PDA

View Full Version : Why did the 204 ruger succeed?


timothy75
July 6, 2007, 02:34 AM
I havent really followed the cartridge but have noticed even wal mart is carrying ammo for it now. So whats the deal, wont a 220 swift do 4000fps and be less wind sensesitive? I'm just curious why its doing so well? Thanks

Yithian
July 6, 2007, 04:02 AM
I think several factors are at work.
Hornady had the brass in stockpiles of .222Rem Mag from the sixties.
Well balanced loads.
Low recoil and better than average distances with accuracy.

People have been trying to introduce a .20 cal for quite some time.
I don't know what the differences are but someone else was the first to use the 222 Rem Mag case in a .20 cal.
Hornady even notes this fact in their reloading manual.

I love my CZ. I can fire off a round at 100 yards and in the tenth of a second it takes for the bullet to get down range, the rifle settles down and I can watch the impact.
At 400 yards, it still throws a one gallon jug of water. Not just perforates it, or splitting it. It throws it.
At 120 yards, it leaves holes in pigs that I can put my fist through.

I'm wanting a good hunting round for it.
Winchester is manufacturing a hollow point now but I truely want to see Hornady or CCI create a sectional bullet for it.
Something like a BarnesX that seperates like a CCI Quick-Shok.

Peter M. Eick
July 6, 2007, 06:49 AM
I think it is still too early to say it succeeded. Give it another 10 years to see if it is common like the 223 or succeeded like the 25-06. One is popular, one is "available". Or it could fail like the 357 winchester (downright rare!).

FirstFreedom
July 6, 2007, 08:22 AM
You mean, besides a ton of money spent on marketing?

First, yes, what Peter said - it's too early to tell - it could be enjoying just an extended flash in the pan. In another 5 years or so, when the new has worn off, we'll know whether it really "succeeded".

But as mentioned above, it's a good balance of lower recoil & blast than a .220 swift or .22-250, while providing pretty much the same ballistics. It's a .17 rem with an easier-to-clean, slower-to-foul barrel. And .17 rem was a pretty darned successful cartridge in its day.

Dunno about Hornady have tons of .222 remmag brass on hand, but that would make a lot of sense.

The .20 tactical was already out there, and so the .204 is redundant to that, but Ruger had a lot of money to throw at marketing, and the .20 tactical folks did not. So that's what we ended up with.

Jim Watson
July 6, 2007, 08:25 AM
Shrewd advertising, high velocity, low recoil.

Watch the .338 Federal flop for a lack of same.

stinger
July 6, 2007, 12:20 PM
Marketing plays a big part. But the simple fact is that it is effective. Lots of cartridges are accurate, few are able to combine ridiculous speed with that accuracy. That combination allows long shots and massive impact on target. The 250, Swift, etc., are certainly not made obsolete here, and there is some redundancy with effectiveness. The .204 is just a different flavor, not necessarily bringing something totally new to the table, just doing it a little differently.

I don't know of anyone who has used one that hasn't been impressed. Most who try them buy one. It kinda sells itself.

cobra81
July 6, 2007, 02:01 PM
I don't see it ever becoming as common as .223. (Unless the military adopts it.) That's just fine with me and most .204 owners I know.

But "succeeded"? I don't need a fortune-teller to answer that question. Any round that offers ridiculously high velocity coupled with laser-like accuracy, with lower recoil and better barrel life than 250 and Swift tossed in as a bonus, is already a "success" by my definition.

But regardless of my definition, whether or not the major component manufacturers continue to support the round with brass, bullets, and loaded ammo will be the ultimate answer to the debate. I suspect they will, given the almost cult following of this caliber. Just in case they don't, though, I'm stockpiling brass and bullets, because I enjoy shooting this caliber and want to continue doing so for a long time!

Renfield
July 6, 2007, 02:20 PM
I havent really followed the cartridge but have noticed even wal mart is carrying ammo for it now. So whats the deal, wont a 220 swift do 4000fps and be less wind sensesitive?

I wander what the two cartridge cases look like side by side because if the .220 swift is as long as the old .222 Remington then maybe therein lies the answer..after all if my memory is correct the old .222 Remington was a long action round

Art Eatman
July 6, 2007, 02:25 PM
The .222 Maggie and the .223 cases are pretty close, dimensionally. The Swift is noticably longer.

Art

Scorch
July 6, 2007, 02:37 PM
I would say the .204 Ruger has succeeded. Maybe because of the marketing, but even marketing can't fix a poor performing cartridge. Look at the 225 Winchester. Heavily marketed, major manufacturer making rifles and ammo for it, yet I have only seen a handful of them in over 30 years of involvement with shooting and gunsmithing. Yes, I would say the 204 is well marketed, but also it's also successful because people don't like being beat up by recoil and muzzle blast (25-06 and 240 Weatherby come to mind), and they don't want to pay an arm and a leg for ammo (like the 223 WSSM or 220 Swift). They want a round that is easy to shoot, ammo is not prohibitively expensive, shoots flat, is super accurate, and really is a major step forward. I cannot think of another centerfire varminting cartridge introduced over the past 30 years that meets all those criteria.

The 20 Tactical is a little different than the 204 Ruger. It is based on a 223 case, IIRC, and velocity is lower. If you are interested in the behind-the-scenes development efforts for the 204 Ruger, read some of Jim Carmichael's writing.

And I doubt that Hornady had a bunch of 222 Mag brass just sitting around, or all of the first issue of the cartridge would have had 222 Mag headstamps on them (which they didn't). I would say the introduction and success of the 204 Ruger has more to do with Hornady's efforts in recent years to manufacture high-quality jacketed bullets in .20 caliber. Nobody I know wants to swage bullets anymore.

FirstFreedom
July 6, 2007, 03:59 PM
Edit: My bad. Here's an excellent link:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/6mmackley/twentycaliber.html


Look at all the .20 cal rounds that didn't succeed. Let's play a grade school game: "Which one is not like the others?" The one that was heavily marketed.

123kiwi
July 6, 2007, 04:24 PM
In my experience with it, the .204 shoots like a laser, is super accurate and has no recoil. Kinda hard to 'fail' with attributes like that...
If you try one youll see what i mean theres also a lot of good quality components for it and more people are putting out factory ammo too...

FirstFreedom
July 6, 2007, 04:27 PM
In my experience with it, the .204 shoots like a laser, is super accurate and has no recoil. Kinda hard to 'fail' with attributes like that...

Unless you consider the .17 Rem a failure, which to most people is how it would be characterized, although it enjoyed a few decades of *moderate* success.

It's NOT JUST laser trajectory & accurate. Lot of rounds do that. The .17 rem shoots rounds faster than the .204 ruger (4,300 plus with 17-20 grain bullets - the most .204 can get up to with 32 grain bullets is around 4,100), and had the same or less recoil than the .204 ruger.

As I said above, it's the BALANCE of laser and low-recoil/blast, combined with the critical feature that the bore size is just a scrunthair enough bigger than a .17 to make it easier to clean and slower to foul. It's really a goldilocks cartridge. But there are several .20 cals that are all goldilocks cartridge, all very close in performance-to-blast ratio, but which were not marketed so heavily, and had so many guns initially chambered for them (as a result of the marketing).

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.17remington.html

http://www.coyotegods.com/pagepart15.html

tINY
July 6, 2007, 05:06 PM
I suspect that the other 20's will se a bit of a resurgance now that the bullets are easy to get.




-tINY

Gewehr98
July 7, 2007, 02:44 AM
Why did the 204 ruger succeed?

In all honesty, the round has only been on the block for 3 years, if you count its debut at the 2004 SHOT Show. Ruger and Hornady continues to inject money into their baby, but it remains to be seen if it will ever really reach a ripe old age compared to its .223 Remington cousin. Many other recent offerings have already waxed and waned, including the .450 Marlin, the myriad Winchester Short Mags, the Remington Short Action Ultra Mags, and I'll even go so far as to pronounce the .308 Marlin Express round stillborn. (Anybody remember the .307 Winchester, which the .308 Marlin is based upon?)

Once the hype dies down, the novelty wears off, and the cash injections from the more vigorous promoters fizzle out, we'll see how the .204 Ruger fares. Were I to own one, I'd stock up on brass and bullets, myself.

duck911
July 7, 2007, 09:39 AM
The folks who wonder if the .204 will be around in 5 years haven't owned one.

Those of us who own one, already know this offering is a success and is here to stay.

There is a reason why most of my serious varmint hunting friends have dumped their .22-250's and .223's and now rely soley on the .204. There's no way to slice it, it's a superior round.

Don't get me wrong, I love my .22-250, but when I want seriously fast and flat, I reach for my .204.

I've argued in the past that if the roles were reversed and the .204 was the original cartridge and the .22-250 was just being intruduced, the 22-250 would never make it off the ground. Why own a .22-250, which is harder on barrels, has more muzzle flip, louder muzzle blast, doesn't shoot as flat, and doesn't buck the wind as well as the .204???

PainterJohn
July 7, 2007, 10:07 AM
does anyone shoot a Browning a bolt in 204? Comments?

Gewehr98
July 7, 2007, 01:46 PM
The folks who wonder if the .204 will be around in 5 years haven't owned one.

Those of us who own one, already know this offering is a success and is here to stay.

Owned one, sold it. Sold the dies and brass on e-Bay shortly afterwards. Kept my .223 Remington and .220 Swift. Try again.

Rifleman In Georgia
July 7, 2007, 07:03 PM
Whoever said low recoil and ease of cleaning hit the nail on the head.Why would anyone rather shoot something that beats the tar out of them when there is something there that shoots flat,low recoil,easy to clean and reload for?Makes no sense to me,I will forever shoot a 204 over the rest as long as I can!Makes no difference whether it is popular or not to me.That is as long as components are available.

farmall
July 8, 2007, 03:13 PM
I think the reason the .204 has been succesful is because it performs relatively close to the marketing claims made about it.
I am an avid prairie dogger and shoot .223, 204, Swift and 22-250. All have a place for me. Were I going to reccomend a caliber to a new shooter...223, hands down. But for me the 204 will do 80% of the shooting there is do do in a prairie dog town.
Andy

Gewehr98
July 8, 2007, 05:59 PM
Why would anyone rather shoot something that beats the tar out of them when there is something there that shoots flat,low recoil,easy to clean and reload for?

My .223 beats the everloving crap outta me. My .30-06 fractured my shoulder and collarbone.

My .45-70 broke my back and the spines of all the folks sitting next to me.

My .204 merely hurt. :D