Originally Posted by elDiabloLoco
I have never shot either 204 or 22-250. How does the recoil compare to 223, 243, or 270?
I'm looking at a choice between 243 and 22-250 for some expensive plinking in the 300 to 500 yard range. Curious about the 22-250, but now also interested in 204.
Shot 243 a lot before trading for a 270 20 years ago....looking to move back to 243, but experimenting with something different might be fun.
.270 has enough recoil that many folks will find it uncomfortable after a while. Far too much recoil to see bullet impact through a scope.
.243 recoil is low enough that virtually no one will be bothered by it except the youngest of children and/or extremely
small framed adults. Still too much recoil to see bullet impact except at very long range or with very heavy guns.
.22-250 has low enough recoil that no one could reasonably be bothered by it in any gun with a "normal" weight. Still too much recoil to see bullet impact except at lower-magnification and longer ranges.
.204 Ruger has virtually no recoil. In a gun with a reasonably heavy varmint scope and a bi-pod, the crosshairs barely wiggle off target even at high-magnification. Bullet impact is easy to see almost always.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.