223 or 204 Ruger

D

despyzedguy

Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Manitoba
I reload and am interested in purchasing a new varminter. I will most likely go with a Savage but that is not the question.

I want to be able to shoot all day at targets, be able to hit accurate to 300 and have little to no felt recoil. I read the 22-250 is great but barrel burn out is quicker then the others I mentioned.

Which one would you choose? I already have a 30-06, 270 and a 30-30 so of course I need a new rifle, if I don't get one the rifle gods will be angry with me :)

223 or 204 Ruger ????????????
 
I don't have a .223, so can't provide a head-to-head comparison. I have had a .204 for a while now and I really like it as a varmint gun. The speed is amazing and requires very little trajectory compensation out to 300 yards. I've put approximately 200 rounds through it and can see no change in barrel integrity or accuracy. The light recoil is really nice as you can maintain your field of view through the scope during recoil and see the show.
 
The 204 is a fine varmint cartridge, and shoot very well at 100 & 200y, but the 204 falls short of the 223 Rem after 100y it just is affected by wind to much, the 233 is much more versitile cartrige in a 1/9 twist you can shoot the 50gr to th 75gr bullets and if you get a Savage witha 1/7 twist, the 80 & 90 that can shoot well to 1000y
manitou
 
I went 204, I've had both. Sold the .223. For reasons that I just didn't like the gun.

Good points for the .223 were the cheap bullet...but thats a moot point as the good varmint bullets are the same price as .204

Little more recoil, and louder. Reaches a touch further that the 204.

Good point for the 204, NO RECOIL. Very accurate, coyotes drop just as good. Quieter than most other.

It burns 27~ grains of powder...It's no barrel burner.

204 is a cool little cartridge. The first time you shoot it, its a strange felling to have no recoil and see the impact so clearly.

Either will work fine for hunting.
 
I can appreciate the fact that the .204 is a screamin' fast one, but I will still vote for .223. Brass is more readily available, ammo cheaper and easier to find. If you want fast, you can load 40 grain bullets in the .223 and if you want better long range performance in windy conditions go with 69 grainers or heavier. Barrels last virtually forever in the .223. I think if you are looking at high volume shooting, then the .223 is the way to go. If this is strictly for coyotes and you will only fire a few rounds per outing, then you may find the .204 is worth it. Even then, I would still take a .223. If I need more fire than the .223 can offer, then I would be going to the .22-250 as it can handle better bullet weights than the .204.
 
saskcop said:
I can appreciate the fact that the .204 is a screamin' fast one, but I will still vote for .223. Brass is more readily available, ammo cheaper and easier to find. If you want fast, you can load 40 grain bullets in the .223 and if you want better long range performance in windy conditions go with 69 grainers or heavier.
Click to expand...


Not all rifles chambered in 223 can shoot 69 gr bullets. You need to have fast rifling in order to stabilize those heavy bullets.

If you reload the 204 can be less expensive as it uses very little powder to get the job done. Bullets and primers cost the same and once you have the brass the less powder will be more economical.

I don't see a lot of difference in the price of factory ammo between 223 and 204. Compare premium ammo to premium ammo and there may only be a dollar or so difference either way. Compare budget ammo to 204 premium ammo and of course there will be a difference.

I chose the 204 and don't regret it a bit.
 
heavenIsAlie said:
if you reload, .204 ruger, if you dont .223
Click to expand...

I'd say X2 on this advice. I have both and I find my .204 much more interesting. But, gun/cartridge selection is (IMHO) about 90% emotional and 10% logic so just get whatever makes you happy - there's more than enough good reasons to argue the case for either one.

I can't help but comment on the reference to barrel burn out with .22-250's, .204's etc. It takes many 1000's of rounds to see enough wear to cause any perceptible loss of accuracy. Sure, you can shorten that a bit by shooting hot hand-loads all the time, and sure with all else being equal a .22-250 should have a shorter barrel like than a .223, but it's still way into the 1000's of rounds before you need to worry about that. Probably 99% of guys will never shoot that much anyway (only the serious target and maybe prairie dog shooters will). And unless you are shooting very small groups (under half MOA... for real... consistently...) then any loss of accuracy from barrel burn-out will be hardly noticeable until the barrel is really fried and that takes a lot of shooting.
 
I have three 204s,one 223, a 222 and two 22-250s. When I reach for a gun to take out of the safe I give more thought as to of what I'm using the gun for that day than I do about the caliber. If I had any desire to cut down on the number of varmint guns in my safe I would likely go to a couple 204s. My Browning Stainless Stalker I will always keep around as my main gun to carry when calling coyotes but if I do get another 204 it will be with a custom 10 twist barrel for shooting heavier bullets at longer ranges. To answer your question I would say of course you need both calibers but if I had to chose just one the 204 would be my first pick.
 
Thx for all the replies. I love to get personal opinions on these subjects. I have still not made up my mind but now I have the old man saying I should get one and he will get the other so I guess I can't lose lol R:d:
 
I have had 3 204 rugers. I also know some guys with 22-250s. I prefer my 204 as there is no recoil and it hits hard just like 22-250. I also have a 223 and its cheap to shoot factory ammo out of it, but i really like the 204 as its just a fun caliber to shoot. I think the 204 is a good choice for any varmint gun, and if you reload, its just as cheap to reload a 204 as it is a 223. I think a 22-250 is harder on barrels just cause of the amount of powder they use. But the 22-250 is a good trusted and true cartridge. My old savage modle 25 in 204 had 800+ rounds through it and i sold it to a buddy and its still drivin tacks and its well over the 1500 mark. Just some food for thought.
 
despyzedguy said:
Thx for all the replies. I love to get personal opinions on these subjects. I have still not made up my mind but now I have the old man saying I should get one and he will get the other so I guess I can't lose lol R:d:
Click to expand...

Get the 204 first and both of you shoot it, then go out and get another 204 so you won't be fighting over it. FS
 
heavenIsAlie said:
if you reload, .204 ruger, if you dont .223
Click to expand...


Agree as well, if you reload its the same price for either cartridge. However the .223 offers much cheaper surplus ammo, which being fine for plinking, may not be accurate and will certainly not have good bullets.

The flatter trajectory is a real boon when out shooting gophers but at a shooting range where all distances are known that advantage is not important.

Barrel life depends a lot on how hot you let the barrel get. My Savage Model 12 VLP was at an estimated 5000 rounds and groups opened up to nearly 1 MOA (it had averaged 1/2 MOA since new) so I replaced the barrel with a Shilen prefit from Jerry. This time I will keep an accurate round count, its around 600 now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom