204 yah or nay?


To its credit the 204 in my CZ is very accurate and the chronograph confirms excellent velocities. But, a coyote/bobcat rifle it is not when compared not to a 22-250 but to the lowly 223Rem. I've had far too many wounds with the 204 that required follow up shots. Not good.

IMO it is not the cartridge that is at fault, rather that most bullets for it are far too frangible. My 204 has been consigned to prairie dog duty and jackrabbits.

I expect Barnes will introduce a 20 cal TSX in time. If so, I would be confident with it on the bigger varmints. But, not now.
 
Well said Handloader /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif.
If the .204 had a SP or good Hp for penatration, then it would be an awsome round.
But whats the point, when the .223 is already their /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
The 204 has HP's available. Both factory ammo from winchester and for the reloader from Berger. I cannot speak for the winchesters as I have not shot them, but the Berger's show great promise. I have only punched paper with them to date, but will try and connect with a yote starting next month. Others have used the Berger last season and reported good success. I've talked with my father about this thread and he laughed. He remembered that when Remington factoryized the 22-250 than many said the same as is being said know about the 204. Many 220 swift shooters booed its broad release, but both cartridges have survived. I feel the 204 will do likewise. I was considering purchasing a 223 earlier this year and opted for the 204. The 204 is flatter shooting than the 223 out to 300yds. and easily hangs in with my 22-250 out to 450-500 yds. The 22 caliber bullets are more varied, but that will come with 20 caliber bullets. In the mean time, I will continue to shoot both the 204 and the 22-250 and readily enjoy them.
 
mudturtle:

Very well stated! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Once gain, youth and wisdom trumps age and treachery. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

- BCB
 
Last edited:
Ya know, you guys need to go back and look at this guys original question. Here it is in case you forgot.


"Well I found a good deal on a remington 700 ADL in 204 ruger. I will be useing it for all of my field hunting, my question would I be better with a 22-250?"

I will be useing it for all of my field hunting

Now if you can honestly tell him he should get the .204...........hey, more power to ya.

Many of you have stated that you own other varmint calibers .223, 22-250, etc. and then got a .204. The poster does not say he has a .223, etc. already.

Also as far as the "when the 22-250 came out the Swift crowd did the same thing" Maybe so but, they were comparing two calibers in the same general class, grains & speed. the .17 Rem is fast and flat too might as well throw that in there if fast and flat are the only guide lines.

The thread starter did not say "I want one rifle for Praire Dogs" he said "all of my field hunting, .204 or 22-250".

Now who's interest are you looking out for his or yours ?
 
Good point Bill1227.



Rotaxpower,

As I stated as the begining of this post. I like both cartridges. If you are a handloader and/or shoot for pelts, I'd go for the 204. If you are not a handloader and/or do not shoot for pelts, I'd go with the 22-250. Both will do the job with excellent results as long as you do your part.
 
If ya's gonna do a little Cajun cook'in and eats dem critters after skin'in. Ya's may wants da .204 or .17 Remington.

Check out the .204 or .17 Rem. thread Boouuuu Ya !

If you don't cajun cook critters get a 22-250.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
bill-- Go back to page #1 on this thread. I may be wrong but you were the 1st to discredit the 204 with your holier than thou attitude about the great 22-250. I doubt that everything you've ever shot with your wonder rifle fell at the 1st shot. If so then I think there is a little bit of fairy tale here on your part. Unless you are just that good & never ever wound any animals. I've only hunted for 34yrs & will honestly say I have had crawl offs on every type of game I've shot. At least once. The bigger pill with more momentum is not going to anchor the game every time. What is momentum? Momentum of the projectile is the same as the fps of the projectile. Whatever. I don't see where you're looking out for his interests either. You're just stuck in the mud & can't seem to accept the fact that the serious 204 shooters are onto something. What a rut to be stuck in. The past. An honest answer to his question would be the 223. It wasn't asked about here tho. I guess you probably didn't stop to think about all the trials & tribulations during the 250's early years. My uncle fought with his Swift until a bullet came out that wouldn't seperate the jacket in mid flight. How quickly we forget. I doubt you were the 1st on the wagon with the 22-250. Instead you probably came along after somebody else spent their money perfecting what you enjoy today. The 22-250 & 220Swift are mainstays. The 204 Ruger is here for the long haul as well.

Handloader-- Try the 39gr BK's. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Berger has a 40gr HP also.

mudturtle-- HSM ammo has 33gr & 39gr HP's also. You can get these from Cabelas.


I guess the thing that comes to mind is an old song.

He's an old hippy & he don't know what to do.
Should he hang on to the old?
Should he grab on to the new?

Decisions, decisions. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
You know what Glen, If you want to think momentum is the same as FPS, that I started something (look at my first post and then see who started with the stats), that I was not really looking out for the posters best interest.

Than forget it.

BTW - I have done the small caliber shot placement thing on varmints it = wounded critters and slow death. I don't need to do it again esp. on predators. If I was making a living from fur or eating them, it may be differant. But myself and most are not. The .204 is in-between the .17rem and 22-250. To me it's on the light side for predators still. I still remember the 70's when a .243 was the norm here a head of the 22-250. I don't think a 22-250 is heavy by any means, just middle.
I would take a 6 MM BR over them all.

Have a good day, I am heading to range now to practice my 300 and enjoy the outdoors. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Last edited:
I did go back & look. Why do you think I posted that? Momentum is all thats left after the propellants pressure stops pushing the bullet. FPS. Same thing. Look at your favorite ballistics chart then show me where the bullet increases or maintains it's speed over a 100yd distance. When a bullet slows down it is losing momentum. Or fps. I hope you enjoy your day outdoors. I know I will enjoy mine as I get very few weekends off from March thru November.

BTW-- Poor shot placement equals wounded critters & slow death. Like I said. Your 22-250 is apparently incapable of less than perfect shot placement. I've seen groundhogs crawl off from 22lr shots up to the 270. 22-250 included. I'm done with this thread & your anal ways of thinking on the kings & queens of rifles. I'm just glad I'm not as smart as you. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif
 
I'm not taking any sides here. Good points by all. I went and read the original post again too. I kind of got lost in the thread and didn't address the original question when I replied the first time. Taking a second look made me re-think my position.

"Well I found a good deal on a remington 700 ADL in 204 ruger. I will be useing it for all of my field hunting, my question would I be better with a 22-250?"

Taking a second look at the original question, I'd have to say at this point I could not comfortably recommend Rotax getting a .204 as his primary predator rifle over a 22-250. Being completely honest with myself, if I had to choose just one, I would have to pick the 22-250. Mainly because I've used it enough to know what results to expect. Don't get me wrong. Not saying it's perfect either. I've had the occasional "Terminator" coyote that tries getting back up with a fist size exit hole. It just happens.

Bullet selection would be a determining factor for me. There are a lot more proven 22 cal bullets at this point. Another thing is when choosing a rifle for "all my field use", the .204 wouldn't work for me in this state. For cougar you can't use anything smaller than a 22 centerfire. But then again you can't hunt bear with anything smaller than a .240 centerfire either. I rarely hunt bear though.

I do believe the .204 is here to stay though. Better bullets will come. The thing that is most attractive to me is the OAL of the cartridge. It is the same length as a .223 so it will fit in a AR mag. Eventually my goal is to build an AR with a faster twist barrel than the .204s out now, so it can handle heavier bullets. I don't care for light bullets. I'd happily give up some speed for a little more bullet weight.

"how many shots could a guy get out of one? is the 204 a barrel burner?"

Don't know. Have to get back to ya on that one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif I wouldn't think it's a barrel burner though.

"which one is better?"

That remains to be seen. It's way to early (at least for me) to draw any accurate conclusions. Also depends what you mean. Better at what? Killing? If that's what you mean, logic tells me the 22-250 will work better at this point.

Better at shooting slightly flatter? Using less powder? .204 has a slight advantage I guess.

Anyway, there is one very simple answer to this. Get both. Then get a couple more calibers too. Then you can waste a half hour confusing the heck out of someone by rambling on about what caliber to use too. LOL! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif

Good hunting
 
Glen,

I stated that there are better math formula's for killing power than foot pounds. Namely "Kinectic Pulse" which factors in kinectic energy plus momentum and attempted to post a link for "Kinectic Pulse" which I will do again. If it does not come up do a search and you will see what I am refering to. Kinectic Pulse = Kinectic energy + momentum. http://www.kineticpulse.us/math/kp.html

You are making rude coments directly at me. Because of my comments on calibers........it's getting old.

I do understand that "bullet placement" is the key to killing power. And that many with that thought use a 22-250 for Whitetail Deer. I am not one of them, but I am a good shot..........thanks.

I probably should not have even looked at this before heading out the door. Please spare me the personal slams which do not seem to be in jest.

Slam on the 22-250 all you want, it's just a rifle.
 
Quote:
I'm not taking any sides here. Good points by all. I went and read the original post again too. I kind of got lost in the thread and didn't address the original question when I replied the first time. Taking a second look made me re-think my position.

"Well I found a good deal on a remington 700 ADL in 204 ruger. I will be useing it for all of my field hunting, my question would I be better with a 22-250?"

Taking a second look at the original question, I'd have to say at this point I could not comfortably recommend Rotax getting a .204 as his primary predator rifle over a 22-250. Being completely honest with myself, if I had to choose just one, I would have to pick the 22-250. Mainly because I've used it enough to know what results to expect. Don't get me wrong. Not saying it's perfect either. I've had the occasional "Terminator" coyote that tries getting back up with a fist size exit hole. It just happens.

Bullet selection would be a determining factor for me. There are a lot more proven 22 cal bullets at this point. Another thing is when choosing a rifle for "all my field use", the .204 wouldn't work for me in this state. For cougar you can't use anything smaller than a 22 centerfire. But then again you can't hunt bear with anything smaller than a .240 centerfire either. I rarely hunt bear though.

I do believe the .204 is here to stay though. Better bullets will come. The thing that is most attractive to me is the OAL of the cartridge. It is the same length as a .223 so it will fit in a AR mag. Eventually my goal is to build an AR with a faster twist barrel than the .204s out now, so it can handle heavier bullets. I don't care for light bullets. I'd happily give up some speed for a little more bullet weight.

"how many shots could a guy get out of one? is the 204 a barrel burner?"

Don't know. Have to get back to ya on that one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif I wouldn't think it's a barrel burner though.

"which one is better?"

That remains to be seen. It's way to early (at least for me) to draw any accurate conclusions. Also depends what you mean. Better at what? Killing? If that's what you mean, logic tells me the 22-250 will work better at this point.

Better at shooting slightly flatter? Using less powder? .204 has a slight advantage I guess.

Anyway, there is one very simple answer to this. Get both. Then get a couple more calibers too. Then you can waste a half hour confusing the heck out of someone by rambling on about what caliber to use too. LOL! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif

Good hunting




Curt, Thank you.
That was my point exactly. He states "all field use" and this is "Predator Masters". He does not state any other rifles he may already own such as a .243 where a .204 would be a nice add on.
Sorry, but I can not help but think some .204 owners were more interested in comparing than they were in what the poster was asking.
From there it got out of hand. My original replys and comparison's were of his interest in mind. At times I to drifted but, tried to come back. I also added humor to lighten things which some took offence to and others did not.
End of story.........
 
It's all about barrel twist and bullet weight. I've seen a 223ai 1/8 twist shooting 75 amax shoot circles around any 14 twist 22-250 at 700 yds. why argue they all have there place. Don't shortchange the 17's either, with berger 25gr match they are deadly on coyotes.
 
hers a couple of pics from last nights seven foxes, the 204 is now my official night/calling gun, replacing my 223, and no thats not intended to upset anyone with a 223. First pic is damage from a 200 yard chest shot.


P1010008.jpg


P1010009.jpg
 
Nice Pics DUDE!
How much difference does the sound mod make on your 204?
Always thought the purpose of a silencer was for subsonic rounds.
 
Baldie,

Here you may want this http://www.rugerhunting.com/forum/

It's a ".204 Ruger forum " I looked today(first time after Glen posted a link) and you will find several of the pro .204 "team" from this thread very active there, Glen,Silverfox,BCB and more. The pm's must have been buzzing on this thread to tally'ho.

To bad for the original poster's question however. but hey they have another site club member.

Great job on Red Fox !! You must be a avid fox hunter. I have some around the house here in the fields but, not enough for a pick up truck /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif Used to trap old wiley as a kid........they were tricky to trap. Are you calling them ? Again good job hunting !
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments fella,s.We call the foxes with a variety of calls including the good old foxpro, their is no market at all for fur in the uk, but it used to be very good 20 years ago, England has totally succumbed to the stupid bunnyhuggers, hell, theyve even banned hunting with dogs [ as if we will stop].I,m already a member of the ruger forum Bill, its a good site. The sound mod makes a vast difference Crapshoot, it kills the muzzle blast considerably, obviously it cant stop the supersonic crack, but that varies with the terrain.
 
I believe he would be better off with a .222rem than either the 204 or the 22-250 It fits right in between the two and gives excellent accuracy with the ability to shoot heavier bullets than the 204.

TEHO
 
Back
Top