Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters educate me on the .204 Ruger....

drover,

I like the way you used only 3553 fps for the 40-grain bullet in the .223 to calculate recoil, and 3701 with the 40-grain in the .204.
I resent the inference that I have intentionally skewed the recoil results in my post. I clearly pointed out that they were the average of all loads published with PSI references in order to be as unbiased as possible.(My replies are in red for ease of readability.)

In reality the .223 is capable of about 100 fps more velocity with 40's than the .204--which, of course, means the .223 will recoil more.
Using the Hodgdon on-line manual the fastest 40 listed for a 204 is 3774 fps, the fastest 40 listed for the 223 is 3674. Just the opposite of your posting when using published data. Anything besides published data is meaningless for a fair comparison.

Let's take a look at the recoil difference using the fastest published load.
When using max listed velocities the 204 actually has nearly a half ft lb more recoil that the 223 rather than the other was around as you posted.
204 with 40's - 3774 = 3.9 ft/lbs
223 with 40's - 3674 = 3.5 ft/lbs

204 - 40 gr bullet
Recoil
Input Data
Charge Weight: 30.0 gr
Muzzle Velocity: 3774.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: 40.0 gr

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: 6.0 ft/s
Recoil Energy: 3.9 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: 1.3 lb�s

223 - 40 gr bullet
Input Data
Charge Weight: 28.0 gr
Muzzle Velocity: 3674.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: 40.0 gr

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: 5.7 ft/s
Recoil Energy: 3.5 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: 1.2 lb�s

But for further verification let's use the fastest listed load in the on-line Nosler manual.
204 with 40 gr - 3815 = 3.8 ft/lbs
223 with 40 gr - 3860 = 3.7 ft/lbs

204 - 40 gr bullet
Input Data
Charge Weight: 29.5 gr
Muzzle Velocity: 3815.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: 40.0 gr

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: 5.9 ft/s
Recoil Energy: 3.8 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: 1.3 lb�s

223 - 40 gr bullet
Input Data
Charge Weight: 28.0 gr
Muzzle Velocity: 3860.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: 40.0 gr

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: 5.8 ft/s
Recoil Energy: 3.7 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: 1.3 lb�s

Once again using the published data the 223 has slightly less recoil than the 204 with the highest velocity loads listed. If anything it could be argued that the 223 is slightly more efficient since it achieves its highest velocity with less powder.

Do you actually load 40's down to about 3550 in the .223?
The velocity I shoot 40's at has no relevance since the references are to published data, not the velocity I shoot.

But while I've shot a bunch of 40's out of .223's. I much prefer at least 50-grain bullets, because they drift far less in the wind. They recoil even more than 40's, of cource, yet still drift noticeably more than 40's from the .204 started at 3700. Even 32's from the .204 drift a little less than 50's from the .223.
The original posted comparison was 40 to 40, if you prefer 50's that is fine but it has little or nothing to do with this discussion.

Plus, the .204 shoots flatter, which doesn't theoretically matter when you're dialing, but a lot of prairie dog shooting is at ranges where dialing isn't necessary. A .204 loaded with 32's at 4100 fps and sighted-in an inch high at 100 yards allows holding right in the middle of a prairie dog out to 250+ yards. A .223 doesn't shoot nearly as flat, no matter what bullet you load--but it doesn't even come close with 40's at 3550.
Once again the post was about recoil not which shoot flattest. However I will say that if a person shoots a cartridge enough that they are totally familiar with its trajectory and wind drift then holdover and drift is much less of a concern than it is made out to be.

Of course, stocks shape, gun weight and the individual shooter makers a difference in seeing the target during recoil. My experience is also with a bunch of .204's and .223's, and for me (not you) I find that even with a heavy-barrel .223, with 50-grain bullets at 3400 fps the rifle doesn't come down out of recoil soon enough to see the bullet hit at any range less than about 150 yards. With a sporter-weight .204 I can see dogs hit at any range. It's easiest when shooting 32-grain bullets. This is all with scopes of about the same magnification, and hence field of view.
And I can see PD'd and gophers hit at any range using any of my sporter weight 223's with 40's, which only points out the difference in individual shooters.

However, in my experience the easiest centerfire cartridges for spotting shots are even smaller, rounds like the .17 Fireball, .22 Hornet and .221 Fireball. Sometimes the reticle barely leaves the dog during recoil, which makes me think a .20 VarTarg may be worth a try. I've shot a couple of 'em but not a lot, and just might give it a try.
I am thinking of a 20 VarTarg also, it appears to be much more efficient than the 204 Ruger, and it in reality should have slightly less recoil.

One last comment is that most recoil programs are too simplistic to provide exact results. I know this from measuring the actual movement of rifles during recoil.
Just because they are too simplistic does not mean that they are not useful. They are by far the most useful program available to the general public and they do provide for an unbiased comparison. As far as measuring the actual movement of the rifle I am unsure as to how useful that is for a more meaningful result.

But this exact subject was hashed over for many pages in the previous thread, a while back. You obviously haven't seen any significant difference in recoil between the rounds, while I have, which proves that we're all different in the way we shoot and hold rifles. But in the previous thread a clear majority said they could see hits better when shooting a .204, which I would suggest means there is some difference in recoil--especially when the .223 isn't downloaded.