204 vs. 223 vs 22-250 and Savage vs. Remington vs. Howa

[mries]

I have a Savage 93 .17HMR for short range varmint hunting. It's very accurate and was very affordable.

I'm looking at picking up another rifle for longer ranges (both for paper #1 and varmints #2).

I've read many of the .223 vs. .22-250 posts in various forums, and actually was hoping to get a Savage Model 12 in .223 BUT I'm put off by their only offering the .223 with a 1 in 9 twist, which would seem to favor the heavier bullets.

I would like to be able use, and shoot with accuracy, 42 grain .223 bullets if I ended up with a .223. I had hoped to go with a .223 mainly because of the low cost and high availability of ammunition. Since this would also be a target rifle, the .223 also seems to have a generally better reputation for less wear and tear on the rifle barrel. I do realize that if I wanted to get into reloading, I could also detune the 22-250 as well.

The Remington Model Seven in .223 is offered in a 1 in 12 twist as is the Howa varminter. This would seem to favor a 42 grain bullet.

The Savage, Reminton and Howa .204 and .22-250 calibers are all using 1 in 12 twists.

So basically, not to rehash old stuff, but would I be able to accurately shoot 42 grain bullets with a 1 in 9" twist barrel?

If not, then I'm thinking about the .204 in either the Savage, Howa or Remington. I like the Savage's for their "inherent" accuracy and the accutrigger. I can get a 204 Savage M12 from Wally World for around $600.

I'm not a big fan of Howa's set trigger's and Remington's seem to be the most expensive with no inherent accuracy benefits.

Any body want to jump in here with some opinions? 

Thank,

Marc

[wynn24]

First of all a fast twist in your barrel just means you will have more options in the long run. Just because a rifle has a fast twist doesn't mean it is better suited for heavier bullets. However it does mean that if you ever decide to shoot a heavy bullet say for a better BC at paper you would have the option. I am sworn to savage they ARE the best shooting rifle out of the box. In addition they are usually the most affordable. Unless your shots will be under 200 yards i would shy away from the .204. This has proved to be a very accurate round, but it does lack the distace that you would get with the .22-250 or .223.  Others will fight with me on this, but i have reloaded for two different .204, one being a savage 12fv. They will not keep up with the .223 or the .22-250 past 200 yards.

Besides when you start reloading sierra make a 40 grain blitz king that you can shoot in either the .223 or .22-250. So why would you want to limit yourself to a 32 grain and a 39 grain in the .204 when the .223 and the .22-250 have so many other options.   

Just my two cents.

[Maryland Hunter]

Marc,
I'm not sure what you mean by Howa's "set" trigger.
Is this something new? I have a Howa 1500 in 6.5X55, and it has a regular, adjustable trigger. I know that they went to a three way safety recently, but I was unaware that they had a set trigger now. By the way, I love the quality of the Howa, and overall feel of the gun.

MH

[mries]

Besides when you start reloading sierra make a 40 grain blitz king that you can shoot in either the .223 or .22-250. So why would you want to limit yourself to a 32 grain and a 39 grain in the .204 when the .223 and the .22-250 have so many other options.   

Just my two cents.

To be honest, one of the reasons for going to the .223 or .22-250 is that I could reload Reed's .223 or .22-250 42g  Frangible Bullets. I live in the country, where it is legal to shoot, but the properties are fairly close and, even shooting intelligently with that in mind, it's nice in those situations to not worry about richochets.

In the posts that I've tracked down of people with the Savage 12 (with the 1 in 9 twist) it seems like a 50-50 chance that a particular .223 will shoot accurately with a 40 - 45 g bullet.

That doesn't seem to be the case with the .22-250, but then you use a lot more powder when reloaded, factory ammo is more expensive, more kick, more noise, and faster barrel wear (from the reviews I've read). On the other hand, I assume that if I went the reloader route, I could mimic .223 loads with the .22-250?

Note that I already have a very accurate Savage 93 in .17 HMR for those 100+/- yard varmints, so this gun would be more for 200 to 300+ targets and varmints.

[babe915]

hey wynn you should look at the ballistic charts for the 204  it out shoots the 223 at long distances
by a mile. the 204 32gr or 40gr with a 200 yd zero only drops 13 in at 400 YARDS!  the 223 with
a 50 gr v max drops 21 inches. even if you use a 40 gr bullet in the 223 the best factory load
still drops almost 18 in. at 400 at 500 yds the 204 will drop 29 in and the 223 is 39 inches.
I have my savage [204]  zeroed in for 300yds  and it only shoots 2.5 in high at 100yds check out
 HORNADY'S WEB SITE for the ballistics   

[AZ223]

I haven't shot a .204, but I do have both a .223 H&R and .22-250 Rem 700VLSS. Both are accurate, and the .223 ammo is definitely less expensive. The brass is more expensive for the .22-250, and it does burn more powder, but the accuracy and range potential is worth it to me. I had been trying to load the .223 "hot", and realized you can only load any cartridge so high. Some may argue, but a .22-250 shooting 50-53gr bullets will achieve greater velocity than most any .223 load with any bullet. The .204 has the velocity, but you don't have the range of projectiles to put in it. I looked at the .204, but wanted the option to be able to shoot bigger game like desert whitetail & antelope. I went with the Remington and never looked back. I do hear the .204 has a definite "fun" factor; you can watch things blow up through the scope without much recoil. I get the same effect for a split-second in my .22-250 before the recoil hits me. 

Regarding rifle makes, I have two Remington 700's, one is a 30 year old '06 and the other is the VLSS, and both shoot like a dream. I've heard Savage is quite accurate and less expensive, but the varmint model didn't fit me right, so I went with the Remington.

Good luck!   

[wynn24]

Hey babe, yes the ballistics are impressive, why do you think people buy the .204. In black in white the .204 is a great round. Now take one into the field where the wind blows and you need knock down power to kill something. If he was wanting something to punch paper with at 100 yards or another 200 yard and in gun. the .204 in my opinion would be ok. But again why limit yourself to only a few bullet selections. Marc is thinking about reloading, so as everyone knows he eventually will. Once it is considered the disease has started. With that being the case the .223 would be the cheapest as far as brass and availability, also uses less powder. But my opinion still stands that the .22-250 would be my pick. It is capable of shooting those light grain bullets hand loaded as fast as the .204    (Don't kid yourself thinking that the factory ammo is as hot as they advertise it is ) but yet can shoot heavier bullets as well. The .22-250 is first pick then the .223 and the .204 follows in a distance third.

[handirifle]

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no guarantee ANY of the rifles you mentioned will shoot any of the bullets mentioned, accurately.  Every rifle has it's own personality.  So it seems like a wasted effort to buy any rifle with the intent of planning on shooting ony one bullet.

My Savage 11FL in 223 shot 40gr Vmax bullets into 1" on a regular basis, and also the 45grHP from Win, and various others.  It hasn't shot any bullet poorly yet.

H&R just recently offered their 223 barrels in 1-9 twist, BY DEMAND from the customers.  They didn't like being limited by the 1-12 twist of the previous barrels.  They are now available in either for the 223.

[Coyote Hunter]

To be honest, one of the reasons for going to the .223 or .22-250 is that I could reload Reed's .223 or .22-250 42g  Frangible Bullets. I live in the country, where it is legal to shoot, but the properties are fairly close and, even shooting intelligently with that in mind, it's nice in those situations to not worry about richochets.

In the posts that I've tracked down of people with the Savage 12 (with the 1 in 9 twist) it seems like a 50-50 chance that a particular .223 will shoot accurately with a 40 - 45 g bullet.

That doesn't seem to be the case with the .22-250, but then you use a lot more powder when reloaded, factory ammo is more expensive, more kick, more noise, and faster barrel wear (from the reviews I've read). On the other hand, I assume that if I went the reloader route, I could mimic .223 loads with the .22-250?

Note that I already have a very accurate Savage 93 in .17 HMR for those 100+/- yard varmints, so this gun would be more for 200 to 300+ targets and varmints.

If you are buying ammo rather than building it, a .223 makes a lot of sense.  If handloading, the .22-250 offers an advantage at longer ranges.  I was shooting clay pigeons at 300 yards with mine a couple weeks.  The guy I was with thought it was "too easy" so we moved back to 500 yards and went 50% hits (total of 2 hits, 4 shots).

I download my 22-250 about 1.0g with 52g bullets and haven't had a problem with barrel wear.  Its a 1-12 Ruger and shoots 40g-55g fine. 

[mries]

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no guarantee ANY of the rifles you mentioned will shoot any of the bullets mentioned, accurately.  Every rifle has it's own personality.  So it seems like a wasted effort to buy any rifle with the intent of planning on shooting ony one bullet.

My Savage 11FL in 223 shot 40gr Vmax bullets into 1" on a regular basis, and also the 45grHP from Win, and various others.  It hasn't shot any bullet poorly yet.

H&R just recently offered their 223 barrels in 1-9 twist, BY DEMAND from the customers.  They didn't like being limited by the 1-12 twist of the previous barrels.  They are now available in either for the 223.

I realize that "some" Savage 1 in 9 .223 owners have had decent accuracy with 45 gr. bullets. However, after contacting Savage on the subject, their response was that they (aka, Savage) have generally found that accuracy falls off with bullet weights 55 gr. and under and generally find the most accurate weight is 69 grains. From the same source, they indicate that their "Custom Guns" section could provide a 1 in 12 barrel.

Right now I'm leaning towards either a Savage in 22-250 with the slower twist or a Howa .223 with a slower twist. The plus is that I can get a factory Howa Varmiter .223 or 22-250 in stainless with a Boyd's thumbhole stock (to match my .17) at WallyWorld prices, where as I could not get the same with Savage (the BVSS would be the closest).  Guess I would prefer a Savage, tho.

[Catfish]

To start with you can get 50 gn. bullets for the .204 from berger. Second what range do you want to shoot at, and third how large of game do you want to kill with your new rifle. Do you want to save hides? You left out the .17 Rem. , which is also a very good varmint round. If you want a gun that can double as a deer rifle the .243 would be a good choice. I would recomand that you not settal on a round, but look for a good rifle at the right price. I have 3 different .17 cal. rounds, 5 different .22 cal. rounds and 2 .25 cal. rounds for varmint hunting and in most cases the varmints can`t tell which one hit them. If you reload there are alot of good wildcat round to chose from, but they all do the same job, some just do it alittle farther out. If you don`t reload the .223 would be a good choice because there is so much cheap ammo available for it.

[mries]

In reality, I can get the Howa Varmiter Savage BVSS Varmiter in either .204, .22-250 or .223 at roughly the same price (~570$).

I already have the .17HMR, which is why I'n not crazy over the .204, so I'm wanting to have something a little more wind-forgiving at range. I'm not looking to much at the .243 because of the increase in recoil and I'm never going deer hunting.

From Hornady's ballistic info for their loaded ammo, I get the following:

Caliber   bullet weight grains    400yd vel./energy  drop in inches
.204       40                             2433/526             13
.223       40                             1928/330             18
.22-250  40                              2148/410             14

.204       45                              2093/438             17
.223       60                             1824/443              23
.22-250  60                              2169/627             17

If I read anything in these stats it would be that the .204 performance (energy/drop) goes down quickly with small increases in bullet weight, while the .22-250 is the best performer when using a wide range of weights. Basically the ONLY reason I'm holding undecided on the .22-250 version is the actual/perceived short barrel/throat life. Obviously there are no guarantees in life or guns 

[wynn24]

In reality if you take care of your rifle with proper cleaning and never shooting your barrel till it is to hot to touch, any modern firearm with last a lot longer than you think. Obviously the .22-250 will erode faster than the .223 because of the powder difference, but we are talking about 1,000's of rounds. Stop and think how much you shoot per week at paper or a the occational varmint. Then take that into a year. Most any modern firearm will last into the 5-6,000 shot range with proper cleaning, some will last longer. I have known .308's that have fired 10,000 rounds and are still very accurate. The harsh judgement about wildcat calibers is a thing of the past. Very good rounds have gotten a bad name because when they were introduced people hadn't seen rifles preform that way before. The technology in making a rifle barrel has come a long way. The term "barrel burner" should be forgotten. Proper cleaning and a rifle will at last many people. Unless you do shoot very Very often.   Just my thoughts

[CDA]

Right now I'm leaning towards either a Savage in 22-250 with the slower twist or a Howa .223 with a slower twist. The plus is that I can get a factory Howa Varmiter .223 or 22-250 in stainless with a Boyd's thumbhole stock (to match my .17) at WallyWorld prices, where as I could not get the same with Savage (the BVSS would be the closest).  Guess I would prefer a Savage, tho.

Just wanted to make sure you know that Savage now offers a BVSS with a laminated thumbhole and Accutrigger. I have looked at them and my plans are to buy one. The prices I have seen were $650-$800.

[mries]

Just wanted to make sure you know that Savage now offers a BVSS with a laminated thumbhole and Accutrigger. I have looked at them and my plans are to buy one. The prices I have seen were $650-$800.

Do you have any links with info, because I don't see it on their web site?

The only one I know of is the "Savage Model 12BGTV Varminter 'Exclusive'" sold exclusively thru bigskyguns for around $645.

I am hesitant for two reasons: 1) It only comes with a blued action/barrel and 2) The stock is the Boyd's stock (no problem) but I wonder how well the bedding job is and/or whether it is "dual-pillar bedded" as Savage advertises the current BVSS stock.

I was ready to buy the Savage 12 22-250, even had my money out, but the distributor is out of stock. They had 8 Savage 12's BVSS's in .223 (which I would have also bought if I could "guarantee" myself that the 1 in 9 twist could actually shoot some accurate loads with a 40 grain bullet -- so says a handloader with one on the CaliforniaPreditors forum).

I like the looks of the Howa vented thumbhole but net research show a love/hate relationship from those that post -- either it's a tack driver or it's not a tack driver -- and nearly everyone seems to think they will have to be pillered and bedded for decent accuracy. Then I was thinking maybe a 204 but again, net research shows either a tack driver or not and alot of bore fouling and other little gotchas.

They may have 22-250's in the Low Profile 12 for a little more money (I didn't have them check stock) but have decided to reqroup and research for a couple of days before making any more decisions.

[acloco]

I already have the .17HMR, which is why I'n not crazy over the .204, so I'm wanting to have something a little more wind-forgiving at range. I'm not looking to much at the .243 because of the increase in recoil and I'm never going deer hunting.

None of the 40 grain bullets are "wind forgiving".

I shoot the following:

17 Remington (not a rimfire)
204 Ruger
223
243
6.5x55
270
7.5x55

Out of all of these...if I had to take a shot in the wind, the 6.5x55 and the 7.5x55 would be chosen first.  Next, 270.  Next - 243.  Next - 223 - with 69 grain HPBT's.  Next - 204.  Last - 17 Rem.

Now...if I am making a 5-600 yard shot on a prairie dog - 223 then the 204.  But, I have not shot the 243 at prairie dogs...yet.

As far as recoil - the 243 is a touch more than the 223....but not much.  Especially, if you keep the bullet weight in the 55-70 grain range.

The 204 is a touch louder though.  Mine is a NEF Handi rifle with a 22" barrel....so...there will be a little more sound out the end of the barrel.

I would HIGHLY recommend the 223 for anybody.  Cheap to reload QUALITY ammo tailored to your rifle.

The 204, 243 & 22-250 use 1/4 to almost double the amount of powder than the 223....so your cost goes up per round.

Per pound of powder - you will get 270 rounds of 223 (at 26 grains per case)
Per pound of powder - you will get 155 rounds from the 243 (at 45 grains per case)

[kudzu]

Have a 17hmr and 22-250. both very accurate with fac. ammo.
HOWEVER I just picked up a Savage 12 VLP SS-S in 223 yesterday for 500.00 out the door.Just could not resist. Not to high jack, but does anyone know the item # for Leupold basses for this gun. One and  two piece if availible.

BTW, I prefer the 22-250 and 223 over the 204, however the 204 may just be my next TC Pro Hunter barrel. No need to limit ya self.

Good luck, DM

[jasonprox700]

I currently own a .22-250 Remington 700 VLS and a .223 Bushmaster Varminter.  Both guns are very accurate.  I have shot 40 Grain bullets with the .223 with very good results.  I have never tried 40's with my .22-250, but I'm sure it would do very well. 

I am always looking for another rifle, but a .204 would not be my next varmint caliber.  I would opt for the .22-250, then .223, then the .204.  The .204 is fast, but what happens when you are shooting on a windy day?

As far as brand of gun???  I have shot both the Rem and Sav in .22-250, and one of each in a Rem, no Howa's.  They all shot excellent with smooth actions.

[buzztail]

looks like the .204 a little better in the wind than the .22-250, amd much better than the .223

Comparative Ballistics: .204 Ruger vs. .223 Remington vs. 22-250
Cartridge                    Bullet BC     Powder Max Load      MuzzleVel    400ydDrop   400yd 10mph Wind
 
.204 Ruger 32gr V-Max    .210        Benchmark 28.0        4047 fps     25.50"        17.88"
.204 Ruger 40gr V-Max    .275        H4895 27.7              3741 fps     26.93"        14.10"
.223 Rem 40gr Nosler BT .221        Benchmark 27.3        3666 fps     30.67"        19.02"
.223 Rem 50gr Nosler BT .238        BL-C(2) 28.0             3428 fps     34.21"        19.01"
22-250 40gr Nosler BT     .221        H4895 37.0              4060 fps     24.73"        16.67"

Load data from Hodgdon.com, for 24" barrel. 2.250" COAL .204s, Fed 205s. 2.210" COAL for .223 Rem, Winch SR. 2.350" COAL for 22-250, Winch LR. Always start 10% low and work up. Calculated at 1000' altitude, 80° temperature.

[Buckskin]

Hey babe, yes the ballistics are impressive, why do you think people buy the .204. In black in white the .204 is a great round. Now take one into the field where the wind blows and you need knock down power to kill something. If he was wanting something to punch paper with at 100 yards or another 200 yard and in gun. the .204 in my opinion would be ok. But again why limit yourself to only a few bullet selections. Marc is thinking about reloading, so as everyone knows he eventually will. Once it is considered the disease has started. With that being the case the .223 would be the cheapest as far as brass and availability, also uses less powder. But my opinion still stands that the .22-250 would be my pick. It is capable of shooting those light grain bullets hand loaded as fast as the .204    (Don't kid yourself thinking that the factory ammo is as hot as they advertise it is ) but yet can shoot heavier bullets as well. The .22-250 is first pick then the .223 and the .204 follows in a distance third.

Now explain to me how the wind is going to affect the 204 more than the 22-250 and the 223.  You better check you ballistic charts before answering.  And the factory Hornady 204 -32s go 4150ft/sec off of my chrono.
Now the following are 2 different grain bullets (32 and 40) vs a 40gr in the 22-250.  Unless you are blind, the 204 is superior in every catergory.  Even in the 32 the energy is basically the same out to 500 yds as the 40 22-250.  Not even going to bring up the 223 ballistics.


204 RUGER 32 GR V-MAX 83204
Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
4225/1268 3645/944 3137/699 2683/512 2272/367 1899/256
 
Trajectory (inches)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
-1.5 0.6 0.00 -4.1 -13.1 -29.0


204 RUGER 40 GR V-MAX 83206
Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
3900/1351 3482/1077 3103/855 2755/674 2433/526 2133/404
 
Trajectory (inches)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
-1.5 0.7 0.00 -4.3 -13.2 -28.1
 


.22-250 Rem., 40 gr. V-MAX 8335
Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
4150/1529 3553/1121 3032/816 2568/585 2148/410 1771/278
 
Trajectory (inches)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
-1.50 0.60 0.00 -4.50 -14.20 -31.70
 


 

[wynn24]

I will relpy with a simple awnser. Bullet selection. My point was that the .22-250 is capable of shooting the 40 gr bullet with very similar ballistics to the .204 32gr and 39gr bullets. But it also has a vast majority of bigger bullets that the .204 is not capable of shooting. As of now the .22-250 is still a superior round. To the average hunter.

[jasonprox700]

I agree with wynn24 100%  The .22-250 is the most versatile between the three.  You can load it down to the .223 level, and the 40 grainer is smokin out of there. 

[Buckskin]

I will relpy with a simple awnser. Bullet selection. My point was that the .22-250 is capable of shooting the 40 gr bullet with very similar ballistics to the .204 32gr and 39gr bullets. But it also has a vast majority of bigger bullets that the .204 is not capable of shooting. As of now the .22-250 is still a superior round. To the average hunter.

No your point was that the 204 somehow was more affected by wind that the others, which simply is wrong.  In fact, because it's a faster round its affected less by wind.

Yes you can't shoot anything heavier that a 50gr (I think), but why would you need to its a varmint rifle.  Fact is the 204 shoots faster and flatter with plenty of killing power for any varmint than either the 22-250 or the 223 hands down.

[northjdr]

I chose a Savage 12vlp in .223 before before I knew anything about twists. I liked the heavy barrel and accutrigger and the relatively inexpensive ammo. It will consistantly shoot sub moa with factory ammo and average 1" to 1.5"  @ 200yards for 5 shots. I am not a bench rest shooter and I have just started to handload. I am working up varmint loads with Nosler ballistic tips and ALL of my work-up loads shot under 1" @ 100 yards. The 1/9 twist allows me to shoot 68gr and 75grs with excellant results (in case I want to reach out to 300-400 yards.) You couldn't go wrong with either a 204, .223, 22-250. They are all excellant calibers with reputations for accuracy. good luck

[babe915]

another reason for going with the 204 with it's good ballistics,is the fact that it is a varmint gun,
that is the intended purpose of the cartridge. the low recoil of my savage varminter is a big plus
for me. I shoot about 800 or 900 rounds in a week at p/dogs, try that with a 22/ 250 and you
will be flinching your head off for a month!

[Don Dick]

Its your choice but recognize the fact you are not being objective on the 204.  Never start a decision making process with a closed mind.

[Mckie Hollow]

MRIES - If You haven't already made Your Decision - Look @ The CZ American Mini Mauser in the .223. The CZ's are made as well as any Production Rifle in The US. You won't be Sorry.

[DannoBoone]

It's a real "hoot" to look through the scope mounted on a .20 rifle and send off a 32gr bullet
at around 4100fps and actually see the results in full blown color through the scope after
the shot is made. 

The .223 is probably the easiest on the barrel, depending on the shooter. The hotter metal
gets, the softer it gets, the faster it wears out. I've read about people shooting out their
barrels in one day of constant p-dog shooting in a .22-250, but the same could be done to a
.223 barrel.

I have a .17 hmr, a Tactical 20 (ballistic twin to the Ruger .204), a .22-250, and a .25-06
which really covers my varmint needs, so do not really know how to advice you. To me, the
.223 is sort of ho-hum, but it definately has a following!