Range of 204 Ruger?

[Gunner66]

I just bought a Remington 700VLS in 204 Ruger.  In your opinion will it shoot prairie dogs and groundhogs at the same distances as a 22-250?

P.S. - What do you think the effective range of it would be for coyotes?  

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

[Feez]

If you think a 17HMR would kill it at the muzzle, then a 204 Ruger would kill it at 500 Yards.

Hornady's website shows
17HMR - 2550 feet per second and 245 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.
204 Ruger - 1889 feet per second and 256 foot pounds of energy at 500 yards.

The trajectory for 32 grain 204 Ruger is a tiny bit better than all the 22-250's they show.
https://www.hornady.com/shop/
After you select a caliber, click "view ballistics"

[Catfish]

I don`t think you will be able to tell any difference in effective range in the field between the .204 and the .22-250. The 250 will hit alittle harder and make afew kills that the .204 might not, but the .204 will do less hide damage and use less powder, if your a reloader. I`ve been shooting .17`s for the past few years, leaveing my .22`s in the rack, but did pick-up a .204 to play with. I really think it`s the best alround varmint round on the market at this time. But there are so many others that are so close to it they do 99% of what it will do. So if your one of those guys that have to have that last 1% you`ve got to have one.  :wink:

[Buckskin]

Actually the 204 hits harder than the 22-250 when both are using 40 grain v-max factory loads.  At 500 yds the 204 has a velocity of 2133 and 404 ft-lbs of energy while the 22-250 has a velocity of 1771 and 278 ft-lbs of energy.  And the 204 is much flatter shooting.

Buckskin[/quote]

[Catfish]

Buckskin,
   What you said is true, but anyone shooting a 40 grn. bullet at that range in a .22-250 is a fool. The BC of a 40 grn. bullet ain`t worth a crap in .22 cal., but in .20 cal. is very respectiable. In the .22-250 you should be useing 55 grn bullets, or heaver, when shooting 500 yrds.

[IowaBuckHunter]

hey catfish- you are right, a 40 gr 22 cal bullet is bad for bc.  However I went to remingtons website and compared ballistics between a 40gr. 204 and a 55 gr 22-250.  the 204 had a much better bc, better speed, much flatter shooting, and they both had 363 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards.  After reading that, it is obvious that a 204 is superior.

[Catfish]

Yea, I would agree that the .204 is sperior to the .22-250 on paper, that do mean to much in the field. With these 2 - 99% of hits and misses is the guy behind the gun and not the extra preformance. The .22 -250 will shot point blank to abt. 310 yrds. The .204 might shoot point blank to 325 yrds., so how many groundhog do you shoot between 310 and 325 yrds? That pretty much is the difference. But it sure is fun to talk about.  :wink: