# Ruger 204



## cbbase34 (Nov 22, 2007)

Hi, im getting ready to buy a Ruger M77 MKII 204 Cal, can someone please tell me anything about these rifles before i buy it........ thank you


----------



## johngfoster (Oct 21, 2007)

Ruger makes a good rifle. Their scope mounting system is excellent. Don't have experience with 204, but from what I've read, they shoot well, but tend to burn out barrels sooner than others--again, just hear-say on my part.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

All I know is I WANT ONE!! GET IT!! is it an ultralight or the new Hawkeye? However I now like the 22-250!


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I've had nothing but bad luck with Rugers, except the Red Label and 10/22. The 77's I've owned delivered mediocre accuracy at best, and had the worst out of the box triggers I've experienced. Pretty rifles that don't perform defines Ruger for me.

I recently went through a customer service nightmare with Ruger. I bought a Model 96 17HMR, which was a lemon out of the box. I sent it back to Ruger, where, 5 months later they agreed it was FUBAR and advised they were going to send me a new one.

Three months after that I still had not gotten a new rifle from them. It took several phone calls to find that the 96 had been discontinued but that one of the last was supposed to be sent to me.

A couple weeks after this, I got a call from Ruger advising the 96 I was to be sent was a POS that they could not send in good conscience, and wanted to replace it with a 77/17. Even though I'm LH, I agreed to this.

So nigh onto *10 months *after I sent them the lemon, they delivered a RH 77/17. It's in it's box in the safe, and will be trading stock next time I'm looking at a new rifle.

The 204 Ruger round is great, but Ruger sucks. I will never own another...


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

ill probably not buy an american made production bolt gun that isnt a ruger. except possibly a kimber someday. yes, the triggers suck on the old ones, but whose factory triggers didnt? now we have the accutrigger, and rugers new hawkeye. theres a reason they discontinued the 96, unlike some companies who like to send out guns in any form, functional or not.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

There's a lot more to the story than the short version I posted above, including promises made personally over the phone by the VP of Customer Service of his personally ramrodding fast turn around and complete satisfaction.

When I took the opportunity to advise of my issues with M77's in the past and to suggest they might want to tighten up on the bottom line, ie accuracy, he advises (and I paraphrase) that M77's are made for the "average shooter" and to have "acceptable hunting accuracy". It was almost, but not quite what in my business is called a Spontaneous Admission.

Buy a Ruger if you like, you can have all of my share too...


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

NDTerminator said:


> I've had nothing but bad luck with Rugers, except the Red Label and 10/22. The 77's I've owned delivered mediocre accuracy at best, and had the worst out of the box triggers I've experienced. Pretty rifles that don't perform defines Ruger for me.
> 
> I recently went through a customer service nightmare with Ruger. I bought a Model 96 17HMR, which was a lemon out of the box. I sent it back to Ruger, where, 5 months later they agreed it was FUBAR and advised they were going to send me a new one.
> 
> ...


 I'm the exact oppisite, I've had nothing but good luck with rugers, they're reliable accurate and are a blast to shoot Not long ago I bought a hawkeye with the houge overmolded stock in 270 It was so easy to shoot that I sighted it in off handed and it shoots pretty dang straight and I've heard nothing but good about the 204 good luck with whatever you get :sniper:


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

I'd get a 22-250. Its a little more versatile and will do everything the 204 will do. The trajectory difference, as I have it calculated is .7 inches at 500 yards. I also believe the components will be cheaper if you reload, or if you ever plan to, and the factory ammo will be cheaper for the 22-250 (I think).

In short the 204 has nothing on the 22-250 and will most likely be a little cheaper to shoot, and is not a passing fad. I expect the 204, like many of the other new calibers will fad away with time, but the 22-250 will still be around. :2cents:


----------



## ay tee (Jun 11, 2007)

i have heard good and bad about the m77... i do have a .204 though, a savage rather than a ruger.. i love the gun and everything about the round except for as said the price takes some change to match... factory loaded Hornady V-Max 40Gr is what i have been using i got 200 rounds about 2 months ago for right around 80 cents a shot, i see that they are now up to 90 cents a shot... reloading is much cheaper i am still doing the math as to how much cheaper and if it is worth the equipment to reload... from what i have figured it is right around 40-45 cents a loaded round to reload, but that is not a solid number yet...


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

Ay-tee,

Last time I did the math, I could load some very hot loads for my 22-250 at 38 cents a shot. I has probably gone up a bit since then.


----------



## ay tee (Jun 11, 2007)

as we both said, it would cost a little more than other rounds... but really thats pretty comparable... you can put a 204 round together for less than what i used for figuring and since it is still a fairly new round, once it gains some popularity them prices may come down a bit, or slow the rate at which the prices are raised... 
there is highs and lows about everything, this will never exclude the .204, 22 250, and 223... personal preference will buy out in the end


----------

