Wow, can't make up my mind. I usually don't ask opionions like this but thought maybe somebody thought of something I didn't. I know I can do what I want to do with either. Long range killing any varmits I decide too.

After studying the Reloading data, it appears, I can reach 4K FPS with 29gr of powder with a 204ruger where with a22-250, it would take me near 40gr. I have alot more choice of bullets with a 22-250, but the claim is the more bearing surface and powder of the 22-250 limits the life of a barrel than the 204. I hate burning out barrels in just 2 years. But I am doing this on an encore, and if I do burn the barrel, its really not that big a deal to buy another.

I have shot both and seen both more than enought accurate.

I was kinda surprised to find the 204 brass being so reasonable around. About the same as 22-250. I got my brother a 204 and it was a tack driver with factory ammo.

Another down side of the 204 is I need new funnels, new cleaning rods and jags.

Did I forget anything?

[/align]This late 2004 Sturm, Ruger and Company joined with Hornady to announce a brand-new cartridge. This new .20-caliber round is based on the .222 Remington Magnum case and promises to offer high velocity with low recoil, sharing some common ground with the .22-250 hot rod, as well. The new .204 is currently offered in 32- and 40-grain loads from Hornady, and it looks like an interesting concept right off the bat.
A .20-caliber rifle is nothing new. Walt Berger has been offering bullets for quite some time, and while the caliber hasn't been a household word, I recall seeing a .20-caliber Cooper rifle for sale some time ago at the local Scheels store. The new .204 Ruger is essentially a .222 Magnum case necked down to hold a .204-inch bullet.
Case dimensions are a difficult thing to find so far, but Hodgdon information states that the .204 should be trimmed to 1.84 inches while RCBS says the .222 Magnum should be trimmed to 1.850 inches. Both use the same .378-inch rimless base. The .222 Mag uses a 23-degree shoulder while chamber specs call for a 30-degree angle on the .204. Hodgdon data says the .204 should be loaded with Federal 205M primers while the data for the .222 Mag is based on a Winchester standard rifle primer. Overall load length for the .204 is 2.26 inches while the .222 Magnum is set at 2.22 to 2.28 inches.

Although the .204 is based on a .222 Magnum case, it performs more like a .22-250, using considerably less powder to achieve this high performance. Hodgdon's latest reloading manual suggests that a .22-250 needs 39.5 grains of Varget powder to launch a 40-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet at 4,135 fps while the .204 will launch its lightest bullet, a 32-grain VMAX, at 4,044 fps pushed by 28.3 grains of H335. Hornady's 32-grain .204 load is cataloged to leave a 26-inch barrel doing 4,225 fps while its 40-grain .22-250 VMAX load leaves a similar-length barrel doing 4,150 fps.
The downrange performance is similar as well. With a 200-yard zero both loads are .6 inch high at 100 while the .204 is 4.1 inches low at 300 and the .22-250 is 4.5 inches low. At 300 yards, the 32-grain .20-caliber bullet should be doing around 2,568 fps while the 40-grain .22-250 Hornady slug is doing 2,683 fps or so. The .204 is flatter than the .22-250 all the way out to 500 yards, and I'd suggest that both of 'em run out of steam past that distance, if not before in many applications.

If I could just nail down that claim that a 204 won't burn a barrel out near like a 22-250, I would have ordered by now.

Guns Magazine, Oct, 2004 by Holt Bodinson
[/align]
The .204 Ruger cartridge loaded with a 32-grain VMAX bullet at 4,225 fps exhibited four qualities that will endear it to varmint hunters. It shoots exceedingly flat, just like my beloved .220 Swifts. It's very accurate. In a moderate weight rifle, there is so little recoil you can actually watch the impact of your shot through the scope. And it accomplishes all this with a modest powder charge that will not burn out the throat of your barrel in quick time (Note: Hodgdon already has loading data available).

The only draw back for me between the two would be cleaning the barrel on the 204. I had a 17HRM and despised it when it came time to clean that barrel.[:-]

Why, just cause the tight bore?

Id pick the .243 over both. Clearly a superior varmint cartridge. handloaded with a 55 gr bullet you can acheive over 4000 fps easy. retains more velocity and energy out to 500 yds with less wind drift also, but I would opt for a little less velocity and go with the .243 in federals 85 gr. Not to much difference in trajectory but a lot less wind drift and a lot more retained energy.
Just do a comparo.
heres one from winchesters site.
http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/comparerifle.aspx?symbol=SBST243&atype=1&c type=1&action=1

Not necessarily tight but small... There was just something about trying to use patches with the small jag and all. Nothing but a pain in the you know what.

I own both a Ruger .17 HMR and a ruger 204, and never had problems with cleaning. That is one of the fun things about owning a firearm, is the maintenance. Choosing a firearm on its dirty factor is just silly to me. There are the real factors out there in choosing a gun, and cleaning should not inhibit your choice.

Yea, thats kinda on my mind about reloading. Seems it would be easy to get bad runout out pressing in that tiny little pill with a big ole press and die set you use to load up 338's.