204 ruger

[300rum]

Hi all.

I am thinking of getting a 204 ruger for fox shooting has any body got any feed back on them how do you rate them.

[Guest topshot_2k]

never used one myself but heard good things about them

[Dekers]

Used one a bit and researched them a lot, they tend to be very ammo fussy and the odds are you will either get a good one or a bad one, many owners are passionate about how good they are, a few tend to keep quiet about the costly mistake they made with them!!

 

A flagpole of a barrel and a bit of luck seems essential to reach its full potential!

 

Good luck!

[al4x]

they're good on fox and vermin and very flat shooting but obviously you can't use them on muntjac so if there is any chance you'll be doing any go for a .22 cf

[JackReady]

Used one a bit and researched them a lot, they tend to be very ammo fussy and the odds are you will either get a good one or a bad one, many owners are passionate about how good they are, a few tend to keep quiet about the costly mistake they made with them!!

 

A flagpole of a barrel and a bit of luck seems essential to reach its full potential

 

Same here. Took a long hard look at them when they were first launched. Factory ammo is expensive and you'll get no where near the Hornady velocities if home loading as they use a special powder not available commercially.

 

Bearing the above in mind the .22-250 and the .22Swift will out perform it on the down range ballistic, and they are easier to reload for. If you want a really flat shooting 250m foxing rifle the 17 Rem is the solution. Just leave it at home on windy nights.

Edited May 24, 2010 by JackReady

[Colster]

A better bet would seem to be .22-250 or .223, reasonably flat shooting and devastating on fox and small deer legal (Muntjac and CWD). Shouldn't dismiss the humble muntjac, no closed season and very tasty eating.

 

The other advantage of the .22-250/.223 is the availability of ammo and guns.

[JackReady]

A better bet would seem to be .22-250 or .223, reasonably flat shooting and devastating on fox and small deer legal (Muntjac and CWD). Shouldn't dismiss the humble muntjac, no closed season and very tasty eating.

 

The other advantage of the .22-250/.223 is the availability of ammo and guns.

 

.223 has the worst down range ballistics when compared to the .22-250 and the .22swift. Only the .70 year old .222 has worse.

[CharlieT]

Hi all.

I am thinking of getting a 204 ruger for fox shooting has any body got any feed back on them how do you rate them.

 

 

I have a .204 and a .22.50.

 

I always pick up the .204, in the field it will do all the 22.250 will do and is a joy to shoot. For a foxing and vermin round cost is not an issue and I have never found it difficult in any way to find ammo for it. It's a devastatingly accurate round and 32gr and 40gr shoot equally well in my rifle. Have not yet tried 39's but by all accounts if you have a rifle that wont shoot 40's they should.

 

I've had it nearly 4 years now and love it.

 

However, if I was you I would believe all the detractors who have not owned one because I would like to keep this great little round a secret. Just spread the word.........they ain't no good.

[al4x]

Exactly Charlie, if you're not going to be shooting muntjac at any stage they make sense.

[JackReady]

, in the field it will do all the 22.250 will do

 

Try shooting it at 200m with a 15mph full value wind, and see where your 32 gr bullet drifts off to.

[CharlieT]

Try shooting it at 200m with a 15mph full value wind, and see where your 32 gr bullet drifts off to.

 

 

Bit unfair to compare the 32gr with a 55gr.

 

However if, you compare say a 39gr with a 55gr which is a fairer comparison you will find that the BC of the 39gr .204 is slightly higher than the .22.250 and that the .204 suffers less wind drift then the 22.250.

 

Mind you does not really matter because in a 15 mph wind you are going to have to dial in for it so another 1/2in or so matters little.

[300rum]

Thanks every one for all the information on the 204 i think i might give one a try all i want it for is fox shooting only as the brass is not to expensive and it doesnt use to much powder to reload. as the calibres i use now uses alot of powder and the brass is very expensive £35 for 20 cases just to shoot fox especialy this time of year when the cubs are out.

[Dunkield]

.223 has the worst down range ballistics when compared to the .22-250 and the .22swift. Only the .70 year old .222 has worse.

There are probably a few million dead foxes, deer and people who would say that fact doesn't really count for much in the real world

[al4x]

probably time to spend less time on ballistics tables and reading and get out shooting as certainly my .223 with its worst downrange performance seems to have accounted for a fair few foxes so far and certainly I'm yet to find one that likes it up them so to speak

 

If you've much bigger deer legal guns then it sounds like a perfect fun round for you,

Edited May 25, 2010 by al4x

[Colster]

I'd agree with Alyx, I looked a while ago at the .204 and if I wanted a rifle purely for foxing then it would likely be top of the list but I have probably more muntjac than foxes on my permissions (or the landowner has his own reasons for not wanting the foxes shot ) so it would more likely have to be .22-250 or .223 or go the whole hog and go .243

[JackReady]

There are probably a few million dead foxes, deer and people who would say that fact doesn't really count for much in the real world

 

You could say that about the .22lr but I wouldn't want to have to use one for foxing. Just because the yanks and the brits have expended trillions of rounds since the AR15 came into service in order to kill a few thousand people doesn't make the calibre an first class choice. Unless your only consideration is a supply of cheap one fired brass.

[JackReady]

If you've much bigger deer legal guns then it sounds like a perfect fun round for you,

 

Not really. I firmly believe the germans have got the best criteria for determining suitability of calibre in regards to the small deer species. .222 and .223 are considered unsuitable. The minimum is .22-250 or 5.6X57

[Mr_Logic]

Jack, I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but it sounds like the web to me. Let me tell you about the real world...

 

204 Ruger - good round. But needs 26 inch barrel due to velocity loss. I had a 22 inch barrel Howa which shot 32gr ammo accurately but only the same speed as 223 shoots 40gr, give or take. Give it 26 inch and 39gr Blitzkings and you're away. I got a rifle that did not shoot 40s, nobody had 39s. So I sold it, and carried on killing foxes with 223 and 22 Hornet.

 

Which leads us neatly to ballistics. You are right when you say 204 is better than 223 on paper. If you're an American shooting varmints from your table under your parasol, then it matters. But on a 200-yard fox, no big deal. I can kill foxes just as well at night with my 223, and it has better ammo availability and more versatility.

 

Which leads us nicely to muntjac. I've shot plenty enough to know that 223 works, and that if I was allowed, so would Hornet. For crying out loud - they're legal on roe in Scotland, and they work well there, too! That's the real world...

[JackReady]

Jack, I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but it sounds like the web to me. Let me tell you about the real world...

 

204 Ruger - good round. But needs 26 inch barrel due to velocity loss. I had a 22 inch barrel Howa which shot 32gr ammo accurately but only the same speed as 223 shoots 40gr, give or take. Give it 26 inch and 39gr Blitzkings and you're away. I got a rifle that did not shoot 40s, nobody had 39s. So I sold it, and carried on killing foxes with 223 and 22 Hornet.

 

Which leads us neatly to ballistics. You are right when you say 204 is better than 223 on paper. If you're an American shooting varmints from your table under your parasol, then it matters. But on a 200-yard fox, no big deal. I can kill foxes just as well at night with my 223, and it has better ammo availability and more versatility.

 

Which leads us nicely to muntjac. I've shot plenty enough to know that 223 works, and that if I was allowed, so would Hornet. For crying out loud - they're legal on roe in Scotland, and they work well there, too! That's the real world...

 

Firstly lets get one thing straight I'm not a proponent of either the .204 or the 223. As I consider the so called ballistic advantages of the .204 to be mostly sales hype in practical terms and that the .223 is out classed and out performed by other and better .22c'f calibres.

 

Some people make their buying choices on fads and fancies, or simply because their mate has one. Some people make their choices following long and detailed study of the available technical data, and their own practical experience, combined with the in depth testing and well considered views of more knowledgeable and worldly shooters. I have always gone for option number 2. As that's the one I'm most comfortable with and I've found that what I have chosen to be supremely fit for purpose, from day one.

 

How others come by their choices is entirely up to them, the gun shops are lined with huge numbers of second hand rifle purchased on whims and fancies, personally what I buy I keep.

 

The fact that something is legal else where does not necessarily make it a suitable choice here. It is legal to shoot roe with shotguns in norway, would you support the return of them to the allowed armoury?

[Mr_Logic]

It's legal to shoot roe with shotguns here! You just need AAA or heavier shot.

 

For sure, the 223 is not the fastest 22 CF, but it has other niceties that the 22-250 can only dream of. Like barrels that last a sensible number of rounds, or rifles with all manner of different uses, or considerably less powder usage, to name but a few.

 

it is not about sheer velocity - most of the time, 223 is plenty - it kills foxes at 300 yards. How many times do you shoot a fox further away than that?

 

No calibre is 'better' than another - there are better tools for different jobs. My Hornet is better than my 223 when I want a quiet round that drops off fast for safety and neighbourly considerations. My 223 is better when I want a better trajectory and don't care about the noise. It's all dependent on context.

 

A lot of the time, for example, the 204 is useless in the UK. The Americans shoot heavy barreled rifles from one place for a long period of time, shooting small creatures from a long way away. So the 204 with its fast, flat wind-bucking characteristics becomes the best choice unless they're using 243, and that really is a lot much for a prairie dog! In the UK, much of the time, we are on foot, with a rifle we need to carry. By which time the 204 is hideously balanced, with a bloody great flagpole out front, and then moderator hanging off that. So not ideal.

 

But... if you want a rifle to shoot crows at 500 yards from cover, than the 204 is the one for you! So context!

 

And for anything up and including roe deer, the 223 is absolutely fine, not a question of is it legal or not - it's 100% up to the job. Put a 22 bullet into a muntjac's vitals, he falls over, dead as a doornail. Simple as.

[al4x]

I've rarely heard so much rubbish, the .223 has lots of bonuses over the "superior" .22cf's barrel life, component availability for amunition and to say its unsuitable for muntjac shows you've clearly never been anywhere near one. I mean for crying out loud its used on most battlegrounds for taking out people. The simple fact is to 200 yards there is negligible drop with an inch high zero and foxes don't get up again. I use 55grain bullets and certainly if I use ballistic tips they take foxes apart. So the idea you buy one on a whim rather than an educated decision just shows you need to get out more and read less books

[CharlieT]

Now that I am a grumpy old man I have reached the stage in life where I can indulge my whims and boy is it fun.

 

Dad gave me his old Winchester .22 pump 51 years ago to wage war on the local rabbit population and 2 or 3 years later I got my own fac so that I was "legal" to take it with me on my bike round the lanes to wage war further afield. I probably shot more species with that little rifle then anything else I have owned and learned early on that it's not super great bullets and high velocities that kill but rather where one places the bullet as many a rabbit, fox and deer would confirm if he was still able.

 

As all young men I to went through the bigger is better stage but I have learned the error of my ways. As I said I can indulge my whims and "play" with calibers that take my fancy and give me enjoyment. What counts for me is how they perform in the field because that's where I use my rifles not how they perform on some ballistic chart.

 

All I can say is that small calibers work and are fun and sweet to shoot, and in my view that is what shooting is all about. Having fun and enjoying myself and if that means using a .204 on vermin and fox, a .222 or .223 on roe or a Sweed on red's then so be it.

 

What I can not understand is those who knock smaller calibers just because they subscribe to the mine is bigger then yours brigade.

[JackReady]

"It's legal to shoot roe with shotguns here! You just need AAA or heavier shot."

True but only if the landowner has ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that deer are causing damage to crops or any other form of property, under section 7 of the 1991 Deer Act. Other wise it is illegal.

 

"For sure, the 223 is not the fastest 22 CF, but it has other niceties that the 22-250 can only dream of. Like barrels that last a sensible number of rounds, or rifles with all manner of different uses, or considerably less powder usage, to name but a few."

My .22-250 is up around the 2500 round mark and still not shot its self out. All that I have been required to do is extend the OAL few thou to take into account the slight throat erosion that has occurred. How many rounds would you get of a .223 thats being pushed to keep up with a .22-250?

 

"it is not about sheer velocity - most of the time, 223 is plenty - it kills foxes at 300 yards. How many times do you shoot a fox further away than that?"

Velocity is not the be all and end all but it helps, better to have it in abundance than to have to try and find it IMO. I'll bag a bout 5-10 foxes out past 300m a year depending upon circumstance.

 

A lot of the time, for example, the 204 is useless in the UK.

 

In the UK, much of the time, we are on foot, with a rifle we need to carry. By which time the 204 is hideously balanced, with a bloody great flagpole out front, and then moderator hanging off that. So not ideal."

Blimey I would happily agree with that both statements.

 

"But... if you want a rifle to shoot crows at 500 yards from cover, than the 204 is the one for you! So context!"

Nope. If i was looking for something to do that on a regular basis I'd be having a 22/243AI or 22/243 Middlestead or 244TTH. 500m is a long way for those light 32-39gr .204 bullets to be exposed to the wind.

 

"And for anything up and including roe deer, the 223 is absolutely fine, not a question of is it legal or not - it's 100% up to the job. Put a 22 bullet into a muntjac's vitals, he falls over, dead as a doornail. Simple as."

As long as neither the roe or especially the muntjac is not more than 150m away. The germans base their requirement on minimum retained energy at 200m hence the ruling out of the .222 and .223. Simple really when you think about it.

[SSS]

Firstly lets get one thing straight I'm not a proponent of either the .204 or the 223. As I consider the so called ballistic advantages of the .204 to be mostly sales hype in practical terms and that the .223 is out classed and out performed by other and better .22c'f calibres. Define a 'better calibre for me please.

 

Some people make their buying choices on fads and fancies, or simply because their mate has one. Some people make their choices following long and detailed study of the available technical data, and their own practical experience, combined with the in depth testing and well considered views of more knowledgeable and worldly shooters. I have always gone for option number 2. As that's the one I'm most comfortable with and I've found that what I have chosen to be supremely fit for purpose, from day one..22-250?

 

How others come by their choices is entirely up to them, the gun shops are lined with huge numbers of second hand rifle purchased on whims and fancies, personally what I buy I keep.

 

The fact that something is legal else where does not necessarily make it a suitable choice here. It is legal to shoot roe with shotguns in norway, would you support the return of them to the allowed armoury?

I guess you own .22-250, and only a .22-250. Wind your neck in and give some decent advice.

 

From what I can gather, the .204 is a great calibre, and more popular than you think. Flat shooting and plenty of energy. I'd love to try one

[kyska]

I guess you own .22-250, and only a .22-250. Wind your neck in and give some decent advice.

 

From what I can gather, the .204 is a great calibre, and more popular than you think. Flat shooting and plenty of energy. I'd love to try one

 

I've got one, but I'm keeping my mouth shut, interested in some of the opinions given!