Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Varmint Hunting
.204 Ruger or .223 Remington ???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="liltank" data-source="post: 493825" data-attributes="member: 13275"><p>Hi Rob, </p><p>I'm going to throw my opinion it for what its worth. Ballistics is ballistics. When you compare the two bullets of identical weight, The 204 will shoot faster, flatter, and with less wind deflection than a 223. If you are going to hand load, the 204 will out run the 223 to a certain point. It all has to do with diameter of the bullet proportion to length. We see the same debate between the 338, 30, and 284 calibers. The 204 in a 39 grain bullet will actually be effected less than a 40 grain .224 caliber bullet due to the higher BC. To match the ballistics of 39grn Sierra Blitzking (.287 BC) in .204, the .223, will have to go to a 60grn V-max (.255 BC), 68grn BTHP (.355 BC), or the 55grn Sierra Blitzking (.271 BC). Hornady does now make a 53grn V-max with a .290 BC. So that particular bullet would trump the .204. However the only factory offering of that particular bullet in 223 that I know of is their proprietary line of Superformanc ammo. You would have to hand load to use this particular bullet otherwise. I've crunched the numbers and when it comes to a small bore, I'll more than likely go with a .204 Ruger or some variant there of. </p><p></p><p>Tank</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="liltank, post: 493825, member: 13275"] Hi Rob, I'm going to throw my opinion it for what its worth. Ballistics is ballistics. When you compare the two bullets of identical weight, The 204 will shoot faster, flatter, and with less wind deflection than a 223. If you are going to hand load, the 204 will out run the 223 to a certain point. It all has to do with diameter of the bullet proportion to length. We see the same debate between the 338, 30, and 284 calibers. The 204 in a 39 grain bullet will actually be effected less than a 40 grain .224 caliber bullet due to the higher BC. To match the ballistics of 39grn Sierra Blitzking (.287 BC) in .204, the .223, will have to go to a 60grn V-max (.255 BC), 68grn BTHP (.355 BC), or the 55grn Sierra Blitzking (.271 BC). Hornady does now make a 53grn V-max with a .290 BC. So that particular bullet would trump the .204. However the only factory offering of that particular bullet in 223 that I know of is their proprietary line of Superformanc ammo. You would have to hand load to use this particular bullet otherwise. I've crunched the numbers and when it comes to a small bore, I'll more than likely go with a .204 Ruger or some variant there of. Tank [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Varmint Hunting
.204 Ruger or .223 Remington ???
Top