I'm really intrigued about the .204 Ruger yet i have little knowledge about it. Pro's and con's please...

Ingwe calls it "the bee's knees." What more do you need?

It shoots with the trajectory of a .22-250 on the powder charge of a .223.

It's usually very easy to get to shoot, as well, even in sporter-weight rifles.

It was designed off of the 222 magnum and they thought they might try to make an inferior round to the 222 magnum and accomplished that goal...

Just had to see your name and knew it would be Campfire Gold....

To the OP:

Pros: It isn't a 223
Cons: Its not a 222 Magnum

It's a very small 300 RUM..

Edit to add: one of the few appropriately proportioned rifles for it is the CZ 527.

flat shooting like a 22-250 but much easier to watch your shots through the scope...

There was a previous thread on that subject. I've been able to watch hits through the scope in the four .204 sporters I've owned, which I'd never been able to do with any .223 sporters, even with 40-grain bullets. Some other people disputed this, and the thread ended up as a poll, with about 2/3 saying they could see hits through .204's better.

I would think the particular rifle would make much more difference than either cartridge..

You need one.




That is all you need to know.

Have you turned to posting your wares as a 20 slut now?

THAT really IS deplorable.....

Thats very accusatory and judgmental .


My feelers are hurt.

I seem to remember a thread about them getting bumped to .224 and you basically have a 223AI or some such thing.

Ruger was super close to coming out with the 22-204 at one point - if I remember the thread correctly.

It's like a 223, but not being able to shoot heavies or big game bullets. Also you'll have to buy sub-caliber cleaning equipment.

JB told me it was good.


And it is.


That is coming from higher power than even the Poobah....

Had this conversation with JB over some red beans and rice and he said it might sell a couple of rifles...

He's really right in a matter of fact way 99.9% of the time.

But let's face it, a 22-204 or 223AI isn't really anything the 222 Magnum hasn't already done....

Except for the whole readily available brass thing.

You're still very special....because you're you.....

You must caught some shrapnel in the heavy firing at the PD Invitational....

I work a block from Cabela's here in town, spend a lot of lunch hours there. Can't say I've ever seen 222 RM brass on the shelf. BUT today - ordering from the net isn't all that hard and scary either.

I don't know of anyone offering the 222 RM right now in a factory rifle though.

Did 204 cases dry up?

Quit kissin' Shrap's ass....
It's embarrassing.

.222 Magnum is for the establishment.

I trip over them all the time....

Might even be some crushed ones in the driveway.

I've supplied more 222 Magnum brass to Montana than Midway, FYI....

More COCK pics for you....

Local has 300 Blackout on the shelf. Didn't think there was that big of a call for it here.

What's really weird is our local Fleet Farm (Tractor Supply type place that's started carrying reloading gear since Cabela's opened) carries Forster Benchrest Dies in 375 H&H. This isn't a place where you're going to do a lot of on-line purchases from and they have about 15 sets of the dies.

We're fairly cosmopolitan up here in GB but I'd be shocked if they'd sell 15 sets of them in 15 years.

No kidding with Fleet Farm.

Friend saw 6.5-284 Forsters and 6.5-06AI Forster here.
Nosler 35 Whelens too, in a state where deer die with shotguns?!

Going to GB for the November game.....gonna wear my Butkus shirt.....

Saw the sames - except for the 35 Whelens.

I believe WI went to rifles, state wide last year or something. Dunno - I don't hunt WI, I hunt the UP.

WI DNR really jacked stuff up with the depredation. My cousin hunted/lived there and said it went from a few to nothing after the CWD mess.

The YOOP is on my bucket list of places to bar hop....

When I shot my bear in da U.P. The place I checked it in is a DNR check station/bar!

They gave me paperwork to fill out and a beer at the same time.

Can't beat that....

You shot yer bear with a 204?

No. But close.

444.....

A .204 In a Cooper varminter is a one hole, prairie dog assassination machine.

It also does not heat the barrel as fast as .223.

Yes. As well as most brass (especially reasonably priced brass) other than 308 and 223.

I love it for crows....

My admittedly limited experience with U.P. bars is that a domestic disturbance is possible at any time, whether inside or in the parking lot.

Especially when it's full of drunken dudes and all but 1 chick weighs under 250 lbs......

That's possible any time after lunch in many Midwest locales....then someone calms Bob down and drives him home so he can rest up before nine o'clock....

Then he jumps in the yellow bus and picks up the kids for school.....

.....and yells at them.

I swear my kid yells more during school because that's what Rodney does.

Rodney is related to Bob.....

And when the shooting is fast and furious, the 'one-holer' single shot is a real pain in the azz.......

250? Most of those snow cows are pushing 300 on the hoof.

I think you just received an education on a whole lot more than just the 204!

Could be. I was prolly drunk at the time.......

I remember Andy's Bar in Sceney. Right by the big swamp. He had some gal workin' there that looked like a Playboy model. She was right good for business, given the scarcity of her type up there........

Not with a shotgun pouch on your side with 300 rounds in it ...

My 204 gets more use on PD's than my Hornet, 22-250AI, or 244AI.

I questioned why I needed one, afterall, I already had a 223 Rem, and a 22-250 for coyotes. Now, I pack my 204 all the time for coyotes, and the ground squirrels. Mine is a Thompson Venture, and I can see the hits looking thru the scope.

The ideal P-dog round IMO bucks the wind way better than It should and can see 80% of the hits. Don't need a faucet on the end of the barrel. And compared to a 222mag well there is none!!! It takes a 22-250 to compare, and with one of them without a break YOU see 0% of Your its....... Breaks ae so much fun on Your ears and look so nice.

Ah yes! The magical cartridge - 204 Ruger, the only cartridge to defy the law of physics.

Well it must be the onset of winter already because we are back to old subjects and once again I will bite.

First let me address the �poll� - since 2/3 of the people saying they could see their hits with the 204 better it is a fairly safe assumption that they own 204�s. And since they own 204�s they are more than likely predisposed to believe that they can see their hits better with a 204 and not as well with a 223. After all they have been told for years by the gunwriters that the 204 is easier to see hits with and since they now have one it must be true.

Let me be clear that I like the 204. If the only thing I shot was gophers and PD's I would own another one. What I do not like is the misconception that somehow the law of physics can be repealed for that particular cartridge. There are many factors involved into recoil including stock design and how the shooter holds the rifle, so the only way to look at it objectively is mathematical. Doing so removes any preconceived bias from the equation.

I will qualify myself by saying that I have owned numerous 223�s and 204�s, I have listed a few of them below. The list is only to show that I have experience with both calibers and generally they all weighed the same with the Cooper Varminters being the closest since they were with one ounce of each other. If there is any difference in recoil and the ability to see hits between the 204 or 223 with either of the loads listed I cannot tell it and the JBM ballistics computations would seem to agree.

204 - Cooper Varminter - 8-1/2#
204 - Tikka T-3 sporter - 7# (2 ea.)
204 - Remington LVSF - 8-1/2 #
Recoil energy

223 - Cooper Varminter - 8-1/2#
223 - Cooper sporter - 7#
223 - Remington LVST - 7-1/2#
223 - Stevens - 7-1/2#
223 - Remington 700 SPS BDL - 7-1/2#

All rifle weights were with scope mounted.



If someone can kindly explain how the law of physics has been repealed for the 204 I will be very interested. Take a look at the charts listed below - they were all generated by JBM Ballistics using the on-line Hodgdon reloading data, and only data listed in PSI was used so that it is an "apples to apples� comparison.



204 Hornady
32 gr. avg max load - 28.49 grs
32 gr. avg max pressure - 54110
32 gr. avg max vel - 4016
Recoil energy - 3.1 ft-lbs

Recoil
Input Data
Charge Weight: - 28.5 grs.
Muzzle Velocity: - 4016.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: - 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: - 32.0 gr.

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: - 5.4 ft/s
Recoil Energy: - 3.1 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: - 1.2 lb�s



204 Hornady
40 gr. avg max load - 27.3 grs.
40 gr. avg max pressure 40 gr. - 55718
40 gr. avg max vel - 3701
Recoil energy - 3.5 lft-lbs

Recoil
Input Data
Charge Weight: - 27.3 grs.
Muzzle Velocity: - 3701.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: - 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: - 40.0 gr

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: - 5.6 ft/s
Recoil Energy: - 3.5 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: - 1.2 lb�s



223 Remington
40 gr. avg max load - 26.2 grs.
40 gr. avg max pressure - 48550
40 gr. avg max vel - 3553
Recoil energy 3.2 ft-lbs

Recoil
Input Data
Charge Weight: - 26.2 grs.
Muzzle Velocity: - 3553.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: - 7.0 lb
Bullet Weight: - 40.0 gr.

Output Data
Recoil Velocity: - 5.4 ft/s
Recoil Energy: - 3.2 ft�lbs
Recoil Impulse: - 1.2 lb�s

Snow COW�..
I prefer to think of the warmth provided by the memory of a fine example of the UP bar dweller as Nordic Princess. Sounds better when you retell the story to the guys back home about the great hunt. Could edit to insert Northern Maine or New Hampshire if necessary.

There was absolutely no reason for the .204 Ruger being invented, none, nada. It does nothing that other cartridges can't do better at longer range more accurately and with better bullets, period. Until I tried it.

Now I have so many .204 Rugers that I don't know what to do. I built them on Savage Precision Target Actions with swap barrels, and on the AR-15 platform. I'm in the process of building one on a swap barrel Remington 700 action. They have 1:8" twist barrels to handle the Berger 55 grain HPBT and everything lighter and lead free. They have 1:9" twists for everything else, and they all shoot. My first barrel was a 1:12" twist 24" Shilen that with 25.2 grains of Reloader 10x and a 26 grain Varmint Grenade bullet printed .25" 10 shot groups. It killed ground squirrels like a laser. First time I ever saw an actual hit was with the .204 Ruger, it was awesome when a shock wave of dust and fur emanated from the disintegrating carcase as it flipped into the air. It didn't even miss in high crossing winds, the little bullet with hardly any area for the wind to work against, started off at 4,110 fps didn't seem to drift much to miss out to 100 yards or so - splat! If you don't have a .204 Ruger, you ain't having fun.

Seems like Drover is calling the 204 shooters who claim to be able to see hits as those who can't speak the truth. I happen to also be one of those shooters.

No, what he is saying is that with 40 grain loads in a 223, you can also see hits just as well since it generates the same amount of recoil.

The 204 is awesome, but not magic.

I agree with Drover 100% .

Most of the time I agree with what Mule Deer has to say. And respect his opinions/ experience. Something I cannot say of the vast majority of today's "gunwriters".

I have no more trouble seeing hits from a 223 sporter as from a 204. Surprised to hear that John does, and surprised at the results of the poll, as well.....

I have seen the 75gr. V-Maxes out of a 222 Mag connect....but out of a #4 contour. I may even have some witnesses.....

FWIW a 222 Mag is going to take about the same powder charge as a 204 Ruger on average and have about the same speed on average, per that charge.

I can be honest in saying I have never seen a hit through a scope on a 204 Ruger. I can, however, attest to the fact that I have seen multiple hits through my scope on 4 of my 222 Remington Magnums. This is the honest truth, that is why I have 4 of the 222 mags...

I will send you some 204 Ruger brass.....

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.

Reason numba one.....

Kinda looks like when I mix the cranberry sauce with the stuffin' on Thanksgiving.........grin

My 204 is a tad different. It was a 1-500 run and maybe the first Model 7s in 204(?).

It wears a Leupy Mark 4 PR 3-9x40 now. Complete with fluted bolt and Gre-Tan firing pin unit.......

As we all know people are predisposed to see what they expect to see and that appears to be the case here.
As far as the 223 being downloaded - when it is compared to the 204 with both being loaded to the max velocity with the same weight bullets the 204 still shows slightly more recoil.

Not with Sierra's recoil formula. Using it, the .223 shows up to 10% more recoil, whether with 40's at 3800 or 50's at 3400, as opposed to the .204 with 40's at 3700 and 32's at 4000. The difference varies slightly with which bullet was used, but no matter the loads the results show more recoil from the .223.

But that just indicates there are flaws in every recoil formula. As mentioned in my previous post, I have measured how much various rifles actually move during recoil, using a couple of different methods, and find those results usually vary somewhat from formulas as well.

Because of the subjectivity of recoil, due to varying humans bodies and rifle stocks, I also tend to believe what other people see and feel. In fact listening to other people, and observing them when shooting, also happens to be what I consider part of a gun writer's job, rather than stating only his personal experiences.

As an example, most Campfires posts are examples of one person's experiences, whether they firmly state which load shoots best in their rifle, which cartridge works best on deer, or their experiences with the .204 and .223. You post here not only related your personal experiences, but the results with one recoil formula as the ultimate "science" on the subject, even though the .223 load you chose was an underload, by the standards of any loading manual. And that, again, is a classic example of one person's experience.

Which is why the results from the previous thread on this subject hold more validity to me than the opinions of one person, whether me or you or anybody else. And in that thread 2/3 of the shooters said they could normally see bullet impacts through .204's, but not .223's.

I no longer have the Sierra program to run the recoil, would you please copy and post the calculations here. I am only interested in the 40's at max velocity, not 32's or 50's since I am would like to see the comparison on an equal footing.
Since you did not supply any real data I am skeptical.

You are choosing to misuse the fact that the original posted data was obtained with the average of all velocities listed for the 204 and 223 with 40's as a fairer way to compare rather than cherry-pick a single load.
In the second post when I compared the highest velocities of both cartridges the 204 still showed slightly more recoil.

As far as being biased - again I will point out that it is human nature to be predisposed to obtaining the results expects rather than being unbiased in their assessment, which is the reason for using a recoil program. Even your bias towards the 204 shows through in your postings concerning it.

Personally I could care less whether someone uses a 204 or a 223, my only gripe is the constant mantra of the 204 recoiling less. Yes, this is my personal experience which is what we all lean on, but I cannot tell any difference between them. I have enough acquaintances who have shot them both report the same results as I have had. That has more validity with me than someone with unknown experience posting on the internet.

drover

That is bad medicine, but I hate to disappoint all the 204 guys with what a Swift can do better...

yeah, with half again more powder....

I admit to a bias toward the .204, both because of the ballistics and because in my experience it does recoil less than the .223. I noticed that immediately on shooting my first one, and it has continued through the next three rifles.

Sierra recoil program results:

.204 Ruger--
40-grain bullet at 3700 fps
28 grains of powder
8.5 pound rifle:
4.0 foot-pounds

.223 Remington--
40-grain bullet at 3800 fps
28 grains of powder
8.5 pound rifle:
4.3 foot-pounds

Thank you for posting the Sierra recoil data although I am still skeptical.

It would have been a fairer comparison if you would have computed it using average velocity and powder charges from a published or posted load manual such as I did in my original post. And also a comparison with the max charges such as I did rather than choose to use the same powder charge for both cartridges which skews the results somewhat and makes them less relevant.

Just to clarify a bit - I was employed in the aerospace industry for 43 years and learned early on that unless comparisons are made to like items then the results are pretty much useless and misleading. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

drover

drover,

I would argue that using data from ONE manual is far more skewed than using an average of data from several sources, which is what I did. But let�s try some other numbers of the sort you suggest.

Loading data is complicated by the fact that the SAAMI maximum average pressure for the .204 is 57,500 PSI, and for the .223 55,000 PSI, which is no doubt why the SAAMI �suggestion� for muzzle velocity for 40-grain bullets from both cartridges is almost identical, 3775 for the .204 and 3770 for the .223. But I couldn�t find any presently listed factory loads that adhere to those numbers.

I did find two 40-grain .204 factory loads listed at 3900 fps, but have tested both in the 24� barrels (the SAAMI standard) in my own rifles and came up with an average of 3727 fps. The other two 40-grain factory .204 loads I could find are listed at 3625 and 3650 fps, for an average of 3737.5. The only two .223 factory loads I could find are both listed at 3700 fps.

There still isn�t a vast amount of .204 handloading data, especially when compared to the .223, and some I rejected for comparison purposes because the .223 pressures were CUP and the .204 PSI. Also, a few companies still pressure-test in one barrel then chronograph velocities in a commercial rifle, on the theory that this results in a �representative� velocity. I only compared pressure data derived by the same method in both rounds, with velocities from the same barrel as the pressure data.

The reason I used the same powder charge weight when calculating recoil with the Sierra formula is that in my own .204�s and .223�s I�ve used charges of around 28 for 40�s. In my .204�s I use 27.0 grains of Ramshot TAC (their maximum listed charge), partly because TAC is one of the faster powders in the .204. In three different rifles with 24� barrels, and with three different 40-grain bullets, this charge produced an average of 3752 fps.

In the .223 I used both 28.0 grains of TAC and 27.0 Benchmark with 40�s. Both are the maximum listed or very close to it. In this instance neither of the .223�s used had a 24� barrel. Instead one had a 26� and the other 22�, so I adjusted the velocities by adding or subtracting 25 fps for each inch of barrel length. They averaged 3809 fps.

I used the same barrel-length velocity adjustment for published handloading data, because a couple of the .204 rifles used for data have 26� barrels. The average for top velocities with 40-grain bullets in the .204 came out to 3730 fps, and for the .223 3799 fps.

Averaging all of this data result in a 72 fps velocity difference in favor of the .223. This is a little more than the 100 fps difference I used in calculating the recoil numbers, probably due to the small difference in SAAMI pressure between the rounds. (The formulas used were a couple I came up with empirically from loading data, but afterward they were confirmed as valid by the late Don Miller, the same guy who came up with the Miller bullet-stability formula, now pretty much considered the industry standard.)

On the other hand, the powder charge I used could reasonably be dropped a grain in the .204. Using a velocity of 3728 fps and a powder charge of 27 grains in the fps for the .204, Sierra�s recoil program resulted in 3.9 foot-pounds or recoil, a .1 reduction from the first number quoted.

My understanding was that all things equal, pressure against the base of a smaller diameter bullet will result in less felt recoil than it's larger counterpart...

So John, in conclusion, are you saying that said .3 lbs or 4.8 oz. makes a difference in seeing or not seeing hits?

Plus, we have to keep in mind that this is not felt or perceived recoil. In which many other factors come into play.

Again, I've not crunched numbers, nor do I care to. Or to dispute yours.

I can only speak from experience and I just don't notice much if any difference in recoil or in seeing hits. The recoil energy is so close that , as stated earlier, I think other factors have a greater effect. JMO.....

Dunno about that. Do know that higher velocity is possible at the same pressure in a larger bore with the same weight bullet, which why the .223 can push 40's faster than the .204, despite having slightly less powder capacity.

Are you actually reading all this gack?

2muchgun,

I've already stated before that the difference in recoil is slight, but appears to be there. Rather than discussing, say .3 foot-pound of recoil, it might be more useful to look at a 10% difference in recoil--which is what Sierra's program calculates is the average difference between the .204 and .223 with 40's.

And with 32's the .204 recoils even less. I mostly shoot 32's in milder winds because they shoots just as flat to 500+ yards but recoil slightly less.

This is why I never could figure out why some people claim there's no difference in the recoil between the rounds. The major factors in cartridge recoil are powder weight, bullet weight and muzzle velocity. Since the powder charges are so similar, the .204 would have to kick a little less, because it generates less velocity with the same bullet weights, and mostly uses lighter bullets. So if a program claims the .204 kicks more, then there's something screwy somewhere. (And it was, in drover's example, because the velocity he used was much slower than the .223 is capable of with 40-grain bullets.)

Whether this makes any difference in an individual shooter's ability to see hits is another question, because that would depend on how firmly they hold a rifle, stock shape, and the field of view of the scope. I normally use somewhat less magnification than many prairie dog shooters for typical shooting ranges, usually around 10x out to around 300-350 yards, and maybe 15x at 400-500.

I'll also state, once again, that in this discussion, average results are more important than individual results. And in the previous thread twice as many people said they could see hits better with .204's as those who said they couldn't. More "samples" (meaning more shooters) tends to average out differences in shooting style, stock shape and scope field-of-view.

All I'm saying is that the .204 has to recoil slightly less than the .223, even when using 40-grain bullets in both rifles, and that slight difference appears to allow a majority of shooters to spot their shots more easily with a .204 than a .223.

Are you kidding? He slipped the swift into the mix, and now he's just waiting for a chance to plug the 222maggy.....

He always does!

I've got identical rifles in .223 and .204, and recoil is a fuzz less in the .204, but I use 32s in it, and 50s in the .223, although I don't hotrod the 50s much (3380fps or thereabouts). My .204 loads run just under 4100fps, so they're not maxxed out, but getting close.

Granting there's not much difference, but it sure is fun to see a rat lift off the ground with those little 32s. Then again, I also used a .22/250 with identical stocks and scopes, and I COULD see the hits with it, too.
I shoot them all off a bipod with a bag at the buttstock. And I hang onto it, like it kicked or something.

That'll work too!

In fact I have been able to see hits through the scope with at least a couple 6.5 Creedmoors, as long as the hits were at 600+ yards and the scope wasn't set on too high a magnification....

Long live the CB & BD combo.



Travis

Thank you for the long explanation of your position on this subject.
I will point out to you again that in my second post I used the max data from two manuals, not one as you state.

However I find most of your data flawed by the fact that it is speculative by the use of your load data and your "adjustments" to the load data. Why not just average published load data and work from that? Or even average out the max charges and velocities from the load manuals? Perhaps because it will not give you the results you wish? Anyone can use any data they wish to in order to make a point to prove their position - which is what you have done here.

Also there may not be a vast amount of loading data as compared to the 223 but certainly there is enough to be able to make fair comparisons, you are playing with words here.

As far as you using only PSI data. If you care to re-read my original post in my averages I only used 204 PSI data versus 223 PSI in order to have a fair comparison.

You cite the 10% difference in recoil as reflected in the Sierra program as if it carries a great significance yet that is only .3, or to be generous,.4 ft/lbs difference. If recoil is only 3.5, or possibly, 3.9 ft/lbs in either case it is not so over powering that it should cause one to lose sight of their shots.

As far as citing the Sierra program as definitive, is there any proof that it is more correct than the JBM program?

You mentioned how the first time you shot a 204 you noticed that it recoiled less that the 223. The first time I shot a 204 I noticed that the recoil felt identical to me. But even more than the felt recoil, which is subjective, I have never had a problem seeing hits with either caliber using the 40's in either caliber. I accept that some folks do, but I suspect if they did not know if they were shooting a 204 with 40's or a 223 with 40's that they could not tell the difference, either in felt recoil or seeing the hits. It all comes back to perceiving the expected results.

drover

WGAF?

I don't.

Which is why I'll stick to the Mag Deuce....

Laffin. I know I don't give that much of a f**k.

All I know is that I don't believe I could perceive the miniscule difference in recoil if I tried.

As for the poll, I feel people will always have the tendency to choose the smaller cartridge...........

Did somebody say mag deuce?

When housed in the Vixen, its the Super Deuce....

O.K. Shrap. Thattsa yer cue.......

Vixens rock. Ain't no doubt about it.....

I'll bet shrap is setting back laughing his azz off. He don't even have to lift a finger to derail a 204 thread. He has you two pimps doing his dirty work.......grin

I am way too easy. Just a broken down old gun whore......

People that want to try and compete with the .17 Rem.



Travis

The bucket brigade rules!

drover,

Thanks for listing your objections.

Before going further, let me explain my methodology a little more. Instead of averaging the maximum velocities of ALL load data, I averaged only the fastest velocities from each company�s data for each cartridge. This provides the best idea of the potential velocity of each cartridge, rather than including data for less suitable powders.

I also wanted to compare pressures taken with the same type of equipment from each company, in order to compare apples to apples. Hodgdon�s top 40-grain velocities in the .223 were taken with copper-crusher equipment, while all their .204 data is piezo, so I didn�t include their data.

As for the 25 fps/inch adjustment for barrels longer or shorter than the standard SAAMI 24�, that�s pretty much the industry standard. But to be fair, I went back and averaged the results of handloads from the 22� and 26� barrels on my two present bolt-action .223�s, and the result turn out to be a slightly faster than when using the 25 fps adjustment, though the difference was under 10 fps. This tends to validate the adjustment.

I also went back and listed every present source of data I could find for 40-grain bullets in the .223, including the fastest velocities regardless of barrel length. I own all the latest manuals from Barnes, Berger, Hornady, Norma, Nosler, Sierra and Speer, but looked up Accurate, Alliant, Hodgdon, Ramshot and Vihtavuori on the Internet. Only Barnes and Norma didn�t list 40-grain bullets in the .223.

One anomaly stuck WAY out: The fastest listed velocity in Speer�s latest (14th) manual for 40-grain bullets was only 3557 fps. Even from the 22� barrel of their test rifle this seems very slow, since the next lowest velocity, 3674 fps, was from Hodgdon�s copper-crusher data. But Speer is one company that uses a pressure-barrel to determine max loads, then chronographs the data in a factory rifle. I don�t regard this as valid pressure/velocity data, but for the sake or your argument included it in the average, which turned out to be 3744 fps�which still averages higher than the top 40-grain velocity from all data for the .204.

You may find it interesting that the two companies that tested the .204 in 26� barrels and the .223 in 24� barrels, Berger and Nosler, list a higher 40-grain velocity for the .223, despite the 2� barrel advantage for the .204. (Oh, and the higher SAAMI pressure for the .204.) In the Berger manual the difference is 44 fps in favor of the .223, and in the Nosler it�s 45 fps.

Since the lowest top velocity I could find with 40-grain bullets in the .223 is Speer�s 3557 fps, I am very curious where you found two loads that averaged 3553 fps.

2muchgun,

I love this line from your post about perceived recoil in the .204 and .223: "As for the poll, I feel people will always have the tendency to choose the smaller cartridge...."

Gee, you think that might be because smaller cartridges recoil less?

That may very well be, of course. And in most cases, they do recoil less. But there are times when this could seem to be true on the surface, yet the smaller cartridge/combo could, in fact, recoil a bit more. You know what I mean, and I know I don't have to cite examples for you (and really don't want to have to. )

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you on this. I'm not taking this quite as seriously as yourself and Drover, but enjoy the discussion nonetheless. I don't dispute anything you said. Just telling you my feelings/experience.

As I stated, if said 204 combo does recoil less than said 223 combo, so be it. But again, I think you guys are splitting hairs. It isn't enough for ME to tell/feel, or to affect MY seeing hits. And, as stated, I feel other factors would have greater influence in that regard, than the minute difference in recoil energy .

JMO......

Not once but at least 4 times...

Was waiting for that. You're getting slow in your old age

Oh, I'm not taking it all that seriously--except a little with drover. But I actually like to investigate ballistic minutiae, since the investigation often inspires articles.

But I was also having a lot of fun with the U.P bars tangent. Haven't been there since 2000, when my wife was writing an upland game cookbook and we put 12,000 miles on the pickup, traveling around the country to collect wild birds for her kitchen experiments. She refuses to cook pen-raised birds, since they're different than wild birds, and as far as I can determine nobody's ever pen-raised woodcock, the reason we were in the U.P.

We got real lucky and hit the woodcock flight right on the nose, thanks to a cold front. We also managed to pick up a few ruffed grouse, and spend some time amid the local culture. It's a living.

Kirk,

How's the leg doing? I was wondering if your injury had started to affect your posting speed--or if slow posting was caused by shooting too many of those .222 MAGNUMS. There's plenty of evidence that excessive recoil can rattle the brain, or cause physical injury.

I'll bet he can't watch PDs disarticulate through the scope on one of those hard kicking mag deuces...

I admit to being a recoil weenie, the reason my only .222 is chambered for the standard cartridge--though the rifle's still a Sako L461.

Im liking the deuce mucho. It has become my #1 go to for gophers.

It's more than a living, it's a good living. Sounds like a great time. Beats the hell out of the auto plants, nuclear plants, steel mills, refineries, etc. that I have spent far too much time working in.

I love da U.P.and love some good grouse also. There are some woodcock where in hunt in Alpena (Thunder Bay, NE Lower), but we pretty much only kill deer/ coyotes there. I did take a grouse with a 45 Colt on a perfect head shot 5-6 years ago.

The woodcock like to fly up in my face in the dark and scare the hell out me on my way to my treestand. Even when I know it's coming, I sometimes jump a little............grin

Tom,

Yeah, it's a good one for gophers, though I did shoot a few PD's with mine this year. Dunno if I showed my Sako to you yet, one of the Stutzen-stocked ("Mannlicher") models with a 20" barrel. It's just right for a "walking hayfield varminter."

No, you have not shown that one to me.....I do love me the little Sakos....just don't use them cause the buck toothed varmint guns get 'abused' by most any standard.


Gotta save the pretty guns for Shrap....

2muchgun,

I put in my time in some other jobs as well, but got lucky and didn't have to after 30. Was a ranch-hand, oil rig worker, spike-pounder on the Burlington Northern, and worked on a custom-cutting crew for 6 summers, mostly whacking wheat and barley but also some safflower. Still have my hard-hat from the oil-field days hanging on the wall of my office.

But also got lucky in the only really full-time job I've ever had except writing. Was the map-maker for a history/archaeology research firm for about a year and a half, which like hunting/gun writing got me into the field frequently, in interesting country.

I saw John's Stutzen.

It was bigger than I thought it would be.



Travis

He always liked you best....

Travis,

That's because it hasn't been circumcised.

Thank you again for your detailed answer.

In my original post on this subject I cite using the Hodgdon on-line manual for comparison of the 204 with 40's and 223 with 40's and also cited only using PSI for both cartridges, also the data was the "max average load".
Here is the data - 3667/3456/3390/3659/3496/3666 - total 21334 divided by 6 = 3555 fps.

It is apparent that Hodgdon does not have any issue with using data from both different measurement sources since they make it available to the general public. Since you choose to exclude the Hodgdon data this skews your results.

Which makes another question arise - how would the general public know which method was used in any load data? Obviously Hodgdon, and I suspect other providers of load data, mix the two methods so without having gunwriter privileges to this info how is the general public to know which method was used and does it really matter?

This brings to mind my mother's old saying - don't believe what you read or hear and only half of what you see. In other words be skeptical, not only of the statements of others but also of your experiences. Good advice IMO.

Also I remember reading a statement by one of the gunwriters (perhaps you)it went like this - (this is a paraphrase since I cannot give an exact quote) Do not read just what I say, pay attention to what I don't say. Good advice no matter who wrote it. In this discussion there have been a lot of things not said which is why I keep pressing for more definitive info.

Let me close by saying this.
I can care less if someone prefers the 204 over the 223, my choice is as obvious as yours and what others choose is ok with me, that is why there are so many different cartridges.

If someone wants to say -
the 204 using 32 gr bullets recoils less than the 223 using 50 gr bullets I have no issue with that - that is a fairly reasonable general statement.

What I do have a problem with is statement such as this -
the 204 recoils less that the 223. That is a blanket statement with no supporting data which is misleading.

It is as misleading as the statement you keep referring to about 2/3 of the responders agreed with you they could see more hits using the 204 than the 223. There is zero supporting data for these statements since we have no idea of the bullet weight, powder charge, rifle weight, stock design, conditions the shooting is done under - without this information the statements are completely invalid. The only way to have a true test would be for it to a blind test with the shooters not knowing which cartridge they were shooting and using identical rifle shooting the same weight bullet.

drover

So you chose only one source of handloading data, and then included every load, not just the fastest ones? That isn't skewed? Give me a break.

I have no idea how you came up with that scenario. Perhaps I am the one who should be saying - "give me a break".

Re-read my posts - I included ALL the max velocity loads or both cartridges listed in PSI in the Hodgdon data. I then added them and averaged them.

In my second post - I used only the highest velocity load listed in the Nosler manual for calculations since you questioned the average speed of the of the Hodgdon data.

I do not know how much clearer that can be. How you can interpret that as skewed I have no idea.

But once again you are circumventing that for practical purposes there is little, if any, difference in recoil when using 40 gr bullets at, or near, top velocity in both cartridges.

drover

Got interrupted, but to continue I didn't realize how little you know about pressure-testing. No company I know of has used copper-crusher testing for a number of years. Instead they use either strain-gauge or piezo, partly because they're generally more accurate and provide more information, and partly because they're a lot quicker.

Consequently, the data that still appears in CUP is old data, and not only probably isn't as accurate, but doesn't include the latest powders. It usually appears for cartridges that have been popular for a long time, because the company doesn't want to take the time away from electronically testing newer cartridges and powders. This is because handloaders are clamoring for the new data, so the electronic data for older powders gets squeezed in here and there.

Also, NONE of the Hodgdon PSI .223 data for 40-grain bullets is even over 50,000, when the SAAMI maximum for the .223 is 55,000 PSI. It doesn't even approach the potential of the cartridge. I don't know why Hodgdon does this with the .223, though I have my suspicions. Might have to ask the head ballistician next time I talk to him.

ALL of the Hodgdon .204 40-grain data is over 50,000 PSI and a lot over 55,000, because the SAAMI limit 57,500 PSI. So you were indeed comparing apples to oranges.

In contrast, all the other data from seven other sources that I added in is electronic, not copper-crusher, for BOTH cartridges. As a result comparing it is far more valid than comparing the data from ONE company that doesn't use the same pressure standards or equipment for both rounds.

And you also figured the recoil energy of both rounds from your limited, skewed data.

You continue to astound me. What company do you work for?

The Hodgdon data is from their current on-line data, the Nosler data is from their current on-line data. This is data that is available to the general public. Since you are a gunwriter you may have access to information not generally available, however to attempt to belittle someone for using the public data is should be beneath you.

The blanket statement that is usually given is that the 204 recoils less than the 223, this is totally incorrect unless it is quantified.

I could go through each manual available and do the math but given your propensity to find fault with any data I present, or the method the company used to obtain it, I doubt that it would have any effect on your opinion on the subject.

But again the subject has changed from felt recoil to how reloading data is measured. It is still my contention that given max, or near max, with the same bullet weight (40 gr) the recoil differences are so near equal as to be insignificant.

drover

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fear of some jack leg starting at the max in Lake City brass I bet!

Mike

Hey, as long as we're dancing around the subject--

what 223 load with 40 grain bullets will get me the highest velocity around 55k psi?

My 14 twist Hart/722 .22-204 and my PacNor/700 .204 are of similar weight. The .22-204 likes maxed out 40 gr. bullets (half MOA). Right now, I'm shooting Hornady factory ammo in the .204 (half MOA). That ammo shoots so well, I've not yet reloaded for it although I'm set up to do so.

Shooting the two gives nearly identical sensation. Almost no recoil and near instant bullet strike. With either one, I can watch the bullet impact the target or critter, even with 10X scope.

If I didn't know which one I was shooting, I'd be unable to tell them apart by range/field performance or recoil.

DF

Did I ever post the picture of the deer I got on the way to the range???

was that with a .22-204?

Hey, shrap, I could swear I just saw a cat walking on the hood of your goat. Better go check on it...............

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.

This whole thread is like turning on a light switch and a light turns on. I never gave much thought to the advantage of alternating current vs. direct current or the resistance of the filament in the light bulb that created light. All I really care about is that the light comes on when the switch is thrown...

sorry gentlemen. I hope I didnt open Pandoras box.... BTW... I just picked up a .204 in a model 10 savage for $400 and with factory 32g accutips it's pretty awesome. Can't wait to load for it. Even shot a field tipped arrow at 50yds left at the range. First shot took the nock, second and third in the shat. Should of saved the arrow...lol

Thanks to all that suggested that i 'NEED' one....

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

Thanks, JB.

But everyone knows a .22-204 is a heap more gun than a mere .223... OUCH...

Down here, no prairie poodles to plink at. I was Pronghorn hunting in NM a couple of years back. We drove thru a good sized prairie dog town, those suckers were running everywhere.

Man, I could have forgotten about speed goats and spent the day plinking PD's. I gotta number of suitable PD rifles. Like the guy who was all dressed up and no where to go...

DF

That PD ate chili with beans,right?











Nice shot....for an old person.

New benefit of the .204...

Being able to see the bullet strike and see what you've just shot is good for seniors.

Not enough time and distraction to forget what they just shot at...

DF

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

Quite a round, that .204...

DF

Yeah,I know,that and a wet turd in hell.


Whatcha think about this here firearm besides the Cabelas floorplate,Ingwe?

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Ca...er-Grade-7MM-Mauser.cfm?gun_id=100470642

Had a .204 Ruger in a Kimber Varmint. Now have a .222 Rem in a Sako Vixen,along with a .223 Rem in a Interarms Mark X Mini-Mauser.

That Super Grade is really nice. Barrel contour looks like a FW.

Looks like you're set up for senior gunning with very nice, light recoiling rifles...

DF

The barrel contour is a FWT.

IF I do get it,I would have a pair of Featherweight 7x57's.

Get it! duh....


Make room in your safe by throwing a .270 away!

Throw a .270 away NEVER!

Have plenty of room in the gunsafe.

Whatcha think,a 4x Leupold or Lyman scope? IF I was to buy it.

I'd not throw away a 270 either, great donor action.

True dat.


Theres a number of proper chamberings that it can be turned into....

A 280 for instance.

.280 is an excellent choice and a quantum leap out of gayness from the .270

It's like going from Freddie Mercury to Clint Eastwood.

Exactamundo.

What about the .280AI, now that commercial brass is available and fireforming not necessary?

Getting pretty far from the .204, but would like ingwe's thoughts.

DF

Sure, why not? The .280 is one of the more efficient cartridges ( meaning the ballistics you get out of it for the components you put in it...) The .280ai oughta be the bees knees....




Course, A guy doesn't truly need anything more that a 7x57

I understand.

But, need is a disgusting four letter word to a hard core Loony...

DF

That's a serious case of gas right there.

Sorry for the slow feedback, I just got home from Hell. Needed a shower.

Sometimes after I see the hit with CB shorts I can hear them scream a little. You hear that much?

Real men shoot nothing but big bores, regardless of recoil...

Man, that brings back some memories!

You can see hits from a Ma Deuce too.

Replacing a .270 with a .280,well,that's like turning down sex with a hot,gorgeous female model and jumping Nancy Pelosi bones.

The .280 is a stretched 7x57, invented for American who have a .270 phobia yet somehow can't bring themselves to hunt with a German round. This mental aberration was first exhibited by the British, who for similar reasons felt compelled to rename the 7x57 the .275 Rigby.

The .280 Ackley Improved, on the other hand, is a broad-shouldered, manly round, developed for rifle loonies who have 7mm Remington Magnum phobias.

A little-known fact is that a great many of our present hunting cartridges were invented by psychiatrists who decided to cash in on the irrational fears of many shooters who aren't just rifle loonies, but certifiable rifle loonies.

You may be onto something...

DF

And there you have it.

Certified Dan

Hmmmmmmm.......270 phobia...



Is that anything like Homophobia?

You're setting yourself up, don't you know...

DF

I haven't had my coffee yet.....

How long have you been up?

Any longer than 15 minutes between feet on floor and coffee in cup its just assumed you were putting your 270 back in the cabinet.

The 270 recoils less than the 280....

I think you need to dissect the available data of both shooting the same weight bullet at the same velocity before you can make a bold, blanket statement like that.

Look carefully at all sources of data( that you personally like, and which back your contention)break them down to their respective minutae, obsess over the 'facts' you have found. Then and only then are you prepared to go on line and dispute the findings of known experts in the most petulant way possible.

I fart in your general direction.

Slow down there, Poobah...

Don't start confusing facts with prevailing notions, quoting "experts" and such...

Just ain't right, don't you know...

DF

It do. Just because....

How's that for petulance?

Not good enough. You got to put it in red.

I circumvent all this foolishness by NEVER dealing in facts...

Better....

Wow!

We chased that rabbit a long way from the .204 trail...

DF

So just exactly how do you season your venison jerky?

I have it done by a good Cajun...

DF

Nothing like a diagram to make a point. This should also help define trajectory...

But we 204ed him anyway! AND I got to watch it all through the scope!!!





It used to have the futuristic zebra striped stock, but it was wayyyyy ahead of its time...

Another 204 lacking picture. There ain't a 204 in the world that will do this to a rabbit...

And, without losing line of sight and with near instant bullet strike, there just wasn't enough time for you to have a "senior moment", forgetting what you were shooting at...

Good round, that .204...

A senior's dream...

DF

Clearly, that's the reason for triangular barrels, they can only flex in certain directions, which also makes it easier to see the bullet impact...

Lost interest right there. Going to find a thread with pictures of pretty,young and just downright hot ladies.

Now, I can't believe you're bailing out of this fine thread that quick and that easy...

DF

Kirk,

I hate to dispute your .204-slandering rabbit claim, because I can't prove it's false with mere on-line research. But have lit up a few 8-12 pounds varmints with the .204 and, gee, they flew!

One of my .204's set a state record in Wyoming for how high a prairie dog flies, but it's not valid in Montana because the air is thinner in Wyoming.

Exactamundo!

Can't remember where I saw this posted -

"The ultimate concern of a rifle loony is rifle trivia. And why not? What else is as distracting from the really important concerns of everyday life?"

drover

No picture, no proof. Who is going to yield first? I don't see any 204 invading my safe in the near future...

Yeah, we sure can't be giving JB credit for coming up with such a profound truth...

DF

Don't forget the "senior factor"...

Maybe you not quite there, YET...

DF

Yep. One of these days Kirk will admit to his "magnum flinch" and use more seemly cartridges for a man his age.

I wish he would hurry up.....he'd shoot the "dog in the glass" way too often with his magnumized, custom wood sporters way too often for me......

Nope,still here. Just waiting on some booby pics.

Saw a pig do that once. It was maybe over 40 years back and it still makes me chuckle.

A .204 won't make pigs fly.

but you can watch them lift their landing gear thru the scope.....

DD, you are truly a wit, like Bristoe, only.................different.

DF, I've seen Shrapnel; he's at least thirty-five or seventy. Somewhere in there..



Hard to believe this thread is still suck in' air.

Mebbe, but you don't use a scope for 2.75" FFARs.

Shrap, I hate to dispute your claims as much as you hate to dispute JBs but the jackrabbit in my pic with the .204 has some singed hair where he was starting to burn up on re-entry.

True story.

George.....thanks?

-Laffin'-

if you think that the 270 is gay and you have to shoot a 204 because the 220 having too much recoil you can not legally shoot any where in PA

screw PA......

I can't get flying critters to hold still so I can take their picture. But I don't have a .204 either. I am starting to feel inadequate.

Get a 222 Mag....shrap-goo is never still photo'd with anything post 1960.....

Think he's trapped in a time warp or something...?

DF

The .222 Mag creates a tear in the space-time continuum that allows one to take some dramatic still-death photography. I thought everyone knew that.

Here ya go. Happy to oblige.
[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=G-QbmkGySgU[/video]

even so, I'm gonna continuum to use the 204...

That's OK, it's all relative.

PTO

I too shall continue to use the .204...


I might have to throw it in the truck when heading south and see if it will kill a pig. I know CB shorts will kill them, but will a sub-22 caliber?

Yes. It does require you put the bullet in the right place.

One of these days I'll kill one with my Zimmer and a lead BB. It has panache.

Head shooters....sheesh.

You can do that with a 222 Mag and a bubba.

I really didn't want the Poobah to get overconfident ya know? Almost everyone knows a .222 Rem can make pigs fly but if he wants to use a .204, well, who am I to be critical?

Then my 223AI should be toadly ossum!

You're going to AI bacon?

that ain't right.

I plan on AI'ing them with either a 60 NBT or a 55TTSX,or both.


Im thinking either to the brain pan should result in " The Silence of the Hams"...

Hog zen requires either medievalesque carnage, bulk economical firepower, or stoic resolve.

If you start AI'ing them, you may as well start wearing corduroy jackets, drink tea, and smoke cigars while you shoot them.

Cordury is for Commoners!

I wear tweed or nothing at all!


I have a bunch of tweed leftover from teaching college...you know, the leather elbow patched professorial kind....





The last Aporkalypse was conducted with a leopard thong and knives....we have become more civilized by now.

I assume all your tweed is Mossy Oak or leopard pattern?

Well, you should know...you've seen ALL the tweed I own.....

Love my 204.
354 yds to the bottom of the draw from my back door.
Last year the coyotes really piled up down there.

Just hold center, high on the hair, never mind the wind and their feet go in the air.
PRO: no problem watching the hits.
Con: usually no indication of wound... Guess they die from fright!
Wish you good shooting this season.
Tom

if a 22 hornet will take a tiger im sure you take a side of bacon with a 204

A 40 grain ballistic tip in a .223 Remington case will do all that any of the smaller bullets will.....

I built a .204 many years ago and was disappointed that I couldn't see any worthy difference in it from a well loaded 40 grain bullet in the .223 case

I bought mine due to the new caliber hype (like I needed a reason)
I think if I were to limit myself (that hurt) to one lighter caliber rifle besides the 22 LR I think I would pick the 243 Winchester again.
T