March 8, 2013, 02:44 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 169
|
Ruger 204
Sometimes though you want that extra the 22-250 brings
|
March 8, 2013, 03:41 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
|
Lot's of crazy information floating around this thread about the .204 and Coyotes. 30gr bullets? 400 yards?
Look the .204 is basically a varmint gun. Low recoil, little less noise and flat trajectory make it so it excels sitting over a prairie dog town. It's also perfectly acceptable for coyotes and other predators. But the 30-32 gr varmint bullets are too light in construction and the little pills run outta thump pretty fast. Best to stick with the 35-40 gr bullets (Bergers) and shots out to 250 yards. If you need to shoot coyotes beyond that range you're into .22-250 and .243 territory. |
March 8, 2013, 09:44 PM | #28 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
I suppose it's the same argument that people don't think a .243 isn't enough for elk, or even deer. Every animal is nuclear-powered now, you can't kill e'm easy like in the old days.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
March 8, 2013, 11:03 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
To take your references about .243 and Elk........ Saying any of the 30gr offerings are good for coyote is akin to saying a 65gr. .243 vmax is good for Elk. Saying a .204 is a good long range yote gun is like saying a .243 is a good long range elk gun (and no, 250 yards is not long range). |
|
March 14, 2013, 11:36 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
204 vs 22-250 vs ?
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. |
March 14, 2013, 01:53 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
The .204 is good on paper out to 500yds out of a Ruger No. 1.
That's the limit of my personal experience with the cartridge. It was really really fun. |
March 14, 2013, 02:56 PM | #32 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
.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.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
March 14, 2013, 09:37 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Thanks "Peetza"! Food for thought. Getting too old here for the heavy stuff. In the end it may come down to the nicest wood.
|
March 14, 2013, 10:39 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Posts: 256
|
I have two .204's: a CZ 527 Varmint and a Remington 700 VLS.
Both shoot 32, 39, and 40 grainers lights out, as in, under and 3/4 inch consistently, and sub .5 routinely if I do my part. My experience is based in a few thousand rounds sent down range on paper, at critters, and in Colorado and Wyoming elevation and WIND. I shoot TAC (a Ramshot powder) exclusively, both of my guns love it. On paper, external ballistics show that the .204 can (with the right powder and bullets) shoot flatter than a 22-250, ESPECIALLY in wind. In practice, both of my rifles also prove this out. This is one common misconception of the .204 - that it under performs in the wind. Fact is, it's great in the wind because it shoots so fast and as another poster pointed out, it's got a good BC for the bullet weight. People love to dispute this, but it's fact. I load my CZ sometimes with Trailboss. Mimics a 5MM rimfire - almost ZERO noise and zero recoil, and I can shoot for less than the price of 17 HMR ammo. I've also yet to retire a piece of .204 brass (10 or more reloads on some of the brass). Lots of reasons why my 22-250 sits in the safe and pouts when I take my .204s hunting..............again. --Duck911
__________________
--Duck911 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|