quote:

Originally posted by Henry Buck:
I'm very serious...I just got back from Africa where I used the 204 Ruger exclusively on 247 elephants and close to 3600 cape buffalo.

All at ranges of 700 to 1000 yards, all shot in the butt, all instantaneous one shot kills.

I quit shooting plains game with the 204 because there was nothing left but a few bits of hair and horn of the numerous eland, kudu, wildebeest and various other assorted antelope.

I was shooting the plains game at an average range of 1500 yards with open sights. No wind drift, no adjustments to my open sights as the 204 is dead on from 1 yard to just over 8 miles, which is the farthest I shot any animal; a trophy dikdik which tipped the scales at 12 lbs and right at 15 inches at the shoulder. Like I said a real trophy and well worth an 8 mile shot.

The 204 really is magic as you can tell!

You are a remarkable marksman a true testment to the 204s power and laser beam killing ability. I can,t believe this thread.

Hoeram

quote:

Originally posted by Henry Buck:
I'm very serious...I just got back from Africa where I used the 204 Ruger exclusively on 247 elephants and close to 3600 cape buffalo.

All at ranges of 700 to 1000 yards, all shot in the butt, all instantaneous one shot kills.

I quit shooting plains game with the 204 because there was nothing left but a few bits of hair and horn of the numerous eland, kudu, wildebeest and various other assorted antelope.

I was shooting the plains game at an average range of 1500 yards with open sights. No wind drift, no adjustments to my open sights as the 204 is dead on from 1 yard to just over 8 miles, which is the farthest I shot any animal; a trophy dikdik which tipped the scales at 12 lbs and right at 15 inches at the shoulder. Like I said a real trophy and well worth an 8 mile shot.

The 204 really is magic as you can tell!

Well, that settles it then. I've owned a couple swifts and neither of them can do that. I guess the .204 R is better than the 220 S for sure.

btw guys, my comment:

"Long live the 221 Fireball."

Was taken from a post VG wrote on another thread where he proclaimed the benefits of that cartridge... I must be getting old... I thought it was supposed to be 'long live the 204...'

Is VG really 'with it'...?

Woohoo!!! We made 8 pages!!!!

VarmintGuy:

You question anyone who has not used the .204; you have said numerous times that once you try it, you will be amazed.

At the same time, you say you will never shoot heavy bullets in a Swift. Why not? The wind drift of a 75 grain bullet at 3200 fps is less than half of 33 grain .204 bullet at 4000 fps (using a range of 450 yards).

There isn't a target shooter alive who believes velocity offsets BC. Getting high velocity is great, but not at the expense of BC.

So why don't you take your own advice and just try the .220 Swift with heavy bullets?

Henry Buck ,
See you're from the same state as VG .
You boys should get your drinking water tested . It's affecting your vision . Mind you , I did hear that there was something else can make you go blind if you do it too often ... Could be that !
Reckon those were field mice you were shooting in the butt at 50 yards not elephants at 1000 .

Please ship all of your antequated (antique) 220 Swifts to me, I'll properly dispose of them for you..............

Bushchook,

I can't believe that you would think any part of my story was anything but pure, unadulterated truth.

VG has stated the .204 is magic, wonderful and amazing so my experiences must be true.

I would never shoot mice in the butt at 50 yards, though I have hit them using the .204 after my shot passed lengthways through a pachyderm at a measured 1067 yards.

The .204 makes you telepathic and I could sense the mouse behind the elephant and made the shot.

Gee...

VarmintGuy has gone very quiet lately..??

Have we made 9 pages yet?

My take on it.. with the 204 ruger you can spot your own hits, use less fuel to do so, and it kills the varmints dead.

Now, the 220 swift does the same thing, uses more fuel, has to have a muzzle break (more noise), and kills the varmints dead.

It an old cartridge against a new one..


Now if you use a light bullet, 40 grains, you can just as well use the 204 ruger.
If you use a heavy bullet for more "mist effect", 55grain, you can just as well use a 6BR or 243 Win. Uses almost the same amount of fuel.

The swift and 22-250 is in between the 204 and the 243..

If I have walking varminter rifle, I would much rather have a rifle where I can spot my hits/misses.. And if I have a bench gun, I would rather have a rifle that I can shoot for "hours" before the mirrage is to much.

My choise woud be a 20 Practical and a 6mm Dasher.

I'd rather take one good LONG shot than 3 dozen short ones. I actually find the .22 CB short more than adequate around the house. I ignore the wind here in the 'hood.

Varmintguy,
I think you've gone over the edge on this one! I personally use a 22/250 Ackley Improved for my deer hunting chores and is the ballistic twin of the .220 Swift.
You wave the flag for the .204 Ruger and while it has it's place in our world, it's not the last word. The .220 Swift has been killing deer and elk, as well as assorted other targets since 1934 and doing it with authority, try that with your .204 Ruger. The .204 would be at home in a high volumn shooting situation but Ruger didn't re-invent the wheel.
The way you go off on some(most) of your rants, i'd have to conclude that most were concocted during happy hour.
Parker Ackley was killing Elk with the .220 Swift when you were still in knickers. 8 pages and still counting, you have too much time on your hands. It must be that "body guarding" is a little slow?
Stepchild

Well , since you folks are goin' for 9 pages , might as well stir up the pot some.

So now now the good old 220 is a sure nuff elk gun???jeez , and they claim us 204 fans are over the line(grin)

Ruger user , if you ever find some more of those 100 lb doggies that need killin' , you might give this new 204 load a try.........


http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=348


I'm bettin it would do the job if you slip it into the boiler room .

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Well , since you folks are goin' for 9 pages , might as well stir up the pot some.

So now now the good old 220 is a sure nuff elk gun???jeez , and they claim us 204 fans are over the line(grin)

Ruger user , if you ever find some more of those 100 lb doggies that need killin' , you might give this new 204 load a try.........


http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=348


I'm bettin it would do the job if you slip it into the boiler room .

If you ain't tried it, don't KNOCK IT.
Stepchild 2

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Well , since you folks are goin' for 9 pages , might as well stir up the pot some.

So now now the good old 220 is a sure nuff elk gun???jeez , and they claim us 204 fans are over the line(grin)

Ruger user , if you ever find some more of those 100 lb doggies that need killin' , you might give this new 204 load a try.........


http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=348


I'm bettin it would do the job if you slip it into the boiler room .

Sdgunslinger,
Just out of curiosity, what is the largest critter you have ever bagged?
Stepchild

Stepchild2: I think you have joined P. Water now in being "out to lunch" - so to speak!
The 204 Ruger vs 220 Swift debate I am taking part in is the ballistic superiority and "better Varmint cartridge" dispute.
I choose not to partake in the 204 Ruger vs. 220 Swift "for Elk Hunting" exchange!
For obvious reasons!
It makes no differnece what so ever when a cartridge was first produced (Swift 1934?) as to its ballistic superiority nor to its all around proficiency on Varmints!
Things invented recently have in fact on numerous occassions (hundreds of thousands of times?) surpassed in effectiveness and efficiency, the things they replaced! Newer is not always better but very often that certainly is the case, i.e., word processor's vs manual typewriters, E-mail vs. snail mail, telescopic sights vs. open sights, Corvettes vs. Model T's, 204 Ruger vs. 220 Swift, etc etc etc!
I reject completely your older is better inference along with using the 204 Ruger and 220 Swift on Elk!
Long live the wonderful and NEW 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Sdgunslinger,
Just out of curiosity, what is the largest critter you have ever bagged?
Stepchild

Not sure with what my personal experience has to do with the Swift being an elk gun , but since you ask ,
the largest "critter" would be an 1800 lb bull I had to put down . The largest wild game I can recall personally pulling the trigger on would be a couple of whitetails that would have went about 300 lbs on the hoof .

I've been elk hunting but never had a shot . Was on hand when my pardner killed a bull with a 270 and 130 gr core'locks .

I guess VG chooses again to ignore my data on the wind drift of 75 grain Swift bullets...

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
[QUOTE]Sdgunslinger,
Just out of curiosity, what is the largest critter you have ever bagged?
Stepchild

Not sure with what my personal experience has to do with the Swift being an elk gun , but since you ask ,
the largest "critter" would be an 1800 lb bull I had to put down . The largest wild game I can recall personally pulling the trigger on would be a couple of whitetails that would have went about 300 lbs on the hoof .

I've been elk hunting but never had a shot . Was on hand when my pardner killed a bull with a 270 and 130 gr core'locks .[/QUOT

1800 Pounds???? Give me a break??? 800 maybe
Stepchild 2

An 1800 lb BEEF bull as in a bovine type critter .

Get it ?

Man I have been out doing some hunting with my 17 Remington and have not been on the site for awhile and can't belive this is still going! man this post is kinda like Herpes, you might think it's getting better then it pops back up. While I'm not a Swift fan nor a 204 fan I have shot them both and I still go back to my little ol' 17 Remington. I guess to get 9 pages out of this post I could say that the 17 Remington beats them both! but hey I'm not that way. Later,

Kirk

Well for those who are Swift fans.. why not use a 224 Vais?

80 grain bullet at 3800fps... its better than the swift. But again, uses more powder to do so. Is it better?

The 204 ruger (and other 204 calibers) does what the 220 Swift does with 40 grain bullets.

The 6BR or 243 does what the 220 Swift does with 55 grain bullets.


The Swift is a classy cartridge, but not the best in its game. Are we talking most shoots put downrange in one day? Or most explosive on game?

Now the 17 Mach IV beats the Remington.. (with ligther bullets )

Nortman:

I think you are trolling, LOL! While efficiency may be important to you, to others it is neither fish nor foul, at least as to powder charge!

AZ writer: They don't want any facts in this thread, I have also posted credable facts and evidence,as to the 220 Swift, and they have been ignored. You know what? I think it is because we are from Arizona! The great thing is, that this post has been viewed ever 6400 times!!

Hey Dan, as always you hit the nail on the head!
Great Posts!

Jerry

Nortman:

Please tell me more about the .224 Vias. That thing would be a long range cartridge extrodinaire.

AnotherAZ: Sorry, the 224 Vais. Here: http://www.muzzlebrakes.com/articles.htm

The article from April 1998.

Im trying to find info about the 6mm Vais, wich almost duplicates 6mm Remingtion. Its just a 6x5x55 swede necked down. You get very nice Lapua brass by the way!


jerry: Im trolling a bit The swift its like the 30-06. Can do a little of everything, but not not best at anything. Or is that taking this tread to another direction?

Ok I am with KSMIRK 17S are just plain cool

VG I have a 20-222imp that will run with 200fps of a 204 Ruger with aprox 10 grains less powder. Is mine better???

If it is who really cares? Me I really like it. Wanna know why I did not go with a 204? Cause in 6 months every Tom, Dick and Harry would have three of them. Stupid? maybe. Next wildcat 6mm-250IMP, why? Performance I want, premium brass and custom bullets. I am begining to think you just like to argue. LOL I bet this thread goes 9 pages.

Long live the 14 Eipperson Criket to the 600 Overkill and everything in between

Blueprinted: No, it's not better than the 204 Ruger!
And, are you asking me if the reason you bypassed obtaining a Rifle in 204 Ruger caliber BECAUSE "every Tom, Dick and Harry has one" is "stupid" - then yes I agree with you, that reasoning is "stupid"!
I find no credible aspect to that kind of decision making - what so ever!
Everyone likes them and everyone is buying one (or 3 or 4?) so you have to be contrary and NOT like them?
Explain that if you can - a little better please.
If I understand your somewhat confusing post correctly, I contend you are not making a rational assessment!
At least not one that I can detect anyway.
It appears you are more interested in being "contrary" for contaries sake, than you are in appreciating and making a fair assessment of a superb cartridge - the 204 Ruger?
Puzzling that!
Yes I do enjoy "arguing" especially when it comes to "correcting" folks like yourself who discredit cartridges they have no practical knowledge of or experience with!
Long live the wonderful 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I was just now perusing my brand new Remington Arms Catalog (2,006) and came across some "puzzling" (definitive?) ballistic comparisons regarding the 204 Ruger vs. the 220 Swift!
Puzzling and not really entirely credible in this discussion we are having. Entirely not credible because we are also considering handloaded bullets in these two calibers (204 Ruger and 220 Swift). But still worth consideration to a certain degree!
The Centerfire Ballistics page (page 81) of this 2,006 Remington Catalog shows the 204 Ruger Remington loading with 32 and 40 grain bullets having a 28.9" and 28.1" drop (respectively) at 500 yards when sighted in at 200 yards. This compares to a 46.1" drop for the 50 grain 220 Swift loading (also at 500 yards when sighted in at 200 yards!).
The 18" flatter trajectory of the 204 loadings versus the 220 Swift loading I at first assumed was a "typo"! Until I perused the speed at which the Remington 220 Swift factory loading was achieving (3,780 FPS).
This is a "modest" loading I thought and I verified it by going to my latest Nosler Loading Manual. The Nosler Manual listed 3 (three) loads that go over 3,900 FPS with their 50 grain offered bullet.
In other words the safe loads for 50 grain bullets from a 220 Swift should at least achieve 3,900 FPS (120+ FPS higher than the Remington load).
Still the definitive consensus of all sources gives the ballistic nod of superiority to the 204 Ruger over the 220 Swift! Just not as dramatic a superiority that is shown in the 2,006 Remington Catalog on page 81!
The original contention of this thread is still correct - the 204 beats the 220 Swift.
I offer these observations of the Remington ballistic chart regarding the 204 Swift and the 220 Swift not so much as additional evidence of the 204's superiority (more evidence is really not needed - is it?) over the Swift but as an observation that Remington has what they consider "safe" and marketable loadings for these 2 cartridges - and the 204 Ruger vastly bests the 220 Swift there also!
Cummins cowboy was and is entirely correct in his initial postings observations!
Long live the wonderful 204 Ruger cartridge!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy, I have this all figured out, you seem to have some issue with folks that don't think the same as you! hell I find the 204 to be an ok round along with the Swift but just casue they are ok rounds does not mean that I gotta have one! and I dang sure don't have to have one because you got a chubby over the 204, hell the more you rant a rave over it the more I figure you have nothing better to do than to bitch and moan, why not get out and do some hunting with that glorious 204 and quit punching keys?
Now while the 204 is a great little round Blueprinted seems to like something a little more exotic over the boring run of the mill stuff so give him some credit for stepping outside the box and doing something different than every Tom, Dick, Harry, and VarmintGuy! just think when you finally figure out the arguing over something that is truly personnal preference and that while you can figure out how to make a chart look good to satisfy your point of view (you must be an accountant) your just full of shit! hell you want to compare some apples, pears, and a cherry we can pull out all the stops and make your perfect 204 round look like a turd among a field of diamonds becuase there are many rounds out there that will flat out run cicles around your 204, it has been proven in this post several times now and while you will not accept the fact that your favorite round is not the best it just proves that you have no rational thinking skills or you are a woman! Now why don't you go take that glorious 204 or the 3 or 4 you own and see how far those barrels will fit up your butt and let us all get back to some good information that is helpful to everyone not just giving you a chubby for an argument. Now don't go away mad just go away! Have a lovely day.

Kirk

quote:

Originally posted by Ksmirk:
I could say that the 17 Remington beats them both! but hey I'm not that way.
Kirk

You could say it?
Actually, you just did.
and i'll second the motion.

Ksmirk: I killed 3 different species of Varmints just yesterday (March 14th) and plan on killing some more Varmints later this week as well!
Speak not of which you have no knowledge there Ksmirk or you will prove yourself the fool!
Not that you need any help but do the folks in Oklahoma also berate and bemoan fine things "just because every Tom, Dick and Harry owns one"!
You also fail to substantiate the reasoning behind that strange way of thinking!
Perhaps you have a bit of "contrary" in you as well - kinda like Blueprinted there!
If you Oklahomans denigrate and berate cartridges just because other people already own them and profess their happiness with them then maybe you do have some traits in common with ol'Blueprinted and those traits are not very admirable!
So, then Ksmirk, you forgot one important thing in your attempt (lame as it was) in besmirching the 204 Ruger! Facts, figures and real life experience would perhaps lend some creedence to your baseless blather.
One important thing you forgot to mention - which cartridge do you prefer over the 204 Ruger as an all around best Varmint cartridge!
Now remember before you try to answer this simple and straight forward inquiry - Varmints come in all different kinds of shapes, sizes, speeds, terrain, times of the day (including night time!) and they also come in varying numbers of opportunities per day and at varying distances and often appear on windy and inclement times of the day! Also remember the other various qualities the "all around best" Varmint cartridge must have - including inherent accuracy, efficiency, flat trajectory, wind bucking ability, a volume of recoil that allows the lone Hunter to see his hits and misses! Not to mention it must have an inherent lethality that has been proven afield on many species of Varmints and small game (like I have done!).
Answer carefully, if you can, there Ksmirk, as I have quite a fair amount of Varminting experience under my belt with most every Varmint caliber offered by US factories along with quite a few Wildcats!
I have been killing Varmints with firearms for 50 years now.
My all time Varmint brought to bag list is quite long and these Varmints have been taken with MANY different firearms and cartridges!
No, Ksmirk, to the contrary (if you do not mind me pointing out more of your shortcomings/errors?) no one has made a valid point showing superiority of any safe 220 Swift load being superior to safe 204 loads!
If YOU want to hot rod any caliber that is your choice but you must be prepared to suffer the detrimental and risky factors that go along with hotrodding Varmint calibers - things like loose primer pockets, case head seperations, excessive throat erosion, excessive barrel wear, wasted money and even some conditions that are dangerous to ones personal safety.
Thats one reason why I pointed out the factory loading of the Swift by the Remington folks and compared that to the same factory and their loadings for the 204 Ruger!
Similar chamber pressures there maybe, back at the Remington labs - and the resulting 18" flatter trajectory of the 204 over the Swift!
Aaahh.... what don't you understand about that Ksmirk? Visualize if you can the corresponding superior wind bucking ability of the 204 in this single comparison as well.
Or maybe you are looking past relevant facts and figures to get to where you already have your mind made up to be?
I have a small fleet of Swift Rifles and have enjoyed shooting them for many decades now (since the late sixties!) and believe me when I tell you Ksmirk, the 204 Ruger is not only ballistically superior to the Swift it is more accurate, has a flatter trajectory and has better wind bucking ability out to as far as I care to shoot Varmints and small game (500 yards!).
So many of the attributes of the 204 Ruger also enable the Varmint/small game Hunter to make more hits in the field (review the facts and figures I have posted here and elsewhere) and more hits means more fun and more Varmints and small game brought to bag!
Pooh-pooh that if you wish and call people names but you have not posted one fact, figure or experience you have had with your 204 Rifle or that is published by reputable sources to prove otherwise!
Your posting is empty and bereft!
But then Ksmirk MAYBE you also do not have any significant firsthand field and range experience with a 204 Ruger Rifle AT ALL?
Looking forward to your answer there Ksmirk!
He-he!
By the way, I am not going anywhere there Ksmirk, it is simply to easy and to much fun humiliating egotistical turds like yourself with facts, figures and real life range and field experiences!
Long live the wonderful and efficient 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy wroye:

"Varmints come in all different kinds of shapes, sizes, speeds, terrain, times of the day (including night time!)"

To me, a fallow deer is a varmint - try putting one of those down with a 204 at 400yds!!

My 'ideal' varmint cartridge? Whatever does the job...

here is what I used for comparison
204 ruger 32grn vmax@ 4225 BC is .210

220 swift, 50 grain vmax@3950 BC is .242

Sight both for 250 yards........

204 gets to 500 with 395 ft lbs , 25 inches drop and 24.8 inch wind deflection(10mph)

Swift gets to 500 sith 490 ft lbs , 26.3 inch drop and 27.1 wind deflection .

204 ruger
32 vmax 4225 fps
Max point blank range 351yds
500 yds: drop 29.4 windage (10mph) 32.4 energy 248

40 vmax 3900 fps
Max point blank range 348yds
500 yds: drop 28.4 windage (10mph) 24.9 energy 394.7

.22-250 rem
40 Bal tip 4200 fps
Max point blank range 354yds
500 yds: drop 28.5 windage (10mph) 30.4 energy 336

220 Swift
40 Bal tip 4477 fps
Max point blank range 372yds
500 yds: drop 24.5 windage (10mph) 28.0 energy 443

220 Swift
55 Bal tip 3896 fps
Max point blank range 345yds
500 yds: drop 29.1 windage (10mph) 25.9 energy 519

VarmintGuy, while I'm at work right now I'll see if I can't get some more information this evening, now would you like me to just throw some data together or would you like a true compairison? if you would like a TRUE compairison it ain't gonna happen! why you ask, I'm not going to shoot a 32gr. bullet out of a Swift, if so I'm sure it would be in the neighborhood of 4700 - 4900fps or shot a 55gr. in a 204 so the compairison is a waste of time. Now while you tried to read into my post some other things to get your argument chubby I never tried to say anything bad about either of the rounds nor did I say anything to support one or the other (read it again) now as far as the perfect varmint round I would have to say the 22-250 Remington! why you ask, light recoil but it is more than your 204, you can buy rounds for it about anywhere in the nation, it does a heck of job and has proven itself for anything up to and including hogs, deer, and I'm sure many more so called varmints. I personnally like my 17 Remington and I have killed things up to and including deer with this round, while not the best I feel for this feat it worked! I would not do it again due to the errors that can happen in true field conditions. Now if you can find some information for your 204 Ruger with some 55gr. bullets please post it so that a true compairison between the 204 and Swift can be made! hell my 17 Remington has the same ballistics as my 22-250 but the 17 is firing a 20gr. V-Max and the 22-250 is firing a 55gr. bullet so does that mean due to less powder the 17 Remington is better than the 22-250? if you think so I feel that you may need some serious help but then again you mentioned 50 years of varmint hunting so I could see where you could possibly be set in your ways and are probably used to getting what you want so if you would like to argue the point of the 204 being superior to anything do a compairison with apples to apples, put a 32gr. pill in a Swift and then compair the 2 or stick a 40gr. pill in each (yes they make 40gr. for both) then lets see what the numbers come out to?

Kirk

Is it just me, or is this whole thread about trying to justify the 204? If varmit guy is sold on the 204 then I think thats great. I have fired one at the range and it wasnt my cup of tee personally. i read tons ar articles on it and for the money there are alot of cartridges i would put in front of it because my uses are different than other peoples are. I think this thread would finally die if we could all admit that the 220 swift has earned its place in the gun cabinet and the 204 is a good round as well. I recommend the 204 guys stop trying do frown upon the old proven 220 swift and the swift guys stop downplaying the new 204 . Let its performance make it or break it. Wow this whole thread seems like quite a waste personally.

gunz, you hit the nail on the head! while the 204 might be the new kid on the block does not mean that it's the best! The Swift has that class about it being it has been around for years and was the first to bust 4K, now while I don't feel the need for a 204, 220 Swift or others for what I do my little ol'AR in 223 does just fine and the 17 Remington I have is to my liking, if it gets bigger I have the choice of 308 or 6.5x55 another classic. I have owned several 22-250's and they did a fine job but just didn't fit the bill for what I wanted, nothing wrong with ANY caliber it just needs to fit in for what I do with it.
Yes this thread is just a pissin' contest and is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog but hey ya gotta admit it is kinda fun have we got to 9 pages yet?

Kirk

This thread is almost funny!!! Everyone has there own opinions and favorite calibers...The part that is almost funny is that some call others names over this debate....Hell That is funny. I have both the calibers mentioned in this thread...For my intents and purposes they both have there place...I like shooting both...One has advantages that I prefer over the other...and the same with the other. So I say if others opinions make you mad, call them names!!! I think it is funny!!!

It just kinda comes across as someone trying to convience himself and everyone else that he has a good rifle. I could really care less. i too shoot a 223 for varmit and such just because it is inexpensive and easy to come by brass. just cause I like it dont make it the best. I think that varmit guy would get alot more appreciation if he just boasted up his gun and quit trying to knock everyone elses. ERither way this is my last time coming to this aprticular thread and my last post on it so maybe it will go away and we can get back to the business of firearms instead of egos.

Gunz, and others...I'm not tryin' to stir the pot here( ), but I'm thinking the .223 is a great and superior round to the .204. Now I know that 1 sample is shaky for statistical analysis but I watched a single shot from an M-16 drop an ele...bang/flop*. I dare say it is a feat unequaled by the .204, but that is uncertain...being more of a supposition. JME.

Dan

PS: I dunno if the Swift woulda done that, but suspect so. Problem with the .204 is there are no FMJs available at the moment that I know of...

*Quang Nai Provence, Viet Nam. March 1970. It was pink too, but that was pretty common over there.

Now the "giant killer" 223 is good for elephants , whilst the lowly 204 is barely adequate for field mice , I suppose . No full metal jacket available for the lowly 20 calibers , you know .

Keep it coming boys , we may flog this dead horse to 10 pages yet (grin)

Rugeruser: I have to admit you stretching the "Fallow Deer" into being a typical Varmint is symbolic of many of you "204 naysayers" and detractors, agendas!
In other words stretch reality to fit your pre-conceived mind set no matter what the reality is!
I just checked on several Rocky Mountain States Game Departments websites and none of them list the "Fallow Deer" as a Varmint NOR as Big Game for that matter!
Sheesh! Talk about distortion and stretching things! Rugeruser - you are nearing title status!
No the 204 Ruger cartridge would not be my first choice on medium size Big Game like Fallow Deer at 400 yards!
Sheesh!
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy