.204 Ruger vs. 22-250

[bigkahuna1019]

I'm going to buy a new rifle that will be dedicated to varmit hunting, from groundhogs to coyotes. I have read quite a bit about both calibers but am still undecided as to whether I should get the gun in .204 Ruger or in 22-250. Any suggestions as to which caliber and why? Thanks for your help.

[keeki]

ive had both calibers and the 22-250 will just outperform the 204 in a hunting enviroment where the wind, rain, and snow are factors.

[87predator]

I've had both and still own the 204. it is my go to Coyote rifle. Furthest known shot was 550+ (confirmed with range finder) but can't remember exact. Have had further but no range finder handy. Were all one shot kills. 250 can shot heavier i.e. better ballistics, but 204 uses less powder. Loaded with light 32 and 26, will do a number on p-dogs. I like them both but my edge hours to 204 just for personal preference. Heck just get them both ;D

[cgeorgemo]

I've got both .204 and 22-250 and I would lean more towards the 22-250 for longer range shots. If the prey are all within 300 yards then it's a tossup for me.

[darkker]

I have no warm place in my heart for the 22-250, but would take it over the 204R.
The reasons are:
1) Hard carbon. All barrels are "susceptable", but the sub-22's are more-so. A very large pain to deal with.
2) Bullets for coyotes. When I bought my Savage there was nothing heavier than a 40gr V-Max. My particular barrel didn't shoot the 40's of any make nearly as well as the 32's-35's; Noticed that with some friends with different makes as well. Some like one bullet, some don't.
I actually had witnessed "good hits", with bullet failures shooting the 40's. The 32's were touch and go when it came to getting through shoulders.
I had several threads on multiple boards about this issue, and basically was told that 1) there is no hard carbon, I can't shoot. 2) The 204 ALWAYS kills, I can't shoot. 3)I love mine, so you are an idiot.
3) Brass. At the time there wasn't much brass available, and Hornady had some bad lots of soft brass.

Granted, this is several years ago now; so take it for only what it is...
I always wanted a heavier bullet for coyotes, but it seemed as though I was the only one. Fast forward a few months after I sold it, and now there is a heavier SP specifically for coyotes ::) Since mine didn't care for the 40's, I don't know how/if the 45's would shoot.

I think the 204, for me, is a great pigeon popper; or small prairie dog gun. I don't find the recoil an issue for the 22-250, so again, personally, can't see how the ability to see the explosion in the scope is a benefit(Can do it with the 22-250 as well).

Between the two, I would take the 22-250. Although you didn't ask, if the softer recoil and lower powder use is your game, try the 223.

[cgeorgemo]

if the softer recoil and lower powder use is your game, try the 223.

+1 if the powder and recoil matters...
Still say 22-250 if that isn't a concern.

[87predator]

if the softer recoil and lower powder use is your game, try the 223.

+1 if the powder and recoil matters...
Still say 22-250 id that isn't a concern.


I would agree on recoil not being huge in a 250 but have less drop with 204 than 223, but then again just a matter of personal preference. Each one has faults and good sides

[xhogboss]

I've had them both - still have the 204. The .224 bullets will have more energy left at longer ranges and will drift less than the lighter, faster 204. The 204 is more pleasant to shoot - not as loud and not as much recoil as the 22-250. Hits with the 22-250 are more dramatic, but they both hurt what they hit. I think my 204 edges the 22-250 I had for accuracy, but both were minute-of-squirrel.

.223/5.56 is a lot cheaper than either.

[cgeorgemo]

The difference in flight time at 300 yards is less than 6 thousandths of a second .00516 sec if you use the muzzle speeds. Even if you use the slower speed they are both going at 300 yds the difference is only .0295 sec.

That is not the wind having "way less time to effect it"

BTW some of my 22-250 loads are faster than the 40gr .204 loads which is where I got the difference in flight time numbers for above.
My 22-250 pushes 45 gr bullets to an average velocity of 4028 fps at 3 feet in front of the muzzle with my hand loads.
My .204 pushes 40 gr bullets to an average velocity of 3937 fps at 3 feet in front of the muzzle with my hand loads.
What I've found is the 22-250 starts them out faster and the .204 keeps them going faster but the difference in "flight time" is ridiculously low.

The difference in drop at 300 yards is less than 1.5 inches. The increased recoil of the 22-250 does take you off the target in the scope however.

[03mossy]

I absolutely love reading these threads about the 204/223/2 2-250 debate! I read almost every thread like this that i could find when i was buying a varmint gun. Its good entertainment. I did end up with a 22-250 cause it was the first rifle i ever killed an animal with my grandpas 700 classic when i was 10 or so and always dreamed of my own. My prairie dog hunting group has this same debate every year, with each hunter defending there caliber of choice. They all have there place and will kill just the same. To me the 22-250 just does it with more flare. But why just have 1? I will also be bringing a 204 i put together from parts on this site. Someday im sure a 223 will also be in my stable. Enjoy whatever you pick

[cgeorgemo]

Anybody reading this thread wondering what in the world I'm going on about in my above post. There was a post that has been removed that I was replying to.

[Blue Avenger]

I don't like to clean my guns every time I use it, so the .204 is the lesser for me.

[bootsmcguire]

Anybody reading this thread wondering what in the world I'm going on about in my above post. There was a post that has been removed that I was replying to.
I posted after the post you mentioned and went back and looked at the thread and it was there. Today, gone. Anybody?

[cgeorgemo]

The poster has to remove the post and this particular person removed 2 of them.
I can't remember the posters name but I really hope that they didn't get offended by my post and that is the reason they bailed...I never want to offend someone.

[scope eye]

Don't worry about it

[scope eye]

I particularly don't care for for people who do that, it's uncivilized no matter what reason, were all adults here well most of us anyways.

[308law]

I like the 22-250 a little better for coyotes, has more energy. I like the 204 better for prairie dogs, burns less powder, heats up barrels slower, and barrels last a lot longer in volume shooting. With that being said either will work just fine on any varmint. I have the most problem with fowling from my 223 of all 3 of my varmint rifles so you never know. I started out with a 223, but was unhappy with performance/trajectory on prairie dogs. Now its my short range rifle and I use a 204 and a 22-250 for the longer stuff.

[scope eye]

If I was going to go the 20 cal route, I would probably go the 20 practical, there must be collectively at least 1 billion pieces of 223 brass on this planet circulating.

Tanks Dean

[cgeorgemo]

Well I still personally have on my want list a 22-250 barrel in a 1-9" twist rate.
I want to load up some heavier bullets and have them stabilize to see what type of performance I can get at longer ranges than my 1-14" will allow me to reach.

[308law]

That's my next project, a 1 in 8" twist 22-250 Ackley improved and 75grn Amax's at 3400fps, should make a great long range prairie dog cartridge.