.204 v .223

poulo6.5

i'v bin racking my brains trying to find a reason why everyone is singing the praises of the .204 so much
now i have never used a .204 so all i have to go on is a free ballistic app on my iphone and a free bullet power calculator app on iphone so please correct me if my figures are incorrect.

the bullets are both winchester silvertip as it is a winchester ballistic calculator

the .204 is a 32gr ballistic silvertip. and the .223 is a 50gr ballistic silvertip.would we agree that they are similar bullets with a similar purpose.

results as follows

.204 mv= 4050 E= 1165 D -2 -- .223 mv= 3410 E= 1291 D -2

100= 3482 E= 861 D -0.5 -- 100= 2982 E= 987 D -1

200= 2983 E=632 D 0 -- 200= 2593 E= 746 D 0

300= 2537 E=457 D -4.4 -- 300= 2235 E= 554 D-6.1

400= 2131 E= 322 D-14.2 -- 400=1907 E= 403 D-19.3

500= 1766 E= 221 D-31.8 -- 500=1613 E= 288 D-42.2

obviously the .204 is traveling faster and flatter but not so fast that you dont still adjust your scope after 300 so i cant see any advantage.
and as you can see the .223 has more E energy across the range and therefore more stopping power. so again no advantage .

i am not trying to start an argument with anyone. i'm just looking for a debate as to why you would choose a .204 over a .223.

i'm guessing a heaver .204 bullet would carry more energy but the winchester calculator only had one option for .204.

ps. i am currently using 50gr norma ballistic tip in my tikka t3 tactical 20" barrel . and the scope is 2" above the barrel .
i have it 0'd at 100 and it is still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. i still need to test them out further but i have shot foxes out to 250 and instant kill was the result

Tackleberrywho

The higher BC means the .204 is more aerodynamic, cuts through the air better and has less affect5 from wind drift than the .223

Hornady 40grain .204 Vs .223 Vmax

1.2" higher/so flatter @300 than .223
BC of .223 .200 BC of .204 = .275

The .204 actually has more energy @ 300yards

Ammo is same price in states, just dealers Fla us here

If ammo was same price across the board ,204 is a better varminting round

what swings the balance is cheap ammo for the guy who is on less than €200 a week

I would wonder about barrel life as .204 is not around long enough to hear horror stories.

100fps from .204 Vs .223 faster at muzzle in sale grain weight (40grain VMAX)

http://www.hornady.com/store/204-Ruger-40-gr-V-MAX/

http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-40-gr-V-MAX/

ejg

The bigger the bullet the better the BC can be.
just look at 50cal A-max bc and there are better ones.
Jumbo jet...great bc:P

Otherwise the target lads would all be using 17cal out to 1000yds.

Bigger problem is availability and suitability.
Now that many manufacturers sell tight twist 223's which can take 75gr or
heavier bullets with bc values similar to a 30 cal with 155gr.
So rifles and factory ammo is available with good bc bullets without
the need for custom parts.

Question is what is on the market in 204, what high bc factory ammo is
available and what can be realisticly stabilised from standard factory rifles.

I think the 22's still have the edge in bc vs 20 cal, just as 7mm beats 6.5

When it comes to foxing the smaller bullet must first expand to the diameter that the other has already. I quite liked a 55gr 22cal at normal
ranges because it reserves, can break through bones and a follow up
shot from behind might reach the vitals easier.

20 cal will have it's place just as all the others have.

edi

landkeeper

there is a much bigger choice of bullets available for the .223 just on hornady stuff its about x3 in favour of the 223
no fox at anything out to 500 yrds is going to know the difference afaik .
one thing i did note was one lad i spoke to using ballistic tip .204s at over 200yrds found he had quite a few runners that needed following up lots of external damage but little or no penatration i heard after he sold it and went back to a 223

poulo6.5

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The higher BC means the .204 is more aerodynamic, cuts through the air better and has less affect5 from wind drift than the .223

Hornady 40grain .204 Vs .223 Vmax

1.2" higher/so flatter @300 than .223
BC of .223 .200 BC of .204 = .275

The .204 actually has more energy @ 300yards

Ammo is same price in states, just dealers Fla us here

If ammo was same price across the board ,204 is a better varminting round

what swings the balance is cheap ammo for the guy who is on less than €200 a week

I would wonder about barrel life as .204 is not around long enough to hear horror stories.

100fps from .204 Vs .223 faster at muzzle in sale grain weight (40grain VMAX)

http://www.hornady.com/store/204-Ruger-40-gr-V-MAX/

http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-40-gr-V-MAX/

cheers tack. i forgot to check the hornady site.
the 40gr .204 does kick the ass of the 40gr .223. but when i looked a bit further i saw the 53gr superformance and 75gr superformance both have a higher bc than the .204 with higher energy for longer. so that sorts that again.

flat shooting in reality out past 250 you need to either hold over or know how to adjust your turrets past that,
that goes for .204 & .223 alike.
so again i ask where is the advantage

i spoke to a dealer that i know, he changes his rifle/caliber regularly, [i suppose because he can]. he is currently using a .204. he did say it was fast and flat with little or no recoil. but he felt that it was not as powerful as its made out to be.
and it is very fussy on ammo and needed to be cleaned regularly to get the best out of it.

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i'v bin racking my brains trying to find a reason why everyone is singing the praises of the .204 so much
now i have never used a .204 so all i have to go on is a free ballistic app on my iphone and a free bullet power calculator app on iphone so please correct me if my figures are incorrect.


ps. i am currently using 50gr norma ballistic tip in my tikka t3 tactical 20" barrel . and the scope is 2" above the barrel .
i have it 0'd at 100 and it is still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. i still need to test them out further but i have shot foxes out to 250 and instant kill was the result

Norma dont advertise a 50gr ballistic tip only a full jacket and a soft point with the bc's of 0.198 and 0.185 respectively.

If you were using the new hornady 53gr with a bc of .290 running at the advertised speed of 3465 fps and zeroed at 100yards you would still be approx. 1.6 inches low at 200yards. The advertised speed would differ to your own as it is from a 24" barrel with a twist that would more suit the 53gr round unlike your 1:8 twist ratio which is more suited to heavier rounds.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

cheers tack. i forgot to check the hornady site.
the 40gr .204 does kick the ass of the 40gr .223. but when i looked a bit further i saw the 53gr superformance and 75gr superformance both have a higher bc than the .204 with higher energy for longer. so that sorts that again.

Sorted just like comparing a 6.5 120gr round to a 7mm 180gr round.

Yep the hornady 53gr round beats the .204 on bc by a whole .003 :eek:

poulo6.5 wrote: »

flat shooting in reality out past 250 you need to either hold over or know how to adjust your turrets past that,
that goes for .204 & .223 alike.
so again i ask where is the advantage

Yet the .204 is still flatter than the .223 so is more forgiving if you under estimate the range you are shooting at.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i spoke to a dealer that i know, he changes his rifle/caliber regularly, [i suppose because he can]. he is currently using a .204. he did say it was fast and flat with little or no recoil. but he felt that it was not as powerful as its made out to be.
and it is very fussy on ammo and needed to be cleaned regularly to get the best out of it.

With a moderator or muzzle brake the .204 has zero recoil, without its still not noticable allowing you to stay on target as the bullet goes down range.

Whats his definition of fussy on ammo? Is it the difference of 1/2" and 3/4" at 100yards??

What ammo was he using? The only round ive heard of that doesnt group as well as others is the hornady 40gr but is still more than accurate for the field.

All centrefire rounds need regular cleaning to get the best out of them (except moly coated rounds), IMO regardless of calibre centrefires fires should be cleaned at 40 rounds max but unless you are doing target shooting or out shooting non alot this shouldnt be very often.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I would wonder about barrel life as .204 is not around long enough to hear horror stories.

Well the americans seem to be averaging 5000+ rounds per barrel with hot loads so i cant see it being an issue with factory loads

landkeeper wrote: »

there is a much bigger choice of bullets available for the .223 just on hornady stuff its about x3 in favour of the 223
no fox at anything out to 500 yrds is going to know the difference afaik .
one thing i did note was one lad i spoke to using ballistic tip .204s at over 200yrds found he had quite a few runners that needed following up lots of external damage but little or no penatration i heard after he sold it and went back to a 223

How many different rounds do you need?? If even only one round works then why want/need others to do the same job, availability might be one reason but other than that why else? But the .204 is readily available from the majoity of RFD's

Any light ballistic tip can cause external damage without penetration if not placed right, in the case of the .204 if this happens that you are no placing it right then just switch to the hornady 45gr softpoint in future.

The .204 ruger was specifically designed for varmint shooting unlike the .223 which was originally the 5.56 military round that was taken and used for varmint shooting.

The .204 is only around 6 years but has already had alot more designed and developed for it since then and by the looks of it is/will become more popular in the future.

If the .204 had been designed instead of the .223 then which would we all be using now?

zeissman

hi
just joined and thought id post my first message here.
I have been using a 204 for about 4 years, had a 220 swift for a good
few years before that.
I find the 204 great, it will kill foxes just as well as my swift did with the added advantage of seeing your hits through the scope.
the 204 will shoot flatter than the 223 out to 500 yards or so but a 223 with a fast twist barrel and 75 or 80 grain bullets can be used for target shooting out to 1000 yards.
I dont think I could do that with my factory 204.

tomcat220t

With all the chat between both calibers ,how many have shot the .223 and .204 to find the real differnce ?The .204 is more comparible to the .22-250 rather than the .223 ....I have shot 3 rabbits in a row past 450 yards one evening and foxes past 500 yards with the .204 39gr federal ammo. Never got or seen them results with the .223 .

tomcat220t

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i'v bin racking my brains trying to find a reason why everyone is singing the praises of the .204 so much
now i have never used a .204 so all i have to go on is a free ballistic app on my iphone and a free bullet power calculator app on iphone so please correct me if my figures are incorrect.

the bullets are both winchester silvertip as it is a winchester ballistic calculator

the .204 is a 32gr ballistic silvertip. and the .223 is a 50gr ballistic silvertip.would we agree that they are similar bullets with a similar purpose.

results as follows

.204 mv= 4050 E= 1165 D -2 -- .223 mv= 3410 E= 1291 D -2

100= 3482 E= 861 D -0.5 -- 100= 2982 E= 987 D -1

200= 2983 E=632 D 0 -- 200= 2593 E= 746 D 0

300= 2537 E=457 D -4.4 -- 300= 2235 E= 554 D-6.1

400= 2131 E= 322 D-14.2 -- 400=1907 E= 403 D-19.3

500= 1766 E= 221 D-31.8 -- 500=1613 E= 288 D-42.2

obviously the .204 is traveling faster and flatter but not so fast that you dont still adjust your scope after 300 so i cant see any advantage.
and as you can see the .223 has more E energy across the range and therefore more stopping power. so again no advantage .

i am not trying to start an argument with anyone. i'm just looking for a debate as to why you would choose a .204 over a .223.

i'm guessing a heaver .204 bullet would carry more energy but the winchester calculator only had one option for .204.

ps. i am currently using 50gr norma ballistic tip in my tikka t3 tactical 20" barrel . and the scope is 2" above the barrel .
i have it 0'd at 100 and it is still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. i still need to test them out further but i have shot foxes out to 250 and instant kill was the result

This is where im lost ???O at 100 , bang on at 200 ??No bullet can do that ,bud! What MV and B/C is your Norma 50gr running at?

Hondata92

tomcat220t wrote: »

With all the chat between both calibers ,how many have shot the .223 and .204 to find the real differnce ?The .204 is more comparible to the .22-250 rather than the .223 ....I have shot 3 rabbits in a row past 450 yards one evening and foxes past 500 yards with the .204 39gr federal ammo. Never got or seen them results with the .223 .

The only reason i posted here is because ive owned both but since having the .204 i wouldnt go back the the .223, that just my personal preference, i find the .204 to be leagues ahead of the .223 when it comes to drop and wind drift. It makes it so much easier when out in the field and the damage it does on rabbits or even foxs is something :eek:

zeissman

there is very little between the 204, the 22-250 and the 220 swift when it comes to bullet drop and wind drift. The larger 22 calibres may have a bit
more energy but the largest animal you will be shooting will be a fox.
I too have shot foxes out to 400 yards and rabbits out to 480 yards with my 204 with great results.
I think the 204 is the best calibre available for vermin in this country.

Tackleberrywho

Bunny in the head 457yards .223

I'd like to fire a .204, however I would not bother change at the mo as my .223 is seriously accurate, more accurate than me!

I do use Moly rounds, which I almost never clean barrel, however barrel is stainless and I fire Moly only.

The difference would have to be staggering for me to change, like 6XC with a flatter trajectory.

1000 yard flat shooting is what I want :eek:

I'd need a better scope though:( even 32x is small @1000 yards

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Bunny in the head 457yards .223

I'd like to fire a .204, however I would not bother change at the mo as my .223 is seriously accurate, more accurate than me!

I do use Moly rounds, which I almost never clean barrel, however barrel is stainless and I fire Moly only.

The difference would have to be staggering for me to change, like 6XC with a flatter trajectory.

1000 yard flat shooting is what I want :eek:

I'd need a better scope though:( even 32x is small @1000 yards

That was one unlucky rabbit..:p

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

there is a much bigger choice of bullets available for the .223 just on hornady stuff its about x3 in favour of the 223
no fox at anything out to 500 yrds is going to know the difference afaik .
one thing i did note was one lad i spoke to using ballistic tip .204s at over 200yrds found he had quite a few runners that needed following up lots of external damage but little or no penatration i heard after he sold it and went back to a 223

My .204 has had no problem knocking foxes clean past 500 yards .Never had a splash wound ,yet.

poulo6.5

Hondata92 wrote: »

Norma dont advertise a 50gr ballistic tip only a full jacket and a soft point with the bc's of 0.198 and 0.185 respectively.

If you were using the new hornady 53gr with a bc of .290 running at the advertised speed of 3465 fps and zeroed at 100yards you would still be approx. 1.6 inches low at 200yards. The advertised speed would differ to your own as it is from a 24" barrel with a twist that would more suit the 53gr round unlike your 1:8 twist ratio which is more suited to heavier rounds.



Sorted just like comparing a 6.5 120gr round to a 7mm 180gr round.

Yep the hornady 53gr round beats the .204 on bc by a whole .003 :eek:



Yet the .204 is still flatter than the .223 so is more forgiving if you under estimate the range you are shooting at.



With a moderator or muzzle brake the .204 has zero recoil, without its still not noticable allowing you to stay on target as the bullet goes down range.

Whats his definition of fussy on ammo? Is it the difference of 1/2" and 3/4" at 100yards??

What ammo was he using? The only round ive heard of that doesnt group as well as others is the hornady 40gr but is still more than accurate for the field.

All centrefire rounds need regular cleaning to get the best out of them (except moly coated rounds), IMO regardless of calibre centrefires fires should be cleaned at 40 rounds max but unless you are doing target shooting or out shooting non alot this shouldnt be very often.



Well the americans seem to be averaging 5000+ rounds per barrel with hot loads so i cant see it being an issue with factory loads



How many different rounds do you need?? If even only one round works then why want/need others to do the same job, availability might be one reason but other than that why else? But the .204 is readily available from the majoity of RFD's

Any light ballistic tip can cause external damage without penetration if not placed right, in the case of the .204 if this happens that you are no placing it right then just switch to the hornady 45gr softpoint in future.

The .204 ruger was specifically designed for varmint shooting unlike the .223 which was originally the 5.56 military round that was taken and used for varmint shooting.

The .204 is only around 6 years but has already had alot more designed and developed for it since then and by the looks of it is/will become more popular in the future.

If the .204 had been designed instead of the .223 then which would we all be using now?

this will take a min you have a lot going on there. but i will start with this the norma round that i am using at the moment comes in a box with norma on it and on the side where it gives details it says the bullet is a 50gr v-max.
i tried finding it on the norma website as well but couldnt.

the 0 at 100 and still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. is not from a ballistic chart or computer program. it is the result i got out in the field testing. give or take .25 of an inch.

weather or not the .204 is flatter you still need to adjust for long range shots as do you wiyh the .223.

as you said your self the only round that doesn't group well is the 40gr which would be the best in terms of BC and retaining energy down range.

as far as comparing the .204 to the likes of the .22-250 and .220 swift this would apply in trajectory only not punch.

you also mentioned using the 45gr soft point. that has a very poor BC.

i use 50gr norma at the moment for hunting and i also use 75gr hornady match for long range target shooting. can you do that with a .204

any way as stated i am not trying to row with any one just trying to find a good reason why you would change to a 204 from a .223

Jonty

Lads,

I'd love to see some of this 500yd shooting. Its a mighty long way.

I've got a .223 because it suits the land I shoot on. 250yds here is a long shot.

Can foxes not be called in from 500yds?

MACT1RE

Jonty wrote: »

Lads,

I'd love to see some of this 500yd shooting. Its a mighty long way.

I've got a .223 because it suits the land I shoot on. 250yds here is a long shot.

Can foxes not be called in from 500yds?

If you have a stable position and can ACCURATELY determine the range, the drop, the windage and know the accuracy of the rifle, then if you can see it, you can hit it.

Jonty

MACT1RE wrote: »

If you have a stable position and can ACCURATELY determine the range, the drop, the windage and know the accuracy of the rifle, then if you can see it, you can hit it.

On a bench, shooting targets maybe, but its an awful long way to engage live targets

MACT1RE

Jonty wrote: »

its an awful long way to engage live targets

Prone with a bipod and some sort of back bag is very stable.


To be honest, I’d have more confidence in a man who’s done his homework and put the time in to properly zero and practice at longer ranges, taking a shot at a fox at say 500yards than a few of the cowboys going around who just grab the rifle from the safe( might have been zeroed last year if your lucky) and taking Hail-Mary shots at say 100yard.

But I hear what you're saying and I wouldn't advocate doing it lightly.

tomcat220t

poulo6.5 wrote: »

this will take a min you have a lot going on there. but i will start with this the norma round that i am using at the moment comes in a box with norma on it and on the side where it gives details it says the bullet is a 50gr v-max.
i tried finding it on the norma website as well but couldnt.

the 0 at 100 and still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. is not from a ballistic chart or computer program. it is the result i got out in the field testing. give or take .25 of an inch.

weather or not the .204 is flatter you still need to adjust for long range shots as do you wiyh the .223.

as you said your self the only round that doesn't group well is the 40gr which would be the best in terms of BC and retaining energy down range.

as far as comparing the .204 to the likes of the .22-250 and .220 swift this would apply in trajectory only not punch.

you also mentioned using the 45gr soft point. that has a very poor BC.

i use 50gr norma at the moment for hunting and i also use 75gr hornady match for long range target shooting. can you do that with a .204

any way as stated i am not trying to row with any one just trying to find a good reason why you would change to a 204 from a .223

Exact details are needed on the M/V your 50gr norma and 75gr hornady .223 round that you use in your rifle to compare them .If your norma 50gr v max is a hornady head it has a stated B/C of .242 .The .204 45gr which you stated had a very poor B/C is .245.......IMO .204 39 SBK would outperform the .223 50gr norma in wind drift ,drop and energy.Both cailbers kill foxes well !

tomcat220t

Jonty wrote: »

Lads,

I'd love to see some of this 500yd shooting. Its a mighty long way.

I've got a .223 because it suits the land I shoot on. 250yds here is a long shot.

Can foxes not be called in from 500yds?

Mighty long way for a .223

poulo6.5

tomcat220t wrote: »

Mighty long way for a .223

can a .223 be used out to 500.
yes it can i have shot target out to 500 with success. i have even bin able to hit a rock out on the mountain at 780 with my .223.
but all that is besides the point.
90% of foxing is done at less than 250 anyway and most of those shots are taken at less than 100
my original question was why would you change from a 223 to a 204.
so far no reason

tomcat220t

poulo6.5 wrote: »

can a .223 be used out to 500.
yes it can i have shot target out to 500 with success. i have even bin able to hit a rock out on the mountain at 780 with my .223.
but all that is besides the point.
90% of foxing is done at less than 250 anyway and most of those shots are taken at less than 100
my original question was why would you change from a 223 to a 204.
so far no reason

I could give you many many examples as to how the .204 would be better suited to varmint shooting over the .223 (which i have above).....but i know your very happy with your setup and it works well for you .Thats all that matters as a shooter ,i think !Run 39gr .287b/c @3,750 fps,zeroed at 200 yards on your i phone .

Tackleberrywho

tomcat220t wrote: »

I could give you many many examples as to how the .204 would be better suited to varmint shooting over the .223 (which i have above).....but i know your very happy with your setup and it works well for you .Thats all that matters as a shooter ,i think !Run 39gr .287b/c @3,750 fps,zeroed at 200 yards on your i phone .

Which .223?

Hondata92

poulo6.5 wrote: »

the 0 at 100 and still bang on at 200 and 1.5" low at 250. is not from a ballistic chart or computer program. it is the result i got out in the field testing. give or take .25 of an inch.

Sorry but sounds like you are using your selling measuring tape, even if the 50gr was been pushed out at 4000fps it would still have approx. 2.5" drop at 250 when zeroed at 100yards. Now if im wrong then i do apologise but you may want to contact norma/hornady and tikka and let them know just how good the combination of ammo and rifle are, im sure they will want to hear all about it:rolleyes:

poulo6.5 wrote: »

weather or not the .204 is flatter you still need to adjust for long range shots as do you wiyh the .223.

Find me one calibre that shoots 100% flat at any range! Since we are talking shooting in the field no target will be at an exact know distance so for those of us who dont have a range finder (not saying you do) we have to estimate the range to the best of our abilities, so as ive already stated the .204 is alot more forgiving if you happen to be out slightly with your range. Also with a flatter round that bucks the wind better it takes less time to adjust your shot onto the target. So if you see a fox fox for say at 400yards with little wind you just have to worry about drop and not windage as much.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

as you said your self the only round that doesn't group well is the 40gr which would be the best in terms of BC and retaining energy down range.

No the 40gr hornady round has not got the best BC of the .204 rounds

poulo6.5 wrote: »

as far as comparing the .204 to the likes of the .22-250 and .220 swift this would apply in trajectory only not punch.

Well i didnt compare the .204 to the 22-250 or the .220swift but anyway, the .204 not only has a similar trajectory but also it competes in wind drift with the advantages of less recoil and longer barrel life as its not a "hot" round. It might not have quite the same punch when compared to some of the heavier 22-250 or .220swift rounds but still has more than enough "punch" for varmints, the biggest varmint here is the fox unlike in the usa where they have coyotes which the .204 still has the kinetic energy to drop them at 500+yards.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

you also mentioned using the 45gr soft point. that has a very poor BC.

Tomcat bet me to it there

poulo6.5 wrote: »

i use 50gr norma at the moment for hunting and i also use 75gr hornady match for long range target shooting. can you do that with a .204

So you have gone from field shooting to target shooting, i can think of alot of better rounds to long range target shoot with besides the .223 but in saying that if you have never shot a .204 then how do you know what it can do at long range on paper? I only field shoot so paper doesnt interest me.

poulo6.5 wrote: »

any way as stated i am not trying to row with any one just trying to find a good reason why you would change to a 204 from a .223

Either am i but IMO is seems like you are out to condemn a round you know very little about. Rather than try find what a .204 is really like compared to a .223 as the first part of your post suggests, you seem to portray the .223 as a near magic round.

You have a 1:8 twist which allows you to run the heavier rounds and yes target shoot further but how many .223's are out there with a 1:12 twist which wont run the heavier rounds.
Alot of people seem to be under the illusion that if they buy a .223 they will be able to shoot cheap rounds and if they want to be able to shoot out to 1000yards with premium rounds, this isnt the case as twist rate determines what weight round your rifle can shoot and also to realistically be able to shoot 1000yards alot of work has to be done to the rifle, there has yet to be a factory rifle in .223 or any other calibre for that matter that can compete at 1000yards in a competition (with exception to factory class competitions)

The .223 isnt the ultimate varmint round (it wasnt designed for varmint shooting) but yes it can hold its own if you are able to work out range,drop,wind accurately. With the .204 as with all rounds you still have to work out the basics but dont have to be quite as percise as the round has less drop and wind drift especially when it comes to irish shooting conditions.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Which .223?

How many .223wssm's are there in the country?? and hoe many RFD's have ammo in stock, people say the .204 is hard to find (it isnt:rolleyes:) but try finding .223 wssm ammo

Tackleberrywho

.223 WSSM, unknown amount.

I'd prefer one over a .204 though

A guy I know swears by a Remington .17 Fireball :eek::eek:

Hondata92

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

.223 WSSM, unknown amount.

I'd prefer one over a .204 though

A guy I know swears by a Remington .17 Fireball :eek::eek:

Unknow maybe because no-one stocks them or sells the ammo

Thats besides the fact that its a serious barrel burner and in reality requires handloading which unfortunately isnt legal here (maybe some day:o)

Not sure if you have ever fired a .204 tac but if you get the chance try it and id be surprised if you werent shocked at how effective they are

As for the 17 fireball not my cup of tae

ormondprop

around here the .223wssm or .17 fireball would want a good hard stock on them for hitting foxes over the head with because thats all they'd be good for unless reloading is brought in, and if it was i'd love a .20 tac

Hondata92

ormondprop wrote: »

around here the .223wssm or .17 fireball would want a good hard stock on them for hitting foxes over the head with because thats all they'd be good for unless reloading is brought in, and if it was i'd love a .20 tac

.20tac is just a necked down .223 to the same tip as the .204 with less case capacity so really you just gain a wider range of brass but with the .204 getting more and more popular it wont be long before some of the top brass manufacturers bring out good quality .204 brass but being ireland id say it will be easily available before handloading is introduced here:rolleyes:

declan1980

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Which .223?

wht the feck is that?

It wasn't me!

declan1980 wrote: »

wht the feck is that?

.223 WSSM.