Should I get a .204 Ruger?

[LipschitzWrath]

Hey guys, wanna thank ya all for helping me figure out my 6mm/hunting rifle dilemma. Overwhelming input from all of those here brought a fresh perspective. I'm honored to be able to draw on this forum's vast experience. Thanks!

Now that I have my new big game rifle sorted out, I wanted to once again draw some opinions from you guys. Right now, I currently own a .17 Rem M700, a .17HMR Savage, and a multitude of .22LR's to use on small game on prairie dogs. I could even throw my 6mm Rem M7 in there for varmints if I wanted to throw a little bit bigger slug. I do plan on adding a .22-250 in the near future as well, mainly for coyotes but also for PD's if its windy that day (it's NEVER windy in Wyoming, right).

My question is this - given the calibers I own/plan to own, would it make any sense to throw a .204 Ruger on there as well. My buddy has one and sings its praises loudly, but now I am thinking it would be redundant. It seems the .17 has the light end taken care of and the .22-250 has the heavier end.

I guess the one good thing is that all I lack to be able to reload for it on my XL650 is the powder funnel and a set of dies. Still, I can't help but think I'd be adding a caliber that doesn't bring anything to the table beyond what I already have.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Rick in Oregon]

I'm a colony varmint shooting fanatic, and would say that adding a 204R would be the perfect PD/rat caliber for your use. A 22-250 is NOT a good candidate for such use, as the barrel will quickly fry with extended shooting that a hot PD or rat patch offers. I have four 204's in addition to beaucoup CF .17's and .224's, but have found that the 204R will not burn out a barrel when shooting rats, plus you'll be able to see all your hits through the scope, burn less powder with less recoil/blast. By the end of the day you're not tired out from blast and recoil either.

Get that 204.....I promise you'll never regret it.

Pop over to the 204 Ruger forum and check out what many users have to say about the caliber.

http://www.204ruger.com/forum/index.php?sid=6e8cd0a1a7ff9877d15e556666d0c0ea

 

[th82457]

I agree with Rick, I have a .204 that is not only extremely accurate, but also uses less powder and builds less barrel heat than a 22-250 in prolonged repeat shooting like busting prairie dogs. It is my favorite commercial cartridge. If you are more adventurous, then a 20 Vartarg is hard to beat for low recoil, great accuracy and even less powder and barrel burn. The 17 center fires and 22-250 are fine rounds - but a bit too hard on barrels for high volume shooting. I just re-barreled my 22-250 to 22 BR and am very happy with the accuracy and velocity with less powder and recoil than the 22-250.

Terry

 

[LipschitzWrath]

Shoot, didn't realize that the .17 was so rough on the barrels. A mild load of H335 (21gr) will go 4100 fps with 20gr pills.

Sounds like a .204 ruger will be on the shopping list.

So my next question is - what IS the best use for my 17 remmy then???

 

[th82457]

It is still a great gun for PD's or fox. Did not mean to be-little it at all. I just know that a lot of high volume shooting will eat barrels. For whatever reason, the 204 has a better reputation for being easier on barrels. Part of it may be the case volume vs. bore size and the powder used in factory loads - which my guess is CFE223. Just look at it this way - you can never have enough varmint getter rifles !

 

[LipschitzWrath]

I wasn't implying U were throwing rocks. I'm probably the least knowledgeable person on this forum so I am listening to any and all input.

So you're saying it is fine to use the 17 for pretty much anything but try to limit sustained fire? I suppose it might find its best use as a rabbit gun. Not a lot of sustained fire there. Also saw a dude take a crow at 330 yards on YouTube with a .17.

 

[Rick in Oregon]

The best use for a 17 Remmy is coyotes IMHO...great on pelts, fast and accurate.

I also am a fan of the 20 Vartarg, and now find myself shooting it more than my 204's in the rat patch and for rock chucks. The 204 really shines past 400 yards for me, but most of my rat shooting is inside that range, so even less powder burnt and less blast/recoil with the VT.

If a 204R barrel is good for about 5K rounds, then a 20VT has to be still accurate way past that count. Haven't got there yet, mine is right at 3,650 rnds downrange, but still shoots in the .2's (honest).

But for a commercial cartridge for PD's, well, you won't find a better cartridge than the 204 Ruger for work out to 500+ yards and still see your hits through the scope.

 

[nmjwolf]

The 20 practical is worth a look as well.

 

[Witchhunter]

I have shot out a couple of 17 Remmy barrels, I thought the 204 was just as bad. My Pdog shootin buddy has 2 of them and they are everything that a 17 is and more. I will probably never have another 17 Remington again. I really like the 204 and am looking at a Vartag for my next rifle.

 

[LipschitzWrath]

The .20 Practical has really caught my interest for a number of reasons. I own several AR's and with a custom barrel only being 350 from Black Hole weaponry, this would be cheap. Not to mention I have Lake City .223 brass coming out the woodwork at my house. And even if I ran out, getting more would be simple compared to .204.

Christ, I love this forum. Never in my wildest dreams did the idea of a wildcat ever cross my mind.

 

[drover]

The 20 Practical is - well, just more practical. Right now 204 brass is very difficult to find while 223 brass is fairly commonplace and inexpensive.

Don't forget that you will also need another cleaning rod and funnel for the 20.

drover

 

[Ledd Slinger]

+1 on the 20 Practical. Just neck down 223 and load. Similar performance, equal or better accuracy and brass is cheap and easy to find.



I own a 204 Ruger and love it as it is extremely accurate and devastating on gophers, but I am now waiting on some 20 cal barrels to make a 20 Tactical. Brass is just easier to find and it uses a little less powder so I save money. Bought my last 500 pieces of prepped LC 223 brass for $40 shipped.
Only difference between the Practical and Tactical is that the Tactical fire forms the 223 case to a 30 degree shoulder. Helps prolong brass life.

 

[JORTZ]

All i know is once you shoot a 204 ruger you will own more.

 

[jbarnwell]

Warning! All of the 20's are very addictive!

 

[relyt530]

Ever considered a 221 fireball??? Great caliber that is a little easier to clean than a 204R IMO... Shoot a 50gr v-max with 15gr of lil gun... Great combo.

 

[SS427]

40 grain bullets in my .223 got me close enough to a .204 Ruger that I didn't buy one. I shot my buddies .204 Ruger while sage rat hunting and I didn't find enough advantage and the recoil wasn't enough less than my .223 to make a purchase. But like Rick, I don't do a lot of shooting beyond 300-400 yards on rats mostly because of the size of them.

I sold my .22-250. Great gun for just a few shots like on coyotes. Wasn't good at all on rats because it heated up so fast.

You really need to consider the .20 VarTarg. Do a search on the various forums and you will read nothing but positive reviews. If you get a .22-250, I think that would meet your .204 needs.

 

[ltam1198]

I think the 204 would fit right in your arsenal I have a 17 HMR 17 mark4 and 204 and I have a 6 mm BRX. Ive had my 204 cent they came out I shoot 39 and 40 grain bullets and w748 powder and is easy to load for and the varment be gone. Good luck and have fun. The rats I shoot are the size of a small V8 can.

 

[drover]

40 grain bullets in my .223 got me close enough to a .204 Ruger that I didn't buy one. I shot my buddies .204 Ruger while sage rat hunting and I didn't find enough advantage and the recoil wasn't enough less than my .223 to make a purchase.

This pretty well sums up my feelings about the 204 also. I have tried to love them three time and I just can't make it happen. I bought one when they first came available, tried it and sold it, I have done the same thing twice since then. If one runs the JBM recoil tables, or a similar table, the 39 and 40 gr bullets out of the 204 give the same recoil as a 223 with 40 gr bullets. How could it not when both use near identical powder charges behind the same weight bullet? As far as the slightly less drop and slightly more energy the 204 gives at longer distances over the 223, to me that is not an issue. Does an inch or so difference in drop or another 100 ft lbs of energy really matter on ground squirrels? .

For whatever reason 204 bullets and brass seem to be difficult to find right now which is a negative for it. There are literally tons of brass and bullets available for the 224's though. The manufacturers are going to turn out the highest selling product first and the 22 calibers have been around so long there are millions of rifles chambered for them whereas the 20 calibers are more niche cartridges.

I did play with the 32's in it and there is slightly less recoil using them but where I hunt there is always a chance of a coyote popping up and the 32 is just not enough for them unless you are extremely lucky and slip between the ribs. The 32's splatter when you hit bone - voice of experience on that one.

I know this goes against the grain of the board and it is almost sacrilegious to post negatives about the 204 but sometimes one just has to look at things realistically. Now if you just want a 204 that is an entirely different story. Heck, just buy one and go have fun but don't have great expectations of it being significantly better than the 223 with 40 gr bullets.


That should get this thread rolling.

drover

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Well, if you just want to kill rats and gophers, the 223 with a 40gr is fine, but an extra 100 ft lbs of energy on a creature that small does make a difference. That little bit of extra energy can be the difference between a gopher getting 'torn up with a big hole' and an 'Explosion'!

Granted, I don't think there's much difference between many of the varmint calibers at closer ranges of 200 yards and under. But 300 yards and further, the 204 Ruger flies much flatter and retains a lot more energy. Not only due to faster muzzle velocities, but also because of much higher BC's in like weight bullets of 22 cals. Any 40gr in a 22 cal has a horribly low BC making its effective range very limited. The BC in most 20 cal 39gr and 40gr bullets allow the 204 Ruger to be effective out to 600 yards or so. So it really just depends on what distances you plan on shooting.

I don't think the 22-250 should even be mentioned here anymore because it is a completely different animal. Large rifle primers, burns 35-40+ gr of powder, cannot be rapid fired without over heating, produces a lot more recoil, wont work in the same action due to a different rim diameter and magazine size, etc... Though the 204 Ruger can match the 22-250 trajectory with 15-20gr lighter bullet and 15gr less powder being burned, they are still very different. That being said assuming a 22-250 has a factory standard 1 in 12 or 1 in 14 twist. I am well aware of custom tight twist 22 cal barrels being able to stretch effective ranges with heavy bullets. But that only makes the 22-250 that much more different in comparison.

 

[LipschitzWrath]

Agreed about the .22-250. It's just a complete departure from all the calibers being discussed. Matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I am wondering why I would ever grab a .22-250 and take it with me when I have a .17, .204, and .223 sitting in the gun rack. And don't forget the 6mm. I mean, seriously, where does the .22-250 really shine (and no, I'm not knocking the caliber, I am legitimately asking)???