204 cal

[paulus 26]

has anyone out there had experiance shooting this round. thinking of investing in one. this gun will be just for fox and will replace my old 22.250

[RicW 67]

has anyone out there had experiance shooting this round. thinking of investing in one. this gun will be just for fox and will replace my old 22.250

I can't claim to speak from experience here but from all I've learned on this forum you must be stark staring mad even to consider the idea. The 22.250 is probably the ultimate 22 centrefire fox round. The .204 is a dodgy little lightweight boy's toy. If you really want to go for a serious fox round apply for a condition for a .243. Bear in mind that the 204 was developed as a "varmint" round. It kills little skinny groundhogs and squirrels and rats but it is neither use nor ornament for shooting anything with a body more than about 1cm thick

[paulus 26]

has anyone out there had experiance shooting this round. thinking of investing in one. this gun will be just for fox and will replace my old 22.250

I can't claim to speak from experience here but from all I've learned on this forum you must be stark staring mad even to consider the idea. The 22.250 is probably the ultimate 22 centrefire fox round. The .204 is a dodgy little lightweight boy's toy. If you really want to go for a serious fox round apply for a condition for a .243. Bear in mind that the 204 was developed as a "varmint" round. It kills little skinny groundhogs and squirrels and rats but it is neither use nor ornament for shooting anything with a body more than about 1cm thick

 

the problem with 22.250 is noise and barrel life. now the 204 on paper is faster than a 22.250 only slightly lighter on the bullet weight and burns less powder so should be on paper as good if not better. now as for the rest of your reply. well i dont think i want to go there. stop readind start doing then comment.

[paulus 26]

the problem with 22.250 is noise and barrel life. now the 204 on paper is faster than a 22.250 only slightly lighter on the bullet weight and burns less powder so should be on paper as good if not better. now as for the rest of your reply. well i dont think i want to go there. stop reading start doing then comment.

Edited August 17, 2009 by paulus

[bobndog 0]

has anyone out there had experiance shooting this round. thinking of investing in one. this gun will be just for fox and will replace my old 22.250

I can't claim to speak from experience here but from all I've learned on this forum you must be stark staring mad even to consider the idea. The 22.250 is probably the ultimate 22 centrefire fox round. The .204 is a dodgy little lightweight boy's toy. If you really want to go for a serious fox round apply for a condition for a .243. Bear in mind that the 204 was developed as a "varmint" round. It kills little skinny groundhogs and squirrels and rats but it is neither use nor ornament for shooting anything with a body more than about 1cm thick

 

the problem with 22.250 is noise and barrel life. now the 204 on paper is faster than a 22.250 only slightly lighter on the bullet weight and burns less powder so should be on paper as good if not better. now as for the rest of your reply. well i dont think i want to go there. stop readind start doing then comment.

:clapper: Well said, too many armchair shooters around. :clapper:

[paulus 26]

thanks mate

ask a serious question and get a load of bol!!!!s

[RicW 67]

thanks mate

ask a serious question and get a load of bol!!!!s

Fair comment. I did say that I cannot speak from experience. YET.

Ric

[CharlieT 32]

I have a 22.250 and a .204.

 

I've had the 204 about 2 years now and with 40gr bullets I have to say it's fantastic. It is the gun I use the most by far. No fox has complained about it yet. It really is a fun caliber and devastating on everything from crows to fox.

[paulus 26]

thats whot i was thinking. thanks for the reply. whots the ammo cost like compared to 22.250

[champion 0]

has anyone out there had experiance shooting this round. thinking of investing in one. this gun will be just for fox and will replace my old 22.250

Hi I have had a 204 for 2 years and like the othere chap agree the 40 grain bullet is best I have shot a lot of foxes with it and a lot more. It does have a problem in wind at which point I take my 243 with me. I find it deadly accurate and gives me great confidence when out with it. Plus a real fun gun for crows and long range rabbits no good if you want to eat the rabbit.

Dont forget it was designed as a varment calibre and in most cases does not exit the fox so skins are in good nick when removed and cured. hope this helps you a bit. In all honesty I wood not change your 22 250 for the 204 the only advantage is the bullets are cheaper.

[spiderpig 39]

ive had a go with one and think its bloody mint,i love flat shooting calibres so it fits the bill great.if you doubt the energy of on i can show you a 1/4 inch stell plate its been shooting strait through!

[Mr_Logic 5]

I also speak with direct experience of the 204. I had one for 6 weeks and it was a PITA, so I sold it. Gone back to 243, which is more gun than either. It flies flatter and bucks the wind better than either, too.

 

Now, 204 is a good calibre on paper. BUT... here's a few points.

 

1. It's a necked down 222 Magnum, which means that you need a good long barrel (24") to burn the powder, and you will really suffer if you don't have one.

 

2. Most are 1:12 twist. Some shoot the 40 grain, some don't. If you get one that doesn't, you're in trouble. I had a 204 which didn't make it out the other side of a rabbit, so beware the 32 grain bullet. 39grain Blitzking should be OK, if you can get them.

 

3. Being a 20 calibre, you may struggle to get ammo and/or components for it. 22 cal bullets are everywhere, the 22-250 can be reloaded cheaply.

 

Basically, you have a 22-250 which is a damn fine fox calibre. It's better than the 204 in terms of availability of ammo, components etc. It flies as flat and hits harder. 204 has the advantage that it has basically no recoil, but I wouldn't change.

 

If you have to have something else, then get a 243. Regarding barrel life, stainless barrel and you're looking at 2,000+ rounds of accurate life. How many foxes do you shoot?!

 

Now, if you asked me about 204 as a rabbit/crow gun, my answer would be different

[SNAP SHOT 194]

just to add, i've seen foxes taken at nearly 400 yards with this calibre, so its well up for the job......

 

 

also the 40g bullet is a little finiky with what it shoots in.... i suggest you try the 39's they are more accurate.....

 

anything its been pointed at so far died...... behind the hands of a good shooter.... i've seen it shoot a rabbit at 430 yards...

 

 

So its an exciting calibre,

 

 

 

Snap.

[RicW 67]

has anyone out there had experiance shooting this round. thinking of investing in one. this gun will be just for fox and will replace my old 22.250

Paulus -

I would like publicly to apologise for my ill-judged post earlier on this thread. What I was trying to say was that, as someone with no practical experience of centrefires in the field, I was puzzled as to why you were looking at a smaller calibre for fox, rather than going to a larger calibre. This, I think, is a fair question, in keeping with the ethos of this forum. I wanted to get the benefit of your experience so that I can avoid mistakes in the future. Having re-read my first post, it is very clear that it came over as a finger-wagging rant from someone who, frankly, doesn't know his ar*e from his elbow. Once more, my apologies. :oops: :blush:

[pnse 0]

I've used a 20 cal for about a year and no fox has got up after a good hit with a 40 grn vmax,as a long range crow and rabbit gun i don't think you can get better,[at sensible ranges re 3-400 yards]

atb paul

Edited August 18, 2009 by pnse