204 vs 22-250

[cjclemens]

How can anyone even compare 204 to 22-250?  That just sounds like comparing apples to wrenches.  If you want to make it a real match up, it should be like 22-250 vs. 220 swift...or even 204 vs. .223 WSSM.

[DalesCarpentry]

How can anyone even compare 204 to 22-250?  That just sounds like comparing apples to wrenches.  If you want to make it a real match up, it should be like 22-250 vs. 220 swift...or even 204 vs. .223 WSSM.

You have a good point!!!!!!!! I don't know much about the 220 Swift but the 223WSSM in my opion would beat the 204 in proformance hands down. To be honest the more I read about the 204 Ruger ( Which I have owned one ) and the 22-250 I think the 22-250 beats out the 204 also. Dale

[cjclemens]

With similar bullet weights, you'll get a little more velocity out of the 220 swift than the 22-250.  The 220 swift never took off as well because it got a bad rap as a barrel burner.  Both are excellent cartridges in their own rite.  The 204 is difficult to compare with others because its somewhat unique.  Velocites are comparable to the 22-250, but the 204 takes a lot lighter bullets.  On the other hand, the 204 is available in a couple different platforms, including the AR type rifle.  I think the question here is not "which is better?"  The question should be "Which one fits my needs?"  When you consider your own style (i.e. what you hunt, as well as how and where you hunt it) i think you'll be able to make that decision.

[glwenzl]

I have a great shooting AR 15 in 223.  I used to have several 22-250s and still have a lot of brass and dies left.  I want a bolt gun for shooting prarie dogs and such.  I have the AR 15 for a walkabout gun, so I am probably lookig for a hevy barrel gun.  I want the new gun to suppliment the AR.

Anyone have an opinion on which gun to get and why?

Thanks,

Crabo

Crabo, I see this started last spring and by now you have more than likely made your choice. I am interested in which way you went and why and how you like the choice you made. You can PM me if concerned about getting a hard time for your choice...

Anyone have an opinion on which gun to get and why?

My opinion is get a Savage VLP in a 204. (I have never owned a savage but would really like too)

Reason for Savage??? This will give you the heavy barrel you want AND if you ever think that you made the wrong choice it would be easy to swap out a new barrel and the end of the bolt to allow you to shoot the other choice(s).  I just think that Savage is putting out a great product but I just haven’t got around to finding out for myself yet….

I have two CZ 204s and luv them both; the one would shoot a .4" 5 shot 100 yard group with the 32s and 1.1" with the 40s. I think a CZ would make you happy but the classic models I have don't set real well in my rest wishing CZ made a good flat forearm stock....

Reason for a 204??? IMO you will end up with a much better PD riffle (as you mentioned) less barrel heat (more shooting, longer barrel life) and less recoil (to see hits/misses) better long range ballistics making it better in the wind and easier to connect to the small targets. Also from what I have seen the 204 appears to be more accurate right out of the box… Not saying the 22-250 isn’t I have one of them that shot pretty well but not as good as either of my 204s…. (talking about right out of the box)

For PD’n the 17 Fireball would make a good choice as well but you didn’t ask about the 17s so I won’t go there…
   

[jro45]

I know my 22-250 Shoots the 55gr bullet to 3640 FPS and the 70gr bullet goes  3310 FPS

I don't think the 204 can do that, but I may be supprized.

I could take that 55gr bullet up to 3950 FPS but thats a barrel burner

[Badnews Bob]

One thing I haven't seen with this thread is why a .204 can shoot with a .22-250 in the first place.  I think the biggest diffrence is at a giving bullet size the .204 has a higher BC which should account for better down range ability.   Less powder, lighter recoil, and easier to keep target in sight while shooting.  At the ranges I get to shoot at the .204 looks to be a clear winner.

 The .22-250 is a proven performer so once again do you want an apple or a orange? Both good fruit.

[SHOOTALL]

22-250 !
i have both and if i could only have one it would be the 22-250 !
reason(s) cost , bullets , better in wind ,

[gube]

One thing I haven't seen with this thread is why a .204 can shoot with a .22-250 in the first place.  I think the biggest diffrence is at a giving bullet size the .204 has a higher BC which should account for better down range ability.   Less powder, lighter recoil, and easier to keep target in sight while shooting.  At the ranges I get to shoot at the .204 looks to be a clear winner.

 The .22-250 is a proven performer so once again do you want an apple or a orange? Both good fruit.

That's "bang on". The reason for the excellent down range performance of the 204 is because of the higher B.C.

[hotrunner]

I have both calibers, a sporter .204 and a heavy-barrelled .22-250. Real-world performance on large Ohio groundhogs out past 200 yards gives the edge to the .22. (40 and 55 gr., respectively.) Don't think results would be that different with equal-length barrels. Also, wind-drift is worse w/the .20. Personally, I think the .204 is a bit over-hyped; the sweet thing about it (and the only advantage IMO) is the ability to see your shot, and I'd consider an AR in that cal. for that reason. Might be the better round for p-dogs, also.

[harrys]

no competition there 204 all the way i have both calibers i've shot chucks with both and the 204 is outstanding it bucks wind way better and shoots as flat as anything out there in the 22 class with better accuracy.any 20 will outshoot the 22 250.

[DalesCarpentry]

no competition there 204 all the way i have both calibers i've shot chucks with both and the 204 is outstanding it bucks wind way better and shoots as flat as anything out there in the 22 class with better accuracy.any 20 will outshoot the 22 250.

There is no way the 204 bucks the wind better over the 22-250. It is a much lighter bullet and the heavier bullets buck wind much better. Down range the the 22-250 also wins hands down as far as energy goes. Dale

[Graybeard]

BC and velocity have far more to do with bucking wind than bullet weight. Actually when you get right down to it bullets don't so much "buck wind" as get blown about by it. Those with higher BCs and higher velocity get blown about less in a given distance.

[DalesCarpentry]

OK I am by no means going to argue here. The 204 dose have a better velocity than the 22-250. It does not have the energy of the 22-250 down range period. It may shoot a little flatter but the 22-250 is still the better round IMHO. Hey we could argue the 308 verse 30-06 also. Dead is dead and I have owned a 204 and think a 22-250 will do it better at further ranges. Dale

[mjbgalt]

actually the .204 has very comparable energy, due to the good BC and the increased velocity over the .22-250. check a ballistic chart sometime, i know it opened my eyes on this one. try the one at remington.com and check out the comparison.

-Matt