.204 v .223

bunny shooter

Swift does copper up, even after 20 rounds it's noticable, and needs a good soak with copper solvent to stay on top of it. 204 doesn't seem to copper up much at all :eek:

landkeeper

i zero my 223 at 200yrds too and all i have to do is put the x hairs on a foxes back at 300yrds too and thats with 55grn hornady stuff

bunny shooter

204 isn't going to be as affected on a windy day at 300 yards though

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

i zero my 223 at 200yrds too and all i have to do is put the x hairs on a foxes back at 300yrds too and thats with 55grn hornady stuff

You have at least 7"s of a drop at 300 yards and if your holding 1moa at that distance your drop could be as much as 8.5" .Imo,that leaves it very close to a miss if the fox is lucky or worse ..a wounded fox.Im not basing this on my opinion but advertised velocity and B/C of your round set @ 200 yards .Also when i had my .223 with the 55gr ,found i had to put some daylight or click up when taking shots after 260 yards !The .223 is fine out to 300-350 yards with the 55 gr quality ammo on foxes .The .204 outperforms the .223 after 300 yards due to better ballistics and speed . Some shooters find it hard to grasp this because the .204 uses such a light round as opposed to the .223 .

landkeeper

fox is 2.5ft long

Hondata92

landkeeper wrote: »

fox is 2.5ft long

Not very humane or ethical to point,shoot and hope for the best:rolleyes:

landkeeper

it's just as humane and ethical as shooting it with a.204 at 300yrds i was trying to make a point

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

fox is 2.5ft long

This is where run off come into play thinking your kill zone is so big !2-3" ,imo is the kill zone on a fox .Its no wounder some shooters want bigger calibers for foxes hunting

Hondata92

landkeeper wrote: »

it's just as humane and ethical as shooting it with a.204 at 300yrds i was trying to make a point

Seems like you were making refence to bunny shooters post

bunny shooter wrote: »

204 isn't going to be as affected on a windy day at 300 yards though

Hence why you said a fox is 2.5 foot long. The only point you seemed to have made is that you have no respect for anything you shoot

landkeeper

my post was intended to be a tongue in cheek comment to bunny and tomcat .yes a fox is 2.5 ft long that the point i was trying to emphasise if it moves whilst your pulling the trigger and it's 300 yrds away with a small light bullet and you hit it in the back leg or guts you'll not get to it before it's away. having at least 25years of shooting foxes with rifles in calibres from .22rimfires up to .270 and averaging approx 200 per year for most of that time i have a fair idea what im talking about so please no lectures on respect for quarry
i have had my share of runners some that ran for a few yards and others that went further. shooting any live quarry at 250+ yards is fraught with potential disaster and with small lightweight bullets you stand more of a chance of a non fatal shot than with a heavier bullet.bullets like engines there is no substitute for cubic inches /kinetic energy hit a fox anywhere i the chest cavity with 55 grns of vmax it's not going anywhere .
now never having shot a .204 the only comments i had made about it was that a lad i know well who used to use a 22-250 and bought a .204 sold it as he had too many runners with the .204 what he says would have been dead with the 250 or the 223 he replaced the 204 with he knows what he's at and i trust his experience
one thing that has been ommited from this thread is familiararity with your calibre bullet drop or windage

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

my post was intended to be a tongue in cheek comment to bunny and tomcat .having at least 25years of shooting foxes with rifles in calibres from .22rimfires up to .270 and averaging approx 200 per year for most of that time i have a fair idea what im talking about so please no lectures on respect for quarry
i have had my share of runners some that ran for a few yards and others that went further. shooting any live quarry at 250+ yards is fraught with potential disaster and with small lightweight bullets you stand more of a chance of a non fatal shot than with a heavier bullet like engines there is no substitute for cubic inches /kinetic energy hit a fox anywhere i the chest cavity with 55 grns of vmax it's not going anywhere
now never having shot a .204 the only comments i had made about it was that a lad i know well who used to use a 22-250 and bought a .204 sold it as he had too many runners with the .204 what he says would have been dead with the 250 or the 223 he replaced the 204 with he knows what he's at and i trust his experience
one thing that has been ommited from this thread is familiararity with your calibre bullet drop or windage

I have not found the .204 behind the mark when it comes to hitting power on foxes out to 500 yards .I mainly use the 39gr SBK ammo !Bullet placement is key to a clean kill weather it be a .220 swift,.22-250,.223 or .204 .If your friend had runoff problems with his .204 it was down to bad bullet placement .I do agree that familairity of your given calibers bullet drop and drift is key to bullet placement .

landkeeper

well having shot with him enough over the years i know he knows where the sweet spot is :D his comment was that he was hitting them fair and square the same as he would with the light switch (250) and they were getting away, he was picking them up later or the next morning with lots of damage but little penetration, now it was during the time when i was out of action with a badly smashed hand so i have to take his word about it and do so but he replaced it with a 223 and swears by that and i have heard of several others who switched back for similar reasons but as said earlier that is hearsay not first hand

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

well having shot with him enough over the years i know he knows where the sweet spot is :D his comment was that he was hitting them fair and square the same as he would with the light switch (250) and they were getting away, he was picking them up later or the next morning with lots of damage but little penetration, now it was during the time when i was out of action with a badly smashed hand so i have to take his word about it and do so but he replaced it with a 223 and swears by that and i have heard of several others who switched back for similar reasons but as said earlier that is hearsay not first hand

With respect ,i have been out with many friends with .223s shooting foxes and even though they know where the (sweet spot) is ,still managed to place the bullet wrong and have run offs .As much as you say the .223 55gr is a good round on foxes (and i agree ) its the .223s range after 300 yards that lets it down.If your man with the .204 was using the 32 gr past 300 yards ,well maybe he had a problem with penetration .Cant comment on this because i only use the 39gr beyond them ranges .The .204 been a light round could have problems if your dont hit your fox right with 32gr ,but thats up the the shooter to know the limits of their setup and themselfs .

declan1980

tomcat220t wrote: »

I have not found the .204 behind the mark when it comes to hitting power on foxes out to 500 yards .

please forgive me as i am not trying to run down your shooting skill, but how in gods name is it ethical or safe for that matter to be attempting shots on foxes at those sort of distances. i mean forget the potential for stray shots, but due to the decline in kinetic energy the bullet will suffer by the time it gets that far would a wounded fox not suffer more and for longer than one shot at 300. just because you can shoot something at 500 yards, doesn't mean you should

Tackleberrywho

Hondata92 wrote: »

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.I was relating killing ratio to energy levels is all Honda, animal 10lbs needs min of 100ft/lbs of energy to kill swiftly ~~

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 I agree that flatter is better, never disagreed

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 use 8-32 generally on 32, although in a push if light was low I would use less mag to get a better sight picture

I zero .204 at 200yards and out to 300yards all i have to do is put the crosshair on a foxs back. I use second reticle on NXS does same job

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

My rifle was accurate before she was crowned, my crown was damaged a number of years ago. I only got it sorted this year.

Remington VSSF II are FACTORY Pillar bedded, I just added a little devcon for a bit extra regidity.
The groups @ 100 were almost identical

My Rifle is Shiny stainless steel and is a real eyecatcher (price new €1200)

26" barrel 1/12
I have tried 75 grain in her and they are no use.
I find 55grain perfect, even if 40 grain are flatter the 55grain are more accurate out past 200 in my set up.

When my rifle wears out I might get a .204
However if I wanted a more versatile varminter I'd go .243 or 6XC (although 6XC ammo is harder again to source)

The main reason I always wanted a .223 was for years I could not licence one yet I could licence a 6.5 go figure

clivej

Just as thought it would do this thread has developed into a "my dicks bigger than your's".

But just to add fuel to the fire has anybody considered the resale value of the 204 over the 223.

tomcat220t

declan1980 wrote: »

please forgive me as i am not trying to run down your shooting skill, but how in gods name is it ethical or safe for that matter to be attempting shots on foxes at those sort of distances. i mean forget the potential for stray shots, but due to the decline in kinetic energy the bullet will suffer by the time it gets that far would a wounded fox not suffer more and for longer than one shot at 300. just because you can shoot something at 500 yards, doesn't mean you should

Dont be judging the .223 by the standards of a .204;).If the limits of a given setup is 300 yards then thats fine !

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

My rifle was accurate before she was crowned, my crown was damaged a number of years ago. I only got it sorted this year.

Remington VSSF II are FACTORY Pillar bedded, I just added a little devcon for a bit extra regidity.
The groups @ 100 were almost identical

My Rifle is Shiny stainless steel and is a real eyecatcher (price new €1200)

26" barrel 1/12
I have tried 75 grain in her and they are no use.
I find 55grain perfect, even if 40 grain are flatter the 55grain are more accurate out past 200 in my set up.

When my rifle wears out I might get a .204
However if I wanted a more versatile varminter I'd go .243 or 6XC (although 6XC ammo is harder again to source)

The main reason I always wanted a .223 was for years I could not licence one yet I could licence a 6.5 go figure

Ive heard that from lots of .223 shooters ,its a military round......only the lucky can get a licence for them ....Is there a secret .223 club im not aware of ,tac?:D:D

tomcat220t

clivej wrote: »

Just as thought it would do this thread has developed into a "my dicks bigger than your's".

But just to add fuel to the fire has anybody considered the resale value of the 204 over the 223.

Any one week there seem to be .223s for sale on here .The gunshops are flooded with .223 rifles for sale.There might be less guys looking for .204 rifles but there is also less .204 rifles on the market .When i was buying my .204 i found no difference between the two in price ,new or second hand .

Tackleberrywho

tomcat220t wrote: »

Ive heard that from lots of .223 shooters ,its a military round......only the lucky can get a licence for them ....Is there a secret .223 club im not aware of ,tac?:D:D

I defend to the last that it is NOT a Military round, it is a more refined cousin

I've fired 5.56 with the DF and it's far less accurate. 2" @100
Also a 5.56 could blow up a .223 as it is a much hotter round.

No secret clubs.Fellas just like what they like, Just like the way fellas prefer one brand rifle over another

zeissman

I have only shot the 39 and 40 grain bullets with my 204 so I cant comment
on the 32 grain either. I have never had a fox run off after being hit.
the 204 and 223 are both great rounds for foxes and by the look of this thread everyone who has either one is very happy with it.
The bigger calibres are great too but I think they carry more punch
than needed to kill a fox weighing around 15lbs.

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I defend to the last that it is NOT a Military round, it is a more refined cousin

I've fired 5.56 with the DF and it's far less accurate. 2" @100
Also a 5.56 could blow up a .223 as it is a much hotter round.

No secret clubs.Fellas just like what they like, Just like the way fellas prefer one brand rifle over another

Just had to ask:D...So you choose the .223 because because of how hard it was to get it licenced....:o:o

bunny shooter

From what I've seen some lads, depending on their Super, have no trouble getting a 223 while others can't. I had 223's but it was before my current Super was installed. He apparently has a big problem with 223's and other things too :rolleyes:

My super refuses 223 BUT allows 220 swift or 204 afaik

tomcat220t

bunny shooter wrote: »

From what I've seen some lads, depending on their Super, have no trouble getting a 223 while others can't. I had 223's but it was before my current Super was installed. He apparently has a big problem with 223's and other things too :rolleyes:

My super refuses 223 BUT allows 220 swift or 204 afaik

Its not all the supers faults either.Some shooters, without a clue what their talking about do make reference to the 5.56 mm on been in some how the same or similar to the .223 rem.It even poped up on this thread.....

Tackleberrywho

tomcat220t wrote: »

Just had to ask:D...So you choose the .223 because because of how hard it was to get it licenced....:o:o

It took 15 mins for me to licence .223, straight swap for 10/22 several years and hundreds of bunnies later

I wanted a .223 as when I started shooting .223 .308 .30-06 etc were not an option

Then I bought .223 and used Remington ammo for ~3 months with a low power scope.

After about6 months When I was using good ammo I graduated to a Nightforce scope, never looked back

In fact I liked NF so much I bought a second!

poulo6.5

tomcat220t wrote: »

Any one week there seem to be .223s for sale on here .The gunshops are flooded with .223 rifles for sale.There might be less guys looking for .204 rifles but there is also less .204 rifles on the market .When i was buying my .204 i found no difference between the two in price ,new or second hand .

Any of the rfd's that I have spoke to recently say they can't get enough second hand .223's as they sell like hot cakes.


.223 is not a military round. It was developed 2 years before the military took up a slightly different version known as the 5.56x45 which fires FMJ bullets and has higher operating pressure

This tread has turned into a he said you said mess.
I look forward to meeting up with some of ye .204 users for a shot and see for my self just how brilliant it is. The invite is still there.

bunny shooter

poulo6.5 wrote: »

....The invite is still there.

Hang tight I'll be back to ya

poulo6.5

bunny shooter wrote: »

Hang tight I'll be back to ya

No worries bunny. When are you hoping to have your new rig

bunny shooter

Gonna ring FPU on Tuesday to see if it's an amendment or a new applicatioon and that'll decide how quick

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Gonna ring FPU on Tuesday to see if it's an amendment or a new applicatioon and that'll decide how quick

If yer lucky as she is "SMALLER" than .224 she might be an amendment

I'd love another .223 or .204 "short barrel for Foxing only"