The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 29, 2009, 01:25 AM   #1
odsixer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: great white north
Posts: 316
204 vs 22-250 ballistics comparison

Can anyone point me to a website that will compare the two side by side?
Thanks.
odsixer is offline  
Old December 29, 2009, 01:46 AM   #2
kwells6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 437
http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm

http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&...9|88|76|29|28|

http://software.informer.com/getfree...cs-comparison/
__________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
kwells6 is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 08:51 AM   #3
mikehaas
Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2006
Posts: 25
Here y' go - .204 Ruger vs. .22-250 Rem Ballistics Comparison:


http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it=270%7c137
(Roll your own comparisons at this link - FREE!)
mikehaas is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 09:58 AM   #4
hagar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2000
Location: Colombia, SC
Posts: 517
The 22/250 will have more energy at close range, but the 204 Ruger will beat it at ranges over 250 yards. That is perfect in my book for hunting coyotes, I wish I had a 204 when I was pursuing them in AZ. I also found the 24 inch 22/250 I had was too noisy, when I switched to a 26 inch Remington 223 VS I called in a lot more doubles, and it killed them just as dead, or deader. Had a streak going back in 1996 when I killed 30 coyotes with 30 bullets, no misses, no flopping around.
__________________
I don't have time for busy people
hagar is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 10:26 AM   #5
tightgrouper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 349
A friend just introduced me to the 22-250 round yesterday.
I had never known of it. It's a pretty impressive round.

I wondered about the effectiveness of it though. Being such a fast round with little weight.

I guess the HP he showed me would serve it's purpose. If I remember correctly, the box said it was for large varments. e.g. beaver...???
__________________
With strict, proper gun etiquette, you should never have to say, "It's okay. It's not loaded."

Be Safe! Teach Safety!
Take handle loosely.
tightgrouper is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 11:24 AM   #6
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,603
tightgrouper, the .22-250 is plenty good for everything from prairie dogs on up to large feral dogs.

With heavier bullets and careful shot placement, it's adequate for deer. I wouldn't select it for deer hunting, but for neck shots and cross-body heart/lung shots, it'll work.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 11:42 AM   #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
mikehaas,


That's an interesting comparison chart there....

one problem though, the "average muzzle velocity" listed for the 204 is lower than the LOWEST factory ammo.

32gr is listed at 4225 and typically shoots between 4000 and 4100 in real life.

40gr is listed at 3900 and typically shoots between 3700 and 3850 in real llife.

There's no way that the 204 has an average MV of 3763fps.


That comparison program uses loads all the way up to 50gr in the 204. Factory 50gr ammo doesn't even exist for the 204, not in any quantity at least, if it exists at all.

Remington used to have a really great comparison tool on their website. For some reason, they felt the need to modernize the site. Now, the tool is gone, the site is clumsy, slow and completely unintuitive. They modernized it alright.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 12:00 PM   #8
tightgrouper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Eatman
tightgrouper, the .22-250 is plenty good for everything from prairie dogs on up to large feral dogs.

With heavier bullets and careful shot placement, it's adequate for deer. I wouldn't select it for deer hunting, but for neck shots and cross-body heart/lung shots, it'll work.
It would probably be good for these little deer in the FL panhandle.
__________________
With strict, proper gun etiquette, you should never have to say, "It's okay. It's not loaded."

Be Safe! Teach Safety!
Take handle loosely.
tightgrouper is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 12:21 PM   #9
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,542
Quote:
Here y' go - .204 Ruger vs. .22-250 Rem Ballistics Comparison:
Who came up with that load of . . . data? Average velocity of a 22-250 at 3,513 fps? I can't find a single factory load that is listed as going that slow, and handloads are typically faster than factory loads. Average bullet weight of 56 gr? I have seen one factory load with bullets over 55 gr. You see, one problem with averages is that the average cannot be higher than the largest number or smaller than the smallest number, it is between the two, and the uh, "data" presented does not fit that rule. So, let's set that aside as being unreliable. OK?

Here's some from 22-250 factory data:
Mfg Wt Bullet MV 100 200 300 400 500 ME 100 200 300 400 500 Traj 100 200 300 400 500
(H) 55 VMAX 3680 3265 2876 2515 2183 1887 1654 1302 1010 772 582 433 +0.9 -5.3 -16.1 -34.1

Here's a 204 Ruger factory load:
Mfg Wt Bullet MV 100 200 300 400 500 ME 100 200 300 400 500 Traj 100 200 300 400 500
(H) 32 PP 4225 3632 3114 2652 2234 1836 1268 937 689 500 355 345 +0.6 -4.2 -13.5 -30.0

You can interpret this any way you want, but a 204 Ruger has just about the same trajectory as a 22-250 with a lighter bullet, but less energy at any given ditance from the muzzle.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 12:38 PM   #10
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorch
You can interpret this any way you want, but a 204 Ruger has just about the same trajectory as a 22-250 with a lighter bullet, but less energy at any given ditance from the muzzle.
That's not always true.... apples-to-apples and all that....


204, 40gr, 3900fps


22-250, 40gr, 4150fps



The 40gr 204 at 500 yards matches the energy of the 250 40gr at 400 yards and at 500 yards the 204 has 46% more energy and is almost 4 inches flatter shooting than the 22-250.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 22-250j.jpg (91.5 KB, 10995 views)
File Type: jpg 204j.jpg (84.6 KB, 10854 views)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 02:08 PM   #11
Picher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,896
People who love the .204 Ruger love to make bad comparisons, just to make their round look equal to or better than the .22-250.

I don't know anyone who uses 40 grain bullets in a .22-250. The cartridge is at it's best trajectory/energy out to 500 yards with a 52-55 grain bullet. Anything lighter than that is giving up too much energy and wind bucking ability at the longer ranges. It's also going to burn barrels much faster.

In over 40 years experience with the .22-250, I never shot any bullets in it that were less than 50 grains, nor more than 60 grains. (It didn't like 60 grain Hornadys much.) The most accurate bullet in my rifles has been the 55 grain Sierra Semi-Pointed ahead of a moderate charge of IMR 4895.
Picher is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 03:28 PM   #12
mikehaas
Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2006
Posts: 25
The Ballistic Comparison Tool is specifically designed to produces more reliable indicators of REAL-WORLD performance - something you can't derive from simply comparing factory ballistics (which shooters often cannot reach anyway) - especially with wildcats (where there are no factory ballistics published). The tool doesn't "guess" - it analyzes all *REAL* load data that is available to it.

"Average" data values reported for these rounds are just that - a weighted average of all available load data on the website for that round. As such, it is more representative of the performance levels that people actually achieve when they reload ammunition than blindly listing maximum velocities (after all, one rifle may simply have a longer barrel than another or a tighter chamber, etc).

Also keep in mind that, for some applications, manufacturers use specially-tailored powders with burn rates that aren't available to reloaders, preventing one from ever reaching their maximum possible velocities in those cartridges.

Have to also point out the AmmoGuide Ballistic Comparison tool does not perform a simple averaging but a weighted calculation. This means that all bullet weights listed in the load data for that round are given equal "mathematical consideration" in the averaging - i.e., just because a given loadset for a round might have a predominance of light or heavy bullets, the comparison tool "levels the field" when it arrives at it's final values and accounts for this.

The Ballistic Comparison Tool also ignores loads that are too far outside the norm for a given round - "anomolies" as it were. Why? So that the calculated performance level for a given high-velocity round isn't artificially lowered if someone adds special-case loads to the database (like subsonic ones).

For these reasons, the AmmoGuide Ballistuic Comparison Tool provides a more accurate view of how rounds ACTUALLY PERFORM, not what CAN be observed under optimum conditions that are seldom, if ever, seen in real life. I do have plans to also report "maximum" and "minimum" values encountered during the calculation, so the tool will get even better in the future.

Mike
mikehaas is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 03:33 PM   #13
mikehaas
Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2006
Posts: 25
Quote:
...one problem though, the "average muzzle velocity" listed for the 204 is lower than the LOWEST factory ammo...
That is to be expected. The "lowest" .204 ammo factory load (as you put it) will still be hotter than the calculated average of a real-life loadset (which will peobably include medium and light loads too).

Mike
mikehaas is offline  
Old January 25, 2010, 03:55 PM   #14
mikehaas
Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2006
Posts: 25
People are mixing up ballistic performance with trajectory in this thread.

Ballistics at the muzzle are largely independant of the trajectory one sees - that is determined by the "Ballistic Coefficient" of the bullet in question - a larger number means the bullet will maintain it's velocity better in flight.

A slower bullet can easily have a flatter trajectory if it's Ballistic Coefficient is sufficiently higher than the faster bullet. For example, your .204 Ruger won't hold a candle to a .416 Barrett in terms of flat trajectory (even though it is MUCH faster at the muzzle) - the Barrett round has a much more efficient bullet that holds it's velocity better than the ballistically inefficient .20 caliber pill - The 3200 fps Barrett is still supersonic past 2500 yards while your 3700 fps 40 gr. V-Max drops subsonic before 1000.

An even more extreme example - many airguns will attain MVs of over 1000 fps but none will shoot as far or as flat as a .22 Long Rifle @ 900 fps. That's because pellets are much less efficient at holding their velocity (i.e., have a much lower Ballistic Coefficient.)

The Ballistic Coefficient of the Barrett bullet is over .900. Your 40 gr. .204 V-Max (a very efficient .20 cal bullet actually) has a "BC" of .275. A .22 Long Rifle bullet BC is around .120, airgun pellet BC's typically run a BC of under .030.

One can compare ballistics at the muzzle by knowing muzzle velocity and bullet weight. But trajectory is independant of bullet weight - one needs the muzzle velocity and Ballistic Coefficient to determine "flattest shooting".

Mike
mikehaas is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10937 seconds with 8 queries