.204 Ruger... keeper or flash in the pan ???

[Magnum Wheel Man]

... Ok, I heard of this cartridge several years ago, but just thought...

oh great... another 223 knock off

but while glancing through the Ruger website I came across a rifle chambered in 204, got me curious, so I went to Midway's site & looked at ammo, looks seriously different than the 223 class cartridges...

... so what is / was the parent case ??? or is it a "new" one ??? is the bullet 223 diameter ??? the bullets look much lighter than most of the the other 22 bore bullets...

is the cartridge all it was hyped up to be ??? what are you guy's using it for ??? does it wind drift as much as the hyper speed light weight 17's ( like the 17 remington, not the new rim fires ) ???

is it here to stay, or a flash in the pan ???

 

[lunde]

The parent case is .222 Remington Magnum, but the tape of the case is slightly different, meaning that you should buy .204 Ruger brass, and not resize .222 Remington Magnum brass. Up until I got a .204 Ruger rifle, I had been happy with .223, and sometimes used .22-250 for the longer pokes. Now, I use strictly .204 Ruger, as it not only bridges the gap, it fills both roles, at least for my needs. It gives me the flat-shooting characteristic of .22-250, but its case size and powder charge is like .223. I use Sierra 32gr BlitzKing bullets, in front of 26.5gr of Alliant Reloder 10X in Winchester brass, and both of my Cooper Arms rifles chambered for this cartridge, an M21 MTV and an M21 Phoenix, shoot quarter-inch five-shot groups at 100 yards:

Note that the third group is six shots, not five. I use the same load in both rifles, with the same results. This is devastating when it hits a prairie dog or comparable varmint. I distinctive "whap" sound is heard, and there's not much left of the target.

It bucks the wind better than .223, from my use in the field. I have used .204 Ruger for three separate prairie dog hunting trips thus far, and am two weeks from a fourth.

So yes, I am a firm beiever in this new cartridge.

 

[rangerruck]

the 204 is an interesting cartridge. it actually uses less powder than the flame throwers, yet is very mild mannered. The bullet is a 5mm round, it has more b.c. and s.d. than all other 223 rounds. It is very fast, and flat, combined with it's high b.c. and s.d. makes it very good at slicing through the wind, like a razor instead of a butter knife , through butter.

 

[lunde]

Here are photos of my three rifles chambered in .204 Ruger. The first is a Cooper Arms M21 MTV:

The second is a Cooper Arms M21 Phoenix:

The third is a Dakota Arms Serious Predator (sans Monte Carlo, thank goodness):

All three have the same scope mounted: Leupold VX-III 6.5-20x40 LR with Varmint Hunter's reticle (Leupold #57175).

 

[BozemanMT]

wow, nice coopers, I am jealous.

nonetheless, the .204 Ruger is a flash, in 20 years it will be impossible or nigh on impossible to find anywhere and the only people left shooting it will be handloaders.

 

[Jackal]

Ditto on Bozeman's thaughts.

 

[rection47]

How can you prove it won't be around any longer?

 

[jefmad]

How can you prove it won't be around any longer?

You aren't seriously asking that question are you?

 

[larryw]

I'm sure he is. People can and do make claims like that all the time because they know people have a short memory and nobody will call them on it. The drive-by media lives by that credo.

People said the 44 Mag was a flash in the pan ("nobody needs that much power in a handgun")

People said the 223 was a flash in the pan.

Ditto for the 17HMR

BS

Regardless, anyone smart enough to ignore conventional "wisdom" (which is usually wrong) and use the 204 are handloaders, so this really is a moot point, isn't it?

I've seen Ken's guns. I've seen what that cartridge can do, both on paper and prey. I'm betting it will be around for quite some time.

 

[lunde]

jefmad, you wrote:

You aren't seriously asking that question are you?

I wanted to ask the same question that rection47 posed. Given the performance that the .204 Ruger cartridge is delivering, I cannot see it going away anytime soon. For me, the cartridge took off once Winchester brass became available. I will be using .204 Ruger, using 32gr bullets, for the forseeable future, for my varmint hunting needs. I am speaking from experience, using various varmint hunting cartridges in the field. The .204 Ruger cartridge is a true performer.

My first in-field experience was at the end of June of 2005. I drove to South Dakota to hunt prairie dogs with my dad. I brought along two Cooper Arms rifles, an M21 MTV in .223, and an M21 MTV in .204 Ruger. My .223 has taken several hundred prairie dogs, and was well-proven. I was unsure about .204 Ruger, though it was shooting quarter-inch five-shot groups at 100 yards at the range. I ended up enjoying .204 Ruger immensely. I had another trip a month later, and while I brought along both rifles again, I used only .204 Ruger. Later that year, in October, I purchased my second Cooper in .204 Ruger, an M21 Phoenix.

My dad owns a Cooper Arms M21 MTV in .204 Ruger, and we have consecutive serial numbers. He also has a Kimber 84M Classic in .204 Ruger.

Don't knock it until you have tried it... ...in the field.

 

[rbernie]

Sales figures over time tells the tale; everything else is speculation. I don't varmint hunt myself, so I can't see much of the niche that it fills. But it does seem popular with the varmintin' types so I figure it'll always have *somebody* shooting it

Given that the 22cal Swift is still hanging in there, I don't doubt that the 204 will still have some support many years from now. Ammo may not be available at every firearms-related retail outlet, but it's not gonna up and vanish like a fart in the wind, either.

 

[Gewehr98]

What we're not seeing in this thread...

Is that a Cooper rifle in .223 will make just as teeny a group at 100 yards as the one in .204 Ruger. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a Cooper. (I've been working with one in 6.5-284, so the brand's accuracy is not a surprise to me.)

Having owned a .17 Remington some years ago, it too was a wind cheating tackdriver, the be-all, end-all of sub-.22 caliber centerfires, and basically the greatest thing since sliced bread. Old Man Ackley himself was lending credence to the idea by dropping Catalina Goats and 600 pound burros with his .17 caliber centerfire wildcat, proclaiming they fell like they were struck by the hand of Gawd. Okeydokey, good stuff, Maynard!

Fast-forward 20-30 years, and take a look at the .17 Remington these days. One can only hope the .204 Ruger doesn't suffer the same fate, regardless of the magical attributes given the round by those heavily vested in the same.

In the meantime, I'll stick with my .223 Remington and .220 Swift varmint zappers, thank you very much.

 

[lunde]

Gewehr98, you wrote:

What we're not seeing in this thread...
Is that a Cooper rifle in .223 will make just as teeny a group at 100 yards as the one in .204 Ruger.

Indeed. Here's what my M21 MTV in .223 can do:

The same accuracy level. But, by better performance, I mean that .204 Ruger is flatter-shooting, and more devastating when it strikes its non-paper target. When zeroed at 200 yards, the bullet drop at 500 yards for .223 (Hornady 40gr V-Max) is about 45 inches, but for .204 Ruger it is only 30 inches.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with .223, and I own four bolt-action rifles chambered in it two of which are made by Cooper Arms. When people ask whether to get a rifle in .223 or .204 Ruger, I first ask them whether they plan to handload. If so, I feel that .204 Ruger has the edge, for the reasons I gave. If not, there is a wider variety of excellent factory .223 ammo available, and my favorite is Black Hills 40gr and 50gr VMax.

 

[larryw]

The 17Rem is/was notorius for quickly fouling the barrel, which sealed its fate in the varminter arena. The 204 doesn't suffer from that problem.

 

[BozemanMT]

Performance has nothing to do with it.
It's all about marketing and sales.
Just like the WSSM calibers, the Weatherby calibers and 1000's of smaller varmit calibers. They exist, kinda, they can be made, the data exists, but finding one in a shop is tough and they are expensive.
.17hmr will probably continue to exist, but .204 ruger will probably die out as the next "new big thing" comes along.
Some calibers just never catch on and some solve problems that don't exist (.45GAP).
Heck that gives me another great example of a really great cartridge that solves a lot of problems that has gone nowhere in 20 years. the 10mm
Anyway, enjoy the shooting.

 

[BrainOnSigs]

A very good read on the 20 caliber offerings versus .223 and .22-250.

http://www.6mmbr.com/20Caliber.html

Here is an excerpt:

"I'm often asked how a 20-Caliber gun compares with the ever-popular .223 Rem. Well, I tell people the Twenty is flatter-shooting, easier on barrels, and it is a better choice for small varmints, whether you want to "mist 'em" or save the pelt.

The Velocity Edge--A .204 Ruger drives a 40-grainer 600 fps faster than a .223 Rem can push the typical 22-Caliber 50gr bullet. This higher velocity produces a flatter trajectory. Additionally, grain for grain, 20-Caliber bullets have higher ballistic coefficients than .224 bullets. Combine this with the extra velocity of the 20-Caliber, and you get superior performance in the wind. Run the numbers and you'll see--a 40-grainer shot from a .204 Ruger has less drop AND less wind drift than a 40gr or 50gr bullet fired from a .223 Rem. You'll find the data in the chart below.

Component Economy and Barrel Life--All the Twenties burn way less powder than a 22-250, and the smaller Twenties use less powder than a .223 Rem. This attribute actually has two advantages. First, it makes shooting 20-Caliber cartridges more economical, but mostly it means less barrel heat. A typical varmint hunter may shoot several hundred rounds in one day, so barrel heat is an important issue.

Terminal Ballistics--For hunters seeking maximum explosive effect on a small varmint, Twenties deliver the goods. Because it passes through the rifling much more quickly, a 20-Caliber bullet will be turning much higher RPMs than a 22-caliber bullet launched from a barrel of similar twist rate. Experienced varminters will tell you that high spin rates create the most explosive impacts. On the other hand, if you shoot a non-fragmenting bullet, the Twenty can minimize hide/fur damage. If you plan to keep the fur, you want the smallest possible hole or damage to it."





From a personal experience, I have switched over from .223 to .204 for varmint hunting. I saw the light when P-dog shooting this past June with THR forum member Lunde. I saw him have a 92% hit rate at distances out to 338 yards. My .223 worked well but for pure explosiveness the .204 made the P-dogs absolutely erupt. It was as Lunde alluded to...it made a large WHAP sound when striking a P-dog. I didn't even have to watch his shots any longer to know if he had a hit.....I could just listen and tell. I thought on a breezy day that the 50 gr V-Max .223s that I was shooting would easily outperform the 32 gr BlitzKing .204s. That just wasn't the case.

Flat shooting, fast, explosive, less barrel wear and tear, proven in the field, more rifle companies offering this caliber......it isn't going anywhere.

My new Cooper Montana Varminter in .204:

 

[lunde]

BozemanMT you wrote:

Performance has nothing to do with it.
It's all about marketing and sales.
Just like the WSSM calibers, the Weatherby calibers and 1000's of smaller varmit calibers. They exist, kinda, they can be made, the data exists, but finding one in a shop is tough and they are expensive.
.17hmr will probably continue to exist, but .204 ruger will probably die out as the next "new big thing" comes along.
Some calibers just never catch on and some solve problems that don't exist (.45GAP).

I hear and understand what you're saying. In the end, sales of rifles, ammunition, and components dictate the success of the cartridge. How well the cartridge delivers, in terms of performance, is a factor, in that it is what attracts people to the cartridge, and more importantly, what encourages people to continue to use the cartridge. Believe me, if I saw no benefit in .204 Ruger, I'd still be using .223.

It is still very early in the life of .204 Ruger, and those who have actually used it, beyond mere paper-punching, have been impressed. It is the first (or, soon-to-be) mainstream 20 caliber cartridge. There are at least a half-dozen other 20 caliber cartridges, the most popular of which is clearly Tactical 20 (formed from .223 brass, and Lapua has recently started making brass for it). I feel that .204 Ruger has trumped them all. Winchester, Hornady, Nosler, Remington, and Norma are making .204 Ruger brass. A half-dozen or so bullet manufacturers, such as Hornady, Sierra, Nosler, Berger, are making 20 caliber bullets. The availability of 20 caliber bullets didn't take off until .204 Ruger was introduced.

For my needs, which is culling the population of (aka, blowing up) prairie dogs and other comparably-sized varmints, the .204 Ruger cartridge is excellent. It gives me the convenience of .223, meaning smaller cases, light bullets, and smaller powder charges, but gives me a lot of what .22-250 and .220 Swift offer, in terms of flat-shooting characteristics and power, though the power level of .204 Ruger is not the same, but clearly sufficient for varmint hunting.

 

[BrainOnSigs]

.

 

[Gewehr98]

So what you're saying, BrainOnSigs...

Is that a .204 Ruger is the only chambering that will produce spectacular explosive kills worthy of huge online pictures? I'm not so sure those graphic pics will stay posted here on THR, regardless - considering that it's a family forum.

(Having myself done a 3-day prairie poodle shoot on the Oregon/California border some years back, Dillon press mounted on tailgate, with .223 Remington and .220 Swift doing all sorts of pink mist havoc)

I'm assuming you ate the rabbit afterwards, right, or was it in season?

 

[BrainOnSigs]

Is that a .204 Ruger is the only chambering that will produce spectacular explosive kills worthy of huge online pictures? I'm not so sure those graphic pics will stay posted here on THR, regardless - considering that it's a family forum.

(Having myself done a 3-day prairie poodle shoot on the Oregon/California border some years back, Dillon press mounted on tailgate, with .223 Remington and .220 Swift doing all sorts of pink mist havoc)

I'm assuming you ate the rabbit afterwards, right, or was it in season?

Don't you shoot/hunt with the family?

It is encouraged on other forums, but since it has been deemed offensive by you I shall remove them.

 

[Gewehr98]

Doesn't offend me.

Been there, done that, got the trophy at the rancher's barbeque.

My family started my sister and I off on hunting and competitive shooting in 4th grade. We're not that naieve, but one still has to consider that not everybody has the same upbringing. Shooters don't necessarily hunt, and hunters don't necessarily shoot. Variety is the spice of THR.

It's been stated repeatedly by the staff here that this is a family forum. Shooting is good. Accuracy is good. Terminal performance is good. However, I'm not the one having to explain to the youngsters the effects of terminal performance to Mr. Cottontail in the sequence of pictures, and the moderators probably wouldn't appreciate having to do so, either.

There's a time and place for everything. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are one of the first casualties of that policy early on in life. Likewise, one doesn't leave porn out on the coffee table for the kids to see, either.

 

[BrainOnSigs]

Point taken Gewehr98.