SmallCaliberCentral

I am a recent new owner of a CZ 527 Varmint in .204 Ruger. Am rapidly becoming a zealot!

I also reload.

I also have issues with brass at range. I can't resist brass hunting or scrounging and then converting. I love my 25-06 because I can take 30-06, 280 and 270 and convert.

So...the big question:

Does anyone know the rationale for developing the .204 Ruger from .223 Magnum, which was about gone in 2004 and is certainly "gone" now, and not the .222, from which I understand the 223 Magnum came from.

There is bound to be a reason, but it sure makes scrounging brass up at the range a non-starter, at least for the 204! Was insidious corporate scheming to make one buy new brass?

I have googled it more than once, and can find the history, but not the choice.

thanks.

jcininb

The 204 was based on the .222 magnum which gives about 10% more case capacity than if it was based on the .223

Tokimini wrote:The 204 was based on the .222 magnum which gives about 10% more case capacity than if it was based on the .223

Corrrect....there is no and has never been a ".223 Magnum". The OP was most likely thinking of the 222 Rem Mag, which was the predecessor of the 204 and called the ".20 Terminator"; another great creation from Todd Kindler.

Rationale? Whoever said that cartridge designers needed a rationale for their choices?

That being said, cartridge design is a compromise. If you want to design a cartridge that fits in .223 magazines, uses the .223 bolt face, and still gets 4,000 FPS, you need more case capacity behind it than the .223 case can provide.

Personally, I would have straightened the walls out just a tiny bit more, and gone just a tiny bit steeper on the shoulders, like the Ackley line. However, that is not without compromise, as it can cause trouble with feeding and extraction. Feeding in bolt-action rifles would take a bit more work on them than normal cartridges, and going to such a design would probably entirely preclude reliable operation in semiauto platforms like the AR15.

At the time the .204 was first released a lot of wildcatters bemoaned the fact that Todd Kindler's .20 Tactical wasn't chosen instead. In "Small Caliber News" when the .20 Tactical first appeared Todd touted the .20 Tactical as "a 4,350FPS death ray". Most couldn't or wouldn't get that velocity but I know my working load with the original 33 grain V-Max offering chrono's over 4,100ish FPS with fantastic accuracy and great case life (that is by the way using IMI Mil-Spec brass which is heck for stout compared to domestic .223 brass).
A large part of the complaints about the new .204 over the .20 Tactical was the fact that the .20 Tactical based off the .223 case offered the handloader a much greater choice in upscale brass. A lot of other arguments were based around the "opinion" that the .20 Tactical was a better performer than the .204 and the typical mine is better than your's argument ensued. As a lover of all things small caliber it was obvious to me that the "mine is better than your's" arguments were for the most part apples to oranges due to all our .20 Tactical's being custom guns with custom barrels, mine is a 3 groove Pac-Nor Super Match. The .204's on the other hand were for the most part factory offerings and while a lot of em shot great it really wasn't fair to compare em straight across with a rifle put together by a good smith.
As a good excuse to buy a new rifle I ordered a CZ 527 Varmint Kevlar with the H.S. Precision stock in .204. After break in and load development I had consistent sub half inch loads but the most accurate of which were unable to fit the magazine cause they were seated out to long to get close to the lands. Having proven the CZ was a shooter I decided to do a more apples to apples comparison between it and the .20 Tactical.
I sent the CZ to Greg Tannel who set the barrel back enough to re-chamber it with a snug but no turn neck, zero free-bore, minimum spec .204 reamer on the factory barrel. On it's return I started over on load development and when I was all finished I had a 32 grain load as well as a 39 grain BlitzKing load VS a 40 grain V-Max .20 Tac load that were both within a few feet per second of the same bullets load in the .20 Tactical. Literally only a few FPS difference. On top of that the shorter throat in the re-chambered .204 allowed more flexibility in seating and the accuracy picked up in the already fine shooting 527 as well. I've included a picture showing a few wildcats along with the .204.



They are left to right a, .17 Ackley Hornet, a .20 Killer Bee, a .20 VarTarg, a .20 Tactical and a .204. Both the .204 based on the .222Mag case and the .20 Tactical based on the .223 in my "mini test" turned in near identical performance.

"WARNING "!
When you alter a .204 chamber in such a fashion you have basically created a .204 wildcat. Once all that free-bore is gone those hot loaded factory rounds designed for all that free-bore become "TOTALLY UNSAFE". Also, all reloading data that's published becomes unsafe as well. There is no free lunch here but I did prove (to myself at least) that the mine is better than your's thing is once again a foolish argument.
As to the reason for the .204 instead of the .20 Tactical, I'm sure Ruger wanted their own round with their own name on it and went in with Hornady making the ammo with that thought in mind. A fine round it is too!
Sorry if that's over long.

Very good analogy Doug. And it is spot on. The 204 Ruger, with the tight throat shoots lights out. A 204 Match chamber is the way to go. Bill K

I have never found any 222 Mag case at a shooting range. I pick up any cases that are left by people who do not reload ammo. I enjoy reading about wildcat cartridges and how they compare to factory ammo. If there were no people into developing different size cases it would be unlikely that we would have some of the fine factory cartridges we have today. After reading about 17 Hornet wildcat cartridge for some years I got a CZ 527 Varmint 17 Hornady Hornet that shoots sub 1/2 inch 100 yard groups with factory ammo. My 17 Fireball and 204 Ruger rifles are also as accurate with reloads. --- Thanks Wildcatters ----