hhmm decisions???

E mc kiernan

.223 or .204.....finally grew balls an decided to get a real gun but am torn between these two calibers,every one i talk to has a different opinion eg 223 is to heavy a bullet an only good to 150 yards,204 rounds are harder to get an not that popular of a calibre..any advice???

johngalway

Ask who ever told you a .223 is only good to 150 yards to stand 160 yards from someone aiming one at him

I've killed foxes out to 270 yards with mine, bunnies farther, using 40 grain Vmax. Fast twist .223's are used in 600meter competitions I believe.

Any calibre is only as good as the combination of shooter, ammunition, rifle, position and conditions. .223 will kill foxes a long way out IF all those above things are right.

.204 is an excellent calibre as well, I have no expierence of them though.

foxshooter243

E mc kiernan wrote: »

.223 or .204.....finally grew balls an decided to get a real gun but am torn between these two calibers,every one i talk to has a different opinion eg 223 is to heavy a bullet an only good to 150 yards,204 rounds are harder to get an not that popular of a calibre..any advice???

Ok the 223 remington began its life as a millitary cartridge in 1957 and was later introduced by remington as a commercial round. this cartridge is chambered by numerous manufacturers worldwide in a wide variety of firearms, and is an excellent choice for varmint or vermin hunters. there is a wide assortment of bullets available for this calibre from the 40 grain v max through to the 80 grain v max bullet. If you wish to fire the heavier bullets you will require a fast twist in your barrel of a 1:7 or 1:8 .
These heavier rounds have been used to compete out to 1000 yards, I myself have shot at 600 yards with sierra 69 grain matchkings in a 1:8 twist and have found them to be very acurate at that distance, they have a similar trajectory of the 308 winchester for 600 yard shooting.
The versatility of the 223 has made it very popular and as such its one of the go to calibres for foxing and such everywhere, the light 40 grain v max has killed foxes out to 300 yards in my hands and is a really useful rifle for the Irish varmint hunting scene.

The 204 Ruger burst on to the scene of late and due to its very flat trajectory and its low recoil gained the immediate attention of varmint hunters everywhere, the ability to watch the bullet strike the target through the scope gave it a certain edge over other varmint calibres.
It fires a 32 grain v max at over 4100 ft.sec or a 40 grain v max at 3800 ft/sec and retains enough energy to dispatch most varmints easily..it now has a 45 grain SP bullet available with a muzzle velocity of 3600 ft /sec and gives the option of shooting much tougher varmints like the coyote in the United States. Folks are having succes with 204 Ruger out to 500 yards, and while it doesnt offer the same versatility as the 223 reminton, its a fine calibre in its on right.

So how to decide between the two?....if your looking for a rifle that will offer you the choice of shooting foxes in ireland at night and maybe some target shooting out to longer ranges of say 600 yards then it has to be the 223 remington, with a fast twist of say 1:8, which will probably be either a sako or tikka rifle, a slower twist in this calibre will allow you to use bullets up to 55 grain to shoot out 4 or 500 yards at varmints, ammo availabilty is good and theres quite a selection of rifles out there in this calibre..

The 204 ruger offers you a calibre that will kill out to 500 yards in the right hands, it gives you the opportunity to see you bullet strike due to low recoil and I would say that if you were to design a rifle for the Irish foxing scene you couldnt get any better than the 204 ruger.

Both are accurate calibres, its the job you have in mind for the rifle which will cause you to make your choice between the two:)

mac80

What kind of money is a box of .223 Rem ammo versus .204?

endasmail

223 is to heavy a bullet an only good to 150 yards


gundealer in athlone say this to ya?

i got the same spiel myself ,found it hard not to laugh in his face

foxshooter243

mac80 wrote: »

What kind of money is a box of .223 Rem ammo versus .204?

good point!..you can buy remington UMC 45 grain hollow points in the 223 calibre for 14 euro per 20 and hornady 50 grain v max for26 euro per 20, as for 204 ruger ive no idea. anyone care to post up the price of 204 ammo?:)

endasmail

mac80 wrote: »

What kind of money is a box of .223 Rem ammo versus .204?

.223 ammo

American eagle =12.00 euro box of 20
winchester silver tip 55gr =25e a box of 20
hornady v-max =25e a box of 20
federal v shok =30e a box or 20
remington h/p = 14e a box of 20

.204 ammo
dont honestly know how much ,but im guessing around 20 to 30 euro a box

foxshooter243

endasmail wrote: »

.223 ammo

American eagle =12.00 euro box of 20
winchester silver tip 55gr =25e a box of 20
hornady v-max =25e a box of 20
federal v shok =30e a box or 20
remington h/p = 14e a box of 20

.204 ammo
dont honestly know how much ,but im guessing around 20 to 30 euro a box

25 euro a box according to this thread-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055615194&highlight=ammo

foxshooter243

mac80 wrote: »

What kind of money is a box of .223 Rem ammo versus .204?

so it looks like if your buying premium ammo for both calibres its much the same price Mac, however the 223 has the advantage of a wider variety of ammo availability and cheaper options-so its first strike to the 223 remington:D

johngalway

endasmail wrote: »

223 is to heavy a bullet an only good to 150 yards


gundealer in athlone say this to ya?

i got the same spiel myself ,found it hard not to laugh in his face

Do you mind telling me which one by PM? Having a smile to myself here at the thought lol.

Cass

E mc kiernan wrote: »

......... eg 223 is to heavy a bullet an only good to 150 yards,........

Tell them to check this out........... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYenektbDs .








Note & Disclaimer - I have changed the post and added it as a link rather than video due to certain sensitive souls being overly offended by the previous video. I want it known that this is an American man, shooting an american gun in (funny enough) America. It is not Ireland nor does it represent or depict any actions or shooting carried out in Ireland.

The video is a representation of the capablility of a .223 caliber rifle in the proper conditions.

E mc kiernan

thanks for the advice,about the ammo i was told .204 was around 20 a box,obviously better value and selection in the223's!!!i was looking at a tikka t3 priced about 1050 but thinking about the stainless model bit will be a bit more pricey..wats all this stuff about "twist"

Cass

E mc kiernan wrote: »

........wats all this stuff about "twist"

It refers to the rifling in the barrel or the "twist rate". It is used to describe the distance the bullet must travel down the barrel to complete one full revolution, eg. A 1:10 twist rate means the bullet travels 10 inches down the barrel before completing one full revolution or twist. If the rifle has a 30 inch barrel in will turn 3 full times before exiting the barrel at the muzzle.

The purpose of this is to stablise the projectile (bullet) giving more accuracy for each shot.

tomcat220t

The .204 IMO is far better suited for varmint shooting than the .223 .Most people dont even compair the .204 to the .223 !The .204 was desinged to outperforme the .22 250 on varmint shooting.Varmint shooting ,most people want an accurate, flat shooting,hard hitting round that bucks the wind well.What .223 round does it better than the .204 ?

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

good point!..you can buy remington UMC 45 grain hollow points in the 223 calibre for 14 euro per 20 and hornady 50 grain v max for26 euro per 20, as for 204 ruger ive no idea. anyone care to post up the price of 204 ammo?:)

I picked up some federal 39gr .204 in waterford for 22 euro last weekend .

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

The .204 IMO is far better suited for varmint shooting than the .223 .Most people dont even compair the .204 to the .223 !The .204 was desinged to outperforme the .22 250 on varmint shooting.Varmint shooting ,most people want an accurate, flat shooting,hard hitting round that bucks the wind well.What .223 round does it better than the .204 ?

everything in rifle shooting ballistics is a trade off, you gain in one area but fall down in another, the 204 40 grain v max has a ballistic co efficieent of .275 versus the ballistic co efficient of .200 for the 224 40 grain v max used by the 223 remington.This gives the 204 the edge over the 223 in short distance shooting which is ranges out to say 400 yards.
However the 223 remington s versatility comes back to bite the 204 ruger in the ass whem its loaded with longer heavier bullets which have really decent ballistic co efficients like sierras 69 grain matchking or hornadys 80 grain v max which has a BC of .435:eek:..so at the end of the day the 233 remingtom can be called on to engage targets which are way outside the 204 rugers capability, just as the video Ezridax posted shows..If I were looking for a rifle for varmint shooting at short range it would be the 204 , but if I were looking for a platform which offered the capability of killing foxes and such at short range and which could also be taken out and used for long range shooting it would be the 223 remington..hence its popularity:)

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

everything in rifle shooting ballistics is a trade off, you gain in one area but fall down in another, the 204 40 grain v max has a ballistic co efficieent of .275 versus the ballistic co efficient of .200 for the 224 40 grain v max used by the 223 remington.This gives the 204 the edge over the 223 in short distance shooting which is ranges out to say 400 yards.
However the 223 remington s versatility comes back to bite the 204 ruger in the ass whem its loaded with longer heavier bullets which have really decent ballistic co efficients like sierras 69 grain matchking or hornadys 80 grain v max which has a BC of .435:eek:..so at the end of the day the 233 remingtom can be called on to engage targets which are way outside the 204 rugers capability, just as the video Ezridax posted shows..If I were looking for a rifle for varmint shooting at short range it would be the 204 , but if I were looking for a platform which offered the capability of killing foxes and such at short range and which could also be taken out and used for long range shooting it would be the 223 remington..hence its popularity:)

I have a sako 75 .223 and shoot them heavy rounds through her aswell .Are the above ammo (69gr) and (80gr) not target or match?I know in the right hands they shoot straight but having to range little rabbits after 220 yards can be a pain sometimes .The .204 is so much easier .I set mine half inch high at 100 and am more or less bang on out to 300 yards ! Also the 39gr i use is good at 600 yards +,too!

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

I have a sako 75 .223 and shoot them heavy rounds through her aswell .Are the above ammo (69gr) and (80gr) not target or match?I know in the right hands they shoot straight but having to range little rabbits after 220 yards can be a pain sometimes .The .204 is so much easier .I set mine half inch high at 100 and am more or less bang on out to 300 yards ! Also the 39gr i use is good at 600 yards +,too!

The 69 grain are matchkings but theres 75 and 8o grain v max available there too..what kind of drops are you getting at 600 yards plus with the 204?

bunny shooter

.204 Ruger

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

The 69 grain are matchkings but theres 75 and 8o grain v max available there too..what kind of drops are you getting at 600 yards plus with the 204?

At 600 yards my drop was around 55" .What drop do you get with the 69gr matchking .223 ? Does the 69gr buck the wind better ?

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

At 600 yards my drop was around 55" .What drop do you get with the 69gr matchking .223 ? Does the 69gr buck the wind better ?

The 69 grain will drop around 108 "..much the same as the 308 using 168 grain ammo, but rides the wind very well due to its weight and high BC, using the 80 grain v max I was getting decent results on targets at the 800 yard mark. In Canada the 223 is used to compete against the 308 at 1000 yards and does surprisingly well..its at these longer ranges that the 223 has a distinct advantage over the 204 Ruger.;)

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

The 69 grain will drop around 108 "..much the same as the 308 using 168 grain ammo, but rides the wind very well due to its weight and high BC, using the 80 grain v max I was getting decent results on targets at the 800 yard mark. In Canada the 223 is used to compete against the 308 at 1000 yards and does surprisingly well..its at these longer ranges that the 223 has a distinct advantage over the 204 Ruger.;)

Foxshooter ,im not trying to get into you but have you shot the .204 round at distance ?Your argument is flaud ,sorry ! Your 69gr has TWICE the drop over the .204 39gr at 600 yards !Also the 69 gr has a lot more wind drift at this range !I asked for a .223 round that is shoots flatter ,bucks the wind better and hits harder than the .204 .Imo and experience the .204ruger,.220 swift and .22-250 are king of varmint shooting ,with the .223 4th in that order .

bunny shooter

tomcat220t wrote: »

Foxshooter ,im not trying to get into you but have you shot the .204 round at distance ?Your argument is flaud ,sorry ! Your 69gr has TWICE the drop over the .204 39gr at 600 yards !Also the 69 gr has a lot more wind drift at this range !I asked for a .223 round that is shoots flatter ,bucks the wind better and hits harder than the .204 .Imo and experience the .204ruger,.220 swift and .22-250 are king of varmint shooting ,with the .223 4th in that order .

+1

And I've used .223, .220 Swift and .204 Ruger

bunny shooter

foxshooter243 wrote: »

...........its at these longer ranges that the 223 has a distinct advantage over the 204 Ruger.;)

should read ................. its at these longer ranges that the 223 with 69 Grain + bullets has might have a distinct an advantage over the 204 Ruger.

It must also be remembered that to get a 223 to fire 69 grain + bullets you need a rifling twist of 1 in 9 ish or faster.

:P

tomcat220t

bunny shooter wrote: »

should read ................. its at these longer ranges that the 223 with 69 Grain + bullets has might have a distinct an advantage over the 204 Ruger.

It must also be remembered that to get a 223 to fire 69 grain + bullets you need a rifling twist of 1 in 9 ish or faster.

:P

Thats right bunny,i have a 1/8 sako and wont shoot below 69gr worth a dam .As for target shooting at range ,the .204 55gr berger with 1/8 shoots 1000 yards too .At 800 yards ,it got 1 3/8 " 5 shot group!Would not regard that as a common example of the .204 rugers ability either!

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Foxshooter ,im not trying to get into you but have you shot the .204 round at distance ?Your argument is flaud ,sorry ! Your 69gr has TWICE the drop over the .204 39gr at 600 yards !Also the 69 gr has a lot more wind drift at this range !I asked for a .223 round that is shoots flatter ,bucks the wind better and hits harder than the .204 .Imo and experience the .204ruger,.220 swift and .22-250 are king of varmint shooting ,with the .223 4th in that order .

The amount of drop has nothing to do with long range shooting, if it did why is the 308 commonly used in f-class and such, the 204 ruger will never be a long range cartridge due to the weight limitation of its bullets, it has an advantage over the 223 at short range but at the longer ranges the 223 is better due to its ability to fire heavier ammo..its that simple ..if you think the 204 is some type of super rifle that outdoes all others then why are we not hearing about it at competition level?..its not nor will ever be a long range rifle.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

The amount of drop has nothing to do with long range shooting, if it did why is the 308 commonly used in f-class and such, the 204 ruger will never be a long range cartridge due to the weight limitation of its bullets, it has an advantage over the 223 at short range but at the longer ranges the 223 is better due to its ability to fire heavier ammo..its that simple ..if you think the 204 is some type of super rifle that outdoes all others then why are we not hearing about it at competition level?..its not nor will ever be a long range rifle.

The topic is about VARMINT stooting not target shooting .The .204 is not some kind of super rifle but in every day varmint shooting bounces off the mighty .223 its that simple........Drop and wind drift has every thing to do with varmint shooting ,imo .

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Thats right bunny,i have a 1/8 sako and wont shoot below 69gr worth a dam .As for target shooting at range ,the .204 55gr berger with 1/8 shoots 1000 yards too .At 800 yards ,it got 1 3/8 " 5 shot group!Would not regard that as a common example of the .204 rugers ability either!

I too own a sako 75 with an eight twist which shoots 40 grain v max really well, it will fire everything from 36 grain barnes varmint bullets to 80 grain v max with aplomb, you must have a faulty one if it cant shoot bullets in this range ,,post up a link to that group if you have it with the berger 55 grain in 204.

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

The topic is about VARMINT stooting not target shooting .The .204 is not some kind of super rifle but in every day varmint shooting bounces off the mighty .223 its that simple........Drop and wind drift has every thing to do with varmint shooting ,imo .

em. the thread is wether the OP should buy a 204 or 223 and is looking for advice
and every calibre suffers from drop and wind drift , its the shooters ability to counteract this that makes the difference.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

I too own a sako 75 with an eight twist which shoots 40 grain v max really well, it will fire everything from 36 grain barnes varmint bullets to 80 grain v max with aplomb, you must have a faulty one if it cant shoot bullets in this range ,,post up a link to that group if you have it with the berger 55 grain in 204.

First of all i have both cal.. .223 and .204 .Have you shot the .204 ?As for my sako ,its not faulty at all .

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

em. the thread is wether the OP should buy a 204 or 223 and is looking for advice

Yea,in the hunting section ,foxshooter!Not the target section

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

First of all i have both cal.. .223 and .204 .Have you shot the .204 ?As for my sako ,its not faulty at all .

I dont own a 204 but have shot one, as for your 223 if its not able to handle any ammo below 69 grain as you said then yes there is a problem somewhere which needs to be checked out

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

Yea,in the hunting section ,foxshooter!Not the target section

Read the opening post if you have any difficulty understanding the purpose of the thread;)

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

I dont own a 204 but have shot one, as for your 223 if its not able to handle any ammo below 69 grain as you said then yes there is a problem somewhere which needs to be checked out

It shoot 45gr upwards but if i look for tight groups at 300 yards 69gr + ammo are the best .Have had less than 3 quarter inch groups at 300 yards with my so called faulty sako .Imo,most people buy the .223 rem because of its cheap ammo ,which is dirt after 250 yards .The 55gr either in hornady or remington premiun are the best .223 varmint ammo .The only good reason to buy a .223 rifle over a .204 is its resale value.Thanks ,foxshooter for a good debate on this topic and best of luck on which ever he buys.

tomcat220t

foxshooter243 wrote: »

Read the opening post if you have any difficulty understanding the purpose of the thread;)

My difficulty is understanding your logic on a good varmint shooting round.Best of luck foxshooter;)

foxshooter243

tomcat220t wrote: »

My difficulty is understanding your logic on a good varmint shooting round.Best of luck foxshooter;)

im sorry if you didnt get my posts on the 204 ruger as I intended, the 204 is in my opinion the better of the two at ranges out to say 4 or 5 hundred yards after which the 223 takes over, simply because it can fire much heavier rounds , thats the reason the 223 enjoys such popularity worldwide, as I said in one of my posts everything is a trade off, narrowing the bore costs..in the case of the 204 its bullet weight..which prevents it from competing at longer ranges:)..anyhows best of luck tomcat;)

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

...........,the .204 55gr berger with 1/8 shoots 1000 yards too .At 800 yards ,it got 1 3/8 " 5 shot group...........

Completely off topic (well slightly). Really. 1.5" groups at 800yds. Would love to see this. Its not that i don't believe you (seriously i'm not being a pr**k) its just that all the long distance target work i see or take part in usually consists of larger calibers (6.5x55, 6.5x284, .308, etc). I've seen people shooting large calibers with light bullets (120gr) or so and even a slight change in wind can cause a significant change in point of impact, so i'm curious as to the ability of the smaller calibers. I've never seen one fire at the longer distances.

tomcat220t

ezridax wrote: »

Completely off topic (well slightly). Really. 1.5" groups at 800yds. Would love to see this. Its not that i don't believe you (seriously i'm not being a pr**k) its just that all the long distance target work i see or take part in usually consists of larger calibers (6.5x55, 6.5x284, .308, etc). I've seen people shooting large calibers with light bullets (120gr) or so and even a slight change in wind can cause a significant change in point of impact, so i'm curious as to the ability of the smaller calibers. I've never seen one fire at the longer distances.

Ive only shot a few times at paper with my .204 ruger and find it pretty good !That said ,im not a target stooter nor did i buy the round to do this .Its mainly for varmint shooting but there are some target rounds available in.204 ruger.There is a 35 berger in.204 that won some british benchrest championship this year .All i know of the 55 berger(.390 ish BC) is getting some really good results at 600-800 yards on paper for the lads in the states.

E mc kiernan

i'm slightly confused with all the talk about dropping and windage but thanks anyway,i took wat looked to be the most sensible route and decided to go for the 223 mainly due to price and availability of ammo...beautiful tikka t3 hunter with hawke scope (illuminated crosshair..deadly) but cant get it till after christmas due to new liscencing laws..... like a child with a new toy and no fu*king batteries :mad::mad:

Dvs

E mc kiernan wrote: »

i'm slightly confused with all the talk about dropping and windage but thanks anyway,i took wat looked to be the most sensible route and decided to go for the 223 mainly due to price and availability of ammo...beautiful tikka t3 hunter with hawke scope (illuminated crosshair..deadly) but cant get it till after christmas due to new liscencing laws..... like a child with a new toy and no fu*king batteries :mad::mad:

Hello E mc kiernan,
No offense, but if you are getting a .223 rifle, you should spend sometime online, learning about bullet drop, wind drift, windage and elevation scope adjustments, range finding and the ballistics of the .223 bullet type and weight that you will be using in your rifle.


Dvs.

E mc kiernan

no amount of reading wil ever better a man unless he feels the trigger...:rolleyes:

greenpeter

I was faced with same decision a few months ago and i went with the 223 because its what i wanted, you will always have people who like and dislike something or another, but at the end of the day its down to you and besides the 223 is well proven round and handy to lay your hands on. Good luck with your new toy.

Dvs

E mc kiernan wrote: »

no amount of reading wil ever better a man unless he feels the trigger...:rolleyes:

well obviously knowing before you pull trigger, where your bullet is going, after you pull the trigger, at different ranges and in different wind conditions is of no use whatsoever, why would anyone waste time reading about that, I stand corrected.

Dvs.