.204 Ruger...any thoughts?

Ya gotta remember, JimC, there's no closed season, and no limits! Not just CA; TX & GA, as well.

, Art

I've noticed that when a new package comes on the market, it takes a fair amount of time for folks to really acquire first-hand knowledge--and longer to accumulate enough shots to provide real judgement about the quality of the package. Early on, we can but speculate.

So, I'll speculate.

A 30- or 32-grain bullet will definitely show more effect from wind than heavier bullets. We already know that. Thus, for 300-yard shots, "doping the wind" becomes a true test of knowledge and skill.

Air resistance has the same sort of effect on very-light bullets as it does on those of poorer aerodynamic shape. So, blazing speed early on; a fairly rapid slow-down at longer ranges. (I once played with 80-grain flat-nosed bullets in my '06. Inside some 200 yards, they were devastating on such as jackrabbits. On toward 300 yards, they were merely so-so in performance.)

"Lesser muzzle blast" (or some such description): Compared to what? Even a .223 can be disturbing, moreso than, say, a .22 Hornet...

Fouling? Quien sabe. Time will tell.

Hokay?

, Art

When Ken told me he had ordered a 204 Ruger for varminting, my first thought was wind as well. I'm still not convinced, but then, I also don't believe "everything worthwhile that can be invented has been invented."

Interesting quote from Rick Jamison's article on the 204R in the Feb '04 Shooting Times (yeah, I know, gun rag, but ST is one of the "better" ones. ):

"Take a look at the figures derived not from an advertised velocity and B.C. but from my actual shooting. With a 250-yard zero, the bullet is 2.4 inches low at 300 yards and less than a foot low at 400. The tiny little bullet is still traveling 2240 fps at a long 400 yards. This translates into 356 ft-lbs of remaining energy at that distance, still plenty potent for a coyote. In fact, most people won’t be hitting prairie dogs at 500 yards, but coyotes or prairie dogs will be plenty dead at that distance if they meet up with the tiny .20. What about wind deflection? A 10 mph crosswind deflects the little bullet 9.9 inches at 300 yards and 18.9 inches at 400. The lightweight .20 caliber doesn’t look so bad after all."

"In less than a year, I believe we will be reading posts on THR debating if the .204 is good grizzly bear medicine. "



S-

I apologize for resurrecting this thread, but I have some useful information to add.

I ordered a Cooper Arms M21 MTV in .204 Ruger back in early December, and picked it up about a week ago. My dad and I ordered the same rifle at the same time, and got consecutive serial numbers. I ended up paying for his rifle, as a nice gift for him. These rifles have 24-inch stainless steel varmint barrels with a 1 in 12-inch twist.

Anyway, my dad tried both factory loads, 32gr and 40gr. He found that his rifle preferred the 32gr over 40gr bullet, at least for these two factory loads. His 40gr groups were usually over an inch, but the 32gr ones were close to a half inch.

I mounted the scope on mine over the weekend, and shot it for the first time last night. I put 10 rounds of 40gr and five rounds of 32gr through it, cleaning between rounds. The first two 40gr rounds were shot at 50 yards to get on paper. After a careful scope adjustment, I shot at 100 yards. I shot two four-round groups with the 40gr load, and they measured 1.35" and 1.65". All flyers -- two in the first group and one in the second group -- were vertical. The second four-shot group would have been exactly a half inch without the flyer. The five-round group shot with the 32gr load measured 0.63 inches (5/8"), and if the flyer (top hole) were to be discounted it would have measured 3/8". I am attaching a scan of its target.

The recoil felt like .223. I have a Cooper in .223 with the same action. Although my dad told me that the report seemed quiter than .223, "larryw" (who was at the range) thought otherwise.

Then again, my dad's hearing sucks.