Darn impressive! Cheaper than me shooting the cheapest federal 223 fmj's
Surplus 223 will always be cheaper than .204. However, when loading for balls out accuracy, the cost of reloading a premium 223 or premium 204 is a moot point when using projectiles from the same vendor.
223 brass is so plentiful it is silly, and a few people make a 20-223 based cartridge that gives up a little velocity, but is more powder efficient than the 204
with the KISS principle in full swing, it is hard to beat a .204 Ruger as it was originally designed. I buy perhaps 500 rounds of .204 every 3 years to keep a supply of 1x fired handy.
I fully admit, I sold my soul to this cartridge. Is a 22-250 better? Sure under certain circumstances. Is 220 Swift harder hitting? Yes. Can .223 compete? Sure.
but the .204 matches and exceeds the qualities of 223, 22-250,220 swift under 90% of my shooting circumstances . Bullet placement, and knowing the limitations of a .40gn projectile plays into this.
if you need more range, or more power (longer shots, longer shots at bigger varmints) that is where 22-250 220 Swift, and .243 come into play.
But for high volume gopher fields, less barrel heat, less bullet drop, hilarious backflips, reasonably cheap, the 204 always comes out ahead of my fellow shooters' 220 swift and .223 guns.
A 17hmr is woefully inadequate when comparing to a .204 Ruger. 17 remington is wonderful, but is handicapped by low bullet weight. 20 calibers 20-223, 20 vartarg, 20 practical, 20-243.... the list goes on and on. Which really proves how versatile a 20 cal can be