Discussion in 'General Rifle' started by scoutman, Dec 15, 2007.
what are the advantages and disadvantages of both. balisticly and use in hunting :bigeyes:
The smaller diameter allows the .204 to range out there with the .22-250 and out perform the .223 but the 1in12 twist .223 is capable of great performance at 300yds and beyond.It depends on what you want.For hunting the .204 is superior but for target the .223 is better because of lower priced ammo.If you reload the .204 is the way to go.With a toghter twist barrel and heavier bullets the .223 will reach out there but the trajectory is terrible compared to the .204 sam.
bout 8 dollars a box , 223 is so easy to get
Watch I Am Legend and you'll buy a .223
Oddly enough, it took Saving Private Ryan to get me to buy an M1 Carbine...I might actually get an M4 now after watching that movie.
If you go by movies you can watch westerns and realise that a .44-40 is all you need.Of course if you actually get out and try shooting instead of going by what you see in movies you might find differences in what really happens and what is in the movies. sam.
Sam... Thanks for the .204 Ruger info. You're helping sway me that direction, as is my friend that I mentioned earlier in another thread.
I reload, and that helps make the .204 Ruger an affordable choice for hunting and target.
I wouldnt buy a rifle from just what you saw in a movie. For me I choose my knifes and weapons off what I am looking for it to do, whats the best quality I can afford, and the over all cost to use what I buy. Whats the point in having a rifle if you cant afford to shoot off more then a handfull of rounds lol. I personally like the .223 a lot. I cant say anything about the .204 since I havent fired it but I have heard the ammo is pretty costly. I plan on picking up a .223 rifle at some point but my next rifle would prob be a 1891/30 to go with my M44, or a new shotgun. I have also been thinking about getting a 7.62X39 rifle. lol my wish list is pretty long I just started my collection I have been planing since I was a child. I love firearms my parents hate them so I had to wait to start my collection.
Get the 204 Ruger and you've got the best of both worlds.
I just watched a show on the OutDoor Channel and that 204 Ruger was eatting up coyotes.
It hammered them HARD !...A.H
When I went out in the woods to try out my friend's 204 Ruger, I was well impressed with it performance. A very sweet rifle, precise shooter and very lethal impact on varmints and medium sized animals (yotes).
The only limitation I found with the 204, to make it an affordable all round small caliber option, was in obtaining a sufficient supply of brass, at a reasonable price, for reloading to satisfy hunting and target shooting needs.
.204 may not make it
The history of firearms is paved with cartridges that did not last in the marketplace. I feel the .204 is one of these cartridges as I look at the ballistic tables for what is out there and cannot determine a real need for the .204. You might just buy a "one hit wonder" if you go with the .204. The .223 has staying power for nothing else other than the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of guns already out there in this caliber.
I would put my money in the .223 feeling confident it will not become a high cost specialty cartridge.
nathangdad: I wish you would substantiate statements like the .204 becoming obsolete.I see more and more at the range and varmint hunting and everyone is chambering for the.204.I like advice but would like just once for you to back it up with facts.What you stated is backward to what is really happening. sam.
I would like to agree with Samuel, the .204 is definately the most recent calibre that is definately here to stay, I have a shooting buddy that has .223,222, and a .204 out of all these great calibres, the .204 is definately the best in accuracy and performance, reloading is cheap, and definately the way to go, group sizes of 5mm at 100 yards with an excellant optic is achieveable,..using 39 grainer projectiles,
The 204 seems to be a good cartridge, but really what is wrong with the ones already out there? .220 swift, .222,.223,22-250,22 hornet,222 rem mag,221 fireball, and others out there. I have a few .223's and a .222 and must say they are all accurate enough for me. A friend has a 204 and it consistently holds 1/4 inch groups at 100 yards. Good enough to do whatever you need. But not impressive for all the hype i have heard. Also the 1/4 inch groups don't even get close to two of the .223's i have or my .222. My other .223's and 22-250 can compare to the in the 1/8 inch - 3/4 inch 100 yard groups.
I have both my .204 is a mod 700 remington. the .223 is a V-15 remington. they are both fun rifles. the .223 is cheaper to shoot. but if had to keep only one it would be the .204
Man!That is some shooting!Are these out of the box guns?Three of them? Do you do this off hand? Is this in a movie,or real life? Bet that 1/"-.225" groups can be verified too! ,,,sam.
Wow, how about that sarcasm, you must not know how to measure group sizes. You take the size of the hole then subtract the size of the bullet to find how much the group actually spread. I thought it was common knowledge, but wait you must know everything because favor the 204 and it makes you a master of all.
Just stating my actual fact and findings at the range in real life conditions with real rifles ammo and shooters. You must base all of your knowledge on theory and mathmatical equations not actual real events. Somethings look wonderful on paper, and in theory. When put to the test they may or may not produce the desired results each and every time.
The problem with the .204 is not in performance
ballistically but in performance marketwise. As a newer cartridge in a very overcrowded marketplace it faces a risk of demand loss.
If you go with a .204 having some reloading equipment and a good supply of brass and bullets is a thing to consider.
If you have some gun magazines from four or five years ago you will undoubedly find a few highly regarded new cartridges that, for practical purposes, are just not with us anymore.
Personally, as I am conservative in this matter, I would go with the .223.
I thought you measured to the hole next to the farthest hole and back to center.Thanks for the info.As to theory,I have one."try and get verification on groups.Have reservations if I can't." As to math,I can count to 4, 3 is a big # to me.Actually,I have spent years of time and thousands of dollars making accurate custom rifles (and some handguns) and know a really good one will shoot under 1/2" to start and then I can tune it and get half that or less.(maybe) It takes a hell of a lot of hard work and patience to stay under 1/2" and that includes several shooters I know.I see these 3,s 2,s and even 1,s posted on here and know what it takes to get there and after a while I just get fed up.When we lie about our shooting,the only one we lie to is ourselves.I have seen some out of the box rifles shoot around 1/2"groups,but it is rare,rare,rare.And then they have usually done a lot of accurizing and high tech reloading.Ah,to hell with it! ,,,sam.
I am not attempting to prolong your discredit to myself but when I was describing how to measure I should have specified one hole grouping, when one hole is enlarged by following shots without a separation of holes. Usually it is measured from the two ends fartherest apart from each other. I also know that grouping of that sort is extremely rare from factory rifles but I never stated in a public post that they were normal factory rifles, I only posted the calibers never the type of setup or type of ammo used. Your entire misleading argument and discredit to myself is made up from complete assumptions. Please, do not label me as a liar, I dislike liars, I am not one, and do not prefer other people to state that I am one.
As I stated in a PM to you earlier, why is it that you have chosen me to be victim of your misleading accusations and sarcasticly worded unfriendly posts.
Didn't I state "end of discussion" in the pm? ,,,sam.
Separate names with a comma.