Anyone own one and have any thoughts on this caliber.

I will use it mainly as a fun target gun.

The alternative is a threaded 223 barrel but I have numerous 223.

Thanks

Mike

I like mine. Real easy to load for. Have a Howa and an Encore barrel. Encore likes 32gr and Howa likes 40gr. These are VMaxes. A joy to shoot.

I have two Rem 700s in 204. Both are custom guns with Shilen barrels and mcmillan stocks. One is a heavy barrel used for PDs, the other a sporter used for coyotes. I have owned other Rem 700s in 204 and they were quite accurate.
It is a terrific cartridge in my view.

I've been shooting one since before reloading components were available. I consider mine the best varmint cartridge that I have ever shot and I've shot out the barrels of 6mm Remingtons and 22-250's. All I shoot now is prairie dogs and I shoot a heavy bullet 243 or a 6.5 for shots over 350 yds. 243 barrel life is way too short for my liking. I'm happy with my 204 out to 400 yds.

I love my .204 Savage FCV, but if I were going to do it again I'd spend the extra $$ and get a Savage LRPV.

My FCV favors the 39 grain Sierra Blitz King with either H-4895 or Varget. At long range, the BK is more accurate and flat shooting than lighter bullets. And it handles wind better.

It's death and destruction on ground squirrels, and the recoil is so light you can see your hits and misses.

I used to have a TC Encore barrel in 204R and it was a joy to shoot and easy to load for, but I lived in SW Kansas when I owned it and the prairie wind played real havoc with the light bullets shooting PDs very far. If you live somewhere other than the wind capitol of the world you will grin till your cheeks hurt shooting a 204.

Hi Guys
I have a CZ527 varmint and love it.I agree with B L O'Connor the Sierra 39gr Blitz King is the best of all the bullets I've tried.
Take care. Bill

The only downfall of the 204 is wind. On a calm day it is hot on the heels of my swift. Folds coyotes way better than you would think.

I don't have a .204, but do have both a .20 Vartarg (.20 Fireball) and a .20 Tactical (.20/.223 with minor case mods). For sheer fun I like shooting the .20 Vartarg, which tosses a 32 grain pill at 3400 fps with just a smidgeon of powder and rather low report. The .20 Tactical (which is virtually the equivalent of the .204 Ruger in velocity) provides just a little more range at the expense of more powder and noise, but still is superior to the .243's and 6mm's I used to shoot at longer range prairie dogs. Wind may push the little .204 bullets a bit further off course, but you'll have to compensate for wind with any caliber. If you have to hold off four inches with a 6mm but six inches with a .204, so what? Neither will hit with a dead-on hold and either will hit with the proper hold-off.

Unlike the .17's I've had no trouble with excessive bore fouling in my .20's. And, the less powder you shoot the longer the bore stays clean and the slower it heats. That's why the Vartarg gets more use, but like any rifle, it has its limits.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...9411043/m/4711078031

I have used most of the small caliber rifles and my favorite is the 20 cal. I have made 17-22's and the 204 Ruger is a fun gun to hunt critters. We shot a 220 Swift and found that we had to hold over about the same amount as the 204's.

I had to rebarrel the 204 Ruger in the write up and used the old barrel to fit up to an AR15. I quit using the 17 Rem and now have three 204 caliber rifles to use when I get back to shooting pretty soon. I wish that I had made the AR15 barrel into a 20 Tactical, but I had the 204 Ruger reamer.

The .204 is one of my favorite calibers. I have a Ruger 77, a Savage 11, and just recently built an AR version with a Wilson Combat match barrel. The AR shoots the 40 gr. Hornady's exceptionally well so I have not experimented with working up any other loads for it.

Lots of praise, and glad all are happy with the 204 but why, what does it have to offer over what we have had for ions...I see it as just another caliber in a class of many, but Ive never owned one or shot one and for this very reason, its just more of the same..If Im wrong convience me and I'll join the 204 club. I would have had to have one in my youth, like so many others anything new was a had to have, these days Im a skeptic I guess..been duked too many times by the firearms companies...

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Lots of praise, and glad all are happy with the 204 but why, what does it have to offer...

I'm in agreement here. In terms of ballistics, it doesn't do anything that can't be done better with a larger bullet. Ironically, the 204 is also usually more expensive to shoot. I have the same opinion about the 17 calibers too. The bullets are more expensive and I'd need to get a special cleaning rod to boot. For cheap/fun shooting, 22cal is hard to beat.

A friend has a 204 that he got a good deal on. It shoots well, but he's hoping the barrel burns out soon so he can put something else on. If you want a 20cal, I would suggest the 20-223. Easy and cheap to get brass and the rounds fit in a variety of guns/magazines made for the 223.

Unless you have owned or shot these small caliber rifles I don't see why the down play that they get. I have shot 17's since 1961. Now I shoot the 204's with the 39 gr bullets.

If there is no need for these small caliber rifles why are you shooting large bullets to kill small deer. The 3006 will kill anything in this part of the world. I would compare these small caliber rifles to the sport cars. They are small and fast!! IF you think slow and large bullets are the only way why are you driving a new pickup truck instead of the 1929 model A Ford?

I have a Ruger No 1 in .204; I used the washer trick to float the forearm and I am quite happy with its accuracy.

I shoot air rifles in .177, 5mm(.20 cal), and .22 cal. I consider the .20 cal as the best of both worlds between the .177 and .22 and years before the .204 Ruger, I thought a .20 cal centerfire rifle would be neat. I like the CZ because of it's weight, but can't get past the backwards safety to buy one. What would a .204 Ruger do that my .223's and .222's do? Probably nothing, but I think I'd like one.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
. . . What would a .204 Ruger do that my .223's and .222's do? Probably nothing, but I think I'd like one.

The 204's recoil is very mild and I can see bullet splashes more easily than with my .223s. I value this when shooting ground squirrels. Chunkage is more easily spotted, too!

That's it--no more harsh recoil from my .222 and .223.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
The only downfall of the 204 is wind. On a calm day it is hot on the heels of my swift. Folds coyotes way better than you would think.

40 gr .204 bullets have a better BC than either .224 or .243 varmint weight bullets.

That translates into better wind resistance.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:
40 gr .204 bullets have a better BC than either .224 or .243 varmint weight bullets.

From what I can see they have the same BC as 50-55gr 22 caliber stuff, and cost the same or more. The popularity of 22cal means there are many more options and prices are often better.

.204 39gr sierra BK .270G1 -- .224 55gr sierra BK .271G1
.204 40gr hornady vmax .275G1 -- .224 53gr hornady vmax .290G1
.204 40gr nosler BT .239G1 -- .224 50gr nosler BT .238G1 -- .243 55gr nolser BT .276G1

Know how fast you can push a 55gr bullet in a regular old fashioned 243?

Maybe if they were half the price I could see an advantage, but I'm not seeing it. I've shot the 204 ruger, and it works fine. I would not buy one for myself though.

i have a couple 204's (and 17's) and love being able to blow the snot out of a pd and see it in the scope

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
i have a couple 204's (and 17's) and love being able to blow the snot out of a pd and see it in the scope

That's why I love it! Great chunkage and you can see and enjoy the exploding ground squirrels undisturbed by recoil! What's not to love?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
That's it--no more harsh recoil from my .222 and .223.

Harsh recoil? I was talking about optimizing visualization of my hits and misses! I've found it's easier to spot for bullet strikes with my .204 than with my .223s.

The recoil of neither caliber is "harsh" (sarcasm noted) but one is less than the other and seeing chunkage makes shooting my .204 particularly enjoyable to me.

BLO'Connor--Thanks for the input---my harsh recoil was humor.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
BLO'Connor--Thanks for the input---my harsh recoil was humor.

Fair 'nuff. It's hard for me to tell sometimes and I've been known over react.

I'll lift a beer or 2 for you tonight! Hic!

True, a .20 caliber won't do anything in the varminting field that any number of centerfire .22's will not do, but then neither will the .22's do anything that a 6mm or .25-06 won't also do.

The difference is that a .20 will do it quieter, with less powder, and with less recoil to disturb your sight picture. Until the prairie dogs get out well past 300 yards I prefer my diminuative .20 Vartarg to anything larger.

But mainly the best rationale for owning a .20 caliber is to have a flimsy but adequate justification for buying yet another rifle

Never shot one myself. I have a friend who has one. He absolutely loves it.

If you want to try something different use the Nikon P-223 3X9X40 BDC 600. There is a AP from Nikon called Spot On and it can be used on almost all calibers to compare results between any load for the 204 Ruger or other calibers.

Small caliber rifles are much more fun to use in the field if you are carrying on the shoulders. Try using a large bore rifle with lots of powder pushing a heavy bullets and you will be wanting a light recoil rifle. We ran a study of these calibers in the field. 17 Rem, 223, 22-250, 243 win, 220 Swift, and 25 06

You can miss just as well with any of these rifles if the range is past 300 yds. It is a guessing game on where to hold to hit the target. Wind, velocity , and range are all a factor. The 204 Ruger has the least amount of drop out to 500 yds. I will always be a small bore fan.

I am really looking forward to getting the 204 tiger barrel for my blaser.

Thanks for all the info.

Mike

I like mine, too. It is quiet, no recoil, and very accurate. IT's only weakness is that when you kill a groundhog w/ it, the groundhog cooperates by dying, but doesn't tell you he is dead. I end up shooting them twice.

I have a sporter and a heavy barrel.
Both very accurate Rem 700s
The heavy barrel gets PD work and is outstanding for that
The sporter is used on coyotes. It works well but if I could have only one coyote gun, it would be a bigger bullet.

I guess I've aged myself, my favorite varmint round be it for P dogs or coyotes is my old Rem 722 or 600, both in .222 Rem..I do have a 6x45 SAko custom walk about 5 lb. varmint gun, but use it mostly for deer, antelope and for a fun gun..I remember the early craze for the 220 Swift with the 48 gr. factory ammo, man did a lot of deer bite the dust with that one, probably still do..

Ray if you were a little closer I'd just bring you my .204 and let you try it. What did you use before the .222? I've shot all of it back to the 25-20 single shot. If I could just have one rifle right now it would be the .204. I've seen less than 1/2" groups at 300 yds with a couple of 'em shooting Berger 40 grain bullets.

The first time my dad shot my 204 (and we have .222s, 22-250s and .243s) at a groundhog, with just the top of its head out just barely out of the hole, at the shot dad said that he thought he saw the top of its head fly apart. I said you probably did. We walked over there and the groundhog had slid back down the hole and the top of its head was just gone. His next rifle was a 204.

Have the 204, use when calling varmints.