ballistic Registered User
#1

I currently fire a tikka t3 in 223 rem. Its a great rifle its use is for shooting foxes (55 gn V max) under the lamp. I have read a great deal about the 204 ruger and it seems too good to be true. I have looked at all the ballistic programs and if I thought what they were saying was true I'd change over in the morning. I really need to talk to someone who uses a 204. These are my questions.

How flat does it shoot out to 300 yds (32 gn vmax)?

Will it (32 gn v max) beat the wind better than a 55gn .223 round out to 300 yds?

Will it (32 gn vmax) kill a fox at 300 yds if the animal is hit in the chest area?

I know thats alot of questions and that articles, reviews and ballistic programs will give some answers but I am only interested in fact based actual experience. I would appreciate any help that you could give me. Thanks

Umiq88 Registered User
#2

I've no experience with one myself but keelan on here had one and switched to a .223 from it. But then again a .17hmr will do out to 100 if you hit them in the head. I'd say the major problems are wind drift as your using a lighter bullet with less area and having to be dead on hitting the foxs while a .223 might be more forgiving.

.22/250 might be a better option if your not concerned about ammo costs think its approx 1 euro a bullet which aint the worst. with a 75yard zero its back on at 250 1.5" high in between and can shoot out to 400 comfortably and prob out to 600 on a range. Thats using 55gr bullets

Based on what ive read and experienced with rimfires
the .204 will be affected by wind alot more and at 300 yards you'll need to be hitting the head or shoulder or dead on with the vitals otherwise they'll run.

.243 Registered User
#3

its an absolute sweetener the .204,very very quick as it has been said before the wind drift is the only catch but not as bad as compared to the .17hmr to the .22 mag,it holds it a bit better.when out past the 200 mark,in comparision to the .223 to hitting power there isnt much in the difference if your on target and can deal with the drift it will stop a fox.its another option to consider,if i had my way id ackley the .204 with a slightly heavier bullet,that would really out do the .223 past the 300 mark,

Keelan Registered User
#4

Had the .204 for 6 months.
used the 32 Gr V.max and 40 gr.

Found the 40s grouped very bad, 4 inches

The 32s made some of the time, splash wounds on the fox and did not penatrate.

Id say if you get to reload for it, then prehaps it might come right, but it would not be cheap.

Have now the .223 and will never look back.

Id even go as far as to say, i would rather go back to a .22 Hornet, then a .204, if things got strict with firearms laws.

Get a Hornet or .223, stay away from .204.

Keelan.

ballistic Registered User
#5

Thanks for the replies. I am going to stay with the .223 now. I was just distracted with the flat trajectory and the and ability to buck the wind. It just goes to show that talking to someone with actual experience is more valuable than any ballistics program. Thanks.

Keelan Registered User
#6

No problem.

I also forgot to mention that, the .204, is as bad as the .17 rem for having probalems in the wind, another reason i am a .223 fan.

Good luck,

Keelan.

#7

Some opinions from The High Road- .223 vs. .204 Ruger.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!