If a barrel refuses to clean up with this method, I'll add a thorough wet-down and brushing with Holland's Witches Brew, finished off again with BR 9 or a similar cleaner.

As you might expect, shooting and cleaning a .20 takes some .20-caliber equipment. I got my 28-inch Dewey cleaning rod, jags and brushes from Sinclair International. (The company will soon have dies and other supplies for the new cartridge as well.) I found that Pro Shot .22-.270 1 1/8-inch precut patches worked great, although they are snug. My vintage Pro Shot bore guide worked with both rigs.

I got the chance to use the Savage on a few long-range prairie dogs while shooting with Chuck Cornett's annual Prairie Dog Conference held in Southwestern South Dakota this past June. In the real world, the .204 looks like it'll stand alongside the .22-250 quite nicely. Even in gusty wind, I found it easy to hit to 200 yards by simply arranging the first Mil-Dot to either side of the reticle intersection and squeezing the AccuTrigger. To 200 yards, either factory load must be called explosive. Out to 300 yards the Savage/Burris/Hornady combination was deadly while the explosive bullet effect dropped off somewhat beyond 250 yards.

At 300 yards I used the Burris Mil-Dot reticle to hold off two dots or so for wind. Bullet drift in wind is a difficult thing to judge because rarely do we see a wind that is consistent anywhere in the West. I often checked the wind velocity and found it ranging from seven to 20 mph or so, but I knew it was doing different things downrange. Anyone familiar with long-range shooting and wind flags has seen flags at different ranges going in opposite directions. You can feel the same thing if you ride motorcycles or fly light aircraft, too.

Will a .17 or .20 drift more than a .22 or 6mm? I suspect that with 32-grain slugs they will drift about the same as a .22-250 40-grain load. Loaded with 40-grain bullets, the .204 might drift slightly less. It'll be tough to predict and even tougher to measure. At this speed it'll drift far less than the parent cartridge, to be sure. To 300 yards, anyone shooting a .204 on prairie dogs is well equipped, in my opinion. Back home it was time to start the shoot-out. I picked a normal day with temperatures in the low 70s and the wind at my back. I used white Data-Targ benchrest-style targets stapled into position at a measured 100 yards. I started with clean, dry bores and quickly found that both rifles would put the first round from a clean, dry bore into the group that followed, routinely.

I had one Oelher 35P chronograph set up at the 100-yard targets with Skyscreens on a two-foot spacing and the second 35P set up to measure velocity 15 feet from the muzzle. I fired five 5-shot groups through each rifle prior to giving them a thorough cleaning. This gave me the opportunity to see if accuracy deteriorated measurably as rounds piled up. Both rifles proved consistent all the way through the range session.

Hornady's 32-grain VMAX load left the Ruger doing 4,207 fps while the Savage launched them at 4,117 fps. Since this velocity was measured 15 feet from the muzzle, it looks like the Ruger/Hornady advertising is spot-on. Downrange this load was doing 3,573 and 3,523 fps, respectively. Hornady suggests that the load should be doing about 100 fps more at 100 yards. The Ruger averaged 1.21 inches with this load while the Savage came in just a tick over an inch. The Ruger took group-of-the-day with this load, accounting for one neat .63-inch group while the Savage came in at .82 inch. By the same token, the Ruger combination also accounted for a rather large 1.61-inch group while I held the Savage/Burris/Hornady combo down to 1.38 inches, maximum.

The 40-grain VMAX load left the Ruger doing 3,715 fps and 3,729 fps out of the Savage. Both rifles preferred this load, with the Ruger holding things down to 1.12 inches and the Savage accounting for five groups that were all less than an inch. The Savage averaged .78 inch with this load. This load held on to 3,350 fps or so at the 100-yard target.

When the dust settled, the Ruger averaged 1.165 inches for 10 five-shot groups while the Savage averaged .9 inch. The Ruger accounted for the tightest five-shot group.

The Ruger is a handsome repeater with a great trigger. Rings are included with the package and attach to the integral scope-mounting bases.

Calling a winner here is easy on one hand. This new cartridge adds up to a great deal of fun. To 200 yards it's explosive on prairie poodles, and to 300 yards it's deadly. Recoil is light, and noise seems to be down as well. It'll play with the .22-250 in most games while the lighter bullet might do less pelt damage downrange.

Picking a winner between the rifles is tougher. The Ruger has a great trigger out of the box--averaging two pounds, 11 ounces--while the Savage averages one pound, 10.5 ounces. Both break like ice, and both triggers are great out of the box. All things considered, one might declare the Savage the winner because it performed slightly better on the range, and it carries an MSRP of $752 while the Ruger hits the charts at $845. Still, adding rings and bases to the Savage evens this score.

I believe there is room for improvement in both cases. Typically, tackdrivers get even better when carefully crafted handloads are worked up. I suspect that both of them would play around half an inch at 100 yards with great handloads.

All things considered, I've got to call both of them winners. They're both made right here in America, and both of them are chambered for a great new cartridge, too. Great job, Ruger. Great job, Savage.