Author Topic: .204 Ruger, is it for real or just hype? (Read 3204 times)

Selmer · « **on:** December 10, 2003, 05:55:28 AM »

I've been doing some research and comparing with the .204 Ruger to it's parent, the .223 Remington. The .204 will shoot either a 32 or 36 gr. bullet, and the .223 has bullets available for 30 gr. and 35 gr, I have found data, although unpublished, of the 35 gr. out of the .223. The .223 can run a 35 gr. bullet out at 37-3800 fps, and I have found anything faster than this. My question is, how can the .204 Ruger run out a bullet of VERY (3 grs lighter) similar weight out at 4225 fps from the same case, only necked down to .204 caliber, and this is what Hornady and Ruger are saying the .204 Ruger is. It has been my experience with various cartridges that if you use the same or very similar weight bullet in two different calibers, the larger caliber will run the same bullet out faster than the smaller caliber because of differences in pressure, the smaller caliber has a higher pressure build-up because of the constriction of the bore, and the larger claiber can run the same weight bullet out of a larger bore faster because the bore diameter allows for more velocity with a lower pressure, if I'm wrong in this analogy, please correct me, I hardly have a degree in this stuff, I just read, shoot, and load a lot. If the .204 Ruger can run a 32 gr. bullet out at 4225 fps, why can't a .223 Remington with a larger bore run a 35 gr. bullet out at 4000+ fps? The 4225 fps figure is with a 26" barrel, BTW. I was all hot to get a .204 Ruger in a pistol barrel for my Encore, but I got to thinking, why can't I just buy a cheaper .223 barrel, with cheaper bullets, buy 35 gr. bullets, and get similar performance? And yes, I know the B.C. and sectional density won't be as good with the .224 caliber bullet vs. the .204 caliber bullet, but I'll take that trade if it's cheaper to load and such. I'm going to get a 16 1/4" barrel in the .223 Remington or .204 Ruger in the next year for my Encore so I have the carbine or pistol option with the barrel, but I'm on the fence about which has the advantage over the other. Sorry about the length, but for anyone interested or that has an opinion, please chime in, I'm interested in your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Selmer

Selmer · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2003, 06:19:23 AM »

In my curiousity and lack of anything better to do this morning, I called up David Van Horn to see if they would be making the .204 Ruger barrels. He said they will have the tooling probably in March 2004, and they will be available. As for my analogy as written above about the different bore diameters making a difference in velocity, I was right about that, but my analogy is absolutely backwards! I talked with him about it, and the larger bore requires MORE pressure to drive the same weight bullet faster because of the larger surface area of the bullet creating friction, which when he explains it that way makes perfect sense. So you can pretty much ignore my ranting from the previous post, or tell me I'm an idiot, go right ahead, and I'll be ordering a .204 Ruger barrel from somebody as soon as they are available. If anyone sees any load data on them, please let me know. BTW, Van Horn was a great guy to talk to, very polite and knowledgeable, he could very well get a call from me for the barrel, he made a GREAT first impression.
Sincerely,
Selmer
PS GB, if my comments about Van Horn are out of line and stepping towards an advertisement, let me know and I'll edit it, but they are true!

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2003, 07:53:06 AM »

I dunno nuttin bout Van Horn. Don't reckon ya said nuttin wrong.

I think he either misled you or you misunderstood him tho.

Using the same case other than for bore diameter the larger bore will push a bullet of same weight faster using same pressure. Something to do with expansion ratios. For an example take a look at the .260 Rem. versus 7-08 vs. .308 all using same or similar weight bullets. OR the .25-06, .270, 280 Rem. and .30-06 or toss in the .35 Whelan and compare it to the .30-06.

Also see my comments to your other post on this topic in another forum.

GB

Selmer · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2003, 08:52:07 AM »

GB, I went back to my manuals after talking with Van Horn. I still think we're right, that a larger diameter cartridge will push the same weight bullet faster, but according to my Lyman manual, which shows the pressure, it does take more pressure to achieve the velocity, but the expansion is faster because of the larger bore diameter, so I still think I should be able to push the 35 gr. .224 bullet just as fast as the 36 gr. .204 bullet out of the .223 Rem case.
Selmer

KN · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2003, 12:07:56 PM »

The 204 ruger is not based on the 223 case. It is based on the 222magnum case. KN

S.S. · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:31:36 AM »

I don't understand what Ruger is trying to achive with this
cartridge. It seem that there are already many cartridges
available that will do the same job it will try to fill!
Wasn't there a Wildcat cartridge back many years ago
that was almost exactly the same as this one?

Blackhawk44 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:28:51 PM »

Ruger's goal- sales. Since it won't do a tremendous amount more than the 17Rem and probably a good bit less than the 22-250 (just due to bullet weight not retaining momentum) it is geared mostly to folks who "have to have the newest and fastest", "one of everything" and those who absolutely must "keep up with the Jones".

KN · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:39:38 PM »

The proof will be in the pudding as they say, but their claims are that it out performs the 220 swift trajectory wise with out the throat eroasion associated with it. If thats the case it will surely be a hit with the long range varment shooters. KN

dave hall · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:48:13 PM »

I CALLED RUGER TO SEE IF THEY WERE MAKING ANY NEW #1'S FOR 2004.THE ONLY THING NEW IS THE 204. THEY ARE MAKING IT IN THE NO. #1-B& THE #1-V,AND THEY ARE PUTTING IT IN THE M-77. IN WHICH M-77 SHE DID'NT KNOW. I DIDN'T KNOW IF ANYONE KNEW THIS OR NOT.

WHUPAPUP · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2003, 05:06:55 PM »

Hey Selmer; Check out the .20 cals on> the Varmints Den.com. <In particular, the Tactical .20. I think you'll like what you see.

DannoBoone · « **Reply #10 on:** December 24, 2003, 02:58:05 PM »

Quote from: WHUPAPUP

Hey Selmer; Check out the .20 cals on> the Varmints Den.com. <In particular, the Tactical .20. I think you'll like what you see.

Ah, yes, I have one of the Tactical 20's. We get the .223 cases (best are
IMI) and size them for 20cal, resulting in the Tactical 20. To me, the
availability of the .223 cases make the Tac 20 a better choice than the
.204 Ruger, FOR THE RELOADER. The Tac 20 definitely does what the
.204 Ruger claims to do with its .222 mag mother case. Am a little
disappointed that Ruger chose the .222mag case, but probably did not
care to get into an invention battle with Todd Kindler, the inventor of the
Tactical 20. His cartridge is the .223 case with the shoulder bumped back
about .003" with the it expanding dia. about .010" during fire-forming (the
fire-forming loads are just as accurate as the finished product).

Groups are great with the Tac 20, with mine averaging 1/4", the best
being just over 1/8" using the Hornady 33gr VMax -- this in an Encore!
The barrel is Shilen, made for the Encore by VVCG.

The .204 Ruger is the only option for those who do not reload. But for
those who do reload, you may want to take a serious look at the
Tactical 20. It has already proven to do what Ruger claims theirs will
do.

WHUPAPUP · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2003, 05:59:12 PM »

Hi Selmer;
Glad to hear you have one. This .20 jobbie is really catching on.
I have one in the works now. Shud be ready by the end of Feb.
Todd has really convinced me it is the way to go. I do a LOT of Coyote hunting, serving four counties with Coyote control services. We're almost overrun up here (Alberta,Can.)
I utilize the pelts so it,s critical that pelt damage stays minimal. Apparently the Tac .20 is excellent in this regard.
What has been your expierience? What bullet and Vel.?
My gun will be based on a Nasika action, Pac-Nor 25" super match stainless barrel and an AccraBond laminated Walnut stock, profiled very similar to my Rem. VLS .243
As I mentioned, I'm really glad to hear of several happy owners of this .20.
Too late to back up now!

WHUPAPUP · « **Reply #12 on:** December 24, 2003, 06:41:52 PM »

Selmer;

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the anwser lies in cartride EFFICIENCY?
Take a .224 shoving a 35 grainer at say, 4000 fps. Now compare the .204 with a 36 gr. at 4000 fps. Obviously the .20 is considerably more efficient. Less powder and less barrel wear and tear. A Big Hemi and a little diesel will both do 120 mph. I'll buy the fuel and do the maintainance on the diesel anytime.
Justa thot!

DannoBoone · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2003, 12:29:56 PM »

whudapup - Sounds like a nice rifle you're building there!

One small word of advice, if I may. If you plan to push a 36gr pill
at 4000fps, make sure you use the IMI brass. I tried that with
Winchester brass and ended up with blown primers. The IMI brass
might cost a little more, but it will also take more pressure when
pushing the .204's faster.

LJOHNS · « **Reply #14 on:** January 14, 2004, 09:17:22 AM »

I plan to buy an encore barrel later this year for light varmiting. I will be buying a 223. It does everything a .204 will do and brass and ammo are much more available.

JohnClif · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2004, 07:47:46 PM »

If you have the same cartridge case, the larger bore will give higher velocities at the same pressure with the same weight bullet. For example, the .270 Winchester shooting 150s will not be as fast as the .30-'06 shooting 150s at the same pressure.

It's not expansion ratio. That would favor the small bore because the pressure stays higher in the bore until the bullet exits the muzzle. Instead, it is because the larger diameter bullet has a larger surface area for the expanding powder gases to push on. Think force per square inch of bullet base.

I don't see why a 35gr bullet in the .222 Remington Magnum wouldn't have a higher velocity than the same weight bullet in the .204 Hornady.

The advantage of going to a smaller bore is that the smaller bullet has a higher sectional density, and BC, so it should retain velocity better. Of course with less mass it will have more wind drift. The smaller caliber should have less penetration capability also, making it preferable for pelt hunting. I don't see where bore life will be any better than it is for the .223 though.

The Shrink · « **Reply #16 on:** May 20, 2004, 01:21:01 AM »

Gentlemen

Let me throw another variable into the package. I have read that Hornaday is using a new powder in the .204 that will not be made available in canister form.

The fact of a new powder will, I think, change the above arguments. I believe that you'all are assuming that all else is held the same except bore diameter, and this is apparently not true in the .204.

Given that I can't get the powder that seems to perform the miracle, I have no interest in the .204. I handload just about everything.

Wayne the Shrink

warf73 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 26, 2004, 09:40:51 PM »

I have the new 204Ruger and ammo.
I pulled a bullet to see what the powder looked like. It was a ball powder that looked like H414 but with a smaller dia. ball. I don’t have the weight of the charge on me but will post it if you want to know. This is in the 40gr. load.

I'm waiting on all my cleaning supplies before shooting it. I can’t report any FPS or accuracy yet. But hope to over the holiday weekend.

loader · « **Reply #18 on:** May 27, 2004, 04:09:16 PM »

bought one on monday,nevre had a center ifre that is this much fun to shoot. im using varget 28.7grs and getting 1" groups at 200. almost forgot its a savage mod.11 fns

:shock: :shock:

DannoBoone · « **Reply #19 on:** June 04, 2004, 04:39:32 PM »

Quote from: The Shrink

Gentlemen

Let me throw another variable into the package. I have read that Hornaday is using a new powder in the .204 that will not be made available in canister form.

The fact of a new powder will, I think, change the above arguments. I believe that you'all are assuming that all else is held the same except bore diameter, and this is apparently not true in the .204.

Given that I can't get the powder that seems to perform the miracle, I have no interest in the .204. I handload just about everything.

Wayne the Shrink

H4198 will get that velocity with the Tactical 20. Don't know about the
Ruger .204 though.

Chuck White · « **Reply #20 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:12:45 AM »

The biggest advantage of the 204 Ruger over the 20 Tactical is that Encore barrels are cheaper!

Midsouth price is around $225.00 for the Encore 26 inch barrel.

The 20 Tactical was more appealing to me anyway, but the Encore barrels chambered for it are well over $300.00!

I know that a lot of us either have on hand, or have access to .223 Mil. brass which is appealing, but the 204 brass will be readily available too, however not as cheap as the mil. brass!