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

I just used your technique (averaging the top velocity from ALL 40-grain handloads) with the Nosler data for both rounds. The .204 averaged 3627 fps and .223 averaged 3658 fps--and I'll mention once again that the .204 data was from a 26" barrel and the .223 from a 24". This follows the overall trend I found when crunching data from a bunch of sources, not just ONE.
Thank you again for replying. So is it your contention that the additional 31 fps from the 223 creates enough additional recoil that it disrupts the sight picture enough that one cannot see their shot?

You started this discussion with a snide remark about how the .204 apparently "defies the laws of physics." You made that comment based on very skewed data showing the .223 produced less velocity than the .204 with the same bullet weight, when the opposite is true.
One of the downsides of the internet is that one cannot hear voice tones or see facial expressions - The "defies the law of physics" was meant in humor. If you care to interpret it as a snide remark then I apologize for not adding LOL so that it could not be misinterpreted.

I don't really care how you personally perceive the recoil from the two rounds, or even how anybody else does. This discussion between you and me didn't start because of that. Instead it started because you attempted to prove, with a very limited and imperfect source of ballistics, that the .223 recoiled less.
My original post did use limited data, however I do not accept that it was imperfect. As a matter of fact your reply only reinforces that there is so little difference between the two cartridges with 40 gr bullet that it is insignificant, which has been my point all along. Thank you for confirming that.

I have demonstrated several times, with a much wider selection of data from every source presently available, that the original numbers you used to calculate recoil were not representative of .204 and .223 muzzle velocities. You apparently can't accept that, which itself is an example of defying the laws of physics.
Although you only used the limited Nosler data the numbers of only 31 fps difference lends credence to the difference being the two cartridges with 40's as insignificant. And since you, rather than I, posted the data that makes it even more plausible. Thank you, this has been a very enjoyable conversation.

drover

Dirtfarmer,

If you someday use your .204 and .223 with 40's on prairie dogs, where there's abundant shooting, you will notice one in disputable difference: The .204's bullets shoots flatter and drift less in the wind, and the difference becomes more noticeable as range increases.

Resident .204...and I got to watch everything......

That PD ate chili with beans,right?











Nice shot....for an old person.

And those old antique shoulder respond well to near zero recoil...

Quite a round, that .204...

DF