.204 Ruger or .223?

[Guvnor]

Im looking for a rifle for fox/coyote hunting. Cant decide on the .204 or .223. I figure the .223 would be cheaper to shoot but the ballistics on the .204 are impressive.

Which recoils more, .204 or .223?

Is the .204 a good round for coyotes or is it more geared toward smaller varmits?

Do you guys think the .204 is here to stay, or will it get scarce?

Thanks!

 

[Hostile Amish]

.204 is better for varmint purposes, esp. prairie dogs. On bigger game, the two rounds offer almost same performance.

 

[2FNSLO]

If you don't reload, you may want to check ammo availability in your area. You may also want to look into a 22-250. Ballistics close to the .204 with a bigger bullet. Recoil with any of the three is not much.

 

[edelbrock]

For fox/coyote hunting I would go with the .223. The .204 is great for varmints but I would rather have the .223 for bigger game.

 

[hinton03]

I hunt Coyote's with the 223, but I imagine that pelt hunters may find the 204 to their liking due to less pelt damage.

 

[woof]

One reason for a .223 is with it you add a rifle that in a SHTF scenario, has a much wider range of capability than the .204 and for which ammo will at least not be rare.

 

[NCsmitty]

If you have neither, then the 223, with the availability of ammo or components is a much more sensible choice. Ballistics are similar as is the recoil level. You just need to have the sense to select the proper bullet for the job at hand.
The 204 is a wonderful cartridge but is really limited to varmint control.

NCsmitty

 

[gvnwst]

You didn't mention what range you are going to be shooting at? Basically, under 300yd, the .223 will rule with cheap ammo and good terminal ballistics, but go beyond that, and if you are in a windy area and have the money/handload, the .204 takes the lead.

 

[Ned Kelly]

I think the .204 gets the nod. But I would much rather haul out the trusty .220 swift.

I wonder sometimes if smaller calibers like the .204 and .17 HMR isnt a marketing attempt to sell a product with hardly any materials used in it's construction. You have a lot less lead, copper and some cases gunpowder in these smaller cartridges yet the price is very high.

 

[Auburn1992]

.204 would probably be better for varmints, including coyote, than the .223. However, I would definitly look at the 22-250. It offers more factory cartridges than the .204, plus it would be outstanding if you reloaded with it.

 

[Guvnor]

Thanks for the replies.

My shots would likely be no more than 100 yards. I was considering the .204 because I was under the impression it had less muzzle blast and recoil than the .223. But if they are almost the same in recoil, blast, and ballistics then I guess it would make more sense to get a .223 for the price/availability factor.

Seems the .223 is more versatile as well, correct? Hypothetically, can small deer size game be taken with a heavy bullet in the .223?

 

[gvnwst]

Hypothetically, can small deer size game be taken with a heavy bullet in the .223?

Yes, espically if you are shooting something like a nosler partition or a barnes TSX, 60+gr. Those work quite well on deer.

 

[Eb1]

I don't see how exactly one would be better than the other. Over 3000 fps for all of them, and dead is dead.

All are capable of extremely long shots, and I wouldn't shoot over 300 yards with a bullet under 55 grains. To me the 22-250 or .223 would be my choice.

 

[edelbrock]

To me the .223 is just a more versatile caliber. Whether you reload or buy factory ammo there is a much larger selection of bullets for the .223. That being said I would love to have a .204!