Reference Remington Arms Corporation Catalog 2,008 - page 88!

204 Ruger 40 gr AccuTip 200 yard zero - 500 yard drop = 28.1"
223 Rem. 55 gr AccuTip 200 yard zero - 500 yard drop = 46.3"

The folks at Remington can be TRUSTED to load to commonly used pressures NOT hot loads in one cartridge vs squib loads in what its being compared to!

Sheesh!

28.1" of drop vs 46.3" of drop - now let me think about that a minute.... - yeah I think the 204 Ruger is definitely ballistically better!

END of argument!

Remington chose NOT to give their 223's 50 grain AccuTip offering a 200 yard zero INSTEAD referenced it at 250 yards for that bullets zero - even with the 250 yard zero the 204 Ruger zeroed at 200 yards BESTS the 223's 50 grain AccuTip 500 yard drop with its 28.1" drop vs 37.5" drop in the 223!!!

Remington DID show the ballistic drop for their 50 grain hollow-point with a 200 yard zero and that bullets drop at 500 yards was an eye-popping 52.7" vs the 204's 28.1"!

There simply IS NO QUESTION as to the ballistic superiority of the 204 Rugers bullets over distances at which 99% of all Varmints are killed (500 yards and under!)!

Long live the wonderful 204 Ruger cartridge!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Okay, you have compared a 55 gr in 223 vs a 40 gr in a 204 and 50 gr in a 223 versus a 40 gr in a 204, now lets see the "apples to apples" comparison of the 40 gr versus the 40 gr in the 204 and 223.

What you are posting is not definitive data because you are not comparing like items. What you have posted is an outstanding example of skewing the data to get it to show the outcome you desire.

Further more I did not say that the 204 was not ballistically better - this is what I said

"In viewing the chart it is evident that the difference between the 204 and 223 when comparing the 40 gr bullets in each is insignificant in any respect whether it is energy or bullet drop. The 204 with the 32 gr bullet pretty much mirrors the 204 with the 40 gr bullet in energy delivered all the way out to 500 yds but the 204 does have a slight bullet drop advantage."

If you take a look at the chart compiled from the Nosler manual you will see that there is a whopping difference of 2.9 inches at 500 yards. Even if you increase the velocity of each of the cartridges to the maximum published data you will find very little difference between them using 40 gr bullets.

While you did not directly address this statement to me I feel that it is fairly obvious as to who it is directed to - "The folks at Remington can be TRUSTED to load to commonly used pressures NOT hot loads in one cartridge vs squib loads in what its being compared to!" - you are again suggesting that I am being disingenious, however it is you who is doing that by not comparing like items, if there is lying being done perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror. If you wish to prove me in error then cite the data from the Nosler manual which shows where I am in error on the numbers.

All you have to do is take the time to look at the manual and you will see that is not the way the data base was built - you are doing your typical trick of putting your own spin on it rather than stay with the facts.

drover

after looking up a little load data on the 204, versus the 223, seems to me a lot of data for the 204 is also being loaded to a higher pressure limit than the 223... may be wrong but the data doesn't list pressure signs..

but frequently the 204 data is using a higher powder charge... and yes it has a little larger capacity..but also having a smaller bore diameter offsets that as far as pressure goes..

As I have said before, It is not an intention to knock the round, as much as just a clarification that I don't share the same enthusiasm for it as others seem to..

but then the same goes for the 17 HMR...

just sold two more 17 HMRs for the gun stores by letting a friend and his son borrow my Marlin and Ruger77/17 for a week..

the son, went out and bought a Savage with some fancy stock for about $500.00 and then has mounted an $800.00 Leupold 6.5 x 20 on top of it..and then bought 100 to 150 dollars worth of ammo just to 'play with it..'

We all have different priorities that motivate us..

hate to see some of this arguing going on at times between fellow forum members... guys I'd love to share a campfire and varmint field with any day of the week..

drover,

Better not start with him. He's got an agenda.

Drover and G he is an idiot. He does this on other boards also. He gets fed becuase guys that do it have better info than can be gleaned from the remington catalog. I keep waiting for pics of all his success. I would think that anyone that blows this much hot air would at least try to back it up with some pictures.

Blueprinted: You are an empty suit!
If you proof that any of my contentions are INCORRECT please post it!
Your lameass and immature attempt at insults are futile and useless and WAY off topic.
If in fact YOU, are not full of "HOT AIR", simply post your proofs.
I have made my case "convincingly" - if that hurt your feelings I am puzzled why.
Calling someone an idiot is not proof and NOT very mature!
Grow up, and prove up, or, SHUT-UP!
He-he!
Yeah I post on lots of boards and my posts run about 99% un-refuted.
Get started little guy - you're up to bat - what from the Remington Catalog is NOT valid and what have I contended that you can prove wrong?
NOTHING, is the answer, and I certainly don't expect YOU to come up with anything more than more immature name calling and baseless off topic assertions.
Go play in the corner there Blueprinted, with the other children!
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Blueprinted...
That was pegged a long time ago my friend...

Each posts starts off with a "I own 12,328 rifles in .223 caliber" I guess in order to "set the tone" for his immense knowledge and hoping someone without a clue buys into it.

A .223 Remington is not a caliber. It is a cartridge. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of trying to act like he knows something.

He is agenda driven. If you don't own a Remington .204 Ruger with a 6-20 Leupold and don't say it is the best cartridge, or ".204 Ruger caliber" in his case, and in every way trumps a .223 at any range with any bullet while looking at Remington factory ballistics comparing two vastly different bullets to fuel his "argument", I guarantee at least a 500 word rant followed by a "Long Live the .204 Ruger"!!!

If you don't think a 17 HMR is the only cartridge choice, or in his case "17 HMR caliber", that exists for everything from earthworms and amoebas to head shooting unsuspecting coyotes from close range, regardless of your application, I guarantee at least a 500-word rant followed by a "Long live the 17 HMR!"!!!!

It is unbelievably funny.

Another thing that causes 500-word rants? Posts with logic not fitting his agenda or posts just like the one here. Or in this case, he may run if too many people call out his silliness...

Take care...

Drover: YES, I am insinuating your are being disingenous (not frank!)!
I stand by the various and numerous citations I made FROM the Remington Catalog!
THAT prove the 204 Ruger loaded to common and comparable pressures in a host of bullet weights FAR outperforms the 223 with comparable pressures!
My copy of the latest Nosler manual shows a VERY hesitant and very mild 3,700 F.P.S. Maximum for the 40 grain Nosler bullet in the 204 Ruger - hmmm.... maybe some more diseingenousness on your part as EVEN the Remington FACTORY LOAD trips the chrono at 3,900 F.P.S.!
This disparity probably has to do with the NEWNESS of the 204 Ruger cartridge at the time the latest Nosler Manual was being written!
I can easily and safely best that 3,700 Nosler speed. So are you again being "disingenuous" - well yeah, just a bit!
But regardless of that I am glad you chimed in here with your concession that indeed the "204 Ruger IS ballistically superior to the 223"!
Because, IT IS!
And this Drover - when I went to the Nosler Ballistic Tables for the 223 and 40 grain bullets COMPARING it to the Remington 40 grain load I EVEN ADDED some FEET PER SECOND to the Nosler MAXIMUM loading for the 223 40 grain and the 204 STILL BESTS it by 5.3" out at 500 yards!
Again, I gave the 223 Remington an additional batch of F.P.S. over and above the Nosler MAXIMUM loads for this comparison!
Just to be fair and NOT disingenuous!
Again there Drover, thank you for your concession!
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Looks like his post bears out and supports what you just said.
Hmmm....

By golly VG I think you are on to something with this loading manual business, it appears as though they are all plotting against you.

In checking the highest listed velocity load for the 40 gr in the Nosler manual it is listed as 3709 fps.

in the Sierra manual for the 39 gr BlitzKing the highest velocity load listed is 3700 fps.

But wait maybe Hornady will come to your rescue.
OH NO! - The highest velocity load listed in the Hornady manual for the 40 gr V-Max is 3738 fps.

Well, it is apparent that you are absolutely correct and that Nosler, Sierra, and Hornady are all wrong. Or perhaps they only printed these figures so that I could be disingenious about my calculations. Or maybe Nosler, Sierra, Hornady and I are all in this together and we are out to get you.

I see that you are trying to prove something by stating that the 204 outperforms the 223 when loaded to comparable pressures. What the heck is this all about, why not use listed velocities from the load manuals? Perhaps because they do not support your position?

If you will read what I posted in my original post I stated that "the 204 does have a slight bullet drop advantage', not that "the 204 is ballistically superior to the 223's".
If you want to quote me then use my words, not your twisted distortions.

I do see that you have reverted to your usual tactic of name-calling and challenging anyone who dares disagree with you. TSK! TSK! You are being naughty again.

Seriously, I am more than willing to listen to any well-reasoned argument you may have, all I ask is that it be supported by verifiable facts that either you post or cite a source to where they are located.

If you will take a moment and let a statement from my original post sink in you may even find yourself agreeing with me (at least a bit).
Here is the statement -
"In viewing the chart it is evident that the difference between the 204 and 223 when comparing the 40 gr bullets in each is insignificant in any respect whether it is energy or bullet drop."

drover

why are we comparing 40gr bullets to 55gr bullets. There isn't a snot bit of difference between the 204 and the 223 with both 40gr bullets. Start comparing apples to apples. Take a look at some reloading manuals. I just looked up noslers number 6 at the 204s with 40grs and the 223 with 40gr and guess what the 223 will push a 40 faster than the 204. And the little bit of differnce in bc about .20 won't make a crap bit of difference. The 204 isn't any better than the 223 even on paper. You have to compare apples to apples not just BS. HAPPY HUNTING

Yes.....the #1 champion windbag blowhard. And always with demands for "proof."

...And never having any, himself.

Varmitguy, you started this post asking for responses. Your facts come from a freakin Remington catalog. Post your own info. If you had any you would not post 55gr 224 VS 40gr 204. I have asked you to post pictures of these groups that you shot. Nothing. Brag about sub half moa groups as an average for a factory gun, then in your next post bitch becuase you can not shoot in the wind. What about all of these animals you kill at 350yards in the eye with a 17HMR. Well if you have killed much of anything with a 17HMR you would know they are not good enough for anything but squirrels and paper. I will not back down becuase of your BS name calling. Wanna run this one 12-15 pages like you did on AR about the 204 out performing the Swift, or remember the one you started about the 32gr 204 out performing the 40gr. All from Remingtons catalog. At least use JBM ballistics, quick load or something since you have not done your own testing.... jeesh as you say.

You know VG you claim to be BLUE if you were you know what I mean. You give guys like me a bad name. I am thinking you were one of those guys that either got beat up alot in school or blew his way to admin and now needs to be a know it all becuase you have no real meaning anymore and need to find some respect.

I own a couple of .204 Rugers and several rifles (CZ,Rem.& Win.) in .223 caliber. I shoot the .204 out to 200 yards with 32 grain bullets and those .223's out to 300 yards with 50 grn bullets. Beyond that I use the .243 or 25-06 down range. I like em all for what they are simply put.

And there you have it boys...

"Real life", straight from a catalog.

Tonk- Well said.

I've compared both side by side while shooting ground squirrels out to 300-400 yards. Both were loaded with 40's. Even though the 204 had the edge in velocity (26" vs 22" 223), there was not much difference in drop and performance IMO.

Ballistic charts may be impressive to some. I would not consider a 40 gr. .204 vs 55 gr. .223 a fair comparrison. Still, the 204 is a great cartridge. The difference just isn't as great as some believe.

Blueprinted: Are YOU disputing the Remington catalogs velocities and drop comparisons?
Why NOT use them - they are most certainly MORE un-biased than many postings on this forum!
Are they NOT?
Regarding the 17 HMR - Blueprinted NOW you are showing your stupidity and ignorance along with lack of in the field experiences when you try to get away with telling untruths about the 17 HMR!
I have used the 17 HMR VERY successfully since it was first introduced.
It is MUCH more than a Squirrel and paper cartridge - I laugh at the stupidity of your insinuation of this!
I have killed 3 Coyotes with the 17 HMR!
All one shot kills!
I have killed at least 12 Badgers with the 17 HMR!
All one shot kills!
I have killed several large Porcupines with the 17 HMR!
All one shot kills!
I have killed MANY Rock Chucks with the 17 HMR!
I don't ever recall shooting one twice!
In addition to these Varmints I have also killed Jack Rabbits, Raccoons, Snowshoe Hares, Skunks, Fox, feral cats, Crows, Magpies, Wild Turkeys, Prairie Dogs, Weasels and a Rattlesnake or three with the 17 HMR!
YOU give yourself a bad name, there dude, with ignorance and inexperience such as you wrote, dripping from your post!
You are wrong about the 17 HMR and you are wrong about the 32 grain bullets in the 204 NOT outperforming the 40 grainers out to distances where 99% of all Varmints are shot!
Simply refer to the Remington Catalog I referenced.
Yep "Blueprinted" ust go check the Remington Catalog if you don't know any better!
Yeah, halfwit, I posted 55 gr vs 40 grain and I also posted several other bullet weights in those comparisons.
Are you REALLY as stupid as your post makes you sound?
Do you just IGNORE reality and printed words?
I am not calling names there Blueprinted I am just stating the obvious - you are NOT very smart!
And thats a shame!
He-he!
You bet I complain about shooting for load development and sight-in when its windy - I am smart enough to do so and proud of it!
I get plenty of shooting in the wind when I am actually afield Hunting!
But I do have to say this - I think your ignorant remark deriding the 17 HMR thusly, and I quote YOU - "Well if you have killed much of anything with a 17HMR you would know they are not good enough for anything but squirrels and paper" - as being in the top three stupidest things I have ever heard an adult person say!
And thats saying something!
And I simply have to add, you are LYING as well - where on earth did you ever come up with the lie you try to pin on me where you state "What about all of these animals YOU kill at 350 yards in the eye with a 17HMR" - YOU are loosing it man - get a grip before its to late!
Your ignorance apparently makes it difficult for YOU to grasp the facts, there "Blueprinted", that I am trying with my post to take the bias out of comparisons of bullet weights and calibers that MANY on this forum TRY to do!
My solution is to use FACTORY ballistic charts from FACTORY folks who are LOADING TO SIMILAR PRESSURES!
Not hot-loading one cartridge to higher pressures and then disingenuously comparing THAT to a cartridge/bullet loaded to a lesser pressure.
Maybe thats just to HARD for you to grasp?
Yeah "Blueprinted" my facts DO come from the Remington Catalog - which is an incredibly MORE reliable and respected source than YOU!
AND this there "Blueprinter" - while YOU are there perusing the 2,008 Remington Catalog page 88 why don't YOU relay to everyone just exactly how the 204 Ruger Remington offerings COMPARE to their 220 Swift offering?
I don't trust you so I'll go ahead and relay the FACTS - it seems the 204 Ruger shoots SIGNIFICANTLY flatter out to 500 yards than does the 220 Swift!
Not only does the 204 Ruger significantly best the 220 Swift offering its ALSO significantly betters ALL the 22-250 Remington bullet offerings over that same distance - significantly BETTER is the 204 Ruger!
Sorry there "blueprinter", I hate to beat you up so bad with REAL FACTS but, YOU asked for it.
So "I" obliged!
Long live the wonderful 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I don't in any way want to get in the middle of this lovers quarrel, but VG, why don't you post the difference in velocities and bullet drop between equal weight bullets?

There really isn't any magic involved here. When you have more powder and a lighter bullet...it goes faster. HOLY COW! I'm a genius!

Surely, as much as you shoot, you don't shoot Remington factory fodder. That would just be silly.

Berger even offers a 30g bullet in .224. I'd love to see some REAL velocity comparison between that and the 32g .204.

When it comes right down to it, Remington list the .17 Remington's 20g Vmax at 25fps faster than the .204 Ruger. There, I one up'd ya!

LONG LIVE THE .17 Remington!

Here it is LONG LIVES The who gives a shi!!!> The 204 isn't top dog. The 223 will do just what the 204 will. Bottom line is if you practice you will be just fine, if you want to buy a rifle and scope it and shoot a few 50-100rds a yr through it like VG then go ahead and do that. The real shooters know what is going on and to me really who gives a SHI!> I would take my 223 any day over VGs 204. HAPPY HUNTING

Vg you brag about some much real field experience, yet back your findings up with data from the Remington catalog, then call me an idiot. I guess a smart guy like you would know that a powder change in both rounds would cause a velocity difference, equaling a trajectory difference. Not to mention the almost 40 percent weight difference in bullets you compared. I guess all the wind blows the chrono over, but then again if you used a chrono you would not have to reference a printed catalog. I also wonder if you looked at the BCs of the bullets they used. BTW that makes a difference also. I bet they do not list chamber pressures either. BTW that also makes a difference. I got enough rounds out of a Tac20, 204Ruger and 223s to tell you they aint a lick of difference in the field with 40s to 55s.

204 diameter 32 vs 40s Lets think about this push a a bullet weighing 30 percent more with 5% less velocity with a higher BC guess which one wins. In the wind and at distance with more energy. I would have figured even you would have been able to figure that out. Remingtons catalog must not give that much info. But you got slammed for about 3 pages on that topic. I can search for the thread if you would like to jar your memory.

The 17HMR you hold in such high regaurd. The 4-5 I have tuned have been wonderfully accurate. After chasing 11 mortally hit (all recovered) foxes in about three weeks of calling I devolped that opinion. There was 4 more that could not be determined becuase of no recovery. So 3 coyotes does not make for a good coyote round. Fact that is no test at all. More like dumb luck. I have personally tracked mortally hit smallish Texas coyotes hit hard with a 17mach4. I can dig those pics up. I say that while owning a 17Hm2 a 17HMR. I have killed about everything in Penna that would count as varmits or furbearers with a 17AH,17Mach4,17-222AI and currently running a 17Javelina as my main calling gun, with a Tac20 as my late season rifle. So it is not bore diameter it is the horsepower I disagree with any one shooting at a critter much larger than a squirrel with the HMR.

I will eat crow if you show some proof. You demand it all the time so am I. Get some pics of these kills and groups. P/M me I will direct you to a web site or two you can see mine. Unlike you I do not talk trash that I can not back up. Keep getting excited and calling names.

Oh God... so this is where Varmint Girl has landed. I used to have to chase down the little prick over on AR until he finally would cry 'Uncle'. Eventually he got banned there.

Well, good luck guys!

R Walter that is the basic idea here. Enough is enough.

I just can't believe he hasn't worn out this !!!!! key yet....



Ingwe

Perfect opportunity for you to bust out "Captain Rant" Ingwe...grin...

No, please...

Be my guest....

Ingwe

LOL you guys are no help.

.

I have two HMRs and have taken or attempted to take a number critters with them. My experience parallels your very closely. The HMR is not adequate for game larger than squirrels. I hate wounding animals especially when I have more suitable rifles at home or in the truck.

.

That's funny right there...

That is by far the worst comparison of two cartridges I have seen on the internets! 40 grain bullets for the .204 vs. 55 grain bullets for the .223? Who do you think your foolin? The .204 is cool, but it aint versatile. The .223 dupes it and then bests it by going heavier.

All this with cheap brass and lots of options. Go bitch about shootin in the wind or moan about ruining 10 bucks worth of powder. And while you're at it, learn how to indent!

Hold into the douche!
Higbean

Really, who gives a schit?

The 204 is a niche chambering. It BETTER be good at at least one thing.

The 223 is VERSATILE, with bullets from 30 to 90 grains, for everything from varmint, to target, to LR, to hunting.

Anyone here ever chronied a factory round and compared their ACTUAL chrony results against the published data and found that they were nowheres close to published? I have. Heck, sometimes they are out by as much as 150 ft/sec.

If you're talking real world, get into reality, not what some catalog says. Even velocities published in reloading manuals vary from a day at the range with a chrony. Some run close -- other -- not so much.

Comparing a 40 gr 204 Ruger to a 55 gr 223 Rem is like comparing a 130 gr 270 to a 180 gr 30-06. Apples to watermelons.

When it comes down to it, who really cares as I'm guessing the vast majority of people who own a .204 also own a .223. There will be lots more people who own a .223 who don't own a .204.

I love my .223 and my .204 also, there both in similar platforms and wear the same scope but my .223 is pretty and is for light use and my .204 is kinda ugly but it gets the job done.

Why does all this bloviation on the 204 Ruger remind me of Stuart Smalley?

It reminds me of second grade..............

Humm my TAC 20 doesn't fit that picture. .223 with 40's chrony out at nearly 3800 with N133 while my 40's in the TAC chrony 3909?

Whoops there's the problem I don't use factory loads.

Drover: Yikes its getting even worse for the 223 Remington than I had thought!
I just picked up a BRAND NEW "Basic Relaoding Manual" from the owners of Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester Powders.
They STERNLY warn NEVER to EXCEED the loads listed in their manual - case in point they list 12 (twelve!) different powders and loading for the 223 Remington and 40 grain bullets!
The HIGHEST velocity they list and caution NEVER to EXCEED is a cool 3,674 F.P.S. - hmmm.... seems the 204 Ruger's ballistic superiority is EVEN HIGHER than I had thought - especially when you delete the disengenuous hot loads vs common loads that SOME folks try to get away wiff!!!
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

The_shootist: Apparently you don't have enough brain cells to get your mind AROUND the premise of COMPARING common pressures in one cartridge to common pressures in another cartridge for a FAIR COMPARISON!
NOT disengenuously comparing hot loads in one cartridge to common pressure loads in another cartridge.
AGAIN there the_shootists, try to open YOUR MIND, if possible, to the "fair comparisons" as illustrated by an ammunition makers (LONG TIME ammunition makers by the way!) catalog.
Perhaps the concept of a fair comparison offends you in some way?
It certainly does NOT offend me!
I make MY decisions on the basis of FAIR comparisons NOT disengenuous comparisons!
And I have done this for decades now - and OFTEN I take those that try and get away with disingenuous comparsions to task!
Like in this instance for instance.
My personal Oehler Chronograph does not lie - but on rare occassion there are those "contraries" and "disingenuous" types who don't believe anyone but themselves - so a factual and irrefutable production of evidence in the form of ballistics from an un-impeachable source such as the Remington Ballistic Tables precludes any disingenuous "hot rod load vs. common pressure load" comparisons from taking hold!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I'm not in a pissing match with anybody but I just got done looking at my new Nosler reloading manual and looked up both 204 and 223 and both shooting the same 40gr Bts and the max charge for both and the 223 is considerably faster about 150-200fps. Now for pressure I don't give a crap about pressure, the 204 is a good round but far from the 223. The 223 will do anything the 204 will do but with way more CLASS. HAPPY HUNTING

For [bleep] and giggles I did a couple quick calcs on QL. Looks like the 223, and 204, both will push a 40gr VMax to about 3800 fps given 26" bbls, and 60K pressure. The 204 has the BC advantage at about .25 vs .20.

Kinda goes back to my first comment. The 204 and it's bullets were purpose-built to do a specific thing very well, and it does.

The 223 on the other hand does many things very well.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with MM. The 204 certainly has its niche. But it is hotter per shot and less versatile. For example, does anyone "see" loading a 204 with a 60 grainer?

VG - Aren't you glad that I introduced you to the work disenguous? You have used it more in the last few days than I have ever seen it used in the sum total of my life.

A good example being that you choose to cite data from the Hodgdon "basic reloading manual" pointing out that the top velocity they list for the 40 gr bullet in a 223 is 3674 fps - but, conveniently overlooking the fact that in the same publication, even on the same page, the highest velocity listed for the 40 gr bullet in a 204 is 3774 fps. Yep - that's a lot, a whopping 100 fps faster. Too bad that they didn't do the pressure measurements using the same method, I would really like to know at how the pressures really compare to get the extra 100 fps.

By the way the Sierra manual lists the highest velocity for the 204 using a 39 gr bullet as 3700 fps, and the 223 using a 40 gr bullet as 3700 fps. In this case exactly the same velocities - HMMM!

The Nosler manual lists the 40 gr 204 bullet at 3709 fps and the 40 gr 223 bullet at 3860 fps. - WOW!

My Cooper varminter with a 24 inch barrel, using 26.3 gr of VV-133 and a 40 gr Nosler chronographs the load at 3725 during 23 degree temps, I doubt that 3800 is out of line for it in summer temps. To me that gives some verification that the load data in the Nosler manual is close to real world since their mid-range load using VV-133 is 26.0 grs and they show it attaining a velocity of 3704 fps. using a 24" barrel.

What does this all prove - nothing more than what I first posted - "In viewing the chart it is evident that the difference between the 204 and 223 when comparing the 40 gr bullets in each is insignificant in any respect whether it is energy or bullet drop."

Oh yes, I almost forgot the second thing it does, it also serves to illustrate just how disenguous you are and how you like to accuse other folks of being that way in order to deflect criticism from yourself.
Perhaps you should consider changing your user name to Disenguous Guy - particularily since you seem to practice it so often.

drover

A question for your VG - just where in your "wonderful world of all things pertaining to load information" - AKA - Remington catlog - did you find pressures listed for the various cartridges? I have looked though my 2009 issue and it just doesn't seem to be there, could it be that I got short-changed in my free catalog.

As a matter of fact I can't seem to locate any source that cites pressures of the 204 and 223 in the same terms - some list one in PSI, some in CUP, and some with a combination of each.

I certainly would like to view the source you are using. Not that I would doubt anything you say - after all you are steady and true as the mighty oak, steadfast and loyal. Oops! Maybe I have you mixed up with someone else. Anyway would you please cite your source so that some of us more unenlightened folks could share in your knowledge.

drover

Well, great! 60% of the time, you even spelled the word properly.



My point, in case your pointed brain pan missed it was that quite often, ammo manufacturers data varies from the real world because barrel length is different than the test rifle used, lot # of powder varies, temperature varies, neck tension varies. Remington's ballistic lab is a very controlled environment -- the range is not. You don't shoot at the Remington lab -- so REAL WORLD is where the average guy shoots -- the outdoor range - the hunting fields.

But if your reality exists on a piece of paper . . . . . . . help yourself. Just don't expect all of us to get weak in the knees and salivate every time your fingers touch a keyboard.

Just sayin'.

I still think you're all comparing 40s to 40s is what's nonsense, frankly. Compare BC to BC instead of bullet WEIGHTS, and see what you get . Try the 39 Sierra versus the nearest thing in .223 (probably the 69 Matchking) and see what happens.

Have you looked at the BCs of the nosler 40gr 204 vs the 223, I think not for sure as I am not going to run to the basement but I did check the nosler website and the 204s 40gr BC is .239 and the 40 in the 223 is .221 the sierra 39gr is .287 over3800. So really not any difference but maybe to some but those who actually shoot wouldn't spell crap. HAPPY HUNTING

I've no idea how much variation if any there is from lot to lot of VV133. But I do think brass is a factor. The only .223 that gets 40's is a truck gun....the load is 27.5 VV133/40BT=3895 very accurately. Quite a bit more than the basic reloading manual says. That barrel is 14"twist -20" long. Brass is IMI, the chamber is very minimal and with 0 freebore.

I am not sure of the .204 ruger's velocity but i shoot .40 grain nosler varmegeddon hollow points out of my .223 at close to 3500 feet per second and 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards. Good enough for me. I have a 22-250 savage model 12 too but it weighs so much i only shoot it at the range.

Last spring I went rock chuck hunting here in Idaho with one of my buddies. He was using his .204 with a 26” barrel loaded hot and I was using a .223 with a 26”barrel and a 9” suppressor loaded with 40g NBT at 3970fps. I don’t know the speed of his .204 but after 45-50 rock chucks between us in two days I could see no difference in the performance of those two.

When it got windy we both switched to .243s with 70g NBT and continued the fun. My 243 was pushing those 70g at 3700 FPS, yet I know that’s too hot but it works for me.

I passed on the 204 due to the possibility of it becoming harder to find components in the years to come and the great versatility of the 223. I use the same 223 load from above to run two ARs ataround 3600 FPS which have even good for some medium sized mule deer.

Compare same weight or similar BC's if you want real world

With a name like varmintguy I expect a rifle looney to be all about the 17 HMR and 204. If his name was Ishoota30/06 guess what he'd be enamored with? Big deal.

You do realise this thread is 8 years old.............

All pretty much Factual, just cherry picking the facts. Now how about we compare a similar 55 grain cup and core bullet in each as one example & see if you may compare a 50 grain bullets in each Then lets have a poke at 72 grainers in each.Never mind the availability or twist rate need don't need to be bothered w this minor details:)

First, I have no dog in this fight, as I use both calibers and yes, I know this is an old thread.

I believe we can all agree the 223 is far more versatile than the 204 but I'm not sure that was the initial assertion by the OP.

Someone I'm sure will correct me very quickly if I'm mistaken.

As a prairie dog round, for bullets of the same weight, the 204 has a higher B.C., greater velocity, less wind drift and greater energy than the 223. I ran the ballistics out to 800 yards, using Hornady's online calculator. I'm certainly not going to shoot at prairie dogs at 800 yards with the 204 but I'm not gong to do it with the 223, either. I saved all the calculations and am happy to share them with anyone who would like to study or view them.

I like my .223’s. Don’t want to set up for another little gun!

Well, I think we can all agree that the 223 is a prairie dog killer of the 1st degree. I don't think you'll be handicapped.

The problem with the .223 as a p. d. rifle is that it doesn't shoot a 32-grain SBK or V-Max, which are ideal for that game. Even comparing 40-gr. V-Maxes, the .204's better b.c. (.275 vs. .200) gives the .204 a distinct downrange advantage with those.

Actually shoot p. d's with a .204 with 32-gr. SBK's or V-Maxes in a varmint-weight bolt-action rifle and it will quickly be obvious that the specialized varminter is vastly superior to anything else that is not 20-caliber.

All the statisticalizing in the world will not reveal it. Shooting will.

The .223 has wonderful versatility, and is great for larger critters, but it can't touch the .204 for hump rats.

You've just repeated what we've been discussing. There are 2 threads in the varmint rifle reloading area that discusses the 204's superiority over the 223 in the pd fields.

Yawn. Same schit different day.

Shoot 35 grain Ballistic Tips in the 223 and the 204s light bullet advantage goes away. Though admittedly the Lead Frees are a bit more expensive, but it would take a lot of bullets to make up the cost of buying an entire rifle, plus loading and cleaning supplies in 204 just to shoot p dogs, when a 223 will do the same thing.

Load 40 grain Ballistic Tips in the 223 and the 40 grain difference is so little as to not matter at the ranges one shoots p dogs with 40 grain bullets.

Just like you said, all the statisticalization in the world will not reveal a difference, shooting will. And shooting reveals the difference is nil.

Yes, I see lots of discussion and no one mentioning the most important criterion there is for p.d's -- with your typical bolt varmint rifle shooting 32-gr. at about 3,900 you can easily see your strikes, allowing you to quickly correct.. Push it at 4,200 or go to a heavier bullet (like the 39-40) and you can't (unless you've got a really heavy rifle). That ability to see your strikes is esp. important on p.d's, where your fancy RF does not work past about 100 yds -- IOW, is useless.

WHEN you can see your strikes the 32-grainers work splendidly out to 500 yards. I'll take them in the wind over a heavier bullet any day, because with the heavier bullet you need a spotter, and you waste time communicating corrections. With the 32 if the wind is pushing it 5 MoA over I just put that hashmark on the squirrel the next shot, and up he goes.

Also, most people shooting .223's (as in the vast majority) are shooting them in an A/R platform. With those you have nearly no chance at all of consistantly seeing your strikes because the bolt slamming forward knocks you off the target at the time you would be seeing the strike.

If you want the versatility to shoot larger animals, and don't want to buy another specialized rifle, I completely understand. But don't kid yourself into thinking you're having as much fun as the guy with the varmint bolt rifle in .204 -- you aren't.

Spotting one's own hits is a matter of rifle weight, stock design, scope magnification, and shot distance, in addition to the recoil generated by the round.

The solution to all of that is to use a suppressor. Keeps dogs up longer, saves on the shooter and everyone else's hearing, and perhaps best of all keeps the muzzle on target to spot one's own hits. After using suppressors for a few years, shooting prairie dogs without one really sucks!

True dat, prairie goat.

Also, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me a 204 bolt gun shooter is having more fun than the AR guys.

Sneaking up on an unshot town with an accurate AR and a cargo pocket full of 30 round magazines, then waging a small war against the prairie dog hordes is an experience sure to put a smile on any shooter’s face!

Yup, wouldn't shoot my .223 with my can. Doesn't change what I said though.

Unshot towns are not easy to find, but I have done exactly what you describe. Having done that once, though, I will take the bolt .204 Varmint every time. Even suppressed and with 35-gr. bullets I cannot reliably see my strikes with the A/R. I can with the .204.

There is no comparison.

This is a Ford vs Chevy argument and I don't know if either side is going to be successful in convincing the other side of their errors. I come down on the 204 side but one of my shooting buddies is a 223 guy. We both do okay and have much fun. My kill rate moves up and down based on my skills - and the wind of course.

As I get older, having fun has taken a much higher priority over other things, such as calibers and who's is better.

Poor shooting form or too much scope magnification?

I've never had a problem seeing bullet strikes out of sporter-weight 223's on animals or reactive targets such as water bottles. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've become enamored with the 223 for deer. I can watch the bullet hit in the scope. The first deer I shot with a 223 was one of those "dropped so fast I thought I missed", but I watched it through the scope. I was sold immediately.

I think it’s whatever a person likes best. I have five gallon buckets full of 223 brass, be hard for me to gear up for anything else. I like the 62 Barnes, it kills hogs really well.

And therein lies its charm. The 223 is a jack of many trades.

Nope. Gotta call horseshit on that one...

Your scope must go lower than mine, which is an 8-32. Shooting my 527V (heavy barrel) .204 today at 200 meters, at 8x, I could see the strikes with my 32-grain bullets but not with my 39-grainers. The slight increase in recoil from the heavier bullet delays my recovery -- I don't quite get back in time to see the strike with the 39-grainers.

A sporter-weight .223 with 55-gr. bullets isn't even close for me, and I shoot with a lot of shoulder pressure. If I try to forceably defeat the recoil by holding the scope down, my accuracy is sorely depleted, so I don't like to do that.

I agree 100% it is all about the FUN, and the way I maximize fun shooting p. d's is with a bolt Varmint .204 with a couple of pounds of NF glass on top, shooting 32-gr. SBK's. YMMV.