.223 or .204

[rection47]

As a first rifle over a .22 what would be better for target shooting, .204 bolt or .223?
To me the .204 sounds better, ive read that is shoots flatter and farther, but its more expensive to practice with. Overall i just want some first hand experiences from people who have used both.

Thanks

 

[cmidkiff]

I shoot a ton of .223, both from an AR and from a Savage bolt gun. It's a very good all-around cartrige. Ammo's fairly inexpensive, and widly available. Reloading for the .223 never made much sense to me.

I don't own a .204 ruger... yet, but I will soon. I'll be handloading for the .204. As a varmint gun, the .204 seems nearly ideal. As an all-around caliber, the .204 is probably a little light. I wouldn't want to depend on it for anything larger than 15lbs or so.

 

[YodaVader]

With the .223 and the faster twist 1 in 9" rifles like those from Savage you can shoot the heavier bullets such as the 69 grain match types with great accuracy.

If you are not going to reload .223 ammo is available in a wide variety of factory loading and also in a wide price range from plinking type ammo to match loads.

Reloading for the .223 never made much sense to me.

When shooting for the best possible accuracy it makes a lot of sense to me. In my experience with two Rem 700s , a Savage 12BVSS and two TC Super 14s - all .223s , no factory loadings in any of the guns were able to come close to my results with match bullet reloads. Simply put I would not be able to afford to shoot factory match ammo.

 

[wanderinwalker]

If shooting little furballs into oblivion is your thing, the .204 might make more sense. But the .223 is pretty readily available, cheaper and has a longer track record.

Frankly, neither cartridge has truly great long-range ballistics with the stubby little bullets used for varminting. Bump the .223 up with some 69-80gr match bullets and you've got a better 300+ yard target rifle.

I'd go .223 myself. More common, longer track record, easier to locate.

And yes, I have shot the .223 out to 600 yards, from a 20" AR-15 using heavy 80gr reloads. Shooting match ammo, reloading is the only option that makes sense in .223 IMO. One box of Federal Gold Medal costs about $25. That's about 250 Nosler J4s. Doesn't take long to figure the math on that one!

For shooting at 200 yards or so, I'd be happy with a slow-twist barrel and 50-55gr Ballistic Tips or V-Maxs or 52gr hollow points. Even with my fast-twist barrel, the 52s are okay for short range practice. And cheap to load! (Ball powder and whatever primers and cases I can scrape up. )

 

[Outlaws]

I happily own a Cooper in .204 Ruger. Its my 2nd .204...the first was a Ruger #1, but I grew to not like the feel of the rifle. However I was so happy with the performance of the 204 I sold it and got this one.

If you took all my 3 shot groups (from after the barrel break in) and over laid them on top of one another, you will find that 15 out of 20 rounds will form a neat little bugeye hole. I consider the others "user error".

Granted that is from a very nice rifle with a very nice scope, its good. Again, I consider that one shot as my fault.....oh ya....that is factory Hornady 32 grain ammo.


Its not a cheap gun to shoot though, but neither is .223 if you shoot GOOD ammo. 204 just doens't have the option for cheap crap....yet.

It shoots very good up to 300 yards. (I haven't shot further yet with it) If I were shooting 500 consistantly, I would skip both and go to the 22-250 for the wind bucking.


Oh ya....one more thing. Even though I like the 204 more than the 223, I consider something more important since you want a target rifle....

Get the best rifle you can afford and don't skimp on the scope.

 

[rection47]

thanks for the feedback

 

[nipprdog]

for target shooting, 223, hands down. more quality ammo available.

longer barrel life, as well.

 

[BrainOnSigs]

longer barrel life, as well.

Not necessarily a true statement.

I recently sold my .223s and converted to .204 Ruger. I have used the .204 in the field and on paper out to 500 yards. It flat out performs.

Here is a good read on the .20s.

http://www.6mmbr.com/20Caliber.html


Excerpt:

The Velocity Edge--A .204 Ruger drives a 40-grainer 600 fps faster than a .223 Rem can push the typical 22-Caliber 50gr bullet. This higher velocity produces a flatter trajectory. Additionally, grain for grain, 20-Caliber bullets have higher ballistic coefficients than .224 bullets. Combine this with the extra velocity of the 20-Caliber, and you get superior performance in the wind. Run the numbers and you'll see--a 40-grainer shot from a .204 Ruger has less drop AND less wind drift than a 40gr or 50gr bullet fired from a .223 Rem. You'll find the data in the chart below.

Component Economy and Barrel Life--All the Twenties burn way less powder than a 22-250, and the smaller Twenties use less powder than a .223 Rem. This attribute actually has two advantages. First, it makes shooting 20-Caliber cartridges more economical, but mostly it means less barrel heat. A typical varmint hunter may shoot several hundred rounds in one day, so barrel heat is an important issue.

Terminal Ballistics--For hunters seeking maximum explosive effect on a small varmint, Twenties deliver the goods. Because it passes through the rifling much more quickly, a 20-Caliber bullet will be turning much higher RPMs than a 22-caliber bullet launched from a barrel of similar twist rate. Experienced varminters will tell you that high spin rates create the most explosive impacts. On the other hand, if you shoot a non-fragmenting bullet, the Twenty can minimize hide/fur damage. If you plan to keep the fur, you want the smallest possible hole or damage to it.

 

[BrainOnSigs]

Another good .204 read authored by a friend, hunting partner and fellow member of THR....Dr. Ken Lunde.

http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek047.html

 

[BrainOnSigs]

My most recent .204 Ruger acquisition.

Cooper Arms Montana Varminter:

 

[robctwo]

I recently bought the Savage 10FP in .223 and the CZ 527 Varmint in .204. Both are great. I reload. Shooting the .204 with factory ammo would be prohibitive.

 

[nickman]

Personal choices..............

I have been following this site for a couple of years and never felt like serving up my 2 cents worth.....until now. In April of 04' I bought a .204 in a Ruger 77 and with the exception of playing around with a .17 HMR, I have completly ignored my Swift, the Zipper and the Hi Power.
The 204, fed on a diet of Hornady V Max factory ammo, surpasses everything else I own in almost all catagories. I may never bother reloading again, given the quality of Hornady's V Max line.
My main rush comes from the .204's ability to deliver serious downrange "whack" but the recoil is so light that I never lose site of the target and I get to see things explode......or where I might have missplaced a shot.
I now have 3 rifles in .204 and with V Max rounds, they all shoot "minute of coyote". Given all the right conditions, 500 yds is a cakewalk.
In my opinion, the .223 only has one thing going for it, it's cheap to shoot.......You can do your own research, get lots of opinions and preferences, then make a choice.

 

[rangerruck]

the 204 really smokes the 223 in every way possible, except cost. if you target shoot a couple of times a month, and buy factory rounds of 204 versus milsurp 223, that could add up to 100's of dollars a year, easy.