204 or 223

.223. Only because I use it extensively. I've no use for the .204, it's an answer without a question.

204 is better for reaching out there, so depends on how far he will be taking shots. If it was me I'd rather have the 204. Just in case.
If he is only going to be shooting to 300 yds. go 223. any further and the 204 has way less drop.

JRWhit said:

204 is better for reaching out there, so depends on how far he will be taking shots. If it was me I'd rather have the 204. Just in case.
If he is only going to be shooting to 300 yds. go 223. any further and the 204 has way less drop.

Click to expand...

Then we are in .22-250 territory, which still does it better than both. Heavier rounds in the .223, or pony up for the -250, and call it a day.

viking499 said:

Or, as said, just pull out the 243 and some 55-65 grainers.

204 or 223 are the choices. Opinions and comments on one or the other is fine, but those are the only 2 choices to choose from.

Click to expand...

Sorry.

In that case, .223.

223ai...

I'm a huge fan of the 204. Shortly after I used it on my first prairie dog trip I sold my 223. For me, the round did everything I asked of it at the distances I used it for - out to 450 yards. In fact, when my ten year old daughter expressed an interest in going to SoDak with me next year I got a Savage HB 204 for her.

Don't get me wrong - the 223 did a fine job at killing the dogs. But the flippers and spinners I get with the 204 are so much more fun! Ballistically, I can't really explain why it works so well. Its a tiny bullet going really fast. It almost seems like I'm shooting a micro rocket, though.

Easy to load for as well, if you reload. I really like the 39 grain Sierra BlitzKings over a hefty amount of H4895, but YMMV.

In case I wasn't verbose enough...I'm firmly in the 204 camp for small(coyote or smaller) size critters.

The .223 is the answer if you reload -- plenty of once-fired brass is available, cheap.

viking499 said:

Sorry, not trying to be mean, just not wanting it to turn into "this round or that round" is better than the other because........

Click to expand...

Absolutely understandable. I love the .223, it's wide array of bullet weights, and if your son practices, he can efficiently kill coy dogs at any range the .204 does.

Because .223 is a government round. Therefore, is probably cheaper and a more common round to find. I've went thru a few thousand rounds on groundhog and have always been amazed at the results of a .223 varmint (plastic tipped) round.

You won't go wrong either way, but the .204 was an answer to (can I get a lower recoiling gun that shoots a light bullet really fast so I can see what I hit through the scope?)

Absolutely the .223!

Do you reload? then either really. I would give the nod to .204 for coyote/P-dogs. If you don't reload, well then the .223 is far more economical. Varmint bullets will be about the same price for either in the store, but practice rounds with .223 will be far cheaper.

I have an incredibly accurate AR and also a CZ in .204. Obviously either would be a good choice.

As noted, the .204 has virtually zero recoil so you can see your hits. I'd look into the CZ with the single set trigger. When set, mine is probably in the 8 oz range and exceptionally crisp.

IMO, just as important is the scope. There were some guys over on The Varmint's Den that had really nice scopes for cheap.

HOOfan_1 said:

You won't go wrong either way, but the .204 was an answer to (can I get a lower recoiling gun that shoots a light bullet really fast so I can see what I hit through the scope?)

Click to expand...

Who was asking that? Where I hit a coyote doesn't matter when it's dead. .223 rem does that in spades. And cheaper.

meanmrmustard said:

Who was asking that? Where I hit a coyote doesn't matter when it's dead. .223 rem does that in spades. And cheaper.

Click to expand...

Prairie dog hunters...

220 swift

I've been in almost the same quandry (?spelling?), except it was with the .223 vs. the .17 Rem. I got the .17 Rem and, while not regretting it, it just didn't do what I wanted. It was a pain to reload (even had to buy a special powder funnel) and required a special cleaning rod, jag and smaller patches.

Still have it, but I picked up a .223 Rem and had it opened up to a .223AI. I seldom shoot the .17 anymore. Remember... it's your decision and the choice is yours!

Just saw this related thread...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=680284

If shots are very rarely beyond 300 yards, I figure the .223 would work just fine. One guy here in south Georgia loves his .204 and has killed a fair number of coyotes with it, but from talking to him, most shots are rarely beyond 200 yards.

HOOfan_1 said:

Prairie dog hunters...

Click to expand...

Most I know who make the sojourn to Wyoming for tha purpose use .223, .220 swift, and 22-250. Heck, a few use .22 CHeetah.

I think I would go 204 if you reload.

Can you get the .204 in a fast twist barrel like a 1:9 or 1:8? If so, that brings the 50 and 55gn Berger VLDs into the picture as well as the rest. These do considerably better than the .223 55gn pills in the wind and drop less as well. The 55gn has a BC better than the 77gn SMK and can be shot faster. The limitations are that it needs a faster than normal barrel twist and it doesn't load to AR mag length. In something like a custom barreled Savage with its generous magazine both can be accounted for and the result is a better long range varmint gun that the .223.

I have both and greatly prefer the 204 Ruger. As others have mentioned there's almost no recoil so you can often see your hits. I also find the 204 very easy to reload and have yet to find a load that wasn't accurate. Once you acquire the brass it's no more expensive to shoot than .223.