ruger 204 vs. remington 700?

Question

Ok as I said awhile back I was getting a new rifle in .270 winchester. I went for a remington 700 ADL. Got it for $450 at Cabela's. My friend says I made a good purchase but the Ruger 204 is better. So, is it?

I was originally going for a savage model 110 or 111 but I didn't want something that some look at as cheap. Plus I have heard some mixed reviews of them.

Answer 1

well, Ruger 204 is a chambering not a rifle



and Remington 700 is a rifle, not a chambering...



In other words, you can get a Remington 700 chambered in 204 Ruger...so how can they vs eachother?



The Ruger 204 is a specialized varmint cartridge for shooting coyotes, prairie dogs, and a few other mid to small sized animals at long range. The 270 winchester is a generalized cartridge good for taking elk, deer, black bear, mountain goat, big horn sheep, antelope, etc etc.

Answer 2

I've owned both, and am severely biased to the Savage. The Remingtons are nice, and are some of the nicer looking bolt guns. I'll give them that. I believe that the Savage is a better shooting rifle, though. The free-floating bolt face is a great idea, increasing accuracy by placing equal force on both locking lugs similar to lapped lugs. The Accu-Trigger is probably the greatest trigger anyone has ever put on a rifle. Nothing comes close for this price, or even twice the price. Takes a little getting used to for some shooters, though. Caliber changes are easier, as the barrel is held on by a locknut, and the bolt face can be changed without replacing the whole bolt or milling the bolt face. The thumb safety is lower and safer than the safety on the Remington. The lever on the back of the 700 is more prone to snagging. The Savages come with dual front sling swivels, for mounting a bipod and not inhibiting the ability to attach a sling. The Savages come pillar bedded from the factory, I don't believe that the more expensive stocks on the Remington do. The 700 I had(.300 WBYMAG in wood) developed a looseness in the stock, which really let accuracy drop. My Savage, though I have a tendancy to abuse it, is still very solid, and the fat recoil lug lines up perfectly, keeping the barrel very free floating, even under heavy recoil. Grouping on the 700 was pretty poor, but it did have a lighter barrel. As the stock was torn up by the heavy recoil of the .300 round, groups opened up more and more, and pretty soon we were just trying to get them all on paper. My Savage, with no accuratizing work done to it, is a one hole rifle at 100m if I do my part. I think there are a few others, but none that come to mind at the moment.

Answer 3

The .270 Winchester is a more versatile cartridge than the .204 Ruger cartridge. The .270 can harvest a wider variety of game, and it is more likely to be on the shelf in a gun store.



The .204 Ruger is (yet another) varminting cartridge that is competing for a spot among a long list of other varminting cartridges.

Is the .204 Ruger bad? No. But I've no interest in purchasing it.



Congratulations on your purchase of a Remington Model 700 ADL. :-)

Answer 4

The 204 and 270 are 2 completely different cartridges and can't really be compared to each other. Depending on your use, one 1 will be better than the other.



As far as the Savages you won't see much as far as 'mixed' reviews. Generally less expensive not because they're cheap but because they've refined it down to the basics. You may find some that think they look cheap, you won't find very man knowledgeable people who say they aren't good shooters though.,

Answer 5

Depends... What are you gona be shooting at mostly? hogs? elk? pronghorn? bear? or small critters like groundhog/woodchuck/rockchuck, prairie dog, squirrels, raccoons?



bigger critters - .270... more punch

smaller critters - .204.. flatter trajectory

Answer 6

The two calibres are worlds apart and virtually impossible to compare to each other. Lack of experience shines through..........................kids!