out there that will make just about any bullet configuartion and weight you want too. Remember, if you are going to try to shoot the 50 gr. bullets you will need a custom barrel installed with probably a 1 in 9" twist. I think most of the factory .204 Ruger rifles have a 1 in 12" twist and a lot of .204 Ruger shooters are finding they do not get real good accuracy with the 40 gr. bullets. I am wondering if a 1 in 11" twist barrel would give more stability to those heavier bullets and thus improve the accuracy.

The 40 gr. V-Max bullet has a BC of .275 and that will give you a very flat trajectory and not much wind deflection. Lots of coyote killing power out beyond 400 yards with that bullet too. The 40 gr. Berger LTB only has a BC of .239, but that's not too shabby either. I have been able to get better accuracy out of the Berger than the V-Max in my Savage.

I am anxious to test the 39 gr. Sierra BlitzKing bullets and also am curious about what the BC is for those bullets. Sierra has a fine reputation for making super good bullets so I hope these .20 caliber bullets are no exception.

I am not sure about "inherent accuracy" when comparing these two calibers. I think they will both shoot just great if you find the magic load and do your part on the shooting end of it. The hype from Ruger and Hornady is that the .204 Ruger caliber will not be as hard on your barrel. The 30º shoulder and less powder may have something to do with that claim. Here's a quote from the Hornady Web site:

If you’re a varmint hunter, you’re always looking for the ultimate cartridge that delivers extremely high velocity, low recoil and muzzle blast, and a flat trajectory. Oh, and it would sure be nice if the cartridge operated at pressures and temperatures that didn’t burn your barrel out after a few hundred rounds.

Here it is.

The Hornady 204 Ruger is a more enjoyable cartridge to shoot, and thanks to its effi cient design, this NEW cartridge performs at the edge of the velocity envelope while using one third less powder than other high performance cartridges.

We achieved this remarkable blend of laser-like trajectory and barrel-saving pressures by ignoring fads and bringing all the science of small caliber ballistics together in one amazing cartridge that is highly efficient, ballistically balanced and stunning in its performance!
Click to expand...
I was certainly impressed with the performance of my Savage 12VLP once I got the barrel broken in. I was about ready to return the rifle until I got 50+ shots down the barrel and then it wasn't all that fantastic yet. It kept on shooting better and better as time went by. I have 560 shots down the tube now and I look forward to some great times in the prairie poodle towns next summer. With the 32 gr. factory loads, I was making some 300+ yard hits with this rifle.
 
And now for some dissent... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

You mention 350 yards. The .204 will do that on a little prarie dog, but not reliably on a groundhog.

What we're seeing with the .204 craze is reminiscent of the hyperbole visited on the 220 Swift in its heyday. Many early afficianados of that cartridge would have had you believe that the military should have swapped out their tank guns for 220 Swifts. :rolleyes: Not to slam the 220 Swift--just to point out that it isn't a death ray.

And neither is the .204 Ruger.

I've seen at least three 7+ pound groundhogs survive solid gut hits from 40 grain Hornady VMAX's at 335 yards from a 22-250. Muzzle velocity was an advertised 4100 fps for what that's worth. Fur flew from the varmints, but they crawled back into their holes only to be found the next evening, dead (after dying slowly) at the edge of the holes. Those light little pills burn like a shooting star: brilliant and dazzling at first, but they peter out quickly. The .204 will fare similarly at those ranges; it does start out about 3 to 4 percent faster than the 40 grain 22-250, but it's shooting a twenty percent lighter bullet. Punch the .204's numbers into a ballistics calculator and you'll find that at 350 yards you'll be more likely to annoy a large groundhog than to kill him.

For groundhogs inside 250 yards, the .204 would be fine. But of course you mention hopes of reaching them and killing them at 350 yards. That rules out the .204 Ruger. Sorry...

As for your .243, you could just continue to use whatever long range bullet you're currently using. Just know the short range dope and you can always connect.

But you're probably just wanting a new toy. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Can't blame you there...

So. Go with the 22-250. It's the tried and true intermediate range varminter. It's all but turned the 220 Swift into an "also ran,"--popularly speaking, mind you--and it'll be standing tall and proud long after the varminter du jour (the .204 Ruger) has tarnished just a tad, which it will.

The 22-250 can launch a more deadly 55 grain bullet at an easy 3700 fps and it'll group tighter than any .243 pushing 55's at long range. The 1:10 twist of most .243's isn't a friend to the short, dumpy 6mm 55's and they tend to deviate from the group as range increases. Too much spin for the bullet prevents it from "going to sleep" as early as it ought to. Stick with 65's and heavier in the .243 and your 300 yard groups will look MUCH better. But if we're speaking strictly of 55 grainers, the .243 can't touch the 22-250 for accuracy at 300 yards.

Anyway, best of luck with whatever you decide. You'll be happy with either rifle--I just think the 22-250 will serve you better out past 250 yards, and the brass and bullets (and dead groundhogs) will always be easier to come by. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dan
 
Dan is right,Stick with the 22-250 with the lighter bullets and you will most likely have better accuracy,The 204 ruger is hot for now but when it is all said and done the 204 will probably head down the road and the 22-250 will still be hanging tough.If you want to buy factory rounds forever then get the 204.just don't expect to get the same velocity that the factory rounds get.I wouldn't mind getting a 204 but I really don't need it.The 22-250 serves me well enough for my needs.JMO.:)
 
I learn something new every day, and this it for today.
Fur flew from the varmints, but they crawled back into their holes only to be found the next evening, dead (after dying slowly) at the edge of the holes
Click to expand...
I honestly did not know that a wounded P-dog would go into it's hole when wounded only to come back out to die. I guess I never went back and checked neither!
 
Nothing wrong with the 22-250 if he didn't already have a 243. I've never shot the 55 and 58 gr. bullets in a 243 but do use the 65 gr. v max's at 3600+ alot.
Accuracy is more than adequate to take crows and woodchucks at 400+ yards. Buying a 22-250 would just give me more of the same but less. I'm talking tuned(maybe bedding and trigger tweaking) factory guns here. Not custom fast twist barrels on blue printed actions.
There comes a point where you have to hit critter in the diaphram on up to keep them from getting in their holes. If you want something that will do that better than the 243 I wouldn't be looking to a 22-250.
 
As for using a 32 gr. V-Max for 350 yard groundhog shots, if can hit your target properly, I don't think you should have any more problem with that then you would killing the groundhog with a 40 gr. or 55 gr. V-Max from a 22-250. I'll post some charts below so you can see what I'm talking about. Also, if you'll read what I typed in my first post you'll see that I was touting the high BC of the .204 40gr. V-Max and the lesser, but still good BC of the 40 gr. Berger LTB, NOT the 32 gr. V-Max, but the 32 gr. is still pretty good.

The 40 gr. V-Max bullet has a BC of .275 and that will give you a very flat trajectory and not much wind deflection. Lots of coyote killing power out beyond 400 yards with that bullet too. The 40 gr. Berger LTB only has a BC of .239, but that's not too shabby either. I have been able to get better accuracy out of the Berger than the V-Max in my Savage.

I am anxious to test the 39 gr. Sierra BlitzKing bullets and also am curious about what the BC is for those bullets. Sierra has a fine reputation for making super good bullets so I hope these .20 caliber bullets are no exception.
Click to expand...
We had a similar discussion a while back where someone was touting the 4,500 fps MV of the .223WSSM and I posted an Excel table showing ft-lbs of energy, drop, wind drift, etc. for that 40 gr. .223WSSM bullet and compared it to the .204 caliber V-Max with a MV of 3,950 fps. The .204 won out.

dan newberry stated

Punch the .204's numbers into a ballistics calculator and you'll find that at 350 yards you'll be more likely to annoy a large groundhog than to kill him.
Click to expand...
So, dan, I did that--I punched in the numbers and will post my findings, not just conjecture, but the actual numbers. I don't know what ballistics calculator you use, but I'll post the numbers I just ran in the JBM Trajectory Calculation Program for the 32 gr. V-Max in .204 Ruger and compared those to the numbers for the 40 gr. V-Max in the 22-250. The only advantage the 22-250 40 gr. bullet has over the .204 Ruger 32 gr. bullet, albeit very slight, is that it has bit more ft-lbs of energy. Let me show you the numbers:

At 300 yards the 22-250 has 562.5 ft-lbs and the .204 Ruger has 513.4 ft-lbs. At 350 yards the 22-250 has 470.5 ft-lbs and the .204 Ruger has 436.1 ft-lbs. Moving out to 400 yards and the 22-250 has 390.7 ft-lbs of energy and the .204 Ruger has 366.7 ft-lbs. At 500 yards the 22-250 has 263.3 ft-lbs and the .204 Ruger has 255.0 ft-lbs.

When you compare the trajectory of the 32 gr. V-Max in .204 Ruger to the trajectory of the 40 gr. V-Max in 22-250, my ballistics calculator shows that the little 32 gr. .204 Ruger pill has the flatter trajectory and less wind drift out to 600 yards and probably beyond.

Now, I ran the numbers for the 40 gr. V-Max in 22-250 compared to the 40 gr. V-Max in the .204 Ruger and will post that chart here. Please, all you .204 Ruger naysayers, note that the ONLY number where the 22-250 bullet is superior to the .204 bullet in ft-lbs of enegy, trajectory or windage is that it has 107.3 ft-lbs more enegry at the muzzle.

22-250_40gr_204_40gr--tiny.jpg


I'll also post a chart that has the same numbers for the 40 gr. .204 Ruger bullet, but the 22-250 has the numbers for the 55 gr. V-Max with a MV of 3,700 fps as dan newberry suggested.

22-250_55gr_204_40gr--tiny.jpg


I would be very intersted in having any of you 22-250 officianados point out on these 500 yard charts EXACTLY where the 22-250 has the superior trajectory or less wind drift with either the 40 gr. V-Max or the 55 gr. V-Max out yonder. The only place I can see that the 55 gr. V-Max in 22-250 has a better number is in the ft-lbs of energy. However, I think at 500 yards, 409.6 ft-lbs of energy generated by the 40 gr. .204 V-Max is pretty close to the 428.8 ft-lbs of energy generated by the 22-250.

Perhaps, if we didn't have the numbers that show the ft-lbs of energy, trajectory, and wind drift, this could be one of those Ford vs Chevy kind of things, but I think the numbers speak for themselves and the .204 Ruger stands up strong and tall when compared to the 22-250.

So, mitchell, although I, as well as many others, think the 22-250 is a great caliber, in my opinion you would have to be willing to screw on a fast twist barrel and use heavier bullets than the 55 gr. V-Max with higher BCs to outdo the .204 Ruger with the 40 gr. V-Max bullet. I truly believe you'll get better "bang" for your buck out of the .204 Ruger and 40 gr. bullets.
I hardly think that the .204 Ruger bullet is going to
be more likely to annoy a large groundhog than to kill him.
Click to expand...
Heck, even if you are comparing the 32 gr. V-Max to the 22-250 numbers, I think the .204 Ruger will do the job.

For you 22-250 folks, the 22-250 does outdo the .204 Ruger in that is has more recoil /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm not sure I even agree about the 55 gr. 22-250 bullet outdoing the .243s pushing the 55 gr. bullets. Perhaps the faster twist barrels will have a major problem stabilizing that little 55 gr. pill. I think it would be better to compare a little heavier bullet in the .243 to the 55 gr. bullet in the 22-250 and then I'm pretty sure the .243 will come out looking better than the 22-250 with the 55 gr. bullet.

I would like to know if there are some errors in my calculations in the charts above or was someone just kind of guessing as to what the numbers really said. Please post what program you use to do your caluclations.
 
well Dan you got one big part right I'M LOOKING FOR A NEW TOY /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif . the biggest reason for this gun is i want to save the barrel on my 243 its shoots a max load behind a 87 V-max and has its zero set at 250 so shooting close can be done very easy but with this barrels accuracy (all 5 shots touching @100) I’m in no hurry to burn out the barrel on close range shots . I’m kind of leaning to the 204 . but i still don't know . hey sivlerfox can you see you hits with the 40gr load?? i do a lot of hunting alone and being my own spotter could be a deciding factor.
 
mitchell-- seeing the hits with the .204 Ruger is why I typed the following near the end the post I made at 9:38 p.m. on 1-3-2005:

For you 22-250 folks, the 22-250 does outdo the .204 Ruger in that is has more recoil
Click to expand...
Yes, you can see your hits through the scope when shooting the .204 Ruger. It has a tad bit more recoil than the .17 Remington I shoot, but not much more. Like I said before, I don't think you'd be unhappy going with the .204 Ruger rather than the 22-250. Heck, you might not even take the .243 with very often once you get the .204 Ruger shooting bug hole groups /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
jack,
what do you mean by 40 gr for the 22-250 bad move? thats what i shoot 40gr v max molys out of my 12fvss and tell that to the yotes that i hit,if you know something i dont spill the beans,lol
 
HOLY COW!!!! I killed a 30 lb. coyote yesterday morning @ a lasered 328 yards with a 32 gr. v-max in the 204......must have been lucky. Maybe I was seeing things. Maybe it was a aberation. Maybe it was just a miracle.

OR maybe the caliber performs like it supposed to.

Actually, I think the 204 is a government conspiracy. :rolleyes: /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
The 40 grain bullet doesn't get the full long range kill potential from the 22-250. As I mentioned, I've seen at least three groundhogs take hits from Hornady 40 grain VMAX bullets launched at ~4100 fps and they were definitely not DRT (dead right there) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif . Groundhogs (don't ask me about prarie dogs as I've never hunted them) will try to get to water shortly before they die, so you normally find them dead at the mouth of their hole--or somewhere close.

My contention is that the 40 grain bullet isn't enough to kill an eight to ten pound groundhog with certainty at long range. And I base that on my own field experiences--others may vary but I'm not inclined to believe they would be that much different from mine. With the better BC of the .204 you should have a little more long range kill power than the 40 grain 22-250 load, but still less than the 55 grain 22-250 load.

Something that I learned long ago: Don't trust the bullet maker's advertised ballistic coefficients. Most of them exaggerate due to the pressures of competition. It's actually rare to find a bullet that flies as tall at long range as the factory literature would have you believe.

I haven't argued trajectory advantage, muzzle velocity, BC, or such. I simply stated that the .204 Ruger doesn't have the same kill potential beyond 250 yards that a 22-250 shooting 55 grain bullets has. When the bullet gets to the target, foot pounds of energy is the "be all end all." And if we're talking 350 yards, a 55 grain bullet launched at 3700 fps has a noteable advantage over a 4K fps 40 grain bullet (from the .204). Actually, the extra recoil of the 55 grain 22-250 load is a clue to the downrange kill power advantage of same.

Look at the advantage the 40 grain .204's higher BC gives it over the 22-250's 40 grain bullet--energy wise at longer range I'm speaking. The .204's higher BC allows the bullet to retain velocity longer, and that extra velocity equates to extra energy downrange. So take the extra bullet weight of the 55 grain 22-250 (with a BC more in line with the 40 grain .204) and you have the comparison which sparked my post.

If prarie dogs were my game, I'd probably go with the .204 Ruger. It'll shoot flatter and recoil less. (I say probably because of brass and twenty caliber bullet availability). But if you're after bigger animals that's not enough gun in my opinion. My opinion--yes--that it's not enough gun--but an indisputable fact (see the energy figures) that it's less gun than the 22-250 pushing 55's.

I do agree that to fairly compare the 22-250 and the .243 the .243 should be allowed a 65 grain bullet, and yes, it'll have more kill potential at long range. It's a bigger bullet with a better BC and it'll therefore hit with more "oomph" at 300+ yards than the 55 grain 22-250. It's all relative, too, because the 65 grain .243's advantage over the 55 grain 22-250 looks quite a bit like the 250's lead over the .204 Ruger. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dan
 
In my responses I was taking into consideration he already had a 243.In my mind the 22-250 is just more of the same so why not buy something different rather than overlap. However since the originals poster's purpose is only to have something else to shoot so as not to wear out his 243 the 22-250 would still make sense. Almost as much sense as another 243 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Chuck, that's a good point. There is a fair amount of capability overlap between the 22-250 and the .243...

I guess what got me on a box was the notion of the 350 yard potential of the .204. Of course it'll kill at that range--but it's fail numbers will certainly be higher than a more energetic heavier bullet's will be. Folks have killed grounghogs at 600 yards with 22-250's--but that's pushing the envelope and failures to kill (even with good hits) at 600 yards would be high.

Most of us varminters lob a Hail Mary every now and again. When we see the varmint walk (or even run) off after the shot gets there we assume that we missed. In some cases, however, we will not have missed. We'll have simply connected with less kill power than should have been prescribed...

Dan
 
You must be reading the wrong post,I looked again and again and could not find anything in his post that referred to him getting a 204 so he would not shoot the barrel out of his 243.You guys buy your 204s and I will keep my 22-250 and we will see which one will still be around after a few years,If it makes it that long.With all the new cartridges coming out now it will be interesting to see which ones will survive and which ones will take a hike,The 7 wsm is on it's way out because of lack of sales,we will see what is next.
 
varmint exterminator-- In his first post, mitchell didn't say anything about wanting a .204 Ruger because he didn't want to burn up his .243 barrel, but he said the following in his second post in this thread: The italics and bolding were placed in the quote by me--Silverfox--to highlight the part where mitchell says he doesn't want to burn up his .243 barrel!!!

well Dan you got one big part right I'M LOOKING FOR A NEW TOY . the biggest reason for this gun is i want to save the barrel on my 243 its shoots a max load behind a 87 V-max and has its zero set at 250 so shooting close can be done very easy but with this barrels accuracy (all 5 shots touching @100) I’m in no hurry to burn out the barrel on close range shots .
Click to expand...
Sometimes one has to read the whole thread a couple times to make sure you didn't miss anything. I know if I had a .243 that would shoot all 5 shots touching @100 yards, I think I'd be inclined to get another rifle for those close in shots up to 350 yards /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Back
Top