Author Topic: .204 Ruger, is it for real, or just hype? (Read 932 times)

Selmer · « **on:** December 10, 2003, 05:57:58 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 and 35 gr (Berger bullets), I have found data, although unpublished, of the 35 gr.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 similar weight (3 grs lighter) 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

Rum River · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2003, 06:18:20 AM »

Selmer,

In the Ruger press release, it mentions an overall cartridge length similar to the .223. I don't believe though, that the .223 Rem. is the parent case.

I've gotten it from three independent sources that the .204 is based on the .222 Rem. Mag.

I'm interested in this cartridge as well. Looking forward to other responses.

Selmer · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2003, 06:21:47 AM »

Rum River,
The press release states that the .204 Ruger uses the same case head diameter and overall length as that of the .223 Remington, which is 1.76". If the parent case were the .222 Remington Magnum, the OAL would be 1.85", yes larger, but that's not what the statement says,but it would make up for the velocity differences.

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 #3 on:** December 10, 2003, 06:21:50 AM »

I believe you are operating under a few false assumptions. First the parent case is NOT the .223 but rather the .222 Rem. Mag case. I also think they are running a ligher bullet than you mention. Would have to relook the articles I've seen on it to be sure. I'm not at home but did just find a note by JD Jones of SSK in my SIXGUNNER magazine I have with me that says the round uses a 33 grain bullet.

I have pushed 40s to over 3800 fps in the .223 using book loads. Since the .222 Mag. case holds more powder than the .223 case it doesn't seem impossible to run 4200 with the 33s. Remember also that Hornady offers the Light Mag line that runs easily 150-200 HONEST fps faster than standard loadings of same round. This one might also be using that Light Mag technology.

GB

Rum River · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2003, 06:30:34 AM »

Semler,

Don't sweat it. When I first read the news release, I thought the same thing. Speaking with people at the store enlightened me.

I've been considering another prairie dog rifle, maybe this is it!

Selmer · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2003, 06:33:07 AM »

Check out my edited post about the OAL case length in the statement, although this doesn't mean some press release guy at Ruger didn't mess up and it actually is built off of a .222 Remington magnum. It doesn't really matter, either way it's my next Encore barrel if all goes as planned, the only advantage would be the .223 Remington brass is dirt cheap and easy to get, where as .222 Remington Mag brass is not.
Selmer

Bullseye · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2003, 02:07:18 PM »

This round does sound interesting, but the main deciding factor for me is how good of accuracy it has. If it is good as the .17HMR then they might have something there. The other variable will be reloading cost and ammo cost. I just bought a 223 barrel and then thought maybe I should have waited, but the main attraction of the 223 for me is that you can buy ammo for it as cheap as you can reload, and I reload for enough calibers already. Hope the brass is not priced like that new short magnum stuff, if it is the 204 will make the wallet hurt.

I also wonder if it will be like the 17HMR. It has great velocity but runs low on energy at the longer distance because of the light bullet weight. Sometimes I think a little slower round with a heavier bullet makes a better round. I will not jump on the bandwagon to soon. I bought a 17HMR right away and while it is fun to shoot, I do not think it is the long range killing machine that it is promoted to be.

Only time will tell on this one.

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2003, 12:23:52 AM »

I'm always looking for a reason to buy a new gun or a new barrel. I am just a little suspicious of Ruger's new push for proprietary cartridges. Sounds like an ego thing to me.

I remember the .17 Remington and the problems associated with it. This sounds like deja vu all over again.

grizz · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2003, 05:04:48 AM »

I have ran the barnes 40 grain vlc over 3900fps in 223 with a 24" bbl an 25grs of IMR-4198 (book max).. So add 2 more inches to bbl length and a lighter bullet and I bet you will get over 4100 easily..

Btw from rugers site it is a 33 grain bullet and it is based off of the 222 rem mag case... here is the article

STURM, RUGER ANNOUNCES FIVE RIFLES
IN NEW 204 RUGER CARTRIDGE

November 6, 2003

Sturm, Ruger is proud to introduce five rifle models for 2004 in an exciting new caliber: the 204 RUGER. This small, fast, and efficient new cartridge is the result of another joint development effort between Sturm, Ruger and Hornady Manufacturing Company. The 204 RUGER shares the same case head and overall length dimensions as the 222 Remington Magnum, but uses a slender new 20 caliber, 32 grain, V-MAX® bullet. The 204 RUGERs bullet has an extremely efficient ballistic coefficient of 0.192, and an amazing muzzle velocity of 4,225 feet per second.

When compared directly with either the 22-250 Remington or the 220 Swift, the 204 RUGER offers higher muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory. Because the 204 RUGER cartridge achieves a higher velocity with less propellant than either the 22-250 Remington or the 220 Swift, this new cartridge does not compromise barrel life. The 204 RUGER also offers lower recoil and muzzle report than comparable high-velocity, sub-caliber ammunition. Its conventional case shape avoids feeding problems and increased rearward bolt thrust associated with short and super short magnum cartridges.

Because this new caliber provides significant benefits for varmint hunters and target shooters alike, Sturm, Ruger is introducing five rifle models chambered for the 204 RUGER. These include three bolt action rifles and two single shot rifles. The Ruger M77 MKII bolt action rifles include: the M77R in blued steel with a cut-checkered American walnut stock; the KM77RLFP Ultralight All-Weather in stainless steel with a synthetic stock and a light contour barrel; and the Target Grey KM77VT Target rifle in stainless steel with a brown, laminated wood stock, heavy target barrel, and two-stage target trigger. Ruger No.1 single shot models include the No. 1 Standard in blued steel with a cut-checkered American walnut stock and the No. 1 Stainless Varminter in stainless steel with a black, laminated stock.

These new 204 RUGER models will be available beginning in March 2004.

www.ruger.com/Firearms/News-11-06-2003.html

grizz

Selmer · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2003, 07:53:12 AM »

Ok, I've seen two different press releases now, one stating that it's based on the .223 and one says it's based on the .222 Rem mag, I'm convinced it's the .222 Rem mag because of all the stuff I've seen that says it is and only one that says it's the .223. As for the speed debate, I'm looking to get a barrel in either .223 Rem or .204 Ruger for my Encore that's
16 1/4" long so I can use it as a pistol or carbine. Can I wind up the really light bullets in the .223 to over 3500 fps in that barrel length? I'm talking 30-40 gr. bullets here. If anyone has experimented with this type of configuration, please let me know.
Selmer

Yukon Jack · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2003, 11:11:39 AM »

Loader,
I don't see a problem with Ruger adding these cartridges. What Remington didn't outright steal the 25-06 and Winchester the Page Pooper? Nice to see a cartridge without the Remington or Winchester name on them.

Graybeard · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2003, 12:52:59 PM »

Quote

I am just a little suspicious of Ruger's new push for proprietary cartridges.

Actually I don't think Ruger is behind this. Note who is making all of them? HORNADY. They are also the one that is doing all the work on them and to get a major maker to chamber for them they have a deal with Ruger who previously didn't have their name on any rounds to let them use the Ruger name in return for chambering them.

Quote

What Remington didn't outright steal the 25-06 and Winchester the Page Pooper?

They didn't STEAL them they legitimized them. They took wildcat rounds and converted them to commercial. This has been going on a LONG time. Remington has done it more than anyone. Some times changing a shoulder angle or some small minor detail but basically taking a proven popular wildcat and making it legit as a commercial round. They tried it with the .35 Whelan and it didn't fly. But the 7-08 and .22-250 sure did. The .260 may or may not, the jury is still out on it. Still all of these are just like the .25-06 was.

GB

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2003, 01:12:19 PM »

I guess I just don't trust Ruger after the treasonous "assault weapon ban" sell-out. If I elect to try this cartridge, it will not be in a Ruger firearm.

As for the cartridge's performance, the proof will be in the pudding. If it doesn't foul as the .17 Remington does, it may make a good prarie dog gun out to 200 yards, wind being what it is. We don't have any prarie dogs around here so I might use it on crows.

You guys let me know how it does.

Yukon Jack · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2003, 02:13:00 PM »

I don't know GB, the name is as much $$$ as it is anything. Why did ol' get to Ned hold onto the 257 name? Once the cartridge has a name affixed to it, it means more bucks to the rifle manufacturer and to the ammunition manufacturer. Personally, to be fair by all rights, the 243 should be called the 244 Page. The 35 Whelen had much too much of a following for Remington slap their moniker on it in their run.

Guarantee you the biggest reason S&W changed the specs on the 500 so slightly away from Linebaugh's Long was to attach their name to it. Names are big business.