Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
.204 v .223
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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:
as far as my rifle and ammo combination is concerned you are invited to go for a shot with me any time and see for your self, i'm not here to spin yarns thanks.
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.
yes i do some informal target practice (doesn't everyone) as it is the only way to know for sure where your bullet is hitting at various ranges regardless of the caliber it is essential and ethical to practice.
so on a regular basis or as often as i can i set up targets from 50 to 550 and various in between and practice with my .22lr, .223, & .308. which of these do you think i should only do my target practice with because my .223 is not good enough.
any way i would love to have a go of your .204 as i have never used one.
so the invite is there if you want to plink a few targets and so on.
i go shooting as often as i can.
what rifle/scope combination do you use0 -
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
as far as my rifle and ammo combination is concerned you are invited to go for a shot with me any time and see for your self, i'm not here to spin yarns thanks.
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.
yes i do some informal target practice (doesn't everyone) as it is the only way to know for sure where your bullet is hitting at various ranges regardless of the caliber it is essential and ethical to practice.
so on a regular basis or as often as i can i set up targets from 50 to 550 and various in between and practice with my .22lr, .223, & .308. which of these do you think i should only do my target practice with because my .223 is not good enough.
any way i would love to have a go of your .204 as i have never used one.
so the invite is there if you want to plink a few targets and so on.
i go shooting as often as i can.
what rifle/scope combination do you use
Thanks for the invite, im sure we can arrange something through pms
Not being smart but the balistics just dont work out for the drop you have but seeing is believing
You said in your original post that you have shot foxs at 250yards but need to test the 50gr further out, does that mean that you switch to the 75gr for anything beyond 250yards??
With the 50gr norma not listed im guessing its not any easy round to get hold of?
Just have a factory .204ruger with a leupold scope0 -
As a case in point here are the ballistics of the .204 39gr and the .223 50gr
Both zeroed at 200yars with a sight height of 1.5", dont have a ballistic program so used an online one.
.204 ruger 39gr @3750fps
.223 rem 50gr @3300fps
The .204 has less drop and wind drift than the .223 with more kinetic energy0 -
Thanks for the invite, im sure we can arrange something through pms
Not being smart but the balistics just dont work out for the drop you have but seeing is believing
You said in your original post that you have shot foxs at 250yards but need to test the 50gr further out, does that mean that you switch to the 75gr for anything beyond 250yards??
With the 50gr norma not listed im guessing its not any easy round to get hold of?
Just have a factory .204ruger with a leupold scope
i have shot foxes out to 250 as thats as far out as i have seen them so fare since i have had the 50gr rounds. but to be honest most fox shooting i do would be around 100-150 mark
the furthest shot i have taken in the field was 365 paces (or 400m ish)on a fox with 55gr hornady whict is what i was always using for hunting until i saw these 50gr norma's and i tried a box and weent back for more.
no i dont change to 75gr for longer shots i would just use them for long range target practice
ruger is a solid rifle and a leupold scopes are top notch. trouble with a rig like that is you cant blame your equipment on a miss
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
i have shot foxes out to 250 as thats as far out as i have seen them so fare since i have had the 50gr rounds. but to be honest most fox shooting i do would be around 100-150 mark
the furthest shot i have taken in the field was 365 paces (or 400m ish)on a fox with 55gr hornady whict is what i was always using for hunting until i saw these 50gr norma's and i tried a box and weent back for more.
no i dont change to 75gr for longer shots i would just use them for long range target practice
ruger is a solid rifle and a leupold scopes are top notch. trouble with a rig like that is you cant blame your equipment on a miss
So the norma 50gr are easily available then?? Ive never heard/seen them for sale and based on your optomistic drop out to 250yards they seem like they are almost a some kind of a "custom" load that just happen to suit you rifle, roughly what speed are they running??
So what is the purpose of your 75gr rounds? is it for less wind drift?
I said i have a .204ruger just like you have a .223rem!!
Quite simply by more than just myself it has explained with facts and ballistics that the .204 is superiour to the .223, if by now you dont realise this then the whole purpose of you starting thread and people making the effort to reply and explain has been a waste of time0 -
So the norma 50gr are easily available then?? Ive never heard/seen them for sale and based on your optomistic drop out to 250yards they seem like they are almost a some kind of a "custom" load that just happen to suit you rifle, roughly what speed are they running??
So what is the purpose of your 75gr rounds? is it for less wind drift?
I said i have a .204ruger just like you have a .223rem!!
Quite simply by more than just myself it has explained with facts and ballistics that the .204 is superiour to the .223, if by now you dont realise this then the whole purpose of you starting thread and people making the effort to reply and explain has been a waste of time
i got them in killarney from Mick duggan. he had a batch of them. i never saw them anywhere else. i hope he gets some more.
i had great success with norma ammo when i had my 6.5x55 so i thought i'd try them in the .223 and i was happy with results.
why do i use the 75gr. because i can. variety is the spice of life. one of the joys of the .223 is the availability of different types of ammo for different purposes so i can do this at 500y 3stot group on a 6" steel plate
i will be stretching it out further when i get the chance.
as far as starting this tread is concerned well this is a forum for people to ask questions and my question was why would you chose a .204 over a .223. ballistics on paper are one thing but use in the field is another.
from what i'v read i dont think there is anything to tempt me yet but i might have a look at one if i decide to change my rifle for something different in the future.
i might start another tread asking about other calibers if thats ok with you
lets say 7m08 v .308. or .270 v 30 06.0 -
i got them in killarney from Mick duggan. he had a batch of them. i never saw them anywhere else. i hope he gets some more.
i had great success with norma ammo when i had my 6.5x55 so i thought i'd try them in the .223 and i was happy with results.
why do i use the 75gr. because i can. variety is the spice of life. one of the joys of the .223 is the availability of different types of ammo for different purposes so i can do this at 500y 3stot group on a 6" steel plate
i will be stretching it out further when i get the chance.
as far as starting this tread is concerned well this is a forum for people to ask questions and my question was why would you chose a .204 over a .223. ballistics on paper are one thing but use in the field is another.
from what i'v read i dont think there is anything to tempt me yet but i might have a look at one if i decide to change my rifle for something different in the future.
i might start another tread asking about other calibers if thats ok with you
lets say 7m08 v .308. or .270 v 30 06.
Your 50gr norma seems to be less available than what you suggest the .204 is. At a price thats more than likely in excess of 25 euro per box.
Going on the fact that your original post was based on ballistic table comparison between the two rounds you now seem happy to dismiss ballistics (on paper). Several .204 shooters agree that it is more efficient in the field on drop, wind drift and energy when compared to the .223rem.
Im not in favour of taking two-three different boxs of ammo out to do a lesser job that the 39gr can do in the .204
I guess hornady and ruger wasted alot time and development in designing a new varmint round in your opinion for nothing
Id like to hear from you where you think the .223 is a superiour varmint round to the .204 other than price of cheap dirt ammo
As for starting a thread comparing different calibres, whats the point if you will just dismiss the rest because of what you currently own0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
There only comparsion between the two is the case .Every thing else about them go down 2 totally opposite roads .I sorry ,this is a poor example of the merits of the.223 rem.One wonders why the.223 rem can be hard to licence with this kind of chatTom, the 5.56 Nato is just about the same as the 223rem. Look it up.
The experience that was won after firing billions of 5.56 rounds is
valuable. The result was to move away from the lighter rounds to improve performance,
not reduce bullet weight. Of course this will not translate 100% to our usage, but
say for fox sized animals we can learn from it.
edi
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Tackleberrywho wrote: »I was taught by Granp's that min of 13-1 ration, but its a good rule at least 10-1
Dr. Randall Gilbert describes hydrostatic shock as an important factor in bullet performance on whitetail deer, “When it [a bullet] enters a whitetail’s body, huge accompanying shock waves send vast amounts of energy through nearby organs, sending them into arrest or shut down.”Dave Ehrig expresses the view that hydrostatic shock depends on impact velocities above 1,100 ft (340 m) per second. Sid Evans explains the performance of the Nosler Partition bullet and Federal Cartridge Company’s decision to load this bullet in terms of the large tissue cavitation and hydrostatic shock produced from the frontal diameter of the expanded bullet. The North American Hunting Club also suggests big game cartridges that create enough hydrostatic shock to quickly bring animals down.
Generally if aprés Hit you see legs in the air you have hit hard enough
I'd like to have a go with a .204 myself.
i think the OP just wanted to know was there a serious advantage with .204 to consider changing.
It's all about the user.
I shoot .223 coz I like it. i liked .220 Swift too, just ammo was to expensive and they were a hoor for copper fouling.
As others have said most foxes were shot wityh .22's mags and Hornets.
Out to 150 yards most rifles will drop a fox, it's just how much further, and how accurately after that.
Lots of lads use low power scopes and then tell of shooting bunnies out past 300 yards:eek:
I can't figure how ya can hit something ya can't see; but that is just me.
I've killed more foxes to date with a .22lr than any other firearm.
All during the day, and all local to me.
Saying that it took 3 .22lr's to drop a big dog fox out of a krico S/A many years ago.
I've killed foxes with .223 and 6.5, 12g and .22lr (none to date with .308)
If a fox was 150yards +, then flat trajectory is great as you don't need to range find, just point and shoot
There is no round available in the .223 that shoots flatter and bucks the wind better than the 39gr .204
Your copy paste on hydrostatic shock is interesting but since that particular piece relates to large game and deer in particular i dont think it has any relevance here as the .204 and .223 are not deer legal.
The op wanted to know why someone would consider a .204 over a .223 but it seems people dont see flatter trajectory or less wind drift as an advantage
Have little experience with the swift as far as copper fouling but the .204 doesnt have any isssues with fouling.
What magnification do you use for 300yards??
I zero .204 at 200yards and out to 300yards all i have to do is put the crosshair on a foxs back
My rifle is a stock factory rifle costing around €900 that hasnt has any work done to it (bedding,recrown) and from what i have seen on here of .223 groupings my rifle with factory 39gr rounds would be atleast as accurate and thats being nice
0
Advertisement