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

Send it to Mule Deer, he needs it more than I. We need to be making plans for another invitational...

The only centerfire rifles I have shot a lot that I can say has resulted in 100% ability to spot my own shots are my .17 Remingon's.





Travis

But he had all that factory ammo.....

All I can say is that some character had no problems knowing he hit after I missed....it was usually followed by a smart-assed grin....

Try those in a chiseled cornfield....of course I never miss, but clods don't even respond to a 17.

I think seeing hits has something to do with the individual shooter, as well.
I have also seen hits through the 222 mag. ......

That must have happened at the west end of the firing line. I couldn't stay focused on shooting, I kept seeing the "Butt on a Bucket" and it was distracting...

I was more distracted by the corruption of youth that was exhibited....

And magnification.

And range.

And what brand bucket you're using.



Travis

It's definitely all in the bucket.

With an orange Home Depot Homer bucket, I can see roughly 25% more of my hits.....

204's and Wilson baseball buckets rock.....

I like a good David Sunflower Seeds bucket as well......

Rancho uses his hod bucket from work...

Fishing line tied to trigger?

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. 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.

Do you actually load 40's down to about 3550 in the .223?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think you are splitting hairs here. While the 223 shows slightly less recoil with said numbers, with same velocity it would still be close to same ft. lbs. recoil energy.

All numbers aside, I really can't notice any real world difference. Can see hits with either......

Should add, I feel the differences in each individuals shooting habits/equipment would have a greater effect upon the outcome of said poll than the miniscule difference in recoil, assuming same rifle/bullet weights.

JMO.....

I just got my 20 Practical barrel mounted and back from Matt at Sawtooth Rifles...( the gentleman that did a couple of our Campfire Veteran rifles.)

I went with it since I have 3 lifetimes worth of 223 brass...

I have been laying in stock of 32 gr Varmaggeddon tipped bullets, 24 grain NTX Hornady and 26 grain Barnes HPs....

Next spring we'll see how well these lighter bullets hold up in the flat shooting dept....

in a light weight Ultralite barrel in 204, on this action previously, each one did pretty darn good out to 250-300 yds. on sage rats....

I could do an entire season with the 24 grain NTXs, if Hornady opens up the production line on them once again.. same thing with the 22 cal, 35 grain NTX...

being lead free, they are longer than heavier other bullets in those calibers...

and I found the 204, to be much like the 223... its harder to find a powder that doesn't work well in them, vs trying to find "the BEST"....both are pretty unfinicky cases....

and already have a couple of Home Dept buckets ready to go for next spring...

Rancho has a nice lean going on in that pic. That helps mitigate rearward recoil, but aids with lateral recoil. This enables the shooter to acquire a new target more quickly.

Obviously not a rookie.



Travis

I see all my hits from CB shorts. They're awesome.

I don't have to reload ammo, or wear muffs.

Dunno why anyone would want a .204.