.204 v .223

poulo6.5

i'v bin racking my brains trying to find a reason why everyone is singing the praises of the .204 so much
now i have never used a .204 so all i have to go on is a free ballistic app on my iphone and a free bullet power calculator app on iphone so please correct me if my figures are incorrect.

the bullets are both winchester silvertip as it is a winchester ballistic calculator

the .204 is a 32gr ballistic silvertip. and the .223 is a 50gr ballistic silvertip.would we agree that they are similar bullets with a similar purpose.

results as follows

.204 mv= 4050 E= 1165 D -2 -- .223 mv= 3410 E= 1291 D -2

100= 3482 E= 861 D -0.5 -- 100= 2982 E= 987 D -1

200= 2983 E=632 D 0 -- 200= 2593 E= 746 D 0

300= 2537 E=457 D -4.4 -- 300= 2235 E= 554 D-6.1

400= 2131 E= 322 D-14.2 -- 400=1907 E= 403 D-19.3

500= 1766 E= 221 D-31.8 -- 500=1613 E= 288 D-42.2

obviously the .204 is traveling faster and flatter but not so fast that you dont still adjust your scope after 300 so i cant see any advantage.
and as you can see the .223 has more E energy across the range and therefore more stopping power. so again no advantage .

i am not trying to start an argument with anyone. i'm just looking for a debate as to why you would choose a .204 over a .223.

i'm guessing a heaver .204 bullet would carry more energy but the winchester calculator only had one option for .204.

ps. i am currently using 50gr norma ballistic tip in my tikka t3 tactical 20" barrel . and the scope is 2" above the barrel .
i have it 0'd at 100 and it is still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. i still need to test them out further but i have shot foxes out to 250 and instant kill was the result

Tackleberrywho

The higher BC means the .204 is more aerodynamic, cuts through the air better and has less affect5 from wind drift than the .223

Hornady 40grain .204 Vs .223 Vmax

1.2" higher/so flatter @300 than .223
BC of .223 .200 BC of .204 = .275

The .204 actually has more energy @ 300yards

Ammo is same price in states, just dealers Fla us here

If ammo was same price across the board ,204 is a better varminting round

what swings the balance is cheap ammo for the guy who is on less than €200 a week

I would wonder about barrel life as .204 is not around long enough to hear horror stories.

100fps from .204 Vs .223 faster at muzzle in sale grain weight (40grain VMAX)

http://www.hornady.com/store/204-Ruger-40-gr-V-MAX/

http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-40-gr-V-MAX/

ejg

The bigger the bullet the better the BC can be.
just look at 50cal A-max bc and there are better ones.
Jumbo jet...great bc:P

Otherwise the target lads would all be using 17cal out to 1000yds.

Bigger problem is availability and suitability.
Now that many manufacturers sell tight twist 223's which can take 75gr or
heavier bullets with bc values similar to a 30 cal with 155gr.
So rifles and factory ammo is available with good bc bullets without
the need for custom parts.

Question is what is on the market in 204, what high bc factory ammo is
available and what can be realisticly stabilised from standard factory rifles.

I think the 22's still have the edge in bc vs 20 cal, just as 7mm beats 6.5

When it comes to foxing the smaller bullet must first expand to the diameter that the other has already. I quite liked a 55gr 22cal at normal
ranges because it reserves, can break through bones and a follow up
shot from behind might reach the vitals easier.

20 cal will have it's place just as all the others have.

edi

landkeeper

there is a much bigger choice of bullets available for the .223 just on hornady stuff its about x3 in favour of the 223
no fox at anything out to 500 yrds is going to know the difference afaik .
one thing i did note was one lad i spoke to using ballistic tip .204s at over 200yrds found he had quite a few runners that needed following up lots of external damage but little or no penatration i heard after he sold it and went back to a 223

poulo6.5

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The higher BC means the .204 is more aerodynamic, cuts through the air better and has less affect5 from wind drift than the .223

Hornady 40grain .204 Vs .223 Vmax

1.2" higher/so flatter @300 than .223
BC of .223 .200 BC of .204 = .275

The .204 actually has more energy @ 300yards

Ammo is same price in states, just dealers Fla us here

If ammo was same price across the board ,204 is a better varminting round

what swings the balance is cheap ammo for the guy who is on less than €200 a week

I would wonder about barrel life as .204 is not around long enough to hear horror stories.

100fps from .204 Vs .223 faster at muzzle in sale grain weight (40grain VMAX)

http://www.hornady.com/store/204-Ruger-40-gr-V-MAX/

http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-40-gr-V-MAX/

cheers tack. i forgot to check the hornady site.
the 40gr .204 does kick the ass of the 40gr .223. but when i looked a bit further i saw the 53gr superformance and 75gr superformance both have a higher bc than the .204 with higher energy for longer. so that sorts that again.

flat shooting in reality out past 250 you need to either hold over or know how to adjust your turrets past that,
that goes for .204 & .223 alike.
so again i ask where is the advantage

i spoke to a dealer that i know, he changes his rifle/caliber regularly, [i suppose because he can]. he is currently using a .204. he did say it was fast and flat with little or no recoil. but he felt that it was not as powerful as its made out to be.
and it is very fussy on ammo and needed to be cleaned regularly to get the best out of it.

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i'v bin racking my brains trying to find a reason why everyone is singing the praises of the .204 so much
now i have never used a .204 so all i have to go on is a free ballistic app on my iphone and a free bullet power calculator app on iphone so please correct me if my figures are incorrect.


ps. i am currently using 50gr norma ballistic tip in my tikka t3 tactical 20" barrel . and the scope is 2" above the barrel .
i have it 0'd at 100 and it is still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. i still need to test them out further but i have shot foxes out to 250 and instant kill was the result

Norma dont advertise a 50gr ballistic tip only a full jacket and a soft point with the bc's of 0.198 and 0.185 respectively.

If you were using the new hornady 53gr with a bc of .290 running at the advertised speed of 3465 fps and zeroed at 100yards you would still be approx. 1.6 inches low at 200yards. The advertised speed would differ to your own as it is from a 24" barrel with a twist that would more suit the 53gr round unlike your 1:8 twist ratio which is more suited to heavier rounds.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

cheers tack. i forgot to check the hornady site.
the 40gr .204 does kick the ass of the 40gr .223. but when i looked a bit further i saw the 53gr superformance and 75gr superformance both have a higher bc than the .204 with higher energy for longer. so that sorts that again.

Sorted just like comparing a 6.5 120gr round to a 7mm 180gr round.

Yep the hornady 53gr round beats the .204 on bc by a whole .003 :eek:

poulo6.5 wrote: »

flat shooting in reality out past 250 you need to either hold over or know how to adjust your turrets past that,
that goes for .204 & .223 alike.
so again i ask where is the advantage

Yet the .204 is still flatter than the .223 so is more forgiving if you under estimate the range you are shooting at.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i spoke to a dealer that i know, he changes his rifle/caliber regularly, [i suppose because he can]. he is currently using a .204. he did say it was fast and flat with little or no recoil. but he felt that it was not as powerful as its made out to be.
and it is very fussy on ammo and needed to be cleaned regularly to get the best out of it.

With a moderator or muzzle brake the .204 has zero recoil, without its still not noticable allowing you to stay on target as the bullet goes down range.

Whats his definition of fussy on ammo? Is it the difference of 1/2" and 3/4" at 100yards??

What ammo was he using? The only round ive heard of that doesnt group as well as others is the hornady 40gr but is still more than accurate for the field.

All centrefire rounds need regular cleaning to get the best out of them (except moly coated rounds), IMO regardless of calibre centrefires fires should be cleaned at 40 rounds max but unless you are doing target shooting or out shooting non alot this shouldnt be very often.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I would wonder about barrel life as .204 is not around long enough to hear horror stories.

Well the americans seem to be averaging 5000+ rounds per barrel with hot loads so i cant see it being an issue with factory loads

landkeeper wrote: »

there is a much bigger choice of bullets available for the .223 just on hornady stuff its about x3 in favour of the 223
no fox at anything out to 500 yrds is going to know the difference afaik .
one thing i did note was one lad i spoke to using ballistic tip .204s at over 200yrds found he had quite a few runners that needed following up lots of external damage but little or no penatration i heard after he sold it and went back to a 223

How many different rounds do you need?? If even only one round works then why want/need others to do the same job, availability might be one reason but other than that why else? But the .204 is readily available from the majoity of RFD's

Any light ballistic tip can cause external damage without penetration if not placed right, in the case of the .204 if this happens that you are no placing it right then just switch to the hornady 45gr softpoint in future.

The .204 ruger was specifically designed for varmint shooting unlike the .223 which was originally the 5.56 military round that was taken and used for varmint shooting.

The .204 is only around 6 years but has already had alot more designed and developed for it since then and by the looks of it is/will become more popular in the future.

If the .204 had been designed instead of the .223 then which would we all be using now?

zeissman

hi
just joined and thought id post my first message here.
I have been using a 204 for about 4 years, had a 220 swift for a good
few years before that.
I find the 204 great, it will kill foxes just as well as my swift did with the added advantage of seeing your hits through the scope.
the 204 will shoot flatter than the 223 out to 500 yards or so but a 223 with a fast twist barrel and 75 or 80 grain bullets can be used for target shooting out to 1000 yards.
I dont think I could do that with my factory 204.

tomcat220t

With all the chat between both calibers ,how many have shot the .223 and .204 to find the real differnce ?The .204 is more comparible to the .22-250 rather than the .223 ....I have shot 3 rabbits in a row past 450 yards one evening and foxes past 500 yards with the .204 39gr federal ammo. Never got or seen them results with the .223 .

tomcat220t

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i'v bin racking my brains trying to find a reason why everyone is singing the praises of the .204 so much
now i have never used a .204 so all i have to go on is a free ballistic app on my iphone and a free bullet power calculator app on iphone so please correct me if my figures are incorrect.

the bullets are both winchester silvertip as it is a winchester ballistic calculator

the .204 is a 32gr ballistic silvertip. and the .223 is a 50gr ballistic silvertip.would we agree that they are similar bullets with a similar purpose.

results as follows

.204 mv= 4050 E= 1165 D -2 -- .223 mv= 3410 E= 1291 D -2

100= 3482 E= 861 D -0.5 -- 100= 2982 E= 987 D -1

200= 2983 E=632 D 0 -- 200= 2593 E= 746 D 0

300= 2537 E=457 D -4.4 -- 300= 2235 E= 554 D-6.1

400= 2131 E= 322 D-14.2 -- 400=1907 E= 403 D-19.3

500= 1766 E= 221 D-31.8 -- 500=1613 E= 288 D-42.2

obviously the .204 is traveling faster and flatter but not so fast that you dont still adjust your scope after 300 so i cant see any advantage.
and as you can see the .223 has more E energy across the range and therefore more stopping power. so again no advantage .

i am not trying to start an argument with anyone. i'm just looking for a debate as to why you would choose a .204 over a .223.

i'm guessing a heaver .204 bullet would carry more energy but the winchester calculator only had one option for .204.

ps. i am currently using 50gr norma ballistic tip in my tikka t3 tactical 20" barrel . and the scope is 2" above the barrel .
i have it 0'd at 100 and it is still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. i still need to test them out further but i have shot foxes out to 250 and instant kill was the result

This is where im lost ???O at 100 , bang on at 200 ??No bullet can do that ,bud! What MV and B/C is your Norma 50gr running at?

Hondata92

tomcat220t wrote: »

With all the chat between both calibers ,how many have shot the .223 and .204 to find the real differnce ?The .204 is more comparible to the .22-250 rather than the .223 ....I have shot 3 rabbits in a row past 450 yards one evening and foxes past 500 yards with the .204 39gr federal ammo. Never got or seen them results with the .223 .

The only reason i posted here is because ive owned both but since having the .204 i wouldnt go back the the .223, that just my personal preference, i find the .204 to be leagues ahead of the .223 when it comes to drop and wind drift. It makes it so much easier when out in the field and the damage it does on rabbits or even foxs is something :eek:

zeissman

there is very little between the 204, the 22-250 and the 220 swift when it comes to bullet drop and wind drift. The larger 22 calibres may have a bit
more energy but the largest animal you will be shooting will be a fox.
I too have shot foxes out to 400 yards and rabbits out to 480 yards with my 204 with great results.
I think the 204 is the best calibre available for vermin in this country.

Tackleberrywho

Bunny in the head 457yards .223

I'd like to fire a .204, however I would not bother change at the mo as my .223 is seriously accurate, more accurate than me!

I do use Moly rounds, which I almost never clean barrel, however barrel is stainless and I fire Moly only.

The difference would have to be staggering for me to change, like 6XC with a flatter trajectory.

1000 yard flat shooting is what I want :eek:

I'd need a better scope though:( even 32x is small @1000 yards

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Bunny in the head 457yards .223

I'd like to fire a .204, however I would not bother change at the mo as my .223 is seriously accurate, more accurate than me!

I do use Moly rounds, which I almost never clean barrel, however barrel is stainless and I fire Moly only.

The difference would have to be staggering for me to change, like 6XC with a flatter trajectory.

1000 yard flat shooting is what I want :eek:

I'd need a better scope though:( even 32x is small @1000 yards

That was one unlucky rabbit..:p

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

there is a much bigger choice of bullets available for the .223 just on hornady stuff its about x3 in favour of the 223
no fox at anything out to 500 yrds is going to know the difference afaik .
one thing i did note was one lad i spoke to using ballistic tip .204s at over 200yrds found he had quite a few runners that needed following up lots of external damage but little or no penatration i heard after he sold it and went back to a 223

My .204 has had no problem knocking foxes clean past 500 yards .Never had a splash wound ,yet.

poulo6.5

Hondata92 wrote: »

Norma dont advertise a 50gr ballistic tip only a full jacket and a soft point with the bc's of 0.198 and 0.185 respectively.

If you were using the new hornady 53gr with a bc of .290 running at the advertised speed of 3465 fps and zeroed at 100yards you would still be approx. 1.6 inches low at 200yards. The advertised speed would differ to your own as it is from a 24" barrel with a twist that would more suit the 53gr round unlike your 1:8 twist ratio which is more suited to heavier rounds.



Sorted just like comparing a 6.5 120gr round to a 7mm 180gr round.

Yep the hornady 53gr round beats the .204 on bc by a whole .003 :eek:



Yet the .204 is still flatter than the .223 so is more forgiving if you under estimate the range you are shooting at.



With a moderator or muzzle brake the .204 has zero recoil, without its still not noticable allowing you to stay on target as the bullet goes down range.

Whats his definition of fussy on ammo? Is it the difference of 1/2" and 3/4" at 100yards??

What ammo was he using? The only round ive heard of that doesnt group as well as others is the hornady 40gr but is still more than accurate for the field.

All centrefire rounds need regular cleaning to get the best out of them (except moly coated rounds), IMO regardless of calibre centrefires fires should be cleaned at 40 rounds max but unless you are doing target shooting or out shooting non alot this shouldnt be very often.



Well the americans seem to be averaging 5000+ rounds per barrel with hot loads so i cant see it being an issue with factory loads



How many different rounds do you need?? If even only one round works then why want/need others to do the same job, availability might be one reason but other than that why else? But the .204 is readily available from the majoity of RFD's

Any light ballistic tip can cause external damage without penetration if not placed right, in the case of the .204 if this happens that you are no placing it right then just switch to the hornady 45gr softpoint in future.

The .204 ruger was specifically designed for varmint shooting unlike the .223 which was originally the 5.56 military round that was taken and used for varmint shooting.

The .204 is only around 6 years but has already had alot more designed and developed for it since then and by the looks of it is/will become more popular in the future.

If the .204 had been designed instead of the .223 then which would we all be using now?

this will take a min you have a lot going on there. but i will start with this the norma round that i am using at the moment comes in a box with norma on it and on the side where it gives details it says the bullet is a 50gr v-max.
i tried finding it on the norma website as well but couldnt.

the 0 at 100 and still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. is not from a ballistic chart or computer program. it is the result i got out in the field testing. give or take .25 of an inch.

weather or not the .204 is flatter you still need to adjust for long range shots as do you wiyh the .223.

as you said your self the only round that doesn't group well is the 40gr which would be the best in terms of BC and retaining energy down range.

as far as comparing the .204 to the likes of the .22-250 and .220 swift this would apply in trajectory only not punch.

you also mentioned using the 45gr soft point. that has a very poor BC.

i use 50gr norma at the moment for hunting and i also use 75gr hornady match for long range target shooting. can you do that with a .204

any way as stated i am not trying to row with any one just trying to find a good reason why you would change to a 204 from a .223

Jonty

Lads,

I'd love to see some of this 500yd shooting. Its a mighty long way.

I've got a .223 because it suits the land I shoot on. 250yds here is a long shot.

Can foxes not be called in from 500yds?

MACT1RE

Jonty wrote: »

Lads,

I'd love to see some of this 500yd shooting. Its a mighty long way.

I've got a .223 because it suits the land I shoot on. 250yds here is a long shot.

Can foxes not be called in from 500yds?

If you have a stable position and can ACCURATELY determine the range, the drop, the windage and know the accuracy of the rifle, then if you can see it, you can hit it.

Jonty

MACT1RE wrote: »

If you have a stable position and can ACCURATELY determine the range, the drop, the windage and know the accuracy of the rifle, then if you can see it, you can hit it.

On a bench, shooting targets maybe, but its an awful long way to engage live targets

MACT1RE

Jonty wrote: »

its an awful long way to engage live targets

Prone with a bipod and some sort of back bag is very stable.


To be honest, I’d have more confidence in a man who’s done his homework and put the time in to properly zero and practice at longer ranges, taking a shot at a fox at say 500yards than a few of the cowboys going around who just grab the rifle from the safe( might have been zeroed last year if your lucky) and taking Hail-Mary shots at say 100yard.

But I hear what you're saying and I wouldn't advocate doing it lightly.

tomcat220t

poulo6.5 wrote: »

this will take a min you have a lot going on there. but i will start with this the norma round that i am using at the moment comes in a box with norma on it and on the side where it gives details it says the bullet is a 50gr v-max.
i tried finding it on the norma website as well but couldnt.

the 0 at 100 and still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. is not from a ballistic chart or computer program. it is the result i got out in the field testing. give or take .25 of an inch.

weather or not the .204 is flatter you still need to adjust for long range shots as do you wiyh the .223.

as you said your self the only round that doesn't group well is the 40gr which would be the best in terms of BC and retaining energy down range.

as far as comparing the .204 to the likes of the .22-250 and .220 swift this would apply in trajectory only not punch.

you also mentioned using the 45gr soft point. that has a very poor BC.

i use 50gr norma at the moment for hunting and i also use 75gr hornady match for long range target shooting. can you do that with a .204

any way as stated i am not trying to row with any one just trying to find a good reason why you would change to a 204 from a .223

Exact details are needed on the M/V your 50gr norma and 75gr hornady .223 round that you use in your rifle to compare them .If your norma 50gr v max is a hornady head it has a stated B/C of .242 .The .204 45gr which you stated had a very poor B/C is .245.......IMO .204 39 SBK would outperform the .223 50gr norma in wind drift ,drop and energy.Both cailbers kill foxes well !

tomcat220t

Jonty wrote: »

Lads,

I'd love to see some of this 500yd shooting. Its a mighty long way.

I've got a .223 because it suits the land I shoot on. 250yds here is a long shot.

Can foxes not be called in from 500yds?

Mighty long way for a .223

poulo6.5

tomcat220t wrote: »

Mighty long way for a .223

can a .223 be used out to 500.
yes it can i have shot target out to 500 with success. i have even bin able to hit a rock out on the mountain at 780 with my .223.
but all that is besides the point.
90% of foxing is done at less than 250 anyway and most of those shots are taken at less than 100
my original question was why would you change from a 223 to a 204.
so far no reason

tomcat220t

poulo6.5 wrote: »

can a .223 be used out to 500.
yes it can i have shot target out to 500 with success. i have even bin able to hit a rock out on the mountain at 780 with my .223.
but all that is besides the point.
90% of foxing is done at less than 250 anyway and most of those shots are taken at less than 100
my original question was why would you change from a 223 to a 204.
so far no reason

I could give you many many examples as to how the .204 would be better suited to varmint shooting over the .223 (which i have above).....but i know your very happy with your setup and it works well for you .Thats all that matters as a shooter ,i think !Run 39gr .287b/c @3,750 fps,zeroed at 200 yards on your i phone .

Tackleberrywho

tomcat220t wrote: »

I could give you many many examples as to how the .204 would be better suited to varmint shooting over the .223 (which i have above).....but i know your very happy with your setup and it works well for you .Thats all that matters as a shooter ,i think !Run 39gr .287b/c @3,750 fps,zeroed at 200 yards on your i phone .

Which .223?

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

the 0 at 100 and still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. is not from a ballistic chart or computer program. it is the result i got out in the field testing. give or take .25 of an inch.

Sorry but sounds like you are using your selling measuring tape, even if the 50gr was been pushed out at 4000fps it would still have approx. 2.5" drop at 250 when zeroed at 100yards. Now if im wrong then i do apologise but you may want to contact norma/hornady and tikka and let them know just how good the combination of ammo and rifle are, im sure they will want to hear all about it:rolleyes:

poulo6.5 wrote: »

weather or not the .204 is flatter you still need to adjust for long range shots as do you wiyh the .223.

Find me one calibre that shoots 100% flat at any range! Since we are talking shooting in the field no target will be at an exact know distance so for those of us who dont have a range finder (not saying you do) we have to estimate the range to the best of our abilities, so as ive already stated the .204 is alot more forgiving if you happen to be out slightly with your range. Also with a flatter round that bucks the wind better it takes less time to adjust your shot onto the target. So if you see a fox fox for say at 400yards with little wind you just have to worry about drop and not windage as much.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

as you said your self the only round that doesn't group well is the 40gr which would be the best in terms of BC and retaining energy down range.

No the 40gr hornady round has not got the best BC of the .204 rounds

poulo6.5 wrote: »

as far as comparing the .204 to the likes of the .22-250 and .220 swift this would apply in trajectory only not punch.

Well i didnt compare the .204 to the 22-250 or the .220swift but anyway, the .204 not only has a similar trajectory but also it competes in wind drift with the advantages of less recoil and longer barrel life as its not a "hot" round. It might not have quite the same punch when compared to some of the heavier 22-250 or .220swift rounds but still has more than enough "punch" for varmints, the biggest varmint here is the fox unlike in the usa where they have coyotes which the .204 still has the kinetic energy to drop them at 500+yards.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

you also mentioned using the 45gr soft point. that has a very poor BC.

Tomcat bet me to it there

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i use 50gr norma at the moment for hunting and i also use 75gr hornady match for long range target shooting. can you do that with a .204

So you have gone from field shooting to target shooting, i can think of alot of better rounds to long range target shoot with besides the .223 but in saying that if you have never shot a .204 then how do you know what it can do at long range on paper? I only field shoot so paper doesnt interest me.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

any way as stated i am not trying to row with any one just trying to find a good reason why you would change to a 204 from a .223

Either am i but IMO is seems like you are out to condemn a round you know very little about. Rather than try find what a .204 is really like compared to a .223 as the first part of your post suggests, you seem to portray the .223 as a near magic round.

You have a 1:8 twist which allows you to run the heavier rounds and yes target shoot further but how many .223's are out there with a 1:12 twist which wont run the heavier rounds.
Alot of people seem to be under the illusion that if they buy a .223 they will be able to shoot cheap rounds and if they want to be able to shoot out to 1000yards with premium rounds, this isnt the case as twist rate determines what weight round your rifle can shoot and also to realistically be able to shoot 1000yards alot of work has to be done to the rifle, there has yet to be a factory rifle in .223 or any other calibre for that matter that can compete at 1000yards in a competition (with exception to factory class competitions)

The .223 isnt the ultimate varmint round (it wasnt designed for varmint shooting) but yes it can hold its own if you are able to work out range,drop,wind accurately. With the .204 as with all rounds you still have to work out the basics but dont have to be quite as percise as the round has less drop and wind drift especially when it comes to irish shooting conditions.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Which .223?

How many .223wssm's are there in the country?? and hoe many RFD's have ammo in stock, people say the .204 is hard to find (it isnt:rolleyes:) but try finding .223 wssm ammo

Tackleberrywho

.223 WSSM, unknown amount.

I'd prefer one over a .204 though

A guy I know swears by a Remington .17 Fireball :eek::eek:

Hondata92

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

.223 WSSM, unknown amount.

I'd prefer one over a .204 though

A guy I know swears by a Remington .17 Fireball :eek::eek:

Unknow maybe because no-one stocks them or sells the ammo

Thats besides the fact that its a serious barrel burner and in reality requires handloading which unfortunately isnt legal here (maybe some day:o)

Not sure if you have ever fired a .204 tac but if you get the chance try it and id be surprised if you werent shocked at how effective they are

As for the 17 fireball not my cup of tae

ormondprop

around here the .223wssm or .17 fireball would want a good hard stock on them for hitting foxes over the head with because thats all they'd be good for unless reloading is brought in, and if it was i'd love a .20 tac

Hondata92

ormondprop wrote: »

around here the .223wssm or .17 fireball would want a good hard stock on them for hitting foxes over the head with because thats all they'd be good for unless reloading is brought in, and if it was i'd love a .20 tac

.20tac is just a necked down .223 to the same tip as the .204 with less case capacity so really you just gain a wider range of brass but with the .204 getting more and more popular it wont be long before some of the top brass manufacturers bring out good quality .204 brass but being ireland id say it will be easily available before handloading is introduced here:rolleyes:

declan1980

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Which .223?

wht the feck is that?

It wasn't me!

declan1980 wrote: »

wht the feck is that?

.223 WSSM.

Tackleberrywho

Are yee guys forgetting HPS, I shoot .308 125 grain which is not readily available here either, where there is a will!.............

Fireball data below

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/press-releases/2008/ammunition/the-17-remington-fireball.aspx

Saw a lovely full custom .17fireball rig recently!

but I'm quite happy with my .223

declan1980

aside from the ballistics, one advantage the .204 would have is that given the lack of knowledge of the gardai on the calibers they licence, i imagine it would be a hell of a lot easier to licence.

imagine the conversation with the gard:
gard ".204 that is smaller than a .22 ya?"
applicant "it is indeed"
gard "a sure there should be no problem there"

compared to:
gard ".223, well the supers gonna want to see you before he'll licence that"
inside applicants head "well feck it anyway"

Tackleberrywho

declan1980 wrote: »

wht the feck is that?

A fox basher

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Are yee guys forgetting HPS, I shoot .308 125 grain which is not readily available here either, where there is a will!.............

Fireball data below

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/press-releases/2008/ammunition/the-17-remington-fireball.aspx

Saw a lovely full custom .17fireball rig recently!

but I'm quite happy with my .223

Great, if you're happy to use Nosler Ballistic Tips for whatever round you're shooting. If you want anything different, not so good. I think of HPS as a great source of decently priced target stuff, not hunting ammo, as a result, along with the fact that it was going to cost me £215/100 for ballistic tip stuff for my .25-06, without any load development. Since I can just buy the factory Federal Premium stuff for less than that price, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense in this country to buy a rifle chambered in a cartridge you can't easily get ammo for. I'd love to be handloading and using unusual rounds, and hopefully someday I will be, but until then, we are sadly constrained.

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Are yee guys forgetting HPS, I shoot .308 125 grain which is not readily available here either, where there is a will!.............

Fireball data below

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/press-releases/2008/ammunition/the-17-remington-fireball.aspx

Saw a lovely full custom .17fireball rig recently!

but I'm quite happy with my .223

The fireball past 250-300 yards is very limited .I would have a .223 over a 17 fireball any day!

poulo6.5

Hondata92 wrote: »

Sorry but sounds like you are using your selling measuring tape, even if the 50gr was been pushed out at 4000fps it would still have approx. 2.5" drop at 250 when zeroed at 100yards. Now if im wrong then i do apologise but you may want to contact norma/hornady and tikka and let them know just how good the combination of ammo and rifle are, im sure they will want to hear all about it:rolleyes:

as far as my rifle and ammo combination is concerned you are invited to go for a shot with me any time and see for your self, i'm not here to spin yarns thanks.


So you have gone from field shooting to target shooting, i can think of alot of better rounds to long range target shoot with besides the .223 but in saying that if you have never shot a .204 then how do you know what it can do at long range on paper? I only field shoot so paper doesnt interest me.

yes i do some informal target practice (doesn't everyone) as it is the only way to know for sure where your bullet is hitting at various ranges regardless of the caliber it is essential and ethical to practice.
so on a regular basis or as often as i can i set up targets from 50 to 550 and various in between and practice with my .22lr, .223, & .308. which of these do you think i should only do my target practice with because my .223 is not good enough.

any way i would love to have a go of your .204 as i have never used one.
so the invite is there if you want to plink a few targets and so on.
i go shooting as often as i can.

what rifle/scope combination do you use

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Hondata92 wrote: »

Sorry but sounds like you are using your selling measuring tape, even if the 50gr was been pushed out at 4000fps it would still have approx. 2.5" drop at 250 when zeroed at 100yards. Now if im wrong then i do apologise but you may want to contact norma/hornady and tikka and let them know just how good the combination of ammo and rifle are, im sure they will want to hear all about it

as far as my rifle and ammo combination is concerned you are invited to go for a shot with me any time and see for your self, i'm not here to spin yarns thanks.


So you have gone from field shooting to target shooting, i can think of alot of better rounds to long range target shoot with besides the .223 but in saying that if you have never shot a .204 then how do you know what it can do at long range on paper? I only field shoot so paper doesnt interest me.

yes i do some informal target practice (doesn't everyone) as it is the only way to know for sure where your bullet is hitting at various ranges regardless of the caliber it is essential and ethical to practice.
so on a regular basis or as often as i can i set up targets from 50 to 550 and various in between and practice with my .22lr, .223, & .308. which of these do you think i should only do my target practice with because my .223 is not good enough.

any way i would love to have a go of your .204 as i have never used one.
so the invite is there if you want to plink a few targets and so on.
i go shooting as often as i can.

what rifle/scope combination do you use

Thanks for the invite, im sure we can arrange something through pms

Not being smart but the balistics just dont work out for the drop you have but seeing is believing

You said in your original post that you have shot foxs at 250yards but need to test the 50gr further out, does that mean that you switch to the 75gr for anything beyond 250yards??

With the 50gr norma not listed im guessing its not any easy round to get hold of?

Just have a factory .204ruger with a leupold scope

Hondata92

As a case in point here are the ballistics of the .204 39gr and the .223 50gr

Both zeroed at 200yars with a sight height of 1.5", dont have a ballistic program so used an online one.

.204 ruger 39gr @3750fps



.223 rem 50gr @3300fps



The .204 has less drop and wind drift than the .223 with more kinetic energy

poulo6.5

Hondata92 wrote: »

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Thanks for the invite, im sure we can arrange something through pms

Not being smart but the balistics just dont work out for the drop you have but seeing is believing

You said in your original post that you have shot foxs at 250yards but need to test the 50gr further out, does that mean that you switch to the 75gr for anything beyond 250yards??

With the 50gr norma not listed im guessing its not any easy round to get hold of?

Just have a factory .204ruger with a leupold scope

i have shot foxes out to 250 as thats as far out as i have seen them so fare since i have had the 50gr rounds. but to be honest most fox shooting i do would be around 100-150 mark

the furthest shot i have taken in the field was 365 paces (or 400m ish)on a fox with 55gr hornady whict is what i was always using for hunting until i saw these 50gr norma's and i tried a box and weent back for more.

no i dont change to 75gr for longer shots i would just use them for long range target practice

ruger is a solid rifle and a leupold scopes are top notch. trouble with a rig like that is you cant blame your equipment on a miss

declan1980

there's no denying that the .204 is a ballistically superior round to the .223, but since my .223 is quite capable of killing foxes at 300 yards i'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that the .204 is a bit better.
i might change over in a few years, but for now i'm very happy with my very accurate .223:)

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Hondata92 wrote: »

i have shot foxes out to 250 as thats as far out as i have seen them so fare since i have had the 50gr rounds. but to be honest most fox shooting i do would be around 100-150 mark

the furthest shot i have taken in the field was 365 paces (or 400m ish)on a fox with 55gr hornady whict is what i was always using for hunting until i saw these 50gr norma's and i tried a box and weent back for more.

no i dont change to 75gr for longer shots i would just use them for long range target practice

ruger is a solid rifle and a leupold scopes are top notch. trouble with a rig like that is you cant blame your equipment on a miss

So the norma 50gr are easily available then?? Ive never heard/seen them for sale and based on your optomistic drop out to 250yards they seem like they are almost a some kind of a "custom" load that just happen to suit you rifle, roughly what speed are they running??

So what is the purpose of your 75gr rounds? is it for less wind drift?

I said i have a .204ruger just like you have a .223rem!!

Quite simply by more than just myself it has explained with facts and ballistics that the .204 is superiour to the .223, if by now you dont realise this then the whole purpose of you starting thread and people making the effort to reply and explain has been a waste of time

poulo6.5

Hondata92 wrote: »

poulo6.5 wrote: »

So the norma 50gr are easily available then?? Ive never heard/seen them for sale and based on your optomistic drop out to 250yards they seem like they are almost a some kind of a "custom" load that just happen to suit you rifle, roughly what speed are they running??

So what is the purpose of your 75gr rounds? is it for less wind drift?

I said i have a .204ruger just like you have a .223rem!!

Quite simply by more than just myself it has explained with facts and ballistics that the .204 is superiour to the .223, if by now you dont realise this then the whole purpose of you starting thread and people making the effort to reply and explain has been a waste of time

i got them in killarney from Mick duggan. he had a batch of them. i never saw them anywhere else. i hope he gets some more.
i had great success with norma ammo when i had my 6.5x55 so i thought i'd try them in the .223 and i was happy with results.

why do i use the 75gr. because i can. variety is the spice of life. one of the joys of the .223 is the availability of different types of ammo for different purposes so i can do this at 500y 3stot group on a 6" steel plate


i will be stretching it out further when i get the chance.

as far as starting this tread is concerned well this is a forum for people to ask questions and my question was why would you chose a .204 over a .223. ballistics on paper are one thing but use in the field is another.
from what i'v read i dont think there is anything to tempt me yet but i might have a look at one if i decide to change my rifle for something different in the future.

i might start another tread asking about other calibers if thats ok with you
lets say 7m08 v .308. or .270 v 30 06.

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Hondata92 wrote: »

i got them in killarney from Mick duggan. he had a batch of them. i never saw them anywhere else. i hope he gets some more.
i had great success with norma ammo when i had my 6.5x55 so i thought i'd try them in the .223 and i was happy with results.

why do i use the 75gr. because i can. variety is the spice of life. one of the joys of the .223 is the availability of different types of ammo for different purposes so i can do this at 500y 3stot group on a 6" steel plate


i will be stretching it out further when i get the chance.

as far as starting this tread is concerned well this is a forum for people to ask questions and my question was why would you chose a .204 over a .223. ballistics on paper are one thing but use in the field is another.
from what i'v read i dont think there is anything to tempt me yet but i might have a look at one if i decide to change my rifle for something different in the future.

i might start another tread asking about other calibers if thats ok with you
lets say 7m08 v .308. or .270 v 30 06.

Your 50gr norma seems to be less available than what you suggest the .204 is. At a price thats more than likely in excess of 25 euro per box.

Going on the fact that your original post was based on ballistic table comparison between the two rounds you now seem happy to dismiss ballistics (on paper). Several .204 shooters agree that it is more efficient in the field on drop, wind drift and energy when compared to the .223rem.

Im not in favour of taking two-three different boxs of ammo out to do a lesser job that the 39gr can do in the .204

I guess hornady and ruger wasted alot time and development in designing a new varmint round in your opinion for nothing

Id like to hear from you where you think the .223 is a superiour varmint round to the .204 other than price of cheap dirt ammo

As for starting a thread comparing different calibres, whats the point if you will just dismiss the rest because of what you currently own

ejg

One often forgets the 204 has a bigger case than the 223, it's not just a necked down 223.
Normally as game sizes increase one would tend to increase bullet weight.
Yes the 204 with 40gr has advantages over a 223 with light bullets but when bullets get heavier the 204 can't match in knocking down power or penetration.
Just as a comparison, a 223 is the same as a 22-250 just 100yds between them. Meaning a red deer shot legally shot with a 22-250 at 200yds would receive the same energy and bullet as with a 223 at 100yds..roughly.
So why is the 204 not deer legal if it is so good and apparantly far superior to the 223. Some say also superior to 22-250 and swift.
The other point, if a smaller bullet is better...well then a 17cal should be better again. or?
Why did the Nato change from 55gr to a heavier round after years of problems with the 223 when actually they should have gone to a lighter round or to a 204 all together?
edi

poulo6.5

Hondata92 wrote: »

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Your 50gr norma seems to be less available than what you suggest the .204 is. At a price thats more than likely in excess of 25 euro per box.

Going on the fact that your original post was based on ballistic table comparison between the two rounds you now seem happy to dismiss ballistics (on paper). Several .204 shooters agree that it is more efficient in the field on drop, wind drift and energy when compared to the .223rem.

Im not in favour of taking two-three different boxs of ammo out to do a lesser job that the 39gr can do in the .204

I guess hornady and ruger wasted alot time and development in designing a new varmint round in your opinion for nothing

Id like to hear from you where you think the .223 is a superiour varmint round to the .204 other than price of cheap dirt ammo

As for starting a thread comparing different calibres, whats the point if you will just dismiss the rest because of what you currently own

ok this is getting silly, we are getting no where with this.but here it goes any way.

i got the norma for €25 the same price as the hornady 55gr that i was using so no difference.
i can go back to using hornady again as i am well used to them and have the drops worked out so no problem.


versatility. i dont go out with 2or3 different types of ammo to do the same job.
No 1 i might want to go bunny bashing. cheep ammo @ €10 a box is fine for that.
No 2 i generally use the premium load (norma or hornady) for fox and bunny bashing
No 3 if i chose to spend a day lying on a rug target practice i can do that as well with all three rounds but for longer range the 75gr give the best results.
its fine if you choose to use your 39gr premium round for what ever you want. its your choice.

i have stated before that the .204 is faster and flatter thats a given, but on a day or night out shooting is there anything that the .204 can do that a .223 cant do i dont think so but i will stand corrected if it can.

i am all for development of new rounds and i think that they did a great job on the .204. all i am trying to do is discuss the advantages/disadvantages if any of both rounds.

as far as opening a new thread on other calibers is concerned well thats what this forum is for and i can agree or disagree with what ever i like.

i had a 6.5x55 and changed it for a .308 not because of caliber as i had no problem with the 6.5x55 as a caliber it shot and killed all 3 species of deer for me i just wanted a different style of rifle.
some would say one is better than the other and that might be true at some point but when deer stalking 80-150y any of the calibers from 22-250 upwards can do the job fine.
i do like the look of the 7m08 it can do everything a .308 can but has slightly better down range speed.
but that is for another tread.
i have some 150gr superformance ammo that is supposed to spit out at 3000fps that i have to test happy days.
you are welcome to come along and check my results if you want:D:D:D

Hondata92

ejg wrote: »

One often forgets the 204 has a bigger case than the 223, it's not just a necked down 223.

No one has said the .204 is a necked down .223. Yes the .204 has more case capacity than the .223 but it doesnt mean the .204 uses/needs more powder, case design has to be taken into consideration.

ejg wrote: »

Normally as game sizes increase one would tend to increase bullet weight.

True, the bigger the game the larger weight of bullet used but there are other things that need to be looked at besides weight.

ejg wrote: »

Yes the 204 with 40gr has advantages over a 223 with light bullets but when bullets get heavier the 204 can't match in knocking down power or penetration.

Any how much kinetic energy do you need to knock a fox??

ejg wrote: »

Just as a comparison, a 223 is the same as a 22-250 just 100yds between them. Meaning a red deer shot legally shot with a 22-250 at 200yds would receive the same energy and bullet as with a 223 at 100yds..roughly.
So why is the 204 not deer legal if it is so good and apparantly far superior to the 223. Some say also superior to 22-250 and swift.

In what way is there 100yards between them, your talking two different calibers for different purposes without even stating bullet weights of either.

As for why the .204 isnt deer legal, its the same reason the .223 isnt deer legal:rolleyes:

ejg wrote: »

The other point, if a smaller bullet is better...well then a 17cal should be better again. or?

Who said a smaller bullet is better? You clearly have no understanding of ballistics or bullet design

ejg wrote: »

Why did the Nato change from 55gr to a heavier round after years of problems with the 223 when actually they should have gone to a lighter round or to a 204 all together?
edi

Well nato dont use the .223 they use the 5.56 which the .223 is derived from but has slight differences in case and chamber design, Nato v SAAMI spec.

Your comparing a dedicated military round to a dedicated varmint round.

Under the geneva convention you are not permitted to use expanding rounds for military purposes.

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Hondata92 wrote: »

ok this is getting silly, we are getting no where with this.but here it goes any way.

i got the norma for €25 the same price as the hornady 55gr that i was using so no difference.
i can go back to using hornady again as i am well used to them and have the drops worked out so no problem.


versatility. i dont go out with 2or3 different types of ammo to do the same job.
No 1 i might want to go bunny bashing. cheep ammo @ €10 a box is fine for that.
No 2 i generally use the premium load (norma or hornady) for fox and bunny bashing
No 3 if i chose to spend a day lying on a rug target practice i can do that as well with all three rounds but for longer range the 75gr give the best results.
its fine if you choose to use your 39gr premium round for what ever you want. its your choice.

i have stated before that the .204 is faster and flatter thats a given, but on a day or night out shooting is there anything that the .204 can do that a .223 cant do i dont think so but i will stand corrected if it can.

i am all for development of new rounds and i think that they did a great job on the .204. all i am trying to do is discuss the advantages/disadvantages if any of both rounds.

as far as opening a new thread on other calibers is concerned well thats what this forum is for and i can agree or disagree with what ever i like.

i had a 6.5x55 and changed it for a .308 not because of caliber as i had no problem with the 6.5x55 as a caliber it shot and killed all 3 species of deer for me i just wanted a different style of rifle.
some would say one is better than the other and that might be true at some point but when deer stalking 80-150y any of the calibers from 22-250 upwards can do the job fine.
i do like the look of the 7m08 it can do everything a .308 can but has slightly better down range speed.
but that is for another tread.
i have some 150gr superformance ammo that is supposed to spit out at 3000fps that i have to test happy days.
you are welcome to come along and check my results if you want:D:D:D

I agree we are getting no where probally because facts have been stated and chosen to be ignored.

You say that you use cheap ammo for rabbits and premium for rabbits and foxs, so if you go out with cheap stuff you leave off any foxs or just carry both and work out your difference in zero before working out your drop?

If ive read it right, when doing short range target shooting if both cheap and premium ammo do it well then why bother with premium stuff?

The only advantage the 75gr match round has over the 39gr hunting round is kinetic energy which isnt required for punching paper.

Yeah maybe you should open another thread for different calibers and keep this for the .204 versus the .223, but please keep an open mind on other peoples views and facts rather than fiction

ejg

Hondata, 204 is a lovely mid range rabbit round. Fox OK but not
perfect. Why? well most factory rifles will not shoot anything over
39gr accurately. Some don't even shoot 39/40's well. Meaning all the
ballistic advantaeg is down the tube because one musy use 32gr. Then,
Hornady's ammo, ever measured the real speed? More like 200 below what
the box say's.
Naaa, I don't fall for it.
At least with a 223 and a 1in 8 like a factory tikka one has the choice and
can shoot 40 right up to 75 possibly more. Well stabilised with better BC than a 204 and down range energy than the 204.
Foxing, if one shoots a lot of fox, I think it is important to have more
penetration than the 204 especially with 32gr can offer. A follow up
shot should be able to reach the vitals from any angle. The 223 is also
marginal with 50gr but fairly ok 55-60gr. 22-250, swift, 243 being ideal.

223 vs 22-250? well the higher muzzle speed of a 22-250 is at 100yds
roughly the same as a 223 at the muzzle (same bullet). That's why one
often refers to a 22-250 as a 223 with 100yds more....simple eh

edi

tomcat220t

ejg wrote: »

One often forgets the 204 has a bigger case than the 223, it's not just a necked down 223.
Normally as game sizes increase one would tend to increase bullet weight.
Yes the 204 with 40gr has advantages over a 223 with light bullets but when bullets get heavier the 204 can't match in knocking down power or penetration.
Just as a comparison, a 223 is the same as a 22-250 just 100yds between them. Meaning a red deer shot legally shot with a 22-250 at 200yds would receive the same energy and bullet as with a 223 at 100yds..roughly.
So why is the 204 not deer legal if it is so good and apparantly far superior to the 223. Some say also superior to 22-250 and swift.
The other point, if a smaller bullet is better...well then a 17cal should be better again. or?
Why did the Nato change from 55gr to a heavier round after years of problems with the 223 when actually they should have gone to a lighter round or to a 204 all together?
edi

The bullets in both calibers will do the job when they get to mr fox !The .204 ,.223 and in most cases the .22-250 are not deer legal for a good reason . Most shooters buy a box of ammo for the their setup and never put any taught into why or how its best suited for the quarry they are about to hunt....Its only a few years ago that the .22 hornet and .22 mag were the tools of choice for foxes .Why would you think penetration is needed with a varmint round?What relevant point has the nato 5.56 mm round got to do with this topic?

tomcat220t

ejg wrote: »

Hondata, 204 is a lovely mid range rabbit round. Fox OK but not
perfect. Why? well most factory rifles will not shoot anything over
39gr accurately. Some don't even shoot 39/40's well. Meaning all the
ballistic advantaeg is down the tube because one musy use 32gr. Then,
Hornady's ammo, ever measured the real speed? More like 200 below what
the box say's.
Naaa, I don't fall for it.
At least with a 223 and a 1in 8 like a factory tikka one has the choice and
can shoot 40 right up to 75 possibly more. Well stabilised with better BC than a 204 and down range energy than the 204.
Foxing, if one shoots a lot of fox, I think it is important to have more
penetration than the 204 especially with 32gr can offer. A follow up
shot should be able to reach the vitals from any angle. The 223 is also
marginal with 50gr but fairly ok 55-60gr. 22-250, swift, 243 being ideal.

223 vs 22-250? well the higher muzzle speed of a 22-250 is at 100yds
roughly the same as a 223 at the muzzle (same bullet). That's why one
often refers to a 22-250 as a 223 with 100yds more....simple eh

edi

A bigger bullet is no compinsation for poor bullet placement .What bullet are you refairing in the .223 that has better B/C and down range energy over the .204?I hope your not suggesting a MATCH ROUND?My factory 39gr is around 70fps down off the advertise speed .....I had a .223 and 4 of my mates still have, they and all are 250-300 fps off their factory speeds .I agree the 32gr wound be best suited 300-350 yards on foxes and they seem around 150-200 fps off their advertised speed .I have to laugh when you somehow think the .204 is only a midrange rabbit round .I have yet to see a factory .204 rifle not shoot the federal 39gr very very well .Foxes must have thicker skin down around your area:rolleyes:.