.222 Remington vs .204 Ruger????

J

jrothWA

New member
Have a T/C Contender, am considering taking a 14" .222 Rem barrel and permanently adding a 2" extension that's bored out to the groove diameter of the .222 for having a nice varmit barrel OR should I get the .204 Ruger barrel??

Not sure whaat the .204 does that the .222Rem does??

Advise, Thanks.
 
The 204 does about 1000fps more than the 222(from a rifle barrel). Personally, I'd stick with the 222 in a 14" barrel.
 
They both go bang?

They are both varmit rounds?


The biggest difference between the two would be that .224" diameter bullets are as common (and therefore as cheap) as dirt ...... 20 cal, not so much.
 
Last edited:
.223" diameter bullets are as common (and therefore as cheap) as dirt
Click to expand...
I am sure he meant .224" bullets are common. That is what the 222 Remington will need if you reload. 222 Rem is a very nice, mild-mannered cartridge, a classic sweetheart. Accurate, mild recoil, very popular many years ago.

The 204 is in a diffferent category of cartridge altogether. It is an ultra-velocity varmint cartridge that has enjoyed enormous success since its introduction about 10 years ago.
 
204 ruger is a heck of a lot faster and flatter shooting,
Its also a lot better in the wind than 222.

If its only for small varmints I'd go for 204 ruger, 223 wold be cheaper to shoot than the 204, but the 222 isn't anywhere near as common so its probably about the same price as 204.

Go 204 Ruger
 
Why add 2" to a 14" contender barrel? Unless you are thinking of using the Contender as a carbine? With a stock, you need a 16" barrel to be legal.

Why not just use the 14" as a handgun? Shooting off a rest of some kind (shooting sticks work), with a rifle scope on it, its pretty close to a rifle. Recoil of the .222 will not make the gun hit you in the face (if you are holding it) even with a short eye relief rifle scope.

The 14" pistols are a pain to shoot offhand, and for varmints, you need a rest to ensure hitting the small targets, but is quite do able.

I have a .222 and other .22 centerfires. I have no interest in the .204, for one thing, I'd have to get a special cleaning rod!;)

If you are talking a 14" or 16" barrel, will the performance of the .204 be all that much different from the .222 at practical ranges? I don't know, maybe a .204 owner can tell us?
 
Modifying the 14" barrel would allow me..

to comply with 1934 NFA rule on barrel length and use the Carbine stock I own.

In SE Michigan, the .222Rem would be "safer" than .22Hornet or .22LR.
[more velocity with lighter bullets increase the impact when impacting the ground, minimizing ricochets.]

Standard 16", 21" & 23" G2 barrels are .223 only, hence modifying the .222 barrel.

Thanks for all feedback.

Have a MERRY Christmas and a Happy New YEAR!
 
If you don't reload, .204 will probably be cheaper and easier to buy off of a shelf. I haven't seen a box of .222 in years.

On the other hand, you can reload .222 for much less than .204 because of the cost of the bullets (as others have mentioned) and because .222 brass will likely last longer.
 
221 is the way to go in a handgun. The 222 and 223 Contenders Ive shot have too much muzzle blast in the Super 14's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top