Home Forums Reloading Varmint Rifles Real Life Comparison 204 Ruger vs. 223 Remington

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!