I think what has been proved is the camp perry guys are getting by, by shooting at exact known distances, what relevence does this have in an actual shooting situation, I would gladly trade 2" of winddrift for 50% less total drop, lets see someone shooting the 80grn smk make a shot at 536 yds or some odd ball range, I say good luck unless this range has been practiced at. It would also get quite interesting if there was a 65grn 204 bullet

Varmintguy, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't give a rat's ass about the debate between the .204 or the .223. If you like the .204, that's just ducky, if you like the .223 I'm glad for you. I find the debate about the two cartridges pointless. Neither has long range performance that I find interesting. Drop is a TOF calculation(in simple terms), "drift" is a function of drag. It doesn't make any difference how fast, how heavy, or anything else, just drag.

I have no ax to grind with you about "drift" either. You're wrong, I'm right. Study all the charts you want, it won't change the physics involved. The formula I provided above is THE formula for computing "drift". Take it or leave it as you see fit. There is a substantial chasm between parroting what one reads, and what one understands. If you take exception to my attempt as educating you on the science of "drift" as it relates to ballistics, well, pound sand. It has not a solitary thing to do with intuition, black magic, spiritual unity with higher beings, or crack.

quote:

Mike Smith: I will be a little cautious with this posting but it appears YOU think the 223 cartridge shot from an AR-15 with "some" bullet is superior to the 204 Ruger? I contend the 204 shoots flatter and with less wind "drift: than the 223

Never said it was superior, also never said it wasnt. What I said was it is a great round for what it was designed for. My point was that at the 600 yard mark and longer is where the drift becomes a serious problem and things break down. Try to get a load that will keep its down range energy with as little drift as possible at 1000 yards. Try it out with the 204, 223 and 308. Let me know what you find out. Oh, and dont forget bullet drop at that range as well.

quote:

Originally posted by DigitalDan:
Varmintguy, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't give a rat's ass about the debate between the .204 or the .223. If you like the .204, that's just ducky, if you like the .223 I'm glad for you. I find the debate about the two cartridges pointless. Neither has long range performance that I find interesting. Drop is a TOF calculation(in simple terms), "drift" is a function of drag. It doesn't make any difference how fast, how heavy, or anything else, just drag.

I have no ax to grind with you about "drift" either. You're wrong, I'm right. Study all the charts you want, it won't change the physics involved. The formula I provided above is THE formula for computing "drift". Take it or leave it as you see fit. There is a substantial chasm between parroting what one reads, and what one understands. If you take exception to my attempt as educating you on the science of "drift" as it relates to ballistics, well, pound sand. It has not a solitary thing to do with intuition, black magic, spiritual unity with higher beings, or crack.

DD, now you know why I refuse to even acknowledge any argument presented by Varmint Guy.

Yep...

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
HP Shooter: I tend to think my conceptual grasp is close, VERY close to being right on!

I have seen your debating techniques before, when I was just a lurker. That is why I don't care about your opinion.

Whenever you are challenged on conceptual understanding, you get more and more verbose to the point where it is imposible to remember what the hell you were talking about.

As I said before, bring a load that proves your theory to a 600 yard prone match and let the shit fall where it may. Shit or get off the pot, as it were.

The Army Marksmanship Unit, BTW, is not some obscure shooting team. The fact that you call them so proves how full of your own self importance you are.

OK, OK...how about we just multiply BC times velocity and the highest value drifts the least?

A bullet with a BC of .250 at 4000 fps gets a rating of 1000 and a bullet with a BC of .500 at 2900 fps gets a rating of 1450....game OVER!

How about:

D = W(T-Tv)

All ,
First of all let me say I'm not here to make enemies .I really don't give a crap whether the .204 outshoots the .223 or vice versa .The .223 is deservedly a popular round , the .204 becoming that way . I don't own either .
Digital Dan is correct however in that time of flight (T.O.F.) and drag are BOTH factors that determine wind drift . Given 2 projectiles reaching the target with identical T.O.F., the one which has decelerated the least during it's flight (due to less drag / higher B.C.) will drift the least in the wind . i.e. Drift is not just determined by T.O.F. but also by the difference in T.O.F. in a vacuum vs T.O.F. in air .
If you want to compare wind drift figures for different calibres and bullet weights I suggest punching the details into an external ballistics calculator . There are plenty of free ones available on the web .Here's one http://www.beartoothbullets.com/resources/calculator/balistics/DATA.htm
Might save a lot of arguments .

Digital Dan

You definitely have the right formula. The effect of drag is really quite simple. For any bullet at any range, there is a time of flight to get there. There is also a theoretical time of flight based only on the muzzle velocity, i.e., if the bullet does not slow down at all how long would it take to cover the distance associated with the range? Since this latter time is always faster than the actual time it is a simple matter to subtract it from the actual time to get the "residual" time it takes the actual bullet. This residual time times the cross wind velocity is the drift.

This is the lay version of what your formula states in mathematical terms and it is in fact the basis for all calculations of drift for direct fire. Indirect fire, as we encounter with artillery is slightly more complicated, but certainly not applicable to the comparison of the 223 and 204.

The very simplified formula i cited that uses only BC time MV will NOT give the correct drift, but will give the correct ordinal ranking when making quick comparisons. It just predicts that one bullet drifts less than another, but not by how much.

However, two different bullets that compute to the same value when multiplying BC time MV WILL have the same drift for the distance selected for the comparison. The upper limit of the 204 is probably a BC of .300 times a velocity of 3500 fps, at best. this gives a comparison value of 1050. This means that a bullet with a BC of .400 needs to do 2625 fps at muzzle to have the same drift as a 204. Since there are several bullets in .224 that exceed BCs of .400 that will also do 2700 to 2800 fps, there is a slight advantage to the 223.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by DigitalDan:
Varmintguy, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't give a rat's ass about the debate between the .204 or the .223. If you like the .204, that's just ducky, if you like the .223 I'm glad for you. I find the debate about the two cartridges pointless. Neither has long range performance that I find interesting. Drop is a TOF calculation(in simple terms), "drift" is a function of drag. It doesn't make any difference how fast, how heavy, or anything else, just drag.

I have no ax to grind with you about "drift" either. You're wrong, I'm right. Study all the charts you want, it won't change the physics involved. The formula I provided above is THE formula for computing "drift". Take it or leave it as you see fit. There is a substantial chasm between parroting what one reads, and what one understands. If you take exception to my attempt as educating you on the science of "drift" as it relates to ballistics, well, pound sand. It has not a solitary thing to do with intuition, black magic, spiritual unity with higher beings, or crack.

DD, now you know why I refuse to even acknowledge any argument presented by Varmint Guy.

If there's one thing I know more about than hunting and shooting, it's horses, mules and donkeys. And Varmint Girl is consistently a real a$$.

Sabot, I hadn't posted on this thread for a few days but your comments cause me to post again!!! "a BC of .300 and velocity at best of 3500?????" The BC's of the .204 caliber bullets all under .300 but the velocities are all easily in excess of your 3500fps!!! Plug a 32 grain in your computer at 4409fps!!!! Plug a 39 grainSierra in your computer at 3760fps!!! As far as the 223 goes.....great for "economy" minded folks who like to buy in bulk and have fun with their guns!!! It was always "inferior" to the 222MAG....parent of the .204!!! GHD

The problem is that when you use the lighter bullets in the 204 the BC goes down and velocity must go up dramatically to keep pace with the 223.

Take the lowly hornardy Vmax 75 grainer in 223. It has a BC of .435. The lighter 204s you mention are limited to a BC of .250 or less, so these need to go 4872 fps to match the vmax at 2800 fps in the wind drift department.

With that said, the extreme positions taken on both sides of the discussion don't have a lot of merit. The 204 can shoot with accuracy very close to the 223 at all distances when those distances are known and is better than the 223 as a 300 plus yard varmint rifle. Serious competitiors may not select the 204 because it is slightly more vulnerable to cross winds and trajectory does not matter to them. That does not mean that they cannot enter and win a match with a 204 against 223s either.

However, take the 223 shooters out to the prarie on a fairly calm, hot day a pop prarie dogs for a few hours and you will most likely take their money...

like I have always said if we are gonna compare a 223 with 80grn+ bullets wouldn't it be kewl to see what a 204 shooting 65-70grainers would do if the bullet where avaiable. when shooting in field conditions the 204 is so superiour it aint even funny. the amount of drop that an 80+grn bullet has from a 223 is horrific. and essentially unuseable except at exact known ranges. so sabot, what would a theoritical 70grn .204 bullet with a bc of .550 @2800 do against the beloved known range 223 loads.

Sabot, thanks for your comments and info. I shall add another dash of salt to the mix for giggles though.

Without getting in above my head from a technical standpoint, meaning I won't attempt to explain all of the following, most spitzer boat tail forms exhibit reduced drag coeficients as Mach number increases. It is this fact that leads people to believe that TOF is directly involved in the equation when they puruse the ballistics tables and calculators. Even the same bullet fired at disparate velocities will show different deflection values at a given range. As Sabot stated the reference to TOF in the equation only provides a value in comparison to "what if", ergo the vacuum flight time. This is where the BC is implied in the equation. It is implied as a single value(average) over the TOF, NOT what the manufacturer brags about. Fast bullets with lower BC's lose that advantage and simply decelerate more quickly when they leave the higher Mach regimes, no magic to it. As an aside at this point I will add that fast(er) twists increase the angle of yaw of repose and this degrades BC at all Mach numbers, but it becomes more pronounced as velocity decays.

Cummins Cowboy, I had a discussion some years back with an "eggspurt" on ballistics, in fact he was a raging fan of the .17 caliber, mostly in the guise of the .17 Rem. Now I don't care what a person shoots with or at, but one's love affair with a given caliber doesn't allow them to disreguard physics. The subject was "drift", and along the way he stated that if a .17 cal bullet was built in exact scale to the Hornady .50 Cal VMAX it would have the same BC(1.05 as advertised). 'Tain't so. I mention this due to your comment regarding the theoretical 70 gr. .204 bullet. It might be awhile before you see one of those so the point is mute to me. Firstly, weight is the numerator in the BC equation, and since weight is proportional to length in a conical projectile when all else is equal, you wind up with a problem stabilizing the bullet. I toyed with my antagonists claims on a ballistic calulator as far as it would let me, and at 125 grains and a twist rate of 1:3 I still hadn't achieved the BC of the .50 AMAX, or a Gs better than 1.0. Secondly, there is a fundamental advantage that favors larger calibers in this race. Sperical projectiles gain weight by the third power as diameter increases, while only increasing drag by the second power. This explains why larger caliber round balls have higher BC's even though the form is the same, and it revisits the BC equation(the numerator again), wherein the BC can be disproportionally increased by adding weight, but not so much length to conicals as caliber increases. The point about sperical projectiles plays with conicals too, but conicals obviously can gain more weight by increasing length. Drag values are essentially the same for a given form, caliber having no significance. An extreme example of comparison might be the BC of the Sierra .338 300 grain SMK vs. the .204 or .224 bore. Regardless of bullet form or weight, the BC of the smaller bores won't EVER get there. This fairly represents why I see little merit in the debate. You can only split a hair so many times before it vanishes.

Thirdly and last, I think when one wants a reasonable comparison of what is possible and practical it is logical to keep the parameters within reason as well. When one skews the numbers in the comparison with exceptional velocities or bullet weights there are other factors that weigh in that may or may not be recognized. Twist rates and throat wear come to mind, regardless of case and caliber. Each cartridge has a performance envelope that is a product of case capacity and bore. Different cartridges have different envelopes and if one desires a different level of performance the easy path is to buy a new gun. It's more fun that way too. JMO

Hope I didn't put anybody to sleep with this.

DD, good post, If you wanna see some increadible ballistics punch in the 750grn amax from a 50 bmg, holly crap that thing hits hard way way out there.

All ,
If I ever get into an argument with DD about ballistics remind me to shutup .

Digital Dan

Excellent post. To really get up there in the BC department, we need decent sectional density, and this means SDs of .270 or better. This high a SD takes a bullet too heavy to work until we get up to the 6.5mm offerings. Pushed to the limit, there are even a few 6mm bullets that qualify, but the 6.5s go up through SDs around .330 or so.

CC, the various .50 cal and Sov. block equivalant made a big impression on me and a few of my choppers in Nam, you don't have to sell me on that one buddy! I was chatting with LDO a few weeks back, and he has a...desire to tame the 14.5mm for long range work. I've had them fired at me but have no ballistic info. They are commonly cofigured in twin and quad configurations for anti-aircraft applications. LDO said it has more remaining energy at 1,000 yards than the Ma Deuce at the muzzle. I am truly thankful the fellow that took the pot shot at me with that bitch slept thru the class on lead and range estimation.

Bushchook, I'll take that as a compliment, but I'm not an expert ballistician. I did study exterior ballistics a bit and understand some of the fundamentals though. There is a ton of it I haven't figured out yet. When I first started looking into it I spent a lot of time in this familiar pose. The aspect that I find most likely to create new wrinkles in a brain involves gyroscopic stability, and the plethora of influences that come with it. One of them is good, ie. stability, the rest do not benefit accuracy, some much more than others. Meaningful mathematics on that subject often involves the 6-DOF(6 degrees of freedom) program and a Super Computer. Within the arena of Interior and Terminal Ballistics I am pretty close to a moron. There's a lot of chaos to be found there!

Good shooting to you all.

Digital Dan: I think the original parameters of our discussion here were in fact at ranges of 500 and 600 yards! If you wish to shoot at other ranges fine but that would be a seperate discussion - would it not?
I will be taking my 204's out tomorrow and putting the whack on some Varmints. I will let you know if I have any reason to lessen my appreciation for the 204's ultra flat trajectory and wonderful wind bucking ability!
Long live the 204!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Way to go Varmint guy
I think the .204 is here to stay for ever myself
The power is AWSOME

Im glad to hear that these simple formulae are just that, approximations. I have never seen a simple aerodynamic formula. I am troubled to grasp how the BC can account for what goes on in both the forward and lateral directions. For one thing, what is a BC? It is not theoretical from my understanding, it is emperical, right? I would expect to see a coeficient of drag for cross wind velocity and a coeficient of drag for the downrange velocity components. Maybe the simplification works in assuming these Cd's equal for both directions.

Varmint Guy, hold into the wind anyway! I ain't agin ya buddy, and I don't dislike the .204. Have a good time!

baja bill, they(formulas) really aren't approximations. What is an approximation is the value of BC assigned by the maunfacturer. It may be arrived at either theoretically or empirically depending upon how they do business. Add to that the issue of form used for a particular bullet by the builder. Without a bit of research you won't know which "G" form was used as a baseline in comparison. Some use G1 exclusively, others may use G4 or G7. The nut of it is that the formulas are accurate, but the conditions under which the bullets are fired are not within the manufacturers control, and that is where things get a bit off track.

There is no difference between Cd for cross wind or downrange. Cd is Cd. BC is the same for both calculations as well. It is NOT a "simplification". Just for clarification, Cd is determined by testing(empirical) and is nothing more that a measure of a form's sleekness after the other factors are removed. Once determined for a given form it is quite precise. It does not lend itself to easy manipulation in calculation nor is the data easily obtained. BC, which is the totality of a bullets ability to overcome drag, may be determined either way, empirical or theoretical, as stated above.

I'm not sure what you mean by "simple aerodynamic formula".

D=W(T-Tv) is pretty simple, it calculates "drift", and is quite accurate.

BC= weight/form x SD is too.

6DOF is not and I cannot replicate it here, nor are most of the formulas dealing with gyroscopic stability and related issues.

First off, I am not condemning what anyone else prefers to shoot. I just like the .20 cals more all the time. I have 2 .204 Rugers and 1 .20 Tactical. I have shot Prairie Dogs for almost 50 yrs, and I am getting more convinced all the time that one can almost eliminate 80% of the Prairie Dogs in a town. The towns are not Full Sections, just 80 acre towns, but there were lots of dogs there when I started in July of '04. I went back repeatedly last summer and some this winter. I was back in this one town last Sunday, there aren't that many worked holes anymore. Of course I only live 1 mile from the town, but the dogs had almost got out of hand for the adjacent farmers. Something needed done, so I did it. The .20's are just "FUN".

this isnt a bullet, but is more of the kind of mathmatical cobweb I am accustomed to when dealing with aerodynamics.

http://207.242.75.40/derbtech/windeff.htm

Im not an aero specialist however so I cant tell anyone the equations commonly tossed around in the ballistic community are not correct. They just dont immediately satisfy my "engineering jugdgment" of what is completely in action here. I wonder how a collegiate computational dynamics study of the scenario would compare to the ballistician's approach. None of the "rocket scientists" I deal with ever say that vector analysis is not the way to approach it, but then again, they are not bullet proffessionals.

BajaBill, interesting link that.

There is a difference at play betwixt bullets and derby racers though. Wind deflects bullets, it does not make them drift. It is a misnomer that leads to a lot of misunderstanding in regards to what's happening downrange. Vector analysis is useful in understanding what is happening to a bullet in a deflected state, but the IMPORTANT vector is DRAG, not crosswind. Keep in mind that a bullet exits the muzzle oriented to the bore axis, and the deflection caused by the crosswind, thru a lot of gyrations(non-scientific pshycho-babble) results in the bullet being reoriented slightly into the wind vector(values much less than 1 degree)as it seeks the least resistant path.

If you are interested in a serious mathematical treatment on the subject of exterior ballistecs and all the neuron killing formulas, try "Modern Exterior Ballistics" by Robert McCoy. It is available thru Amazon.Com last time I checked. Has a number of typos because the book was published w/o Dr. McCoy's proofread prior to his passing. Google the book title or his name and you will find downloads for corrections that were made available by his friends and coworkers. It is graduate level reading BTW, and fairly pricey but I thought it worth the effort. Robert McCoy was a genuine rocket scientist by the way.

Easier reading by an equally knowledgible fellow named Harold Vaughn is available via "Rifle Accuracy Facts". Easier reading with less math although there is enough to give pause now and then. He was a bench shooter off duty and the book is oriented to the hunting and competition shooters on a more practical level. Cheaper too. I'd buy the man a drink if he were still around, but I would NOT ask him to explain the physics of spin stabilizing liquid filled projectiles.

what formulation does pointblank use for this

Not familiar with that, ballistics program? If so wouldn't have a clue. If not, still wouldn't have a clue.

Dan

www.CluelessIn.Yankeetown

Bottom line is "SHoot what you brung"!!! Same as Nextel Cup racing ought to be......"Run what you brung"!!! .204.....223....22-250....main deal is, just have fun!!!! The .204 in my opinion(opinions are like a....... all of us have one except about .0023% of the pop)is a serious, fun to shoot little varminter!! There have been 27,961, 478 prairie dogs shot with a .223.......am I going to wake them up and tell tem they ain't really dead because they were sho with an inferior cartridge????? NO!!! HAVE FUN GUYS!!!! There's a lot of varmints and a lot of paper that needs shootin!!!! GHD

Not to keep beating a putrifiying horse, but I believe the .204's trajectory adjantages due to smoke and mirrors

First of all, the velocities given are for 'top secret' powder blends only available to the factory. Reloads can't match factory without getting a little hot.

Second of all, the ballistic coeffiecents for .204 bullets are relatively high. I want to know why this is. Example: 40gr .204 BC= .275 Actual Sectional Density (see bottom *) =.175 For an equivalent actual sectional density for .224 50 gr=.180. The highes BC for 50gr bullets, .224 dia is .242

So, if this special powder blend was made available to reloaders, and bullets were made that had equivalent BC's, a .22-250 should be able to match velocities and trajectories with higher energy.

According to Digital Dan, above, and my own observation, ballistic coefficients generally go up as bullet diameter goes up because larger bullets are more efficient than smaller ones. If they can make a .204 buller with a .275 coefficient, why cant they make a .224 bullet with at least that much or more. I am not claiming that there has been a big conspiracy to keep the ballistic coefficenst for .22's low, but can anyone tell me why I'm wrong? Why can't they make higher BC 22's


*My 'actual sectional denisty' is based on the actual area of the bore, not the diameter squared, wich makes no sense to me anyway.

You get a hughvote for that proposition. 204 hype is similar to RUM hype, WSSM hype, 243 hype, 270 hype and Weatherby hype.

Man you have that right, over the years,say the last 40 to 50, we have had to wade through alot of hype about a lot of different cartridges for varmint hunting. Like the .17 Remington, 22-250 Rem., 220 swift, family of the .222's, the .223, the PPC and BR cases in different calibers, the .244 Rem., .243 Win. and so on and so on. Glad I stayed with a negative attitude and looked at all marketing and opinons as hype, just stayed with the old trusty sling shot and marbles, of course still have to listen to the hype on whose got the best marbles........ Michael

I got nothing against the .204. I even wanted one desparately for a awhile. Till I realized that reload data wasn't up to factory snuff. In my opinionn, the biggest advantage to a 204 is the recoil, or lack thereof. You supposedly can watch the hits through the scope. I can't do this with my 22-250. But, the .204 has not reinvented the wheel. I already got a 22-250, a 223, and a 17 hmr. So I don't have any holes to fill there.

MR. Sherlock. The WSSM line is the biggest load of hype I have ever seen. As for the others, people try to brag up the stuff they got I guess.

Most cartridges fill a niche somewhere. There are some new things today that are actual improvements. The 17 HMR for example. Most of the new things coming out today are duplicates of something else (25 WSSM = 25-06)or simply not needed at all (500 S&W). I don't think the 204 belongs in either category, but it doesn't escape by much.

Digital Dan: I never said you were my buddy! I hope you didn't get teary eyed when I didn't say that!
I did by the way, have tons of fun with my 204 Ruger Varminters on several recent outings! And I shot it along side several other 204's in the past several weeks. By the way for you 204 doubting thomases two of my close friends and several internet buddies are exceeding (with no pressure signs!) factory velocities with their 204 handloads!
It would be wise of you to give proper respect to the 204 - just saying you don't dislike it is evasive and ambiguous! It is a SENSATIONAL performer at the bench and in the Varmint and small game fields! I am getting into my third 204 Ruger calibered Rifle even as we speak and I am not easily fooled by advertising hype! I have been around so to speak! I am only impressed by real world performances!
I will without hesitation endorse the 204 Ruger for many proven reasons including the sensational trajectory and lack of wind drift (as commonly reffered to in shooting circles!), but also for its mild recoil, wonderful bullets available now, its wonderful and apparently inherent accuracy, its amazing lethality on all manner of Varmints and its easy on the pocket book. I also have not noticed a tendency to heat barrels abnormally quickly and the brass I have been using seems to not stretch unduly either!
The 204 Ruger is a wonderful (and amazing!) cartridge both in the field and at the range.
Give it its due!
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
Sincerely (your non-buddy!) VarmintGuy

quote:

It would be wise of you to give proper respect to the 204 - just saying you don't dislike it is evasive and ambiguous!

Sorry, I don't get emotional about cartridges or anthropormorphize them either. The .204 is just a wee brass gasket with a wee bullet designed for wee critters. No doubt it is effective within the limits imposed by BC, twist rate, expansion ratio, pressure and shooter's skill. Just like any other cartridge.

You're not my buddy? Oh darn! Well, that's one less Christmas card this year.

Have a nice life dude!

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:

It would be wise of you to give proper respect to the 204 ...

What's gonna happen to me if I don't?

500 grains: If you do not show proper respect for the 204 Ruger cartridge you will be diminishing yourself and missing out on one of the greatest new cartridges to come down the pike in decades!
And by showing this wonderful cartridge DISRESPECT you will be branded with having poor judgement, VERY poor judgement!
And if you do not show the 204 Ruger proper respect one of those large mountains to the east of you is gonna fall down on your punkin head!

Digital Dan: All bullets are affected by the parameters you describe - whats your point? Do you know right off hand a bunch of other small caliber cartridges that shoot as fast, buck the wind as well, has as flat a trajectory, has such splendid inherent accuracy and is as lethal on Varmints and small game as the 204 Ruger? Well do you ya buddy?
I have been VERY active in the small caliber centerfire arena for more than 40 years now and the 204 Ruger is just one helluva fantastic round!
I have tried them all (other small caliber centerfires) and this new 204 Ruger cartridge has attributes and performance that puts it at the very top of its class!
Light recoil, amazingly flat trajectory, amazing accuracy (all three of my factory 204 Varminters are splendidly accurate - as well as all the 204's my friends own and ones I have seen shoot at the range and in the field!), wonderful wind bucking attributes, it doesn't heat barrels overly quick, its economical to shoot (once brass is acquired anyway!) and the incredible lethality of this 204 Ruger on all manner of Varmints and small game makes it a true GEM of a cartridge.
More later GOOD BUDDY!
Come on you two dinosaur guys - get on board before the 204 Ruger train leaves you in the dust!
Long live the 204
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

The flintlock conquered the world.

NS, I just somehow never quite looked at it like that... just like a copperhead, staring me right in the eyes and I never saw it. Damn! Gonna have to get me one of those someday. Been looking for a quality .36 for about 10 years, no luck. Guess I should put my heart into it...and I will, just as soon as I work my way thru the Rigby syndrome.

I can't stand this anymore, they are both "POP GUNS". Ifr you are serious about shooting a hot 22 center fire get a 220 Swift or a 22 Cheetah.

End of this thread,LOL!

Jerry

Everyone is wrong....what is cool is the lack of recoil and speed the .204 has that allows you to see the results of the hit in the scope!! All of these rounds will kill just fine when pointed the right way, but not even the Hornet will allow you to SEE what happens when the bullet hits....NOW THAT IS COOL!!