Ruger 204
12-09-2004, 08:37 PM
#2
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,688
RE: Ruger 204
The guy I buy my guns from has a couple. We went out and shot it after he first got them in. Nice rifle and round. But I was not overly impressed. IMHO a 22-250 makes more sense. More ammo to pick from, and cheaper to shoot. If you reload it would not be as expensive, but their still are not many slugs to pick from.
12-09-2004, 08:48 PM
#3
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
RE: Ruger 204
Personally I do not see the point of the 204 Ruger.
With the 17 caliber cartridges and the abundance of 22 caliber cartridges available I just don't see where it is needed or that it gives anything that the others don't.
With the 17 caliber cartridges and the abundance of 22 caliber cartridges available I just don't see where it is needed or that it gives anything that the others don't.
12-10-2004, 02:59 PM
#4
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SW GA
Posts: 58
RE: Ruger 204
i've got a NEF handi rifle in the .204 I love it. I don't know about coyotes but theone squirrel i made the mistake of shooting(about 75 yds) didn't stand a chance. ther wasnt enough left of it to pick up. the little ballistic tip bullet is NASTY. it is flat and fast out to about 400 yds. then it kinda falls of the map.
12-12-2004, 01:08 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Southeast PA
Posts: 1,490
RE: Ruger 204
I shot a couple rounds at the range thru my uncles Ruger No.1 Stainless. It's a sweet looking gun, laminated pepper stock, single shot. It shot very tight groups at 100 yds. My uncle was primarily using it for ground hogs. He seems to be very happy with the gun. The Ruger No.1 with a scope was a bit heavy for me to carry around all day for ground hogs. I agree that the .22-250 or .223 should be your first choice for varmits, but if you have one or both and want the latest caliber the .204 could be for you.
12-12-2004, 10:53 PM
#6
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,052
RE: Ruger 204
Personally I think that anyone that says, "17 and 22s" in the same sentence as "204" has probably NOT shot the 204. It is NOTHING like anykind of rimfire, it is a DEADLY longrange, high powered varmint/target round.
That being said, as much as I have enjoyed the few I have shot (and I shot em at 1000yds because factory reps told me it couldnt do it!) I personally dont see the value of the 204 over a 22/250. There is MUCH more bullet and ammo selection in the 250 and its cheaper to shoot.
My .01/2c,
RA
That being said, as much as I have enjoyed the few I have shot (and I shot em at 1000yds because factory reps told me it couldnt do it!) I personally dont see the value of the 204 over a 22/250. There is MUCH more bullet and ammo selection in the 250 and its cheaper to shoot.
My .01/2c,
RA
12-14-2004, 12:50 AM
#7
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: central Ky
Posts: 601
RE: Ruger 204
I think the 204 is just another ploy to "draw in" the folks that just have to have the "latest and greatest" new round. I'm not saying that the 204 is junk, but just that there are other options with more available loads that will do the same job or better and less cash will be spent on ammo whether it be factory or reloaded. just my .02
12-14-2004, 08:41 AM
#8
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,688
RE: Ruger 204
Personally I think that anyone that says, "17 and 22s" in the same sentence as "204" has probably NOT shot the 204. It is NOTHING like anykind of rimfire, it is a DEADLY longrange, high powered varmint/target round.
That being said, as much as I have enjoyed the few I have shot (and I shot em at 1000yds because factory reps told me it couldnt do it!) I personally dont see the value of the 204 over a 22/250. There is MUCH more bullet and ammo selection in the 250 and its cheaper to shoot.
That being said, as much as I have enjoyed the few I have shot (and I shot em at 1000yds because factory reps told me it couldnt do it!) I personally dont see the value of the 204 over a 22/250. There is MUCH more bullet and ammo selection in the 250 and its cheaper to shoot.
I am curious. If you shot it at 1000 yards, how much elevation did you have to put on the scope? Long range ballistics for the 204 are not out yet. Just wondering what it was. I used to shoot 308's @ 1000 yards. Lots of fun.
12-14-2004, 06:14 PM
#9
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,052
RE: Ruger 204
As awesome as the .17 Rem is its barely mentioned anymore and the "general public" doesn't know the difference between the Rem vs the HMR.
Elevation wise for both the .204 and the .22/250 it wasn't a matter of knowing the ballistic tables, even the Hornady factory reps were "got me" when asked about the 1k yd performance. The greenlight was given too us by the rangemaster (Cody, WY municipal range) on the hill behind the range with two targets. One being a pine tree appx 5' tall in a clearing and one being a steel ram target placed at a known 1k yds. I simply shot them to see where the dust flew up and adjusted accordingly. By the end of two days of shooting we had EVERYTHING in centerfires hitting respectably on the two targets.
As far as the .22/250 and the .204 the best we could approximate was somewhere in the 20' range (yes feet not inches). And wind drift on the tiny bullets was equally amazing. At some points the Wyoming wind was carrying the bullets in the 8'-10' range (again feet not inches). One particularly accurate gun I shot was a Kimber 84M in .22/250 with a 6x24x50 Swarovski atop it. I have had one of these scopes myself for 5 years and was familiar with it. Even when cranked too 24 the target was held at appx 7 o'clock and nearly out of the sight picture. That should give you a clue as too how much elevation we were dealing with.
I also put several boxes thru a .308 Montana and a .270 WSM Classic at those same ranges. Their drop was considerable as well, but the windage certainly was less particular and easier to estimate.
Geterdun,
RA
Elevation wise for both the .204 and the .22/250 it wasn't a matter of knowing the ballistic tables, even the Hornady factory reps were "got me" when asked about the 1k yd performance. The greenlight was given too us by the rangemaster (Cody, WY municipal range) on the hill behind the range with two targets. One being a pine tree appx 5' tall in a clearing and one being a steel ram target placed at a known 1k yds. I simply shot them to see where the dust flew up and adjusted accordingly. By the end of two days of shooting we had EVERYTHING in centerfires hitting respectably on the two targets.
As far as the .22/250 and the .204 the best we could approximate was somewhere in the 20' range (yes feet not inches). And wind drift on the tiny bullets was equally amazing. At some points the Wyoming wind was carrying the bullets in the 8'-10' range (again feet not inches). One particularly accurate gun I shot was a Kimber 84M in .22/250 with a 6x24x50 Swarovski atop it. I have had one of these scopes myself for 5 years and was familiar with it. Even when cranked too 24 the target was held at appx 7 o'clock and nearly out of the sight picture. That should give you a clue as too how much elevation we were dealing with.
I also put several boxes thru a .308 Montana and a .270 WSM Classic at those same ranges. Their drop was considerable as well, but the windage certainly was less particular and easier to estimate.
Geterdun,
RA
12-14-2004, 06:28 PM
#10
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,688
RE: Ruger 204
Just curious. The 22-250 loaded with a 50 grain v-max @3725 fps will be approximately 167" (13.91')high at 600 yards. Just wondering how it compared. And as far as the 17 is concerned, it is far from dead. Lots of guys I know still shoot them. Ammo is getting harder to find if you do not reload though.