VarmintGuy
P.S.: I feel I should expound just a touch on the low recoil of the 204 Ruger - it enhances my Colony Varminting to see where the bullet impacts on longer shots and that is easily accomplished with the 204 Ruger - much easier and more often than even when I use my 223 Remingtons and other "light recoiling" Rifles calibers.
are any of those barrel burners?
Given use under the same conditions the 204 will use up a barrel faster than a 223. The 204 uses near identical powder charges as the 223 but the gas is being forced down a smaller hole. Will the difference be significant - that depends on your expectations of barrel life. I found that afer 2500- 3000 rounds of 204 I saw about the same erosion with it as I do with 4000-4500 rounds with my 223's.
VG -
Can you explain how the 204 and the 223, both using 40 gr bullets can have any difference in recoil? They both use virtually identical powder charges and if using the same bullet weight it is just not possible. The only way to have less recoil then is to drop bullet weigh down to a 32 gr, even then the recoil only lessens one-half of a ft lb. This is easily confirmed by using JBM ballistic charts.
I have owned 204's and 223's in identical rifles, including one in a switch barrel, and if there is any difference in recoil it is so slight as to not be noticable.
drover
