22-250 vs 204 Ruger

[Aaryq]

Howdy, folks.

I know you hate caliber debates but I don't know too much about either cartridge. What are the pros and cons for reloaders and for non-reloaders.

I'll be using it for Prairie Dogs being shot from a Stevens or a Savage at ranges of 50 to 350 yards (give or take) twice a year (once a year if gas prices keep on like they do and monthly if I can find some kind of varmints to shoot in NC).

I intend on dropping some good glass on the rifle.

Point me in the right direction.

**ETA ADD .22 HORNET

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

They'll both work well. If you handload, there's a lot to be said for the .204 Ruger as a goldilocks cartridge size, with ballistics at long range better than they oughtta be, so to speak. If you don't handload, .204 is an expensive proposition however, so in that case I'd go with .22-250 or just .223 rem.

 

[Shawnee]

+1 for what "PremiumSauces" said.

The .204 Ruger has turned out to be capable of some amazing things but reloading for it sure is a wallet-saver. It does take special cleaning equipment.

The .22/250 is also capable of more than many give it credit for (and would be my choice if I really expected to be shooting 300-350yds most of the time.) It will be a bit easier to wield in the breezes.

The .22 Hornet definitely has some great things going for it too - as long as you'll keep shots down to 225-250yds. One of those "great things" is that you can buy a NIB Savage Model 40 single-shot bolt-action heavy-barreled rifle pretty inexpensively ($350-$400) on the various Internet auction sites (eg. Gunbroker) and it is a much better and more accurate rifle than the price would indicate. Another thing about the Hornet is that even top-shelf ammo like the Hornady V-max can be found at comparitively cheap prices and it can be reloaded so cheaply you'll laugh every time you pull the lever.
"L'il Gun" is THE powder for the Hornet.

It would be hard to feel unlucky with any of them.

Good Luck and Enjoy !

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Yeah, basically with .204 Ruger, you get:

-The recoil, noise/blast, and powder-per-cartridge expense of the .223 Rem (or even less), while
-At the same time, you get the ballistics of the .22-250 due to the light but pretty-decent BC .20 cal bullets available (and with less barrel burn), compared to the crappy-BC yet heavier bullets of the .22-250.

The drawback is expense. Even if you reload, it's a bit more expensive than .22-250, due to the higher brass cost and bullet cost. Now at some point in the future as it becomes more accepted/standardized, these component costs will gradually come down (unless the cartridge dies).

Both are good medium to long-range varmint cartridge - they are so fast, the wind doesn't have a lot of time to work on them, so it's more of a point -n- click proposition out to a long ways - 250-300 yards or more.

And yes, the .22 hornet, K-hornet, and even .218 Bee are great mid-range rounds, but they don't have the oomph & reach of the first 2. The new .17 Remington Fireball (not to be confused with the .17 Rem) seems to be catching on somewhat as a good midrange round. At least, Rem is marketing it very intensely, and offering several rifle configs in the new round. It's a .221 Fireball necked to .17. I think it may have been *more* interesting if Rem had made their new round the ".204 Fireball" rather than .17 Fireball. Does anyone know if the .20 bore is easier to clean then a .17 bore, even if only a little bit?

 

[skinewmexico]

I've been having the same debate with myself that you are, and I'm thinking about putting a 20 Practical barrel on one of my Savages. A 223 necked down to 20, no special tools needed.

 

[River447]

I retired my old 222 this year for want of a new varmint rifle. I debated for a long time before I decided on the .204 Ruger (ballistics) and looked at a lot of rifles before picking one out.

I don’t understand the comments alluding to the extra expense for factory 204, I find the ammo is $2-3 less a box than the comparable 22-250 ammo. I have been getting excellent results with the Hornady 40 V-Max at $18 a box, while not in the same price range as surplus 5.56, I find it to be reasonably priced. I shoot groundhogs and unfortunately I bought the rifle late this season so it really hasn’t got a long track record with me in the field. I do get a big grin every time I take a shot and it is defiantly a keeper. Kills are instantaneous and while the rifle moves a little, the term recoil seems a little harsh. The 204 is deadly accurate and my hunting buddy with a 223 will defer the longer shots to me.

A couple years ago I would have probably opted for a 22-250, but today the 204 seemed to be a better choice for me. Don’t let anyone convince you to rule out the 204 as a “high” priced cartridge.

I’m not a reloader yet, but I suspect once I commit to reloading with a few hundred one fired brass at my disposal, it will be cheaper than reloading 22-250.

 

[rangerruck]

I would say, the trend here is, if not reloading, 22 horny, 223, and 22.250, with the 250 being the top range getter.
However, over the long haul, the 204 will reload cheaper, and keep up with the 250. if keeping shots to 250 or less, in my opinion, there is no better bullet to shoot, have fun with , and reload, than the 22hornet, the horny has a ton of reloading data, and is so mild. And yes, if you search around, you can find some pretty decent prices on new made horny ammo.

 

[River447]

I should delete my response after I read the Original Poster’s other thread that he wanted a 22-250 under $300. I spent a little more and therefore my answer is not valid.

OP - Please put all your requirements in one post if you wish an honest answer.

 

[Aaryq]

What do you mean, River?

 

[Whitman31]

I own both, I love them both. I see no cost difference in comparable factory ammo, both are expensive. I see no difference in the cost of bullets or brass either. The only offset I see cost wise is that the 204 uses considerably less powder.

Both rounds shoot very flat. The 204 in 40gr has one of the best B.C.'s out there. Both are perfect for anything out to about 300, then the 22-250 seems to take the edge due only to the availability of heavier bullets, resulting in less wind drift.

Someone already mentioned "special" cleaning equipment. A 20 cal or 17 cal rod is required, jags can be found most anywhere.

Both rounds are devastating on prairie dogs. My guns are not similar set-ups so I can't comment on recoil or noise. My AR in 204 has amazingly light recoil, but most of that is due the fact that it's an AR and it's heavy.

There is a larger factory round selection in the 22-250, but not by much and probably not for long. The 204 does pretty much limit you to varmints, where as the 22-250 can be considered adequate (and sometimes legal) for deer sized game, in the right shooters hands of course.

Both rounds are a lot of fun and with a little work can be very accurate

 

[win71]

It's a trick question

I own both, I love them both. I see no cost difference in comparable factory ammo, both are expensive. I see no difference in the cost of bullets or brass either. The only offset I see cost wise is that the 204 uses considerably less powder.

Ditto

I've been shooting a custom built 22-250 for twenty years and a Cooper in 204 for about four years. During that time I have settled on 50 gr. bullets for the 22-250 and either 30 or 32 for the .204. For your criteria either is fine and I would be hard pressed to choose myself. Personally I don't like to bounce around with bullet weights in the same caliber. If I know in advance that the ranges will be over 300 yards I usually opt for a 243 with 70 gr. HPBT's, Sierras mostly.

 

[24kshooter]

Given you stated use I would advise you to get a 223 REM with at least a 20" barrel w/1:8 or 1:9 twist rate. The 204 has been a great addition to my varmit rifle group but is somewhat specialized as is the 22-250. IMO it is an even race between the 204 Ruger and 22-250 for ranges up to 300 yards. The 22-250 is a superior cartridge with the problem traditional commercial 22-250 barrels are made with a 1-12 twist and will not shoot accurately the heavier bullets with higher bc's now available. This brings the performance potential of the 22-250 down to 204 Ruger levels. You have to move to a 243 / 6 mm bullets to get long range performance oriented bc's.