Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Predators and Varmints .223 or .204

Since the 204 has been out for a little while now which of these would be you preference?

I reload for several of each and do not while the .204 is supposed to have better ballistics I would go with the 223. If cost is a factor the 223 will always be cheaper to reload, brass is readily available and in the loads I use the 223 uses about 5 grains less per round. That doesn't sound like a lot but thats $2.00 per hundred or a pound less powder every 1200+/- rounds. I'm useing Viht N120 and 40gr Vmax in my 223 with awsome results and while the 204 seems to be a great round I don't see enough gain to justify the extra cost. If your looking for something a little different check out James Calhoon's .19 calibers.

.223; easily.

More and better factory and reload bullet availability. More, and more easily configured rifles available.

Not to mention that a .223 can be made, legally and more easily with better bullets, into a deer rifle than can a .204.

Not knocking the .204, but it's a specialty cartridge, at best. The .223 is a jack of all trades, and master of most.

Thanks for your replies. I was leaning toward the .223, but was curious about the .204.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem that shooting 40g bullets out of the .223 would about equal the trajectory and velocity of the .204 with the same weight bullet.

A .204 can safely push a 40 grainer faster than a .223 can push a 40 grainer. The .204" 40 grainer on average, has a much higher BC than a 40 grain .224". (Vmax - .200 vs. .275)

A .204 is flatter without question comparing 40's to 40's.

I love my .204. It really is an amazing cartridge and is a hoot. VA needs to shoot one for himself....grin...

But, a .223 is more versatile mainly due to reloading components and the ability to shoot heavier projectiles. I would not shoot a deer with any .204" bullet due to bullet construction but would not hesistate to do so with many .224" bullet offerrings...

So, to finish, like in all semantic debates such as this, each has their pros and cons...

Solution: Get a few of each as I have done...grin..

Don't want one; won't have one.

FWIW, coyotewallace has a FANTASTIC .204 for sale currently, and someone needs it..... but not me.

I have had a couple of .204's and a 17Rem. NOW? I own a .222, 2 .223's and for speed and long range stuff a 22-250AI. For 99% of my shooting a .223 with a 36gr Barnes Varimint grenade at 3800fps is fast and flat and devastating enough. Push thaat same bullet to 4300fps form the 22-250AI and we have a fun 'way out there' gun.

If you do get a chance someday and find a doozy of a deal you should give her a ringing out...

Have run a couple; wasn't overly impressed. I'd have rathered a .223 for anything close (or, better yet, a .221 Fireball), and a .22-250, .220 Swift, or .243/6mm for anything long.

The .204 might make a helluva lot of sense in prairie dog field (don't know, ain't been there), but I can't see it as anything more than an answer to a question no one asked otherwise.

If you can only have one or the other....the 223 gets my nod...whether factory ammo or handloading the 223 is cheaper to operate...I've had two 204s..heavy SS Pac Nor p/doggers..which are now 20 VT (Fireball)and 20 PT (20-223)...much more useful & effiecient p/dog rds..ten grs less powder in the 20 VT (3554 fps) and three less grs in the 20 PT and the same 40 V max comes out @ 4000 fps..whats not to like ?? Yes I shoot 223s also....

Not trying to get in an argument, but checking the Nosler #6 manual it shows in their barrels the .223 easily beating the .204 with the .223 having 2" less barrel.

The only .223 ammo I have shot has been out of various variants of the M-16 so really have no idea of its recoil in say a bolt handle rifle. The .204 is lauded for being able to see the impact in the scope, what about the .223?

I love them both, but prefer the 223.

As has been said, a 204 is a fantastic round, but the 223 accompishes so much more...

a 223 with the right twist has bullet weights from the accurate 30 grain Berger HP to the 90 grain Sierra MKings available...

204 offers bullets weights between 32 to 40 grains mainly.. although there is supposed to be a 50 grainer in the wood pile..

a lot of folks who handload, also think it adds to the versatility of the 223, when you can load it from down to 22 LR standards and up to its full potential...

if you load a 204 down to 22 LR speeds, everyone thinks you are an idiot...

most people who argue about the 204 vs 223, are adding all the velocity you can get out of a 204...which is really rivaling a 22.250..

however if you take a 223, and give it the same bullet weights as the comparable 204.. one will find that you can either match or get the just slightly less velocity than the 204 can give..
since the 204 is off the 222 Rem MAG case, if you compare a 204 with a 222 RMAG with the same bullet weights, then you get the same velocity across the board.. and in fact a 222 RMag will beat a 204 with the same bullet weights... and so will a 223 AI..

The 204, has a lot going for it, but the 223 has even more....

and is the 223 my favorite 22 cal bore cartridge? Nope the 22.250 is, because it can be even more versatile than the 223... just brass is no where near as plentiful is all and as cheap...

Hands down 223 + 24gr Viht N120 + 40gr Vmax = dead stuff(between 3900 and 4200fps depending on your rifle).

Sorta like 270 vs. 30-06

Yep, just smaller..... and less important....

Like perhaps the .221 fireball is to nearly EVERY .22 caliber centerfire cartridge made??

Sorry VA, couldn't resist the natural progression of your superb logic there...

No, the debate of .223 vs. .204 is just like the debate of '06 vs. .270..... just smaller..... and less important.....

Of course you are correct, VA.

We are talking about CALIBER, not case size..

So, given the above train of "Logic", the .25-06 is a LESS important cartridge than the .270 Win due to it's smaller bore size????

I ain't got enough coffee in me to follow this one yet.......