204Ruger

Shaky, for proven powders in the 204, my suggestions are:
H335
RL-10X
Benchmark
CFE 223

From my own personal experience and pet loads listed here, these are the most popular powders in this caliber for good speed and accuracy, accuracy being the first priority. There are others of course that may perform well in a particular rifle, but these have proven themselves over the time the cartridge has been in existence.

I have never shot factory ammo in any of my rifles, so can't comment on any factory loaded ammunition. Good luck in that regard.

Rick in Oregon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:28 am Shaky, for proven powders in the 204, my suggestions are:
H335
RL-10X
Benchmark
CFE 223

From my own personal experience and pet loads listed here, these are the most popular powders in this caliber for good speed and accuracy, accuracy being the first priority. There are others of course that may perform well in a particular rifle, but these have proven themselves over the time the cartridge has been in existence.

I have never shot factory ammo in any of my rifles, so can't comment on any factory loaded ammunition. Good luck in that regard.

Rick
thank you I have to ask where do you get load data from? Specifically for the 39 grain Sierra. Hodgon only lists two powders for that bullet Accurate 2015 and 2046 every where else I have looked doesnt list those powders for 204. Not trying to be PIA but be safe is all.

Shaky, over the years, I've accumulated over 25 loading manuals from all the major bullet makers. Every year I get the annual Hodgeon manual off the news stand, plus the annual Handloader Magazine annual. There are literally hundreds of loads published for every caliber of handgun and rifle in these publications.

I never depend on online sources, only published data from either the bullet maker or powder maker. But if you check out the Favorite Loads section of this forum, you'll see a trend in regard to what has worked for others. I have every manual Nosler has ever produced, and gain much information as a result, I talk to them on a regular basis, as my wife worked there for many years, and they are willing to share this type of information willingly. Sometimes just a phone call will answer questions, and I've found that a phone call always beats sending an email to any factory or maker....it's just more personal and shows you care enough to call.

Loading manuals are your very best source of loading information, as I'm not aware of anyone having their own ballistics lab on site.

This link may help:

https://www.handloadermagazine.com/204-ruger-pet-loads

Never thought of CFE BLK in the 204R RIck. I have fine results with CFE 223, may have to try BLK. I know it works well in some of my small cases.

I corrected that load to list CFE 223, and not CFE BLK which is a bit too fast for this application. You must have seen it just prior to me correcting my mistake. Sorry about that.

Another tidbit you may consider......shooting this caliber from a fixed mount such as the Lead Sled will not give you satisfactory results. The rifle needs to be able to recoil freely or at least snugged up to your shoulder on the bags and be able to recoil straight back. The Lead Sled is intended for heavy recoiling calibers used for elk and the like, and not varmint cartridges. Even with large bore rifles, it is not ideal for testing. We all use a front rest and rear bag a-la the BR technique, and have seen the dramatic difference in accuracy at the target.

My buddy Dan taking a moment for a pic with his setup in the bed of his truck:



You're fee to use whatever method you choose of course, but this technique and equipment is what has worked very well for us over the years. During our multi-day rat shoots, we've never ever seen a Lead Sled in the field, and that speaks volumes, and I myself have been shooting the 204 Ruger since they first came out in 2004. My Sako M75V was possibly one of the very first 204's on the west coast, and came direct from Beretta/Sako back in '04. A great varmint caliber, and probably why I have four of 'em.

Rick in Oregon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 12:08 pm Shaky, over the years, I've accumulated over 25 loading manuals from all the major bullet makers. Every year I get the annual Hodgeon manual off the news stand, plus the annual Handloader Magazine annual. There are literally hundreds of loads published for every caliber of handgun and rifle in these publications.

I never depend on online sources, only published data from either the bullet maker or powder maker. But if you check out the Favorite Loads section of this forum, you'll see a trend in regard to what has worked for others. I have every manual Nosler has ever produced, and gain much information as a result, I talk to them on a regular basis, as my wife worked there for many years, and they are willing to share this type of information willingly. Sometimes just a phone call will answer questions, and I've found that a phone call always beats sending an email to any factory or maker....it's just more personal and shows you care enough to call.

Loading manuals are your very best source of loading information, as I'm not aware of anyone having their own ballistics lab on site.

This link may help:

https://www.handloadermagazine.com/204-ruger-pet-loads

Rick
thank you I agree with you 100% on loading manuals and that was what I was asking guess vaguely. I will keep looking.

As far as the lead sled only use it to sight in I have started to use a cheap front gun rest and a bag for the stock. its a learning curve for sure but I have noticed its more accurate.

Thanks again for the assist.
Shaky

Those four powders, I have used them all. I used a lot of CCI 400 primers for years with no issues. Don’t know if it was a lot issue or what, but one summer I started popping them loaded with R10X loads. I have since went to 450’s or 71/2’s no more issues.
YMMV

jsh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:02 am Those four powders, I have used them all. I used a lot of CCI 400 primers for years with no issues. Don’t know if it was a lot issue or what, but one summer I started popping them loaded with R10X loads. I have since went to 450’s or 71/2’s no more issues.
YMMV

jsh
thanks I started with CCI 400 (25 rounds) and had no issues. I will keep what you say in mind in the future. I picked up a pound of Benchmark and R10X today and look forward to loading some up and trying them out. Going to try the Sierra 39 gr. Should be a nice round...

In addition to the ones Rick mentioned, I've had good luck with RL-15, H4895, N135, N540 and 8208-XBR. Primers, I stick to Remington 7 1/2 for the most part although I have CCI and Federal on hand if needed.

I listed the powders I've seen the best results with, and will freely admit there are others that also work, as we all know every rifle is a rule unto itself.

I also have used the Remington 7-1/2 primer almost exclusively in all my 204's, previously to that, I used the Federal Match SRP, 205M with good results, but have about 25K of the Rem's, and as they give stellar accuracy and consistency, so use them as my go-to standard.

With all the different powder/bullet/primer combinations we have, it can be mind boggling finding "THE" chosen one. I always say "if it works, don't dink with it".

jsh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:02 am Those four powders, I have used them all. I used a lot of CCI 400 primers for years with no issues. Don’t know if it was a lot issue or what, but one summer I started popping them loaded with R10X loads. I have since went to 450’s or 71/2’s no more issues.
YMMV

Also, the .204 Ruger is a relatively high pressure cartridge at around 55-57,000 PSI and soft thin cup primers get a real workout and hence why it's a fair risk of piecing a primer and causing a blowback, frightening for shooter but also will end up damaging a bolt face. The thicker primer cups are CCI 450 & BR4 @ 0.025"...Remington 7 1/2 @0.025" and close are Federal 205M @0.225. The softest and thinest primers are the likes of Federal 200 @ 0.019" and hence why in so many calibres they show very early signs of flattening and/or piercing with even modest loads in the higher pressure cartridge designs.

I'll throw in my .02 worth and confirm that the Rem. 7 1/2 primers are excellent in the 204. Remington originally developed that primer for the awesome 17 Rem. a huge favorite of mine..........I think that's blasphemy on this site.
The 2 powders my 204 likes is IMR8208 and H4895.
We don't have many varmints around here, so the 204 I have was designed around Fox/Coyote hunting in the mountains. At times it does Cat duty as well.

K22, no issue too me anyway on the 17 Rem. I and others have, had or dealed with one, along with the 20 cal. Nice photo of your rifle and the kitty. Thanks for sharing. The 7.5 primer is my #1 choice also.

This may be slightly off the original posting topic, but it does tie-in to the recent reloading conversation. While I have yet to jump on the reloading bandwagon, I am very appreciative of all the input from this membership with regards to the "recipes" that many of you have followed with your particular 204R. I know if/when I am finally bitten by the bug, there will be many different load combinations in which to choose from based on your own experience - which speaks volumes in my opinion. Winter still holds SW MT firmly in its grasp but with every new passing day spring gets closer and closer. I even saw my first Richardson ground squirrel yesterday sunning itself on the snow. It was tempting to send it flying...but alas it was in town.

In all my rat rifles, I use the Remington 7-1/2 primer. As Skipper notes, it has a thick cup to resist the high pressure of the 204R and other high intensity cartridges. As K22 mentioned, it was specifically designed and intended for the 17 Remington, a high intensity cartridge.

To that end, there was an excellent article in the now defunct Precision Shooting Magazine in the mid-90's that featured an extensive test of actual primer flames as seen with a high-speed camera in a dimly lit environment. All popular brands of primers were tested, and it clearly showed that the 7-1/2 primer had the strongest flame to ignite the powder column. The article also detailed the various cup thickness of each primer and all dimensions also. So if anyone has a stash of PS magazines, this article may be the very best source of answering these questions that still linger to this day.

I had to get rid of my entire PS collection, as it was taking up much too much room in the man cave, as those walls seem to be growing to the center lol. Pity, as it was quite the resource, but reality dictated that it go. Sometimes reality sucks. This was one of those times.

Sidenote: We've got a fresh dump of 8" of snow here and the annual Rat Rodeo is fast approaching. Confidence is high for a WX change so the little buggers can come out of their burrows and we can use our 204R rat rifles for their intended purpose. Fingers are crossed!

Yes Loretta, squirrels can fly!