I am going to get a new varmint rifle soon, hopefully for a future pdog hunt, but will be used for punching paper right now. I have narrowed it down to to calibers, 204 or 223. I would like a little advice on each.

204
How hard is it to get reloading components, brass, bullets, etc?
How hard on barrels?
Does it heat-up the barrel faster than a 223?
What about cleaning rods?

223
Would have more wind drift.
Cheap reloading components.
Already reload for 22-250, so already have plenty of 22 caliber stuff.

I know arguments can be made for each, but what will best serve my needs? I need something that is easy to reload for, easy on barrels, and deadly accurate.

Thanks

By virtue of mentioning you already have component bullets in .224 diameter, I think you've pretty much answered your own question. The .204 will also require a different cleaning setup (standard rods are too thick). The .223 shoots plenty flat for prairie dog hunting, and if you really want to have a blast with long range target shooting, get a rifle with a 1:8 or 1:9 and give the 69 grain Sierra BTHP MK or 75 grain Hornady A-Max a try. It will far out-perform the .204 at long range simply because the available bullets -- other than expensive customs -- for the little .20 caliber are pretty much limited to 32 and 40 grains.

Yes, the .204 is a terrific caliber, but it's no world-beater, either. You'll be well-served by a .223 -- no doubt about it...

At least from the perspective of costs, it is a no-brainer. But, hey, maybe you just want a new toy (don't we all), and toys are often chosen for irrational reasons...
- mike

Justin B,
Have a look at this site: http://www.204ruger.com
It has everything you want to know about the .204 and more, with forums info ect
Its a site completeley dedicated to the .204 ruger.
The .204 will out shoot the .223 most of the time, but Id say with very carefull reloads, the .223 could nearly match it .

One more thing I forgot to say.
A gentle man, by the name of Silver Fox, has vast information about the .204 reloads, using the 39 grain Blitz Kings .
Silver Fox, are you their?

I thank your for the input, just wanted to see what other people thought. I don't have the funds to buy a lot of rifles, so I rely on other's advice. Guess, I will start the quest for a 223, leaning toward a Savage FV or VLP.

Justin, Just think!! You coulda had a 204!!! But at least you're thinking of the VLP!!! Just shot a .456" 200 yard group tonite with mine in .204!!! That's the same one that shot the .440" 500 yard(3 shot group) a few weeks ago! Everybdy has a .223!! Not everybody has a .204!!! (Little humor there folks!!!) GHD

The .223 is a far more practical choice. It's as flat shooting and costs less to shoot.....easy decision there.

Had Hornady used the .223 case for the .204 it would have been the varmint cartridge of the decade.....history will not be kind to the .204.

Justin: I would go with the 204 Ruger in a 26" heavy barrel Varminter for your uses.
The 204 Ruger and its lesser recoil (better able to spot your own hits!), flatter trajectory, better wind bucking capability - plus the various excellent bullets now available in 20 caliber (at least the ones that I have tried in my three 204 Varminters are VERY lethal on all manner of Varmints) makes the 204 the winner in this match-up!
All of my 204's are VERY accurate and load development was very easy!
Yes you will need a 20 caliber cleaning rod - not just a 17 caliber cleaning rod! No big deal. I have three sets of dies for my 204's - 2 Redding sets and an RCBS set. All three make VERY concentric (straight) handloads.
I personally have not had any problem finding 20 caliber bullets - but I get around a lot! I have Berger, Sierra and Hornady bullets in various grain weights.
I think the 204 Ruger in comparable Rifles will be at least as accurate as one in 223 Remington.
Accuracy as we all know varies from Rifle to Rifle and it is not an absolute for either caliber being better. You take your chances there.
But the flatter trajectory, lower recoil and better wind bucking ability of the 204 Ruger will serve you noticeably better in the Prairie Dog towns!
I have not heard any reports of undue or excessive barrel wear with the 204's. I have had two of my 204's for 10 months and one for just a month so I have not had a lot of rounds down any of my barrels. No answer to that part of your inquiry from me. If I were to guess - I think the 223 Remington would have a somewhat or slightly longer barrel life.
Go with the 204!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

vpodog, But they didn't use the .223 for the parent case!!! They used the 222MAG WHICH WAS AND WILL FOREVER BE SUPERIOR TO THE 223!!!! GHD

Just as a point of reference, I have 6 rifles in .223 and 3 in .22-250 and I have one in .204 and I only use the .204 now. I can't tell you the .223 and the .22-250 are bad rounds....they're not. They all shoot better than I can. The .204 is a comfortable round that is easy to shoot and takes care of everything under 40 pounds or so and it let's you see your handy work in the scope too!!

Bacon fat and the .204 rules...it just feels right!!!!

Talking of barrel wear in a .204.
Over here in Ireland, their is a .204 being tested for that exact thing.
So far it has got 2000 rounds threw it and is showing very little barrel wear
I would say it will be the same as .223 or .222 in barrel life .

quote:

Had Hornady used the .223 case for the .204 it would have been the varmint cartridge of the decade

It's already THE varmint cartridge of the decade , and you could maybe throw in cartridge of the generation too.........but there are a few old fuds that haven't caught on yet.....(grin)

quote:

Had Hornady used the .223 case for the .204 it would have been the varmint cartridge of the decade

This is the discussion about the Tactical 20 vs. the .204 Ruger. Who knows why Ruger/Hornady chose the .222 Rem Mag vs. the .223 case?? It certainly was not out of kindness to the reloaders wanting to form .204 cases... I'm sure Ruger/Hornady will claim the .222 Rem Mag case was the better choice, that the decision was made on technical terms. Others will claim, it stopped them having to pay royalties to the developer of the Tactical 20 (forget the guy's name), plus apparently you can make more $$$ on a proprietary caliber?? Maybe brand recognition was important?? Certainly, using the .222 Rem Mag case stopped people from simply necking down ubiquitous .223 cases and go shooting...

- mike

Mho: I think the Ruger - Hornady folks chose the 222 Remington Magnum case because of its larger powder capacity over the 223 Remington - thus more velocity (flatter trajectory - and better wind bucking ability!). And also - possibly to keep 223 rounds being injected into the actions (chambers) of 204 Ruger arms!
Anyway I am sure happy with the results of the Ruger-Hornady venture and the resulting cartridge - the 204 Ruger!
Its no harder necking down a 222 Remington Magnum case and then go shooting than it would be to neck down a 223 Remington case and go shooting!
I admit that buying new cases for the 222 Remington Magnum and/or for the 204 Ruger (when they get to be readily available!) is slightly more expensive to begin with! But the brass I have been using in my various 204's does not seem to stretch unduly and I am predicting brass life will be lengthy - if prudent loads are used.
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I recently got an order of 500 rounds brass from Midway for $62 . If you allow 10 shots per piece , that's 5000 shots ; nearly enough to wear out a gun barrel .

I think brass availability will be a non-issue in a few months.....

Another point to consider is, you'll need a smaller cleaning rod. IMHO, the 223 will do the same thing the 204 will do.
Practice, Practice, Practice.......then more practice!

For pellet guns,I like the .20 cal. I consider it the best of both worlds between the .177 and .22's-----don't know if this relates to centerfires. My .223 is possibly the most accurate rifle I have using jacketed bullets. But I shoot cast bullets too and it just won't shoot them. Same bullet does very well in my .222's and 22-250. You already have a 22-250 you might consider cast bullets in it and get the .204. The cast bullet I shoot is 58 grains down around 2000-2200 and it does real well--heck of a number for jackrabbits.

Sdgunslinger: I just this minute got off the phone with the folks at Midway and they are out of the 204 brass again. No backorders being taken at this time - but they expect some more brass in on July 5th! I have written a note to myself and posted it on my loading component cabinet to call them back then!
I might not have made myself as clear as I wanted to on my earlier post - YES the 204 Ruger needs a 20 caliber cleaning rod as the 20 caliber jags and brushes will not fit in the 17 caliber rod and the 22 caliber rods won't go down the bore of a 204.
I bought my Dewey 20 caliber rod from Russ Haydons Shooters Supply.
More later
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Varmint Guy your wrong, .17 and .20 cal brushes and jags are the same thread size.

Ohlsen, My 17 rod and and jag will not interchange with my 20 cal, henceforth I have a set for each.

Hi Guys:

First if you are using Dewey rods, one of the best in the business, the .17 caliber and the .20 caliber are the SAME thread size.... both have a 5/40 THD.... Female end. Naturally the thickness of the rod differes with the caliber.

I found the .17 caliber will bend to easy in the .204... so I bought rods and bore brushes for each.

There is an old cleaning method that I like to use, get a bore brush, usually nylon brissles, one caliber smaller than your bore, soak and wrap a patch with your favorite solvent around the brush and use as a cleaning tool in and out of your bore. It seems to clean better than just a brush or a jag with a patch on it.

I also use EJS bore guides, another must for the needle blowers like the .17 HMR and the .204 Ruger.

Midway carries all these items, as so does many other companies.

Regards... Jim P.

jbhewitt----.17 cal and .20 cal rods are threaded the same size. I've got Dewey and Tipton.

Well sorry but the 17 cal rod I bought from Cabela's three years ago and the 20 cal Dewey rod I bought last month will not interchange.

This is interesting! What brand-name .17 cal rod did you buy? I have .17 cal rods from Dewey and ProShot sitting in my closet(no .17 anymore) and they both have the 5-40 thread size too. I was using them last summer for the .204 till the .20 cal rods came out.

Ohlson, not real sure as to the manufacter of this 17 rod I had lost my Dewey out on a shoot and stopped by Cabelas on the way home. It was the only rod they had on the shelf (last week they STILL did not have anything smaller than 22cal). I would have bought a seperate 20cal rod anyway.

Justin, listen to someone who has a tonn of experience actually shooting the .223 cartridge (me). I grew up watching the amazing things my father could do with his Ruger Mk11 in .223 with a 6X Weaver scope. We'd be out hunting for the village on the barrens and he would take shots a up to 3/4 of a mile away. Sometimes he would shoot, and after four or five seconds had passed, I would announced he missed. His reply "just wait for the bullet to get there". Two more seconds, the caribou falls down dead, shot through the neck. I've picked up this tradition of long range hunting, and trust me, with these kinds of results, why rid one's self of the old for the unproven new?

Not to refute anyone's claims, but if you waited four to five seconds to announce a miss and then in two more seconds, the caribou would fall from a neck shot largely contradicts shots of "up to 3/4 mile" away. I don't have any of my ballistic tables in front of me, but in 6 to 7 seconds, the flight of a bullet from a .223 should be long past the 3/4 mile mark.

And while I am not saying it (the claimed results) did not happen, purposely shooting at a game animal 3/4 of a mile away with a cartridge that is at best marginal for a 100 yard shot on an animal of that size is, to me, nothing more than a stunt and certainly not something to brag about. Yes, I know hunting for a village becomes a factor, but if you had the gun dead-on at 200 yards, you'd have to be looking at 1000 inches of drop (again a guess as I don't have any charts here).

But let me get back off my soap box...

Arctic,

.204 isn't a caribou round, but then...with the right bullet in the right place...just about anything will kill. Practically speaking, I would limit the .204 to 40-50 lbs at the max. and call it a "varmint" round and it was never intended for "big game".

I suspect the .223/5.56 has killed more little people than it has big game, but applied properly, it works well on either.

[QUOTE] I don't have any of my ballistic tables in front of me, QUOTE]


You speak with charts, I speak with experience. 1000 inches of drop or not, it was done. Eventually that bullet has to come down, just choose where.
And you are right in saying hunting for the people becomes a factor, but to call such things stunts, to take what one can get and call it a stunt, I am inclined to take offence to this. Note that those animals gave their lives to feed us. I do not look upon such things very lightly.
I am sorry if I have taken your words the wrong way, but as it stands, I find comparring the hunt to a stunt, or to accuse one of bragging of something so sacred, I am offended.
My partner showed me how to use this damn computer and something to peak my interest in it(this site). I am not too plesed with my experience thus far.

Arctic Gun-I certainly did not mean for you to take offense, but you opened up yourself for my comments with your post. Misjudging the range by 50 yards or the wind by 1 mph would result in a complete miss at the 3/4 mile caribou. And I don't need charts to tell me that as I put enough lead downrange in a year's time to sink a bass boat.

I do hope you continue to frequent this site -- there's much you can learn here from some very experienced shooters and hunters. And if you are ever in south central Texas, I invite you to contact me and show off some of that long range skill. I have access to a spot in which a 3/4 mile shot is a reality due to a very lengthy clearcut. And, I have a lifesize deer target. If you can put a bullet from a 6x-scoped .223 in the vitals with the first shot from that 3/4 mile mark, I'll buy you the biggest steak in the county.

If not, you're out of nothing but a single .223 round.

Arctic,

I have a lot of respect for anyone living above the circle...it is a hard life. When I lived in Homer I was a AK Hunter Safety Instructor and my first comment to a "stunt" like that would have been...irresponsible and inapprpriate!! I have no interest in offending you or your father, but shooting at a game animal, in my opinion, beyond 400 yds for 99% of the people on earth is irresponsible. I was a sport hunter and not a subsistance hunter, but the caribou hunts I went on there were always nice young tender caribou in bow range, so there is no reason to take long shots. I did like to hunt and as a result, fed a lot of homeless folks in Fairbanks and Anchorage. I fully support the use of the .223 or .243 on caribou by experienced hunters like your Dad, but not at ranges beyond where the hunter can hit the right spot everytime. I do respect the animals and they deserve a quick and honorable death.

I hope you will hang around and contribute to the forum, we can benefit from your experience. I miss Alaska a lot!!

Perhaps I was too quick to judge you people. My partner had me check your replies, if there were any, and then decide whether or not I would sware off these "damn computers". She does make me whole. It would seem that I cannot always judge a man as how he walks in the bush. Indeed that would be quite impossible in this situation.
I offer my sincere apology to you both. I would imagin that there are many dishonourable men who would lie about such things as the hunt. I had not thought of it this way. Again, she makes me whole.
If indeed we should ever cross paths as you mentioned, although I have never been out of mine own land, keep your stealk, allow me to treat you, as fellow men of the hunt.
I enjoy this now. There is still strength and honour among men.

Arctic,

No need for apology!!

Partners are what sometimes keep us from going down the wrong trail no matter how fresh the sign.

Stay with the "damn computer" and have a good time learning from the mistakes of others. Like Will Rogers said "Some learn from the mistakes of others, while some men must piss on the electic fence for themselves!!" and never take yourself too seriously.

Arctic Gun - Lowrider 49 is right: There is no need for any apology. I hope you stick around this forum...

Been away Varminting and fishing for a while here.
Let me make myself clearer - the 20 caliber Pro-shot jags measure .172" and of course if one wanted to use the very slim and delicate 17 caliber rod in ones 20 claiber Rifles with those jags - that would work, but the 17 caliber rods are so dainty and easily bent (lesson learned there!) that I recommend one not do that!
I just checked and the jags and brushes for the 20 calibers DO fit in my Dewey 17 caliber rods. Again this will lead to a bent 17 caliber rod though. I am puzzled where I got the impression that the 20 caliber jags and brushes would not fit in the 17 caliber rods! Obviously it goes back a year to when I was trying to use 22 caliber brushes on my 17 caliber rod to clean my 204 Ruger Rifle (this was before 20 caliber rods, jags and brushes were available). That doesn't work. Sorry for any cornfusion I might have caused there!
The 17 and 20 caliber Dewey rods are threaded the same its THE 22 caliber jags and brushes that differ thread wise amongst those three.
Long live the 204!
Hold ito the wind
VarmintGuy