Are the two chamberings about equal in regards to barrel life? Do they both heat up the barrel about the same? Or is one less barrel-abusive than the other?

That should be pretty simple erosion is the result of burning more power. The .204 burns more powder or near equal and pushes it down a smaller bore. More erosion will be the result. How much more that's questionable but with the next year or so you'll start getting real data on a large scale to examine.

I agree with Jay...I think the 204 will be somewhat harder on barrels....but I sure wouldn't let that back me up from owning a 204 if that's what I wanted.

Appreciate the replies......I really think it would be a nice addition to a varmint rifle battery. I like the 223 and I think the 204 would be a nice performer as well. Since i reload, it should be a lot of fun. Thanks for the reassurance.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I agree with Jay...I think the 204 will be somewhat harder on barrels....but I sure wouldn't let that back me up from owning a 204 if that's what I wanted.

vapodog I agree that wouldn't be what I'd base my decision on either.

Agree with the above. When the barrel burns out go get another barrel put on. Its not the end of a good rifle. My philosophy is to go shoot it, load it where you want it and have fun.

Teesh,

Silverfox who posts on a couple of forums including this one, just had some data on that IIRC (on another forum). I can't find the thread, but I believe his figures were 1280 rounds and .0055 erosion for the 204. It sounded as he was shooting it pretty carefully also. All things being equal, I think this is some significant information and I thank Silverfox for it.

I am taking a 204 out pd shooting this summer and will be checking erosion. I will report as I get info.

I have been keeping fairly accurate records on number of rounds shot and barrel erosion on several 22-250s, my 223 and now with the 204 I feel I should have a good comparison.

If my data supports that of Silverfox (for the 204) then MY data (and only mine) would indicate the 204 is slightly harder on barrels than my 22-250, and the 223 shows significantly less erosion than either.

Jim

Found it: try this.

Jim

1238/.0055

quote:

Originally posted by pdhntr1:
Teesh,If my data supports that of Silverfox (for the 204) then MY data (and only mine) would indicate the 204 is slightly harder on barrels than my 22-250, and the 223 shows significantly less erosion than either.

Jim

I may be wrong but my guess is the .204 is going to show less erosion than your 22-250. Give us the low down when you get back from your trip. How many rounds do you have through your .204 now?

quote:

I may be wrong but my guess is the .204 is going to show less erosion than your 22-250.

I hope you are correct. My 22-250 was "throated" .010 in approx. 3000 rounds (away from my records now) and we will be reaching 1000-1200 rounds on a couple of Savage 22-250s this summer.

I will be the first to admit this is not a definitive test, but interesting none the less to compare results.

quote:

How many rounds do you have through your .204 now?

Less than 100, certainly not enough to tell anything.



Jim

pdhntr1

Thanks for the information. I know I'll be looking forward to your post after PD city time this summer.

If you know the pressure you generate with a given cartridge you will have your answer. SAAMI spec. will do for factory fodder, you're on your own with handloads unless you have access to pressure measuring equipment. More pressure = more wear. Caliber, cartridge design and capacity have little or nothing to do with it.

Heat as well. How those rounds are shot has a lot to do with it also. One right after the other until you can't touch the barrel will cause the throat to erode much faster than slower shots which allow the barrel to cool between them.