Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Predators and Varmints Gopher/ P dog round?

For your situation there're' lots of good ones that'll work just fine, no one is "best". I use different stuff from 17AH to 22-250AI, depending. For pd's and gophers as in groundsquirrels - "out to" 300 - a .223 with 50's at 3600 works about as good as anything else. The 223AI is a little more fun and if you go that route, don't worry about a fireforming step because there isn't one, just load and shoot.

drover,

The problem with about all recoil formulas is they don't always work just right.

I have shot a bunch of .204's and even more .223's, and the .204 does indeed kick less. I have been able to watch through the scope and see bullets hit through many sporter-weight .204's, but .223's normally require a heavy barrel to do so. Unless, of course, the .223 is braked or ported.

Since you are from Montana you probably get out more than those of us who have to travel a great distance to shoot sod poodles.
I would go with something that is cheap to shoot. A 22 Hornet would be cheap to reload but pretty weak at 300 yds.
I don't know what is best for you, but the past few seasons I have used the Hornady 40 gr. V MAX and H335 powder in a .223
the recoil is not bad and I don't remember ever having to shoot one twice. The Speer 50 gr TNT is very accurate and hits hard plus the bullets are less expensive. Flip a coin.
whelennut

223 Rem with 40 grain bullet with 4198 keeps the recoil down, and gives pretty good zip.

the "best" round for rodents is no doubt the 204 (if you reload) and I have 3 of them ;

also top contenders the 17 Remington and Fireball , along with the 223AI


but if you wish to use factory ammo you do want a 223....

Since you are a professional writer it is probably foolish of me to mince words with you, but it would appear that our experiences have differed. My most used rifle is a Cooper Classic sporter which weighs just slightly more than 7 lbs scoped, using it I do not have any issues seeing my hits or misses. It is far and away the rifle I use most and I carry it on a day-to-day basis as my truck gun, walking varminter, and varmint hunting gun, and I average a lot of rounds a year through it since I use it for PD�s and ground squirrels in addition to varmint hunting.

If comparing the 204 and 223 using the same weight bullet, virtually the same powder charge, and in rifles of the same weight the recoil tables give a precise comparison of recoil between the cartridges since the figures are based on mathematics and physics and not a subjective opinion. (For a true comparison the stock designs must also be identical)

When one is dealing with only 3 lbs or so recoil how can it be that there is enough difference between the 204 and 223 to make a shooter lose the sight picture with one but not the other when the recoil is identical or only tenths of a pound less, isn't that defying physics?

I owned a Cooper Varminter in 204 and a Cooper Varminter in 223, they were scoped identically, the weights were within an ounce of each other (right at 8 & 1/2 lbs scoped) and the recoil of the two was virtually identical, with either of them I could spot hits and misses. After using the 204 side by side with the 223 for over a year the 204 lost its charm and it went down the road.

Using an impartial shooter, equip them with identical rifles, blindfold them and randomly have them fire a 204 and a 223 I would be amazed if they could tell which cartridge they were firing from the felt recoil of the rifle. In my experience with both cartridges the recoil difference between the 204 and 223 is much ado about nothing.

To those who prefer the 204 more power to you, but it does not have an magical qualities which defy physics when it comes to recoil. I myself
prefer the 223 and there is room for all of us in the world.

drover

Drover,

When I stated that recoil formulas are imperfect, I really meant it. I have several different programs that will figure recoil, and not one of them will truly reflect reality all the time, even when comparing different loads in the same rifle.

My guess as to why is that no recoil formula has ever been able to incorporate an accurate variable for the "rocket effect" of muzzle gas. I have fooled around with a formula of my own, which seems to work better, but still isn't perfect.

Of course stock design has something to do with it, but in shooting dozens of different rifles in each chambering (which would also render any differences in stock design irrelevant) I have found a consistent advantage in the slightly lighter recoil of the .204.

I won't argue with your results. I'm just reporting mine.

for myself , I notice much less muzzle jump from my .17 than either 204 or 223

the 17 bore does have its drawbacks I suppose , but there is something about seeing the critter electrocuted right in the scope with hardly a twitch from your weapon....

Yep, me too!

good shooting.

drover

John,

In re-reading your post you mention "rocket-effect" as a variable, if it is then shouldn't it have a more pronounced effect on a 204 then it does on the 223? Both cartridges burn virtually the same amount of like powders which means that the burn rate is very similar. The 204 has a smaller diameter bore to burn it in which should increase the "rocket-effect" of the 204. That should add slightly more the recoil of the 204 when comparing it to the 223 which has a slightly larger diameter bore.

drover

Drover,

Yes, and the .204 is credited with more rocket-effect in my formula. But the heavier bullets normally shot from the .223 make up the difference.

My formula rates an 8-pound .204 with 32's at 2.2 foot-pounds, 40's from either the .204 or .223 at around 2.5, and 50's from the .223 at around 2.8.

Some of my recoil experience with the .204 vs. the .223 is no doubt due to my preferring 32-grain bullets in the .204 and 50's in the .223. Using my formula, the .223 generates around 27% more recoil. This may not sound like much, but it's about the same difference as between a .25-06 120-grain load and a .30-06 180-grain load.

Of course, there isn't any noticeable recoil difference between the .204 and .223 40-grain loads. But the .204 has a ballistic advantage there, due to the higher BC's of its bullets. Still, I mostly prefer to shoot 32's at 4000+ fps, since they seem to act much like a slightly smaller version of the .220 Swift in terms of trajectory and that nebulous something called "lift." Plus they recoil less.

At any rate, I held off trying the .204 for more than a year after it's introduction, just to see if it would fade away. When it didn't, I bought one and shot it a lot, liking it so much that eventually I bought three. One of the reasons was the recoil.

But I have no vast argument with anybody that prefers the .223. Hell, I still have a pair of .223's myself--along with three .17's (Mach 2, HMR, Fireball), two .22 Hornets and a .221 Fireball.

All get used every year, though probably 75% of my prairie dog shooting is done with one of the Fireballs or the Hornet these days, simply due to their low recoil--and the fact that most prairie dogs are killed (not shot at) within 300 yards. They also get far more use on ground squirrels, along with my rimfires.

But if for some reason I was limited to one centerfire for all my ground squirrel and prairie dog shooting, it would be a .204, because in my experience it does have a couple of small advantages over the .223. In fact, it wouldn't break my heart to do all my small-rodent shooting with a .17 HMR and a .204.

Mule Deer I gotta agree with you on the recoil! I too purchased a .204 just to see how things went and I noticed the difference in recoil (looking through the scope)verses the .223 cal. The wife now has taken over the .204, guess I'll get me another one come spring time.

I started off years ago with a Remy model 21 in .222 and then got myself a model 788 in 22-250.......man that was a real blast back in the 60's. Now I shoot a .223 model 12 Savage and also the .22-250 cal in the same rifle. The wife shoots a .204 in Savage and the .223 in her CZ rifle. Love the way that .204 explodes those little critters!!!

Tonk,

I believe my personal record for elevation on a prairie dog was set 2-3 years ago with a .204, using a Remington plastic-tip factory load (the Hornady V-Max with a green tip). That dog went at least 20 feet straight up, and that was after two companions and I reduced our original estimates just to make sure we weren't lying to each other!

I only use 40's in my 223,so like you my take on the recoil is slightly skewed. If I want to step up to a 50 gr bullet then I bring out my heavy barrel 22/250 to drive them. If I am PD shooting I use the 223 for 250-300 yard shots and occassional longer shots, but if the sustained shooting is further then I bring out the 22/250.

Using 39 gr bullets I used the 204 for 300-350 yard shots and to its credit it did kill the PD's but the "explosive" effect tht the 22/250 gives was missing. There is just something about a 50 gr bullet at near maximum muzzle velocity that gives the extra dramatic effect to the hits.

When I tried the 204 for a year I was somewhat disgruntled when early on in its tenure I had a couple of splashs with long shot on coyotes with the 35 gr Bergers. I did use it on spring gophers and was impressed with both the 35 Bergers and 39 gr Sierras. I had tried the 32's but had given up on them due to getting better long range accuracy from the 35s
and 39s.

I did take the 204 PD shooting though and that was when the real disillusionment hit - I had a great PD town that was within 175 to 200 yards but in order to get to the dogs I had to shoot through a very sparse stand of dead cheatgrass, I tried 10 shots and could not hit a dog,nor see any evidence of bullet stikes. At this point I put the 204 and 39 gr bullets away and dug out the 223 and immediately began to hit dogs. What was the difference? I can not definetively say,but I suspect that given the possibly thinner jackets of the 204, plus the bullet hitting some stems of cheatgrass that the bullet was breaking up before it reached the dogs. All I know for sure is that the 223 with 40 grs pushed through and did the job.

I realize that there are a lot of unknown factors and variables in a situation like that but whatever was occuring was enough to turn me off the 204. I did shoot it for another few months after that but I had a total lack of faith in it at that point.

drover

Drover,

I quit using the .22-250 and .220 Swift on prairie dogs several years ago. When laser rangefinders and ballistic reticles and/or turrets became common I found I could regularly hit PD's at 500+ yards with the .223 (using 50-grain Ballistic Tips) without the recoil, expense and barrel wear of the bigger rounds. Then the .204 appeared, producing slightly better results.

If I really want to stretch ranges past 500 on PD's, then I get out something with a larger bore than .224. I have shot them out to 712 with the .223 and 820 with the Swift, but these days usually use anything from the .243 to 6.5-06 for the real long stuff.

If you'd tried 40-grain Ballistic Tips from your .204 on coyotes, I believe you would have been pretty pleased. I suspect they would also have worked very well on shooting through cheatgrass. The heavy base of the BT jacket makes a big difference in both kinds of shooting.

One thing I have found with most .204's (including my 3) is that any bullet from 32-40 grains shoots to the same point of impact at 100 yards. Mostly I use 32/33's for rodent shooting, and have been able to get very fine accuracy--but when the wind comes up, or the shooting gets out around 500 yards, I switch to 40's and they do fine.

So alright I did start off with a Sierra 50gr SP bullet until the 50gr v maxes were available many years ago now...is that better for you all. Getting to picky. Still 40yrs of p-dogs with the 50gr pill is my go to .223 load.

Been shooting both 40 and 53 grain Vmax in the wife's 223, but can't decide which I like better yet. I've just been shooting pumpkins and apples off of logs in the back yard. Leaning toward the 40s for the extra fps, but range time will be the real decision maker - accuracy is everything. Then I'll decide on a rifle for myself.

John,

It has been interesting trading views with you on the 204 and 223. I always enjoy a good conversation and getting other folks viewpoints regarding calibers, ballistics and results.

Maybe sometime in the future I will try another 204, next time with Nosler 40's. But not right away, I just picked up another Cooper Classic in 222 so that will keep me occupied this spring.

I am tired of the snow and ice we have this year, later this week I am going to head towards Arizona for a couple of weeks to hopefully see a little more sun and get refreshed both mentally and physically. I will be checking in on my laptop from time to time.

good shooting - Jim

I like the 204 because it's easy to see my hits, not as easy to do with a 243 unless it's way-way out there

Drover,

I hear you on the snow and ice....

That Cooper .222 sounds good. It would be nice to hear how it shoots--though no doubt it will do very well! I have yet to shoot a Cooper that wasn't VERY accurate.