Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 204 Ruger -- 223 Rem Which, Why ??

JB made me get a .204 to 'augment' my .223s...


I love it.




But a guy still needs both.....

I have a .204 (and a .20 Tac which is close enough) plus a couple .223's. I shoot 40 grainers out of all of them. In theory, and I would say in fact, the 40 gr .204 Sierra with its higher BC does better in the wind than the several plastic tipped 40 grainers used in the .223's. Whatever, prairie dogs, groundhogs, coyotes and such, won't know which one hit them.

Guns chambered in either cartridge, are so dam much fun to shoot, I am not sure there can be a mistake with either purchase. I own two 20 calibers and two 223's and my preference day to day, is just how I feel. Very accurate and just fun to shoot.

I don't own either. Just a .222 Sako. But, for the amount of groundhog hunting I do (they never show up when I do), I can't really justify another chuck gun. Of course, I have a ton of deer rifles, and deer don't show up that often for me, either. Hmmm....

If I had PD's to shoot at (at less than 3 days drive) or even if we still had the woodchucks we had when I was a kid, I'd love to get a .204, hell, I'd have one already. My varmit shooting now pretty much consists of 'yotes and foxes so I problably won't replace any of my .223's (5) any time soon. Also, the .223 seems more practical as a dual-purpose varmit - deer round. I load 65 grain SGK's over 27 grains of varget and have a good load for 'yotes or deer.

Using 26 grs of Benchmark, and a 9 lb. rifle By Nosler #6

a 204 Ruger will motivate a 32 gr bullet @ 3900, and will produce 3.2 Ftlbs of recoil.

A 40 gr with the exact same charge, nominal velocity 3650 and will produce 3.5 Ftlbs recoil.

A 223 launching a 35 gr @ 3650, will produce 3.4 Ftlbs recoil

A 40 BT @ 3600, will produce 3.3 Ftlbs of recoil

Using a 50 gr BT @ 3500, will produce 3.9 Ftlbs recoil.

So going by this I can understand the flatter shooting part, But I really fail to see where the recoil reduction is enough to let someone call their shots any easier with one than the other.
I can see my shots with a 220 Swift at the same 1,2,300 yrd. ranges as I can with a 223, and the recoil from it is about 6.5 Ftlbs.

So just what is the basis for a 1 to 3 oz in recoil allow less muzzle jump from a 204 to a 223 when all things are kept equal except velocity ????

This entire question was the basis for a long thread on the subject not too long ago. You might be able to find it with a search.

One of the points I often make about recoil, however, is that formulas don't do it any justice, and never have in a really precise way, due to most formulas disregarding the way muzzle pressure varies.

On that thread, 2/3 of the posters said they could see bullets hit with a .204, but not with a .223.

There's also the difference between actually seeing the bullet hit, and seeing where it hit when the rifle comes down out of recoil.

I don't know which you're seeing with your Swift, but I've shot a lot of animals with various Swifts, both sporter-weight and 11-12 pound heavy-barreled rifles, and have to see the instant of bullet impact through the scope. Instead what I see, even from the heavy rifles, is where the bullet already hit a fraction of a second before. That's a different thing entirely.

When you can see small holes appear in a target through a high-X scope, that's being able to watch bullet impact.

I've got a couple of each, .204s and .223s (among others) and I simply like the .204 better. I'm not the best range estimator around, so the flatter trajectory helps me a bit.
I'll never be without a .223, supply is too good to stray too far away from it, but I sure like the .204. It's just "zippy" and fun to shoot.

But I like Hornets, Fireballs and other stuff, too. If they go "Bang!" I like 'em.

That is an interesting theory, would you please explain some details of it?

drover

Many formulas consider the effect of the gas leaving the muzzle as a constant, but it affects recoil considerably--one reason a .300 Weatherby recoils noticeably harder than .300 Winchester Magnum, even though the gain in velocity isn't all that much.

Jwall, I have a 223 in an AR, a 223 AI custom and a 204 barrel I bought for a T/C Pro Hunter mzlr. The 204 barrel is quite heavy and 26" long. Horn's 40-gr Vmax is listed on the box ad having a mzl vel of 3900 fps but in this long barrel it averages 4100 fps!

Yet, and noting this even today, I can not see impact on the target, but boy is this a varmint cartridge! If I were blindfolded and in similar rifles I would not know the difference in terms of recoil which is really just a nudge.

I don't believe you can make a mistake with these two.

The reason for the 204 is that it is a dandy cartridge for prairie dogs,ground squirrels and other such shooting. For people that live in the bush and that are going to shoot caribou, moose and the occasional grizzly bear, I would suspect the 223 would serve them better. Strictly a guess, though, having shot grizzlies, caribou or moose with either.

I have read and reread this a few times and I don't understand your statement. Example: In looking at the Nosler manual #6 and using a 180 gr bullet and RL22 as a common powder as comparisons between the two cartridges - the maximum, and also most accurate load using it, is 75.5 gr. in the 300 Win mag and 80.0 gr in the 300 Weatherby. Rifle weights, stock designs, and all other aspects being the same except for chambering isn't it simply a matter of the 300 Weatherby burning more powder. Are referring to what is commonly called a "jet" or "rocket" effect, which would be slightly higher in the 300 Wby because of the increased powder charge?

When using the same weight bullets in the 204 and 223 (40 grain bullets) and virtually identical powder charges how can there be a difference in recoil with the other aspects of the rifles being the same? If you are referring to the "jet" effect then when using the same bullet weights shouldn't a 204 actually have slightly more recoil since there is esscentially the same amount of powder being burned, and a bullet with a bit more bearing surface, being put down a smaller hole which would increase the"jet" effect? (This of course would apply when using 32 grain in either the 204 or 223 but I am unaware of a 32 grain 223 bullet so for the sake of comparison I referred to the 40 vs. 40).

drover

I agree.

The new Nos 7 manual showed me 'what' a 204 was. That's the first new manual I've bought in a loooong time.

I have no need for either, right now. If I needed similar, I'd have to deliberate a while to decide which one.

Now I could argue either way.

THNX
Jerry

drover,

I never said the .300 Weatherby recoils more than the .300 Winchester ONLY because it burns more powder.

Of course bullet weight and velocity also count, but the rocket effect (and it's rocket, not jet), but does add to a .300 Weatherby's recoil. Up the powder soom some more, say with the .30/.378, and the rocket effect is even greater

Plus, many people use slower powders in the .300 Weatherby, instead of the same powder they use in the Winchester, adding to both the rocket effect and total ejecta weight.

The rocket effect in the .204 is indeed slightly more than in a .223, but doesn't matter as much as bullet weight and velocity. As has been noted elsewhere on this thread, a lot of people use 32-grain bullets in the .204, which recoil less than 40's, and even 40's from a .204 can't be driven as fast as 40's from a .223. Nosler's manual, as an example, lists 3860 from the .223 and 3815 from the .204 when shooting 40's, even though their .204 test barrel is 26" long, compared to 24" in the .223. In barrels of the same length the difference is more like 100 fps.

And far more people use 50's than 40's in the .223. Or at least that has been my experience.

It looks like we were cross-posting, I was doing some clarification on my post.

I suspected that you were referring to the Jet or Rocket effect but due to the wording of the post I was unsure - hence the question. (I have seen references to both Jet and Rocket effect and either conjurs up the image of what is happening so the difference is just basically semantics)

Oddly enough I cannot think of one person either in my immediate area, or our PD camps that uses 50's in the 223 for gophers (ground squirrels) and PD's. Perhaps they have read your many articles about how well the 40's work in the 223. Although some that use the 223 for coyotes and wolves use the 50's but that is another story.

IMHO - With all aspects of the rifle being the same, except for chambering, the difference in recoil between the 204 and 223 is so slight as to not be noticable, I attribute any perceived difference as meeting an previously formed expectation because the shooter either has read or was told that the 204 recoiled less.

It's a big world and there is room for both calibers and since folks are happy with both of them that is a good thing.

drover

drover,

As I noted earlier in this thread, your point about "believing" in the difference in the recoil between the .204 and .223 was hashed over already in another long thread. About 2/3 of the people who posted said they could definitely see the bullet hit through the scope in a .204, but not in the scope on a .223. That doesn't mean the majority is "right," but it doesn't mean it's all mental, either.

A rocket is different than a jet. A jet operates by taking in air to mix with the fuel, the reason for the intake ports in the front end. A rocket has self-contained fuel that doesn't require additional air to burn--just like a self-contained rifle cartridge. Which is why the correct term is rocket effect.

Nope! I didn't say it is all mental, obviously there are many other factors involved such as rifle weight, stock design, type of rest, and on, and on. However unless the 2/3 of the people who responded that they could see their hits were all using the same exact equipment, same exact load, and same exact shooting position, etc., then the data is really not relevant enough to form a factual decison, it is only opinions without factual basis.

As far as the difference between "jet effect" and "rocket
effect" I am somewhat familiar with the difference since prior to retirement I spent over 50 years in the aerospace industry. When used in this context using the term "jet effect" or "rocket effect" doesn't really matter much since it paints the same image to most folks, as a matter of fact you will notice that I used both terms in my orignal post so that folks could use the one that creates the best image for them. It is like using the term "Kleenex" for a facial tissue, it has become accepted even though it is technically not correct because Kleenex is a brand name, but it has become accepted as meaning facial tissue.

If folks want to believe that there is less recoil with the 204 than with a 223 with all aspects except chambering being equal it is fine with me. However having owned identical rifles chambered for each cartridge I did not find it to be so. Until such time as I can see it factually proven rather than theorized I choose to believe that they are so close that any difference is negligible.

drover

drover,

There are a great many people in the world who make judgments based only on their experience. In fact this is pretty much the condition of the human race. A great example is when somebody on the Campfire declares the best handload for a certain cartridge is the one that shoots best in their rifle.

When I write about a good handload for a certain cartridge, I've usually used it in several rifles. If not, then I preface any statement by saying it worked well in one rifle.

Similarly, when I suggest its easier for most people to see their hits through a scope when using a .204 than a .223 it's not because that been my experience with one rifle. It's because I experienced it in several rifles, and also asked several other people their experiences. (Several people, in fact, volunteered without asking that's what they'd experienced. Consequently, I'll continue to say that most people can spot their shots when shooting a .204.

For the OP, there were a few similar threads comparing the 223/204 some time ago. The bottom line for me as I was wondering the same thing was: the hard core varminteers stated rather emphatically that if they were starting to accumulate varmint rifles "all over again", they would have opted for the .204Ruger than the .223Remington.