Originally Posted by
Sheridan
Nomercy,
The .204 uses approx. 1/3 less powder although duplicating (+/-) the ballistics of a .22-250 (understand 32gr bullet vs 55gr bullet).
Do you still feel that the .204 is a barrel burner ?
I may not have stated it well, but I was meaning to say that I expect the .204 Ruger to burn barrels faster than the .223rem. No, I wouldn't expect it to be a "barrel burner", in the sense of say a 6.5-284, 7mm WSM, or .220 swift would be, but I was trying to point out that I think the .204ruger, like the other 3 I mentioned, would have shorter barrel life than a .223rem.
Ultimately, of course it all depends on the loads a guy is running. I've seen load maps that are all over the board, but the loads I hear guys bragging about (i.e. 32grn bullets running 4100-4200fps, or 40grn pills pushing 3800-3900fps) are always at the top end of the range. Afterall, we're all usually pretty guilty of pushing the limits with any load, right?
At any rate, yes, it burns 1/3 less powder than a .22-250, however, it's running about the SAME powder charge as a .223rem. The problem in my eyes with that is that it also has 20% less cross sectional "flow area" (aka bore cross section). Obviously, the .204 Ruger is running higher pressure than the .223rem (58-60kpsi in the maps I've seen, compared to a 52-55kpsi for the .223). Even compared to the .22-250, you'd be talking about a 10% improvement in "powder per bore" (powder charge down 30%, but bore area down 20%). But ultimately, my point was that the .204 actually has a WORSE "powder per bore" than the .223rem (same powder through a smaller tube).
Combining the 1) higher pressure, 2) higher velocity, 3) reduced "flow area", and 4) same powder charge, yeah, I would still expect a .204 ruger to burn out faster than a .223rem.
No, of course I wouldn't expect it to fall off nearly as fast as a .223WSSM, .220swift, or .22-250, because none of the above statements are true comparing the .204 ruger to these 3 (except the relative "flow area". These 3 are just as fast as the .204, all 3 burn considerably more powder, and all 3 are higher pressure. Barrel life wise, I'd rank them worst to best as: 223 WSSM, 220 swift, .22-250, .204 ruger, and .223rem.
Of course, if you compare a "conservative" 204 load to a HOT 223 load, you can probably flip a coin for which will burn out faster.
Sorry for the confusion, I was really trying to point out the .223rem as being the most "bore friendly" of the common coyote cartridges, not really trying to say the .204 was "as bad" as the .220swift.