Small Game, Predator and Trapping From shooting squirrels in your backyard to calling coyotes in Arizona. This forum now contains trapping information.

Predator rifle cal

Old 01-06-2012, 08:15 AM
Nontypical Buck
Nomercy448's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,903

Originally Posted by Sheridan

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.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:42 AM
Giant Nontypical
Sheridan's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,130

Nomercy - Thanks !

Not a reloader - to tedious for me (no offense to those who do).

I use the 40gr V-max, 3900 + fps is good enough for me !

Wanted better BC and was concerned about barrel wear using those 32gr pills at 4225 fps.

BTW - I love this round, super fast and flat = accurate !!!

"Flow area" is way over my head, but I always appreciate all your imput !

Last edited by Sheridan; 01-06-2012 at 09:49 AM.
Sheridan is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:55 PM
Nontypical Buck
Nomercy448's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,903

Originally Posted by Sheridan
"Flow area" is way over my head, but I always appreciate all your imput !
I was just using "flow area" as a term for the "cross sectional area of the bore", i.e. the area which the gases are "flowing" through.

As an engineer, I can't ever help but consider everything around me the same way I would consider something at work, so when I think of throat erosion in a firing rifle, I tend to think of it in terms of transient combustion venting through a restricted tube, rather than simply a rifle firing.

I definitely agree that the .204 Ruger is a fantastic round, and if I didn't already own too many .223 rems and a few .22mags, it would certainly find a place in my safe. It's really the only popular commercial cartridge in its class (especially considering 32grn bullets), and has really came to dominate it's niche as the "lightweight" centerfire.

It seems to bridge the gap between the 22 cal rimfires and 22cal centerfires incredibly well, offering pelt damage more comparable to the rimfires, with an effective range nearly equal to that of the heavier 22 centerfires... Definitely an "efficiency round". Much like a .243win for deer, definitely enough power, but not as much "over kill" as the 30cal's, and a money saver on powder.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:32 PM
Yotehntr's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 8

I prefer the 22-250... except for the pelt damage it causes. I know the 17 Rem. crowd prefer using the Berger "target" bullets as the "varmint" series is to frangible, and lack penetration. Anyone ever try the Berger target bullets in their 22 cals for coyotes?
Yotehntr is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 05:57 PM
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southeast Missouri
Posts: 2,178

Salukipv1...I've shot 5 Coyotes so far with my CZ .204 Varmint Rifle and it leaves a very small hole and only 1 of the Coyote's had an exit-hole because I shot it too low and it literaly gutted that Coyote.I highly reccomend the .204 has low recoil,shoots nice and flat out to long ranges and has some great knock-down power and is easy on Predator/Varmint hides!

This is using 32 grain Winchester Ballistic-tip shells,I tried the Hornady 40 grain V-Max and they did really well but opted for the lighter 32 grainers...after I use up thses 32's I'm going with the 39 grain Sierra Blitz Kings loaded from Federal V-Shok because they are suppose to be more accurate and group better.

Last edited by GTOHunter; 01-07-2012 at 06:01 PM.
GTOHunter is offline  

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.