Advantage of 204 over the 222
- Thread starter denjahn
- Start date
steve garrett
Well-known member
the 204 will give you at least a 100yd trajectory advantage shooting the 32grn bullet. It will also do it with substantially less winddrift and hit with the same energy as your 222 fireing a 50grn bullet so whats not to love about the 204
The .222 has always held a special place in my safe. Call me an old hack, but I cant seem to fall in love with this .204 the way I do the triple duece.
If its out of range of the .222, its well out of range of my shooting abilities.
I maybe shoot paper at a zillion yards, but I cant (and most people cant) dope the wind well enough to shoot at a critter past the range of a .222.
(2mph crosswind=6-10" of drift at 350yds with a .22cal bullet.)
If its out of range of the .222, its well out of range of my shooting abilities.
I maybe shoot paper at a zillion yards, but I cant (and most people cant) dope the wind well enough to shoot at a critter past the range of a .222.
(2mph crosswind=6-10" of drift at 350yds with a .22cal bullet.)
My take on it is this... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
The 204 is new... Bullets are harder to find and more expensive. Load data isn't as easy to find and not as refined by years of experience of shooters and ballisticians. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
Although the 222 has the reputation of being inherently accurate, the varmint/predator hunter wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a 223 anywhere except in a custom benchrest gun on a rest at a range and only then if they were an accomplished shooter and reloader. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
The 223 has always been and will likely continue to be the "King of the Hill" for small game, varmint, and predator hunters because it's incredibly practical. It's very cheap to shoot with brass and bullets being as common and cheap as dirt. It's incredibly accurate even in "every day" inexpensive hunting rifles. Plus it carries enough power for game up to deer and is just plain fun to shoot. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
If you just want another excuse to buy yet another gun then by all means buy a 204. As for me... I'll just get another 223 in a slightly different configuration than my others. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Note: I prefer a 243 for coyotes but have SEVERAL 223's for most of my shooting of any game smaller than whitetail.
$bob$
The 204 is new... Bullets are harder to find and more expensive. Load data isn't as easy to find and not as refined by years of experience of shooters and ballisticians. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
Although the 222 has the reputation of being inherently accurate, the varmint/predator hunter wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a 223 anywhere except in a custom benchrest gun on a rest at a range and only then if they were an accomplished shooter and reloader. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
The 223 has always been and will likely continue to be the "King of the Hill" for small game, varmint, and predator hunters because it's incredibly practical. It's very cheap to shoot with brass and bullets being as common and cheap as dirt. It's incredibly accurate even in "every day" inexpensive hunting rifles. Plus it carries enough power for game up to deer and is just plain fun to shoot. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
If you just want another excuse to buy yet another gun then by all means buy a 204. As for me... I'll just get another 223 in a slightly different configuration than my others. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Note: I prefer a 243 for coyotes but have SEVERAL 223's for most of my shooting of any game smaller than whitetail.
$bob$
Snowshoe Joe
New member
denjahn,
My two cents. I agree with all the above posts. Just came from the shooting range, where the new 204 is shooting so well it scares me! Since I'm playing hooky from work this morning, may as well chime in.
For coyotes and deer I shoot a 243 and a 6mm Ackley. Don't think the Ackley thing was worth the trouble for coyotes. On deer though, the Ackley shoots a 90 BT at 3540. (And, no, I won't tell you how much 4831 is in the case!)
I'm lucky enough to have shot near 10,000 rounds at PD's with 223s. For 90% of dogtown shooting, it is the king. If you can't hit that bad boy with a 223, it is usually time to move. On the other hand, 800 rounds with a 22-250 was enough to make me get rid of it. Never again.
So, I jumped on the 204 bandwagon, trying to find something a little more than a 223, without the recoil and barrel heating nuisuance of the 22-250. Hope this 204 Ruger will do that. But I've found it needs to be loaded down a bit.
Hornady factory ammo that I've shot is too hot to shoot freely and often. Recoil is much less than a 22-250, but suspect you'd be right back into the barrel heating problem.
Settled on loading Hornady 32's at 3875 with 26.5 Benchmark, just a half grain above Hodgdon's starting load. I think I can shoot a hundered an hour and not worry about barrel heating. Hornady 40's at 3700 with 29.0 of BL-C2 is a little hotter, but still pretty mild.
My bread and butter 223 PD load is 40 Blitzkings, 27.0 335 at 3500. The question is -- will the 204 reach out more than the 223? Don't yet know. We'll find out this summer. In theory, a 40 grain 204 bullet at 3700 should have an advantage over a 40 grain 22 caliber bullet at 3500. Likewise, the 32 going near 3900. If the 204 proves to be nothing more than a 223, so what? I've had fun and got to get another shootin iron!
The 222 Rem Magnum is a little more case than a 223, but loaded to the same pressure, you're shooting the same bullet at the same velocity. Yeah, you can squeeze a 100 fps more out of it, but why? The old 222 Remington has a little less case capacity than a 223, and in the real world it does what a 223 does. Right now, 222 Rem Magnum brass is hard to find due to guys fireforming 204s. And, it costs $190/thousand versus $130/thousand for 204 brass. Factory ammo are choices are limited for both 222s, store inventory nearly zero. If you find it, it won't be cheap.
My vote, get a 204. If a 22 is in your plans, get a 223.
My two cents. I agree with all the above posts. Just came from the shooting range, where the new 204 is shooting so well it scares me! Since I'm playing hooky from work this morning, may as well chime in.
For coyotes and deer I shoot a 243 and a 6mm Ackley. Don't think the Ackley thing was worth the trouble for coyotes. On deer though, the Ackley shoots a 90 BT at 3540. (And, no, I won't tell you how much 4831 is in the case!)
I'm lucky enough to have shot near 10,000 rounds at PD's with 223s. For 90% of dogtown shooting, it is the king. If you can't hit that bad boy with a 223, it is usually time to move. On the other hand, 800 rounds with a 22-250 was enough to make me get rid of it. Never again.
So, I jumped on the 204 bandwagon, trying to find something a little more than a 223, without the recoil and barrel heating nuisuance of the 22-250. Hope this 204 Ruger will do that. But I've found it needs to be loaded down a bit.
Hornady factory ammo that I've shot is too hot to shoot freely and often. Recoil is much less than a 22-250, but suspect you'd be right back into the barrel heating problem.
Settled on loading Hornady 32's at 3875 with 26.5 Benchmark, just a half grain above Hodgdon's starting load. I think I can shoot a hundered an hour and not worry about barrel heating. Hornady 40's at 3700 with 29.0 of BL-C2 is a little hotter, but still pretty mild.
My bread and butter 223 PD load is 40 Blitzkings, 27.0 335 at 3500. The question is -- will the 204 reach out more than the 223? Don't yet know. We'll find out this summer. In theory, a 40 grain 204 bullet at 3700 should have an advantage over a 40 grain 22 caliber bullet at 3500. Likewise, the 32 going near 3900. If the 204 proves to be nothing more than a 223, so what? I've had fun and got to get another shootin iron!
The 222 Rem Magnum is a little more case than a 223, but loaded to the same pressure, you're shooting the same bullet at the same velocity. Yeah, you can squeeze a 100 fps more out of it, but why? The old 222 Remington has a little less case capacity than a 223, and in the real world it does what a 223 does. Right now, 222 Rem Magnum brass is hard to find due to guys fireforming 204s. And, it costs $190/thousand versus $130/thousand for 204 brass. Factory ammo are choices are limited for both 222s, store inventory nearly zero. If you find it, it won't be cheap.
My vote, get a 204. If a 22 is in your plans, get a 223.
denjahn
New member
I see gun selection in 222 is going to be a problem too. There aren't too many offered. The Browning sites and Savage sites,unless I missed something, both have no 222's but an abundance of 223's.Maybe that would be a better choice.
Is the recoil and noise of the 204 less than the 222? I am guessing barrel life for both will be good
Is the recoil and noise of the 204 less than the 222? I am guessing barrel life for both will be good
Sportsman-n-1
New member
Denjahn,
I have had a 222 for 15 years and love the gun.
The question is, is it better then a 223...My take has to be a no. There is not going to be a noticable difference.
The .204 is going to fall into a different catagory. For the short time I have had it (800 rounds), I have found a few advantages to it. Yes it is a littler flatter, not a hugh difference. The thing that I really like is, Lower Recoil and Less Barrel Warming.
But, my advice is buy one of each. There is no way you can go wrong then. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
I have had a 222 for 15 years and love the gun.
The question is, is it better then a 223...My take has to be a no. There is not going to be a noticable difference.
The .204 is going to fall into a different catagory. For the short time I have had it (800 rounds), I have found a few advantages to it. Yes it is a littler flatter, not a hugh difference. The thing that I really like is, Lower Recoil and Less Barrel Warming.
But, my advice is buy one of each. There is no way you can go wrong then. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
Last edited: