Is the 204 Ruger going to be around for a while?

[Rabid Rabbit]

I'm thinking of getting a Encore in 204 or 223 for varmit shooting under 300 yards. If the 204 is selling well and looks like it isn't going for become oblolete anytime soon I'll get it if not I'll go for the 223. I just haven't noticed the 204 for sale at the gunshows around here.

 

[Crosshair]

Personaly I don't see it as having a big advantage. My 22-250 shoots just about as flat and that 20 cal bullet gets thrown around in the wind like crazy. I don't see it as surviving well. Most people will look at the cost of ammo and get a .223 IMHO.

 

[Pilgrim]

It is one of those strange situations where if everyone holds back, waiting to see if the cartridge will "catch on", the chambering will die a quick death. When it dies, those who held back will pat themselves on the back for not squandering their money on a flash-in-the-pan chambering.

Pilgrim

 

[JBP]

I think it will carve out a niche for itself. Just about all of the rifle manufactures have at least one model in it as well as TC for both the Contender and Encore. I have a NEF and just picked up a barrel for my Contender which I haven't shot yet. The NEF compares favorably with my Ruger M77 Mark II 22-250 and NEF .223.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

I thought about the 22-250, 4,200 fps is pretty cool, but after reading of the case stretching issue I thought I like reloading but it sounds like a very high maintenance round to load, not as bad as 6PPC but still takes a lot of time.

 

[gbran]

The .204 does fill a niche. It shoots further and flatter than a .223 without the kick of a 22-250 and I've been told it's not a barrel burner, but it ain't cheap. The 22-250 will handle bigger varmints at longer ranges as the .204. I just got a Contender in .223 and wrestled with the idea of the .204. Cost won out.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The .204 does fill a niche. It shoots further and flatter than a .223 without the kick of a 22-250 and I've been told it's not a barrel burner,

Anything pushing in excess of 4,000 FPS is going to be hard on barrels. I don't expect really long life out of my .17 Rem, even though it is a stainless fluted barrel. The .17 Rem, .204 Ruger and .220 swift are all in the 4,100-4,400 FPS arena.

The .22-250 can acheive 4,100 with 40 gr. pills and a max load. I have pushed my .223 to 3860 FPS with 40 grainers. These cartridges will have longer barrel life.

On the same note, the .223 WSSM has proven to be even harder on tubes that the .220 swift

 

[gbran]

"Because the .204 RUGER cartridge achieves a higher velocity with less propellant than either the .22-250 Remington or the .220 Swift, this new cartridge does not compromise barrel life".

The above is an excerpt from the Ruger website. I can't attest to the accuracy of the statement however.

 

[rockstar.esq]

...without the kick of a 22-250...
For heavens sake I really have to take exception to the notion that recoil plays a significant role in this decision making. Not trying to call anyone out but these are all rifle rounds that have so little recoil as to be child friendly! Maybe a little perspective is in order.
All that said. I think the 204 ruger is interesting, however so are the nearly endless supplies of varmint calibers. Barrel burn seems like it'd be less of an issue if you are using a single shot that loads as slowly as the TC. You won't be shooting thirty shot strings like the AR guys. Additionally, I'd wager that the TC barrel will be shorter than whatever the magic length for that cartridge is. As such more velocity to start with may help to balance things out given the shorter barrel time. I genuinely believe that anyone looking for the ultimate in precision out of their rifle should give significant thought to reloading. I wouldn't expect that loading components for the 204 Ruger will disapear any time soon.

 

[El Rojo]

To each their own. I just don't see the point in spending all of that money on a .204 when a .223 will do the job cheaper in the same distance. Just like the .17 rimfire rounds. Why spend all of that extra money when a .22LR has been killing squirrels within 100 yards, dead, for years. If I want to shoot past 100, I will use the .223. If I want to shoot even further that is what 110 gr. V-max in the .308 are for.

 

[Eightball]

El Rojo---I couldn't have said that better myself . For those of us with pocketbooks that don't permit buying strange new calibres, the rounds that have been around for a while (and are in use by more than a few modern militaries) will suffice for whatever job is at hand. If you want to buy 204, get it--but if you want a lot of cheap range time, go .223.

 

[halvey]

If the choice is .223 or .204, get the .223. For 300 and in, its a no brainer.

 

[GunGoBoom]

I'd pick .223 because:

1. Winchester white box and other stuff is cheeeeep.
2. Despite claims to the contrary, .204 has *got* to shorten barrel life some relative to the .223, just due to the high velocities and smaller bore - I believe (though could be mistaken) that barrel life has more to do with the speed of the bullet & powder (.204 is more, so more barrel burn), and with the ratio of powder to bore size, not just the absolute powder amount.
3. The only ballistic advantage the .204 has over the .223 is on really long shots (like over 350 or 400) - and by that time, could you *really* even hit the kinds of little things you're aiming at with .204 (prairie dogs and the like), given the fact that any teeny weeny bullet like that is going to be blown off course by the wind? I'd say that *if* you're a hardcore varminter, *and if* you are a master wind estimater, *and if* you plan to be shooting past 350 yards, then the .204 would offer an advantage over .223, trajectory-wise (PBR). But for those of us who don't know how to judge the wind going in 3 directions between us and the target, we'd better step up to a 6mm or .257 of some flavor for really long shots.

 

[Dave R]

If you handload, I'd get the .204. If not, the ammo economies of .223 are compelling.

FYI, the folks at accuratereloading.com are pretty positive on the .204. Still too soon to know if the claims of longer throat life are accurate. But the early results from those that shoot it a lot seem to be positive. They also enjoy the powder economy.

I shoot varmits with both a .223 and a .17 centerfire wildcat. I enjoy shooting the .17 a lot more. There's just something about it that seems more optimized. .204 is probably the same feeling.

 

[Sharps Shooter]

Like you GunGoBoom, I too think barrel life has something to do with the ratio of powder to bore size, not just the absolute powder amount. And like you, I could be wrong. I'm no metallurgist or mechanical engineer, but it seems to me when you narrow down the flame coming out of a cartridge case, you're concentrating the heat, just like with a cutting torch, and that has to be harder on the barrel. Besides, deserved or not, the .264 Winchester Magnum gained a reputation as a barrel burner, while the .300 Winchester Magnum did not. And they both use the same cases and approximately the same amount of powder.

 

[Coltdriver]

First of all I have a 24 inch .204 barrel on an Encore. Second of all I have a #3 ruger in .223 which I hand load for.

I took my Encore out to the Pawnee Grasslands, sighted the scope by looking down the barrel to get it on target at 50 yards, moved the target back to 100 yards, moved it again to 200 yards then moved it out to 300 yards. I did this in under 20 rounds. After that I was able to shoot a shotgun shell at 300 yards over and over.

The 204 has an honest point blank range of 300 yards. The .223 will only go out to 265 yards point blank range.

The bc of the 204 is superior to anything including the 22-250. Within 300 yards the 204 is affected less than a 22-250 by the same wind.

It is no more expensive to hand load for the 204 than it is the 223, in fact it may be a bit less expensive because you generally use a little less powder.

There are a couple of hand load formulas now available that will get you to the majic 4200 fps with a 32 grain bullet out of a 204.

There are several people over on 204ruger.com that have well over 1000 rounds through their 204 with no detrimental throat erosion.

The 204 is definitely here to stay. Hornady hit the nail on the head again with this bullet and twist combo. The nice thing about the Encore as a platform is that if the round turns out not to be your cup of tea you can always sell the barrel and try something else. And with the popularity of the 204 you won't have to wait long for the barrel to sell

 

[MachIVshooter]

I too think barrel life has something to do with the ratio of powder to bore size, not just the absolute powder amount. And like you, I could be wrong. I'm no metallurgist or mechanical engineer, but it seems to me when you narrow down the flame coming out of a cartridge case, you're concentrating the heat, just like with a cutting torch, and that has to be harder on the barrel. Besides, deserved or not, the .264 Winchester Magnum gained a reputation as a barrel burner, while the .300 Winchester Magnum did not. And they both use the same cases and approximately the same amount of powder

.

Heat and pressure, the two components that will work in conjunction to erode the chamber throat. The .338-50 Talbot is a perfect example of extreme overbore, burning some 170-180 grains of powder behind a 250 gr. slug. That cartridge has been known to destroy throats in less than 250 rounds. Other strange phenomena occur when the powder charge outweighs the bullet.

 

[Maldy]

Call my a cynic, but I think that after more than a hundred years of modern cartridge development the likelihood of a new and significantly better cartridge in any sector of the population of modern loads is a long shot. Not to say that the .204 can't find a base of loyal adherents; but the comparisons to established rounds that offer similar ballistics and more readily available and less costly ammo lead me to believe that it will not capture a large portion of the target market. Just my humble opinion.

Mark

 

[Dave R]

It is no more expensive to hand load for the 204 than it is the 223,

?? I woulda thought that .204 bullets would be more expensive than .223 bullets. OTOH, for premium, varmit bullets, I guess prices would be about the same. Had not considered BC. You make a good point.

 

[El Rojo]

Natchez has 32 gr. .204 bullets for $11.70 right now. All the .223's from 35 gr. to 55 gr. are $11.71. Crap. That proves it, the .204 is superior not only in performance, but in cost effectiveness too. I am trading in my .223s for a .204 tomorrow.

 

[halvey]

I can't wait for the .204 AI.

 

[Gewehr98]

If the reduction in diameter from .224" to .204" begat the Holy Grail of cartridges

Just imagine how flat-shooting and powder-efficient the next iteration of .223 Remington-based wildcats, perhaps the .184-.223 Darning Needle, will be?

I can hardly wait. El Rojo, I agree, and do you suppose a flechette seated in a really necked-down .223 case would buck the wind like a laser beam and have a maximum point-blank range of 500 yards?

(Not getting rid of either my .223 Remington or .220 Swift for the fad that is the .204 Ruger)

 

[Dave R]

[Putting old codger hat on] Hmmmph. Sounds like another case of folks criticizing something they've never tried. Those that have tried it seem pretty enthusiastic. See Coltdriver's post for evidence.

Granted, I've never shot a .204 Ruger, either, but I shoot a .17 centerfire wildcat, so its not hard to see the virtues of the .204. My prediction is it'll be around for a while.

Read the posts of those that have tried it.

 

[Smoke]

Don't own a .204 either.....but would like to...

Friend of mine bought one and reports exceptional groupings at 200yrds.
He is a die hard devotee of the .22-250 which he knows is my pet cartridge.
He insists I need one...I trust his judgement.

,22-250 has advantages over .223 thats why it has hung around so long.
.17 has advantages over 22lr

.204 will filla niche and hang around awhile....might even buy one myself one day.

Smoke

(where is QBG, this ought to be his discussion!)

 

[Gewehr98]

Dave R, don't underestimate the crowd here at THR.

Sounds like another case of folks criticizing something they've never tried. Those that have tried it seem pretty enthusiastic. See Coltdriver's post for evidence.

Putting my own old codger's hat back on. Been there, done that, still have the .17 Remington brass and dies to prove it. But I do like the .22 Hornet and K-Hornet. I really do hope that I'm proved wrong, and the .204 Ruger doesn't go the way of the .225 Winchester. (Which Winchester touted as the successor to the .220 Swift)