204 or 22-250
- Thread starter nomames
- Start date
The .22-250 is far more versatile. There are 11 bullet weights in my old Lyman manual. The .204 uses 32 and 40 grain bullets and you aren't likely to find ammo and brass easily. Its energy drops off fast too. And Ruger's marketing wallahs may decide it's not selling enough and discontinue it leaving shooters without ammo or brass.
I agree 22-250 is an older, more established and more powerful cartidge with better range, and better bullet selection. Having said that, I am falling deeper in love with the .204 the more I use it. (Berger is making 50 grains in .204...).
I love the really low recoil with the .204 Ruger, and with a factory barrel, I have hit gophers out to 400M consistently. I take nothing away from the 22-250; it is an outstanding cartidge. I'm just having lots of fun and success with .204 Ruger.
Ammo brass and bullet selection gets better for the .204 as time goes on. If I had to choose between the two for over-all versatility, I would have to concede to the 22-250, but for varmints, try 204... you'll love it.
I love the really low recoil with the .204 Ruger, and with a factory barrel, I have hit gophers out to 400M consistently. I take nothing away from the 22-250; it is an outstanding cartidge. I'm just having lots of fun and success with .204 Ruger.
Ammo brass and bullet selection gets better for the .204 as time goes on. If I had to choose between the two for over-all versatility, I would have to concede to the 22-250, but for varmints, try 204... you'll love it.
It depends on what you are doing with the rifle, I bought a 204 this fall and I have shot 13 coyotes with mine, everyone has been a bang/flop, with no pelt damage!(32grn V-max with 27grns of H-335) Alote of peaple say the 204 is not a good coyote round but I think it does wonders on them.
- Location
- Central Sask
i have both and id say go with the 22-250. ill see how my 204 works on gophers.
it actually kills bush rabbits ok though
it actually kills bush rabbits ok though
- Location
- moosejaw sask
I sold my rem 700 sps 204 and bought a cz varmint laminat in a 22-250 for long rage and I am bying a tikka t3 in a 22-250 for calling.the 204 just dident have it for what i needed.
- Location
- Silver Creek
Dont have one yet but have used my uncles 204 and have fallen in love with it. awesome round and no recoil. adds up after a day of shooting
LSB
LSB
+1 for the .204.
But, a better solution: I have both
I much prefer the 204 on the balance:
-slightly BETTER range and downrange numbers, due to the higher BC of it's 40-grainers. Check the numbers. www.6mmbr.com has a 20-cal page.
-Wind resistance is also slightly better, due to a more efficient bullet (higher BC)
-less recoil. Although the 22-250 has minimal recoil, the 204 is noticably less, allowing for faster re-acquisition, and easier to spot your shots
-more shots between 'cool-down.' This is the big one for me. I hate waiting for the gun to cool down. I get twice as many shots between cool-down on my .204
-Better barrel life (or so they say)
-Cheaper to reload - less powder. ~25-ish grains for the 204, 35-ish for the '250
This is balanced against its disadvantages:
-harder to find components for (for now...)
-only explosive, frangible varmint bullets available (heh, that's what I'm after though
-need new cleaning rod & accessories
-uncertain future, depending on popularity (looking good though. On Ammoguide.com's 'most frequently viewed' list, it's just after the '06!)
But, a better solution: I have both
I much prefer the 204 on the balance:
-slightly BETTER range and downrange numbers, due to the higher BC of it's 40-grainers. Check the numbers. www.6mmbr.com has a 20-cal page.
-Wind resistance is also slightly better, due to a more efficient bullet (higher BC)
-less recoil. Although the 22-250 has minimal recoil, the 204 is noticably less, allowing for faster re-acquisition, and easier to spot your shots
-more shots between 'cool-down.' This is the big one for me. I hate waiting for the gun to cool down. I get twice as many shots between cool-down on my .204
-Better barrel life (or so they say)
-Cheaper to reload - less powder. ~25-ish grains for the 204, 35-ish for the '250
This is balanced against its disadvantages:
-harder to find components for (for now...)
-only explosive, frangible varmint bullets available (heh, that's what I'm after though
-need new cleaning rod & accessories
-uncertain future, depending on popularity (looking good though. On Ammoguide.com's 'most frequently viewed' list, it's just after the '06!)
I remember an article I read. Mr. O'connor didnt like the 22/250. He took a handfull of brass went over to a pail of powder(4350 I think) scooped some powder into each using the shell as a scoop,plugged in the projectiles fired them into a sub moa group. Said "there see its no fun". I refined that slightly. (I use a powder measure) and my groups dont start to look like more than one shot until I get up past 5-6 shots. Then I get bored,shoot the plastic tacs off the target and go home. If your easily bored avoid the 22/250 Its way to time tested dependable. If thats the case your way better off with the new rangled fangled take your dollars cartridges their comming out with..Oh God bless the 450 marlin which a reloader can duplicate with a 45/70. And I know my neibour is just googly over his 300 wsm which 4000$ later and two years of monkeying he's got projectiles going 100 FPS slower into groups 3 times the size that I do with my 1700$ sako 300 weath right out of the box. I say the same thing about cars and chamberings,the late 60's woulda been a real good time to have told all the enginners"Well good job boys,but you can all go home now,we're finished"
