strubedog Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Looking for a gun to do some plinking, target practice at longer distance and coyote hunting. Both the above look like flat shooters with plenty of energy out quite aways. What are the pros/cons of one versus the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierbuck Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 .223 ammo is going to be a lot cheaper and easier to find, for starters. HB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 If it were me, think I would also go with the .223 just becuase of the cheaper ammo available. Not sure about the differences in the two ballistically, but bet they perform pretty similarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 The .204 Ruger shoots a bit flatter than the .223 Rem. In fact it drops about half of the .223 at most distances. You can see the ballistic tables here on Remington's site. The drawback to the .204 Ruger compared to the .223 Rem is the availability of ammo. The .223 Rem is a lot cheaper to shoot. When shooting at 400+ yards I would rather have the .223 with the heavier bullets (60 + gr) than the 40 gr .20 caliber bullets. Out to 350 yards the .204 shines. Out past that, the heavier bullets rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeramie Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 Cost would come to play here for me. You can pic up .223 rounds for next to nothing and find many choices in brands, etc. The .204 is more then twice as expensive (ammo) in most cases and the choices are more limited. I really like the .204 but given the choice based on cal. it would have to be the .223. I will get the job done and is a lot cheaper to plink with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archerjg Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 I would take the .223. I have one and it is very accurate and the ammo is a lot less expensive than the .204. Archerjg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2Hunt Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 I like the .204 because it is different,new and exciting. I like the bling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strubedog Posted March 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Re: 204 vs 223 I am guessing the furthest I would shoot would be 250, I don't do prairie dogs. I wouldn't shoot it so much that ammo price is a concern. Thanks for the input. Will have to see what tikka and kimber odder in these calibers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.