Does anyone have experience with building a 22-204 Ruger?

Please don't respond by saying "why yes...and it is called a 222 Remington Magnum"

That answer will gain you zero gold stars for the day. Santa will also skip your house this year, and perhaps the next one as well.

If anyone is looking for that particular cal,(.222 Rem Mag) my mate picked one up & was examining it closely while we were at York Guns recently, I had to speak to him in a stentorian voice "Step away from the rifle" He was in the grip of a, Do I need another calibre? moment!! No intention to hijack the thread Webby

What case is this based on?

muck

The main goal was to make something similar in case capacity to a .223 AI but without being limited to having something that will not feed easily from a magazine. I want to get multiple shots off quickly if need be, and not have to single load which as is fairly well established is one of the drawbacks with a 40 degree shoulder .223 AI.

QuickLOAD has a 204 Ruger with 30.96 grains of H20 capacity and a .223 AI comes up to 31.00 grains of H20 capacity. The standard .223 has 28.80 grains of H20, the standard 222 Remington Magnum has 30.50 grains of H20 capacity, and lastly a 222 Remington Magnum AI has 31.80 grains of H20 capacity.

Based on that I see a theoretical 22-204 Ruger would have pretty much the same capacity as a .223 AI. Obviously different brass manufactures will have slightly different case capacities but this is close enough for talking points.

Other goals from the project include:

1) Retaining a .224" bore for logistical reasons like maintaining multiple sizes of cleaning rods , patches, and guides while volume varmint hunting. I have already bent my fair share of 17 caliber cleaning rods during unloading and loading gear into the back of the truck while out in the field. They are so thin and whippy it just happens even with a PVC rod holder.
2) Greater weight bullet availability from multiple manufacturers
3) Being able to simply expand a case neck and not having to fireform wasting primers, bullets, or barrel life
4) Not being limited to Remington 222 Remington Magnum brass (availability not quality reasons)
5) Utilizing the plethora of really excellent .224 barrels and established .223AI load ranges as a reloading guide
6) Using existing .378" bolts faces, and not needing to move up to a .473" bolt face for something like a 22 BR

My comment on a 22-204 Ruger not being a 222 Remington Magnum is that I have heard people say when I have asked is that this wildcat would essentially just go "backwards" to the parent of the 222 Magnum round and why bother. The 222 Remington Magnum would be close to a 22-204 chambering but it does not go "backwards" for what I am looking for.

As I am sure you know the 204 Ruger has the shoulder bumped forward to shorten the neck and has the shoulder angle increased to 30 degrees from 23 degrees from the parent 222 Remington Magnum. These are things I want in a cartridge that I am going to load a lot. My experience with sharper shoulders being they don't case stretch as much. I like that when I have 500 or 600 hundred rounds to reload for. Obviously a .223AI would be better in that regard, however the salient point is I need something that will feed from a magazine. A custom .223 AI reamer with a 30 degree shoulder might do it, but I would still have to fireform.

It seems like it would be a fairly straight forward wildcat. A floating pilot .204 Ruger chamber reamer could be used in combination with a .224" pilot to create the chamber. Headspace would remain the same as the .204 Ruger cartridge. A sleeved seater die like the Redding Match or Forster Benchrest could have the soft steel sleeve cut with the reamer and a .224" seating stem installed. The sizing die would have most likely have to be drilled or honed to open the neck up as that steel is most likely to be hardened.

So the question from a very long winded explanation is: Has anybody here done it or something similar?

Admittedly this entire exercise may indeed be splitting hairs as we are talking about slightly under a 10% change in powder capacity. However it is something I have been thinking about, and other than actually shooting at stuff isn't thinking about shooting stuff where some of the fun is?

quote:

Does anyone have experience with building a 22-204 Ruger?

Zero gain. You're just reproducing the 222 Mag. which died a long time ago. Go for it if you find value in it.

I really don’t think we’ll ever see a “222 Webfeet” listed. But what would I know?

I find the idea "interesting". But a loss.

MickinColo - I assume you mean zero or negligible performance gain compared to just chambering a 222 Remington Magnum. I am pretty sure you are right on that point. I spent the morning running through various load scenarios with QuickLOAD and then plotting trajectories and wind drift with Load From A Disk. The difference without fudging pressures is so minimal as to be ignored for actual shooting. Powder lots, barrels, and the like will just as soon make the difference. The issue other than shoulder angle with the 222 Remington Magnum for me, has been that it would be all to easy for a .223 Remington to get mixed into the .222 Remington Magnum stuff when out in the field. The result would likely not be good news.

Perhaps not quite as bad news, but none I am too happy about either is that the damn .204 Ruger in terms of performance seems head and shoulders above really any of them. This is including the largest of the case capacities I was thinking about, the 222 Remington Magnum AI. Perhaps I might just have to suck it up and deal with the odd cleaning rod size and the additional tiny patches that annoy me so much. I won't have the trimming issue with the .204 Ruger shoulder so that case stretching compliant is gone, and I would actually pick up a significant amount of downrange performance.

You need to understand a bit of the background here, I have 2 x .378" bolt face Remington 700 PSS' in .223 Remington. They keep telling me they really want to become something else, and I should help them out reaching their goals. I figured I would do try to something a little different with them, and treat them a bit as they have been such good performers in years past. It would have to be something that wasn't a big pain for me though of course, with some real practical shooting benefits, and maybe a bit of performance improvement at the same time. 'Twas not to be unfortunately from the looks of it...

Unless someone else has experience to sway me otherwise they might just have to become .204 Rugers.

webfeet, The 204 Ruger(and I really hate using the Ruger name associated with such a great chambering) is just another great chambering based off the SUPERIOR to the .223 Remington chambering designed by Mike Walker(Remington engineer) nearly 50 years ago now when the military was looking for a small arms cartridge to use in it's semi and automatic small arms weapons. The 223 was chosen because it's short nect and shoulder angle functioned more reliable in the then new "AR" type rifles. The 222MAG had drawn interest due to the astounding accurracy derived from the 222Remington(Bench Rest winning accuracy!!) The 222MAG also showed up at some benchrest matches and faired quite well. Then somebody got the idea to SIMPLY NECK IT UP TO 6MM....................6x47Remington!! A finer 100-200 yard BR cartridge never had been seenand still wouldn't if them two wildcatters, Palmer and Palmisano hadn't been playing with that little 220 Russian case and come up with the 22PPC and 6PPC back about 1976!! The benchrest organiztions need to change their name to the "PPC organiztions"!
Anyway, the first time I saw a picture of the "204 Ruger" case,(article said it was a 222Mag necked down) I said, It's not just a 222MAG necked down! It's a 222MAG withthe shoulder moved forward and neck angle changed! Damn near a "20 caliber, 222MAG Ackley Improved!" I was right but the thing I hadn't done was test it.
I was shooting the 6x47 back in the 70's(still shooting a light barreled one built on a Model 7 action that will probaly outshoot 95% of whatever y'all want to put it up against(we're talking walk around, hunting rifles) at 100 yards and also a 222MAGNUM in 40X configuration that could probably fair quite well at the smaller BR shoots still today. And I shoot a 204!!Savage VLP. Nothing done to it at all other than break the barrel in and develop loading data(there was NO 204 DATA when I got this one! I submitted my data to Western Powders using AA2230 and AA2520 and they tested from that.
Bottom line is, the 222MAgnum is a phenomaly accurate chambering that brass can still be bought for. The 6x47 is a SUPERIOR ACCURACY round that can punch paper and kill vermin in a limited distance (350 yards) as good as anything out there. The 204 Ruger chambering is without a doubt, the most phenomenal factory chambering of a VARMINT ROUND ever!!(Forgive me FATHER for I did not say the 25-06 or 22-250!!) Accuracy, NO RECOIL, Flat shooting(flatter with the 39 grain Sierras than the 55VMax from the 250 or the Swift with less wind drift in a 10MPH crosswind at 500 yards)easy to load for, not finicky at all. And you want to dink with the design?? You must be a BR shooter!! One thing I learned back in the 70's about BR stuff. The guys that were good at it had two things I didn't have............Time and money! If you want to have fun with the 20 calibers, 204 Ruger! Charlie (GHD)

Can't agree with Charlie...

if you have to have a 20 caliber bore, then the 20 Practical makes more sense.. and if you have to have a high performance 20 caliber with high velocity, then the 20 BR is the way to fly....

one of those is in my Savage action's future...

Thanks for the information on the various 20 caliber choices.

So after some digging on other varmint sites I found several threads on the 22-204 Ruger wildcat. The basic scoop is that there are currently reamers for it from a couple places. The finished case actually holds 1 grain more than even a 222 Remington Magnum AI.

That is more capacity gain than I had expected. The chambering might serve as a replacement for both the .223 AI and the 222 Remington AI.

Just when you think you are out...it drags you back in.

quote:

Originally posted by webfeet:
Thanks for the information on the various 20 caliber choices.

So after some digging on other varmint sites I found several threads on the 22-204 Ruger wildcat. The basic scoop is that there are currently reamers for it from a couple places. The finished case actually holds 1 grain more than even a 222 Remington Magnum AI.

That is more capacity gain than I had expected. The chambering might serve as a replacement for both the .223 AI and the 222 Remington AI.

Just when you think you are out...it drags you back in.

The BR guys blew the 222 mag case out and moved the shoulders forward you might try some of the older BR gunsmith might still have a reamer. My first BR rifle was a 6x47x40.

I have a friend that is currently shooting a 22-204 AI on a Contender frame. It is supposed to be the max performance in 22 caliber that you can get from that platform. He uses standard .223AI dies with no problem for loading and since his is a fast twist he can be effective way out there.
I asked Kerry at MGM about building me a barrel chambered as such and he was clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by webfeet:
MickinColo - I assume you mean zero or negligible performance gain compared to just chambering a 222 Remington Magnum. I am pretty sure you are right on that point. I spent the morning running through various load scenarios with QuickLOAD and then plotting trajectories and wind drift with Load From A Disk. The difference without fudging pressures is so minimal as to be ignored for actual shooting. Powder lots, barrels, and the like will just as soon make the difference. The issue other than shoulder angle with the 222 Remington Magnum for me, has been that it would be all to easy for a .223 Remington to get mixed into the .222 Remington Magnum stuff when out in the field. The result would likely not be good news.

Perhaps not quite as bad news, but none I am too happy about either is that the damn .204 Ruger in terms of performance seems head and shoulders above really any of them. This is including the largest of the case capacities I was thinking about, the 222 Remington Magnum AI. Perhaps I might just have to suck it up and deal with the odd cleaning rod size issue and extra patches that annoy me in the field. I won't have the trimming issue with the .204 Ruger shoulder so that case stretching compliant is gone, and I would actually pick up a significant amount of downrange performance.

You need to understand a bit of the background here, I have 2 x .378" bolt face Remington 700 PSS' in .223 Remington. They keep telling me they really want to become something else, and I should help them out reaching their goals. I figured I would do try to something a little different with them, and treat them a bit as they have been such good performers in years past. It would have to be something that wasn't a big pain for me though of course, with some real practical shooting benefits, and maybe a bit of performance improvement at the same time. 'Twas not to be unfortunately from the looks of it...

Unless someone else has experience to sway me otherwise they might just have to become .204 Rugers.

Sorry I was so short in my earlier reply. I think your wildcat idea is interesting. What do you expect to gain on this project? What is the total grain capacity difference over the standard 222 Magnum? What do you expect the real world down range results will be?

I love people that have the ideas and resources to wildcat a round. I have no problem with any ideas creative people come up with, “go for it”. I just wonder about the value of this wildcat? But then again, what would I know? Have fun, be safe, and keep us posted.

The guy I know that built a 22-204 AI did it to milk the most from a Contender. Larger case head sizes have to be limited in their charge weights due to the pressure contraints of the Contenders standing breech. There are marginal increases in case capacity over a .222 mag but increases all the same. Given the fact that .223 AI dies are relatively inexpensive, .204 Ruger brass is easy to get its not a stretch for me to see the usefulness of such a project. The 'AI' aspect speaks to the reduction of backthrust and case stretch. I will build one for a carbine length barrel.

I described the practical goals from the 20-204 exercise above such as less case trimming, no requirement for extra cleaning supplies, and not having to fireform. The performance goals as I also said were to achieve .223 AI performance, and stay with a .378" bolt face to utilize existing rifles.

From 26" barrels and a Sierra book load I am up at 3,450 fps with a 50 grain Blitzking in either of my 700s in their chambered .223 Rem. This is a round that works pretty well for me out to 250 yards and a bit more say 300 if the wind is good. I am looking to take that to 3,600 by adding a 27.5" barrel and a three or so more grains of powder capacity (~33 grains H20 capacity). Plenty of people take the .223 Ackley to that kind of velocity so it is achievable.

An additional performance goal would be to drive a 75 Amax to as close to 3,000 fps or above if possible. With the 27.5" barrel and extra powder the 3,000 fps should be possible with 55k-56k psi kinds of pressures. Given a fast twist 1 in 7" or 1 in 8" barrel with that kind of velocity the cartridge becomes a 400 yard cartridge *if* and only *if* you have safe places to shoot it. I do have that in a number of areas with 600 to 700 yard pastures with steep, tall, and empty private property hillsides beyond it. The Amax spun through a fast twist will come apart when it hits something with sufficient body size but there is increased risk of a bounce. I have shot the 75 Amax through my 1 in 9" twist barrels at close to 2,900 fps and it works. I just want a bit more velocity and the higher RPMs of a fast twist barrel so that bullet jacket is going to come apart that much more violently.

For shorter range kinds of airtime performance a velocity of 3,900 with a 40 grain .224" should be achievable with the above setup as well. I don't think it would shoot at all well with the faster twist barrel. At short range say less that 200 yards 1 MOA to 2 MOA is sufficient to ensure pretty consistent hits so that does not matter. Though overall the goal is a longer range cartridge, 3,900 fps with a 40 grain .224" up close has a spectacular effect on critters.

Without the addition of the 75 Amax (.435 BC) the above 40 and 50 grain loads are better achieved with something like a 204 Ruger. The 75 Amax at 3000 fps changes the wind game significantly enough that it re-balances the practical shooting vs. performance gain equation for me in favor of a .224" caliber wildcat.

Far be it from me to tell someone else how to spend money, but for what you are looking for have you considered trading a gun in for something in 220 swift? I'm not a fan of the new fat short cartridges but there is even the 223 wssm as well.

Now if you want to have something unique, that is a different subject altogether but to look at it from a performance standpoint there are other ways to get there with less hassle, and probably better performance once you do get there.

Yes, I read much of that before. Some of your reasons, in my opinion are weak justifications. I was hoping you would give better ones.

It’s your project but it sounds like a lot of “Busy Work” to me. Much of what you want to do is applicable to paper punching but you posted on the Varmint forum, instead of one of target forums.

If you feel the need for real speed in a .224, I think you’re working off the wrong platform.

Sorry I butted in.

Weak justifications and not applicable to varminting?

Perhaps we were just not on the same page here? I trust that you are familiar with the use of the .223 AI specifically for high volume varminting before you say there is no improvement. If you aren't and you wanted to know more then you might start by looking at Steve Hanson's seminal "A Varmint Hunter's Odyssey" and see what he has to say about it. He also covers the 222 Remington Magnum in there as well as you had also mentioned that round. You also might have a look at a few editions of "The Varmint Hunter" magazine when they have covered the .223 AI. There are very positive reviews and evaluations of that cartridge in there. Steve Timm was one of the earlier proponents of it and wrote about it extensively. If I remember correctly he and Darrell Holland collaborated on various reamers for it. Lastly if you don't have any of those books or magazines in your gun room or on your bookshelf to look at, you might have a look at Frank Barnes' ubiquitous "Cartridges of the World" volumes. I have the 9th edition (published back in 2000), and I think he is up to the 11th edition now. I don't have that copy to check but I would imagine that it still is in there under the Wildcats chapter. The 9th edition details what the .223 AI is capable of and why it makes sense. Overall it gives it a stellar review for its intended purpose (high volume varminting), but it runs a bit long for quoting here.

The .223 AI is not really a target round nor would the 22/204 be either. The 223 AI did get mentioned as a upgrade to the .223 both in Glenn Zeider's "Handloading for Competition" and "The Competitive AR15" for use in competition shooting. That guy and also David Tubb who he also publishes under Zeider Publishing, and often refers to in his writing, know a thing or two about practical accuracy and performance in the field. Although the books were written for target shooting it is directly applicable to high volume, precision varmint shooting which is one of the things I focus on. I am not a target shooter by any stretch of the imagination. I do like to check my chrono speeds and work up as accurate loads though, but this is AR. That is kind of expected here isn't it? Anyhow I thought it was fairly clear from what I wrote that I was talking about a specific wildcat for varminting not target shooting. At one time I did shoot competitively both with small bore and highpower, but I don't think you can hold that against me now. It did teach me some good shooting skills that directly help with varmint hunting such as reading mirage and coping with gusting and switching wind conditions.

So that is a long way to go about saying I am pretty sure the performance is there, and the .223 AI is clearly a popular round with the varmint hunters who know it and use it. The .223 AI cartridge gives at least a 10% improvement in case capacity over a 223 Remington in addition to practical advantages of a sharper shoulder. The 222 Magnum you mentioned gives a 5% advantage which as I agreed is not really a significant improvement. The basic benchmark for increase in capacity to mean anything is 10% gain which in turn will net only net 5% in velocity on average. The specifics are also tied to things like bore capacity and that is out of scope for this topic. Essentially this cartridge could net an additional grain over the .223 AI from what I read and that would be a net gain of 15% capacity over a standard .223 Rem. That does make a difference for what I want. It should net me about 150 fps across the board, more velocity with lighter bullets like the 40 grain and less with the heavier ones like the 75 Amax. To some degree all of this with the exception of the 75 Amax has been supplanted and surpassed by the 204 Ruger as I also said before. This all goes to drive the initial idea of building the 22/204 Ruger, and working around the magazine loading restrictions that a AI cartridge with a 40 degree shoulder brings or the undersized bore that going with a straight 204 Ruger brings.

Perhaps you could explain your criticism of my weak justifications? I think I must be missing something as I thought my logic and the thought processes I followed were fairly sound. Perhaps you could suggest your own replacement for a 223 AI that fit within the design parameters I described, and then we could compare and contrast. I am always looking to learn and why I asked the original question here if anyone had experience with a 22/204.

As far as the other suggestions I would agree that a 22/250, a 220 Swift, or a 224 WSSM beats it hands down for velocity. I would not argue any different however all three require larger bolt faces. I also do not want to burn that much powder each time I send one downrange. I am of the school of thought that says burn as little powder as you can that gets the job done and make as little noise as you can while you do it. I tend to shoot pretty much non stop when I am out shooting. A .223ish barrel throat lasts longer than something that burns more powder like a 22/250 or a 220 Swift. I take it a little further and usually have a matched pair of rifles in their respective caliber so one can cool while I shoot the other. Hence the pair of .223s I am working on replacing with something else. When I need something bigger I turn to a 6mm caliber and I have a couple of those specially built for varminting, but detailing them and their varminting purpose for them should in be a separate post. It is definitely not high volume, though it is most certainly still precision oriented and much more so.

According to Ray Prager, who lays claim to the development of the 22-204 Improved wrote the following about his creation:

“The 22-204 Imp is based on the 204 Ruger case. It has the same length as the 222 Remington Magnum but with the shoulder moved forward and at a sharper angle. These cases are more plentiful now, cheaper than the 222 mag cases, and seem to work better in this transformation. What I've done is to expand this cases neck to .224 caliber and improve (blow out the shoulder) to 40 degrees to match the 223ai. That way the 223ai dies can handle both cartridges.”

You have 2 choices in creating this little round (don’t get me wrong, I think your project is great).

1 You can go through the trouble of necking up a 204 Ruger (Busy Work). I went back through the thread and I don’t see or recall you saying that you had a pile of empty 204 Ruger cases just lying around. It would make sense that if you did, then use what you have.

2 Take some loaded 223 ammunition out to the range and simply pull the trigger, “Bang!” You have what you want.

Other than different head stamps, it’s the same animal for the most part.

Basically no matter which case (223 or 204) you use you are creating a somewhat improved version of the 222 mag with 31.0 + - grains of case capacity. Now think about this, the 222 mag Improved has 31.80 + - grains of case capacity.

Sweet...now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the background on the 20/204 Improved creator. I dug up a document where he does claim it was his. It was probably the same document you looked at. I completely agree with you that what I have been talking about would be a 222 mag improved, but a little less as the shoulder would not be as blown out.

I said most of this next paragraph before but I am getting it all together now: What I have firmed up is a 204 Ruger necked up to .224" with no changes to the 30 degree shoulder angle, headspace, or anything else. It will magazine feed and have a bit more room that a .223 AI. The only "busy work" required would be a single pass through an expanding die like a K&M or Sinclair. No primers, powder, or bullets, or barrel life need to be expended in fireforming. The dies could be modified fairly straight forward from standard match dies using the methods I described so it removes the need for expensive custom dies. That is pretty much a push button solution for a wildcat cartridge.

The non standard change I did not mention yet would be to design an actual reamer for it with the 75 Amax bullet in mind. I measured the ID of a couple of my 700 magazine boxes and they averaged 2.36" for ID. I would choose a throat length such that it would give properly seated bullet an OAL of 2.30". The bullet would be that much more out of the case from the standard COL of 2.23", and free up that little bit more room for powder. The goal would be 3,000 fps from a 27.5" barrel at under 56,000 psi with a naked 75 Amax.

That would be the basic "224 Webfeet" or perhaps better described as a 22/204 MaxFeeder if it were to become a vanity project and needed a special name. I think I am going to run it by my gunsmith and see what gives. He works with Dave Kiff at Pacific Tool and Gauge often enough tweaking his various benchrest reamers. I have never ordered my own reamer design and this might be kind of cool to do. It also could be a waste of time and money but I want to have done something once that was a tiny bit unique. The custom reamers don't cost that much anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by webfeet:
Sweet...now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the background on the 20/204 Improved creator. I dug up a document where he does claim it was his. It was probably the same document you looked at. I completely agree with you that what I have been talking about would be a 222 mag improved, but a little less as the shoulder would not be as blown out.

I said most of this next paragraph before but I am getting it all together now: What I have firmed up is a 204 Ruger necked up to .224" with no changes to the 30 degree shoulder angle, headspace, or anything else. It will magazine feed and have a bit more room that a .223 AI. The only "busy work" required would be a single pass through an expanding die like a K&M or Sinclair. No primers, powder, or bullets, or barrel life need to be expended in fireforming. The dies could be modified fairly straight forward from standard match dies using the methods I described so it removes the need for expensive custom dies. That is pretty much a push button solution for a wildcat cartridge.

The non standard change I did not mention yet would be to design an actual reamer for it with the 75 Amax bullet in mind. I measured the ID of a couple of my 700 magazine boxes and they averaged 2.36" for ID. I would choose a throat length such that it would give properly seated bullet an OAL of 2.30". The bullet would be that much more out of the case from the standard COL of 2.23", and free up that little bit more room for powder. The goal would be 3,000 fps from a 27.5" barrel at under 56,000 psi with a naked 75 Amax.

That would be the basic "224 Webfeet" or perhaps better described as a 22/204 MaxFeeder if it were to become a vanity project and needed a "special" name. I think I am going to run it by my gunsmith and see what gives. He works with Dave Kiff at Pacific Tool and Gauge often enough tweaking his various benchrest reamers. I have never ordered my own reamer design and this might be kind of cool to do. It also could be a waste of time and money but I want to have done something once that was a tiny bit unique. The custom reamers don't cost that much anyhow.

I mentioned in an earlier post about the BR guys and the 222mag case. You might want to look at this site click on dies they make a
222magx30 should be real close to what you want.
http://www.ch4d.com/222 Remington Magnum Improved 30 2 F $ 78.25 15

Not to go commercial on ya but if anyone is interested in buying or swapping for 250 unfired, weight segregated .222Mag brass private message me. When the .204 came out I thought brass might be difficult to obtain so I prepared to make my own but there was plenty of it.
As to the thread I sure don't know about possible gain but to me there is a lot to be said for having one that no one else does. Wildcatters are just slightly out of plumb that way.

Lastly on the cartridge, I had initially thought that a 204 sizing die would have to be honed or drilled out to 224 which would require a factory trip or a custom sizing die. It should have been really obvious but it took me a day or so to realize the solution in one of those "Well...Duh!!!" moments.

The use of a standard Redding S Type sizing die in 204 Ruger would eliminate that custom sizer need altogether. The sizing bushing and the expander button would simply be swapped out, and a larger bushing and expander button would take their place. There would not be any difference other than that neck diameter so it just works. The seater would still need the adjustment but with the seating stem and a reamer that is fairly straight forward. No fuss no muss...

Like I said, it was a "Duh!" moment for me and not a "Eureka!" moment unfortunately.

Have you loaded a 75 a-max in this case? I think it is going to have to be longer than you think, or the bullet will take up too much powder space. It would make a great single load round, but to squeeze max out of it, I don't think it will fit in your gun. The 223AI is a great round and will push 2900+ out of a 27" tube. I would wager at this velocity you are pushing 60K+ psi. Alot of the 150 fps you are gaining going from the 223 to the 223AI is by that extra pressure. You are not going to make the same leap of velocity by going to the 22-204 with the same increase in powder, without increasing psi more. Another thought is that there is alot more quality brass for the 223, Lapua comes to mind first. I am not saying this won't work, but to me if you want to step up, trade for a 308 bolt 700 and build a 22 br and really start zinging the 75 and 80 grain A-Max's.

I have loaded the 75 Amax a bunch in a straight .223 Remington. As you pointed out there is a bunch of the cartridge in the case, but that is to be expected.

I have been creating various mock-ups of the round using QuikLOAD and Load From A Disk. For my various samples I limited the estimated pressures to 56k PSI, but I might limit it back down to 55k PSI. I loaded to the COL I detailed above and got the numbers I did. I feel okay about those PSI ranges with decent brass in a bolt gun.

I do hear you on the 22 BR option or better yet a 22 Dasher.

I would really like to try the 22 BR with the 75 and 80 grain A-Max bullets.

Honestly, in just looking at it, the .22-.204 makes a lot of sense.

It would be a snap making cases; all that would be required is to inside chamfer the cases and run the lubricated neck up on a .20-to-.224 Redding looooong tapered case neck expander. Easy and no fireforming involved.

I've been shooting the .223 Ackley for fully 15 years now and truly love the round. The obvious advantage of the .22-204 is that the case shoulder is already reasonably-Improved to a 30º angle and the case taper is minimal.

The .22-204 would offer a bit more case capacity and most of the advantages of Improved cases (minimized case trimming, etc)

Anyway, it seems to me that it would be a fun project cartridge. It actually makes me kinda wish I still wrote for the gunny mags.

Naw, not really ... writing is a pain in the butt. Much better to simply do my own thing.

Steve Timm

anyone else notice how much the .204 looks like a .300 win mag?

wonder if the shape/dimensions of similar cartridges give them some of the same qualities?

(meaning accuracy, etc)

quote:

For shorter range kinds of airtime performance a velocity of 3,900 with a 40 grain .224" should be achievable with the above setup as well. I don't think it would shoot at all well with the faster twist barrel. At short range say less that 200 yards 1 MOA to 2 MOA is sufficient to ensure pretty consistent hits so that does not matter. Though overall the goal is a longer range cartridge, 3,900 fps with a 40 grain .224" up close has a spectacular effect on critters.

.

This parameter can be met with a 26" barrel on a stock 223 with Nosler 40BT's and RL-7 in 26-27 grains depending on your shooter.

Steve

I wish you still wrote also. You did a great job of testing rifles.

Some of VH mag writers ALMOST tell you something, like how well a rifle shoots.

One of the worst things I ever read " I could hear the bullet hit bone and the coyote went down". A bit Breezy.

Now you should have more time to wear out barrels.

Hal