204 vrs 223

[ryutzy]

IMO 204 wins hands down. Whose gona shoot anything at 800 yards with these calibers reliably anyway. IMO you need to compare the reasonable ranges that they can be shot at. I second Sidwinder's comment.

[Jim White]

Jim, if you are going to increase the 223 from 55 to 80 grain bullets, then increase the 39 grain bullet to 55 for the 204. I do not have the charts to print it out but I am sure that it would close this gap. I have shot prairie dogs at 600 yards with the 39 grain 204, but would not shoot at anything larger that is alive at that distance, well except for that badger last year that was eating the dead prairie dogs!

Other than the smallest critters (sage rats) I'd be hard pressed to shoot my 204 beyond 600 myself. It just runs out of steam. Regarding your numbers, I imagine the 55gr would close the gap, in fact it may surpass, it just depends on the velocity. If the 204 can reach 3400fps then it will match the 223 w/80 in hitting power. Later on this year I'm going to test the 8208XBR with the 223 and see how that works out. Either way the 204 still trumps the 223 in trajectory if that matters.

For the 223 though, the ultimate heavy bullet would be 90 SMK. They're shot from AR-15's @ 1000 yards from a 6.5 twist barrel. The down side, anything much less than 80gr come apart. I imagine a 204 with the fastest twist barrel would exhibit the same issue.

My point was to point out that advantages of the 223's versitility (being a military round) that is often overlooked. It has a lot of long range development that the 204 doesn't have beause it's not a military round. To the 204's credit, it's a relatively new comer that is turning non-believers into believers once they get behind the trigger. I wouldn't trade my 204's for a 223 but I wouldn't toss the 223's either.

HTH,

[Jim White]

IMO 204 wins hands down. Whose gona shoot anything at 800 yards with these calibers reliably anyway. IMO you need to compare the reasonable ranges that they can be shot at. I second Sidwinder's comment.

Whose gona shoot anything at 800 yards with these calibers reliably anyway;

-Starting around March or April (depending on location) somewhere, every weekend someone is shooting 1000 yards with a 223. For those folks who do it regularly, 600 yards is a chip shot. Regarding the number "800 yards" that is where the 204 goes below the speed of sound @ my altitude. For me (shooting varmints), 600 yards is about the max, unless it's small critters because IMO, there isn't sufficient hitting power. There have been posts that the accuracy of the 204 @ 600 yards is very good. At 500 yards I can say it is very good, I'll try 600 later this year.

IMO you need to compare the reasonable ranges that they can be shot at:

-You're correct. It's the rifle shooter who gets to determine the "reasonable" range. If 800 yards is unreasonable for you due to environment conditions, equipment or abilities then don't pull the trigger. I wouldn't...

IMO 204 wins hands down:

-Already covered in a previous post. IMO, there are two types of shooters WRT the 204; those that like them and those who are going to like them when they get behind one. They're phenomenal, but the 223 also has its attributes.

[ryutzy]

Jim I guess I should have been more specific. In the 800 yard comment I was referring to killing critters not paper. Paper doesn't care what speed/ft pounds of energy a bullet strikes it. Whereas I'm sure we all agree killing critters consistently beyond 800 yards with either of these calibers is slightly suspect but I spose it could be done. All that being said we are both on the same page. Yes I do believe there is something to be said about having a military round in your arsenal.