.204 vs .223?

Calibres, cartridges, ballistics tables and ammunition information.

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Monty » 23 May 2014, 11:11 am

Norty_Country_Bloke wrote:On paper, I prefer both calibres to the Hornet, but if I only get one shot before the report sends everything to ground, it's hardly gonna be a productive night :P


You could always look into a prohibited weapon permit for a suppressor.

(Dunno what your situation is and you may not meet the criteria, just throwing it out there.)
Obligatory moderator signature: If you can't play by the rules, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
User avatar
Monty
Moderator
 
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Norty_Country_Bloke » 23 May 2014, 11:13 am

Thanks for a speedy response! A loaded down .223 might be the way to go! :)
.22LR, .222 Remington, .12g. But it's not the same when they don't live in your safe :P
User avatar
Norty_Country_Bloke
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Techc » 23 May 2014, 11:31 am

Can't go wrong with the trusty old .223 ;)
.223 Remington Savage Model 12 FV
.308 Remington 700 SPS tactical
Leupold VX-3 6.5-20x40mm
User avatar
Techc
Private
Private
 
Posts: 93
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 23 May 2014, 3:46 pm

NukeBOMB88 wrote:G'day guys,

I just wanted to ask what people's opinions were on .223 vs .204.

The .204 shoots flatter and faster .

The .223 has a better range and availability of ammo.

Which one wins for you guys? I've been using my .204 for a year or so now and the cost and availability of ammo is starting to annoy me :| . Would I be better off trading my .204 for a .233? Or should I stick to the .204?

Thanks,
Nuke :D


Learn to reload would be my advice - its by far the cheapest way to shoot any firearm. As for its killing ability plenty of deer have been rolled with the 204 and with the new ACP range of projies coming onto the market it will handle them with even more Oomph. :lol:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by NukeBOMB88 » 23 May 2014, 5:20 pm

Yeah I'm getting into reloading once I've collected some more factory brass. I think I might even save up for a .223 and keep the .204 as well. Because you can never have too many guns:)
Ruger M77 Mkii VT .204
Jw-15e .22
Winchester Model 37a 12ga
Beretta Silver pigeon pump action 12ga
Howa 1500 .223
Howa 1500 .30-06
NukeBOMB88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 282
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by zook60 » 23 May 2014, 8:07 pm

bigfellascott wrote:Learn to reload would be my advice - its by far the cheapest way to shoot any firearm. As for its killing ability plenty of deer have been rolled with the 204 and with the new ACP range of projies coming onto the market it will handle them with even more Oomph. :lol:


If ACP can keep stock at a decent level they will be good projectiles,it helps if certain guys don't buy them in 1k lots :lol:
zook60
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 100
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 23 May 2014, 8:53 pm

zook60 wrote:If ACP can keep stock at a decent level they will be good projectiles,it helps if certain guys don't buy them in 1k lots :lol:


I'll try not too :lol: They certainly look like a great alternative to having to buy a bigger cal to do the bigger stuff, very impressive from what I've seen so far.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 23 May 2014, 8:54 pm

NukeBOMB88 wrote:Yeah I'm getting into reloading once I've collected some more factory brass. I think I might even save up for a .223 and keep the .204 as well. Because you can never have too many guns:)


Yep can't hurt to have 1 of each cal! :lol:
Last edited by bigfellascott on 24 May 2014, 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Apollo » 23 May 2014, 11:31 pm

The last box (500) of SBK's I bought a few months ago from a country Gun Shop cost $200. Berger Bullets in 20cal are only $31/100 plus freight from BRT.

On small critters for pelts I find the Berger causes less external damage with the same internal result, dead.

The big problem is getting supplies before someone else does so when you find your favourite load, buy in bulk.

Have never compared the loudness of the two but since the .204R is a necked down .222R Magnum I would not be suprised if the perceived noise was greater.

Powder and Primers are cheap in these little calibre cartridges. Cases, well save them or buy quality even if you have to wait for the likes of Nosler which are fully prepped and weight sorted Norma Cases.

.204 vs .223 in my view there is no comparison. Each has it's own purpose by design so have both in the Gun Safe.

The little .20 Cal is really magic and super accurate until the wind blows and plays with your long distance varminting. Then it's time to get out the .223R or even better a .22BR.
Apollo
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1327
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Warrigul » 24 May 2014, 1:02 pm

bigfellascott wrote:Learn to reload would be my advice - its by far the cheapest way to shoot any firearm. As for its killing ability plenty of deer have been rolled with the 204 and with the new ACP range of projies coming onto the market it will handle them with even more Oomph. :lol:


I agree and I can see where you are coming from, for a casual recreational or farm based shooter reloading is fine. When you are at it four or so nights a week reloading really becomes a chore, especially trying to save cases etc or if you intend staying away for a week to get a job done.

I have always been supplied with ammo or factored it into the head cost so it is very important to be able to buy off the shelf, I limit myself to calibres I can buy off the shelf easily.

I tried a couple of .204's over six months and did find they needed more cleaning than a .223 which can be a pain in the arse at times but not an issue if you aren't shooting a lot(most people).

Also if you have a hornet that likes factory loads well and good but many are fussy and need to be hand loaded for which can be a pain in the arse. It is the main reason I don't have a normal or K hornet any more.

I kill more with a .22lr with subsonics in close than anything else. (we don't have pigs and foxes down here).
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1103
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by southeast varmiter » 20 Aug 2016, 8:54 am

223 is based on military cartridge
204 specifically designed for varminting
southeast varmiter
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 272
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by MalleeFarmer » 20 Aug 2016, 9:24 am

If it's just ammo cost you're worried about I'd stick with your .204 and reload. But having said that I'd keep the .204 and still buy a .223 have the best of both worlds. if you're going for long range varminting a .22-250 with a 1-10 or 1-12 twist would be better than either of the above. If you want speed and a good MPBR the .204 is the go. If you want a cheap very accurate easy to load for with a slightly lower MPBR get the .223 I have moved up to a 6mm for my varmint work now. Better wind bucking ability and predictability in less than perfect conditions. But I do like the .204 and the .223 will probably be my next buy.
"Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
MalleeFarmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 627
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by happyhunter » 20 Aug 2016, 11:10 am

I prefer my 222 Remington over both.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Mitch » 20 Aug 2016, 12:26 pm

I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot
Mitch
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 224
Queensland

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Member-Deleted » 20 Aug 2016, 12:50 pm

Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot



That's cheaper than 17HMR per shot.


They better get their game up and make it cheaper.
Member-Deleted
 

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by MalleeFarmer » 20 Aug 2016, 1:09 pm

aradoar234 wrote:
Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot



That's cheaper than 17HMR per shot.


They better get their game up and make it cheaper.


Precisely why I don't have a hot rimfire.
Last edited by MalleeFarmer on 20 Aug 2016, 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
MalleeFarmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 627
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 20 Aug 2016, 1:24 pm

Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot


I've got my reloads for the 22.250 down to around 35c from memory (I buy bulk powder 4kg/4000 projies/1000 primers) type thing but that's cheap shooting for a centrefire, even cheaper is my 222 I think it's running around 27c from memory (same thing as the 22.250 bulk powder/projies/primers) the cases I've had for years and got about 1000 new cases sitting there for when I need em and I'm always been given 222 cases from mates who don't reload etc so shouldn't ever run out of those puppies.

I think the wifes 223 is running around the 30c mark for reloads too so not expensive to run as some - again bulk projies etc helps keep the costs down.

The 204 is my most expensive to reload for at around 55c or there abouts but still cheap enough - I don't waste my time at ranges these days so shooting isn't an expensive thing for me to do now (other than shooting some clays) which isn't cheap to be honest but I don't do it every weekend so it's not too bad I guess.

All I know is I'm going to get a hell of a shock when I have to stock up again :lol:

From memory the 4kg 2206H was costing around $240-$260, the Sierra Super Roos were $110 a box (I bought around 4 or 5 boxes of those) and I think 1000 lg and 1000sml primers at around $4 pk - cheap shooting compared to my mates 50cal which I think he's reloading for around $12 a shot (beats the $18 I think it was for factory ammo for it :lol: I remember when he first got it we would have burnt through about $2k in ammo easily I reckon :lol:

Best way to save on reloads is find a projie that is cheap to buy and shoots well in ya rifle, those Sierra BK I run in the 204 are probably one of the most expensive out there if not the most expensive, I was getting them for around 39c each but I think I might be able to buy them in 500pks but probably work out the same now cost wise, I haven't tried the Zmax in it yet but might see if they still make em and have a look at those or just use the Bergers which shoot well and are reasonably priced from memory.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 20 Aug 2016, 4:21 pm

Comes back to fitness for purpose I guess.
Have shot foxes with a mates 204 to ranges I mightn't have tried with the 223. They really are like a bloody laser beam.
Reloading will make a huge difference!
If you're gonna go through a lot of rounds around and get them off the shelf.....the 223 is the pocket friendly alternative.
Maybe the 223 is a bit more versatile too? The 204 isn't made for any sort of penetration.....a few snoutless foxes will attest!
My 2 cents...
Regs,
Tank.
Keep calm......and hold centre of mass.
User avatar
Tank
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by happyhunter » 20 Aug 2016, 7:26 pm

Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot


You are fooling yourself if you don't factor in the brass. It has a finite number of cycles and it has to be replaced. Add time spent reloading as time is money. That's why I use my "hot" rimfire for shooting rabbits because who wants to spend the night searching for a empty cases when they could be shooting and gutting bunnies.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by NukeBOMB88 » 20 Aug 2016, 7:29 pm

bigfellascott wrote:
Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot


I've got my reloads for the 22.250 down to around 35c from memory (I buy bulk powder 4kg/4000 projies/1000 primers) type thing but that's cheap shooting for a centrefire, even cheaper is my 222 I think it's running around 27c from memory (same thing as the 22.250 bulk powder/projies/primers) the cases I've had for years and got about 1000 new cases sitting there for when I need em and I'm always been given 222 cases from mates who don't reload etc so shouldn't ever run out of those puppies.

I think the wifes 223 is running around the 30c mark for reloads too so not expensive to run as some - again bulk projies etc helps keep the costs down.

The 204 is my most expensive to reload for at around 55c or there abouts but still cheap enough - I don't waste my time at ranges these days so shooting isn't an expensive thing for me to do now (other than shooting some clays) which isn't cheap to be honest but I don't do it every weekend so it's not too bad I guess.

All I know is I'm going to get a hell of a shock when I have to stock up again :lol:

From memory the 4kg 2206H was costing around $240-$260, the Sierra Super Roos were $110 a box (I bought around 4 or 5 boxes of those) and I think 1000 lg and 1000sml primers at around $4 pk - cheap shooting compared to my mates 50cal which I think he's reloading for around $12 a shot (beats the $18 I think it was for factory ammo for it :lol: I remember when he first got it we would have burnt through about $2k in ammo easily I reckon :lol:

Best way to save on reloads is find a projie that is cheap to buy and shoots well in ya rifle, those Sierra BK I run in the 204 are probably one of the most expensive out there if not the most expensive, I was getting them for around 39c each but I think I might be able to buy them in 500pks but probably work out the same now cost wise, I haven't tried the Zmax in it yet but might see if they still make em and have a look at those or just use the Bergers which shoot well and are reasonably priced from memory.


Bloody hell that's cheap! I still haven't started reloading hahaha :lol: . Been 2 years or so since I started this thread and I still haven't gotten around to it .

Tank wrote:Comes back to fitness for purpose I guess.
Have shot foxes with a mates 204 to ranges I mightn't have tried with the 223. They really are like a bloody laser beam.
Reloading will make a huge difference!
If you're gonna go through a lot of rounds around and get them off the shelf.....the 223 is the pocket friendly alternative.
Maybe the 223 is a bit more versatile too? The 204 isn't made for any sort of penetration.....a few snoutless foxes will attest!
My 2 cents...
Regs,
Tank.


Yeah Tank I've gone and bought a Howa .223 since I started this thread and I use it more than the .204 now but they're bloody good guns the both of them! :thumbsup:
Ruger M77 Mkii VT .204
Jw-15e .22
Winchester Model 37a 12ga
Beretta Silver pigeon pump action 12ga
Howa 1500 .223
Howa 1500 .30-06
NukeBOMB88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 282
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 20 Aug 2016, 8:31 pm

Ya gotta crank up the reloading mate, especially if you want to run a 204 regularly. When I first got my Howso 204 I bought a couple of boxes of factory ammo and it cost me just over $80! :shock: $2 odd a shot - yeah nah not paying that to shoot ferals :lol: it was an easy fix for me as I reload so just a matter of some dies and projies and had that cut by 75% and could have made em even cheaper if I ran some Zmax or similar.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Mitch » 20 Aug 2016, 8:33 pm

happyhunter wrote:
Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot


You are fooling yourself if you don't factor in the brass. It has a finite number of cycles and it has to be replaced. Add time spent reloading as time is money. That's why I use my "hot" rimfire for shooting rabbits because who wants to spend the night searching for a empty cases when they could be shooting and gutting bunnies.


Mate if I factored in cost of my time, even at half of what I get paid at work, I wouldn't reload full stop.
Mitch
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 224
Queensland

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 20 Aug 2016, 8:37 pm

happyhunter wrote:
Mitch wrote:I love my 223.

Reloading for under 50c a shot.

Projectiles @ $17/100 (55gn)
Powder @ 19c (25.7gn)
Primer @ 7c
Brass is from before reloading and really not factoring that in:

= $0.46 per shot


You are fooling yourself if you don't factor in the brass. It has a finite number of cycles and it has to be replaced. Add time spent reloading as time is money. That's why I use my "hot" rimfire for shooting rabbits because who wants to spend the night searching for a empty cases when they could be shooting and gutting bunnies.


I can't remember the last time I bought 222 brass, would be nearly 30yrs ago I reckon, f*** knows how many reloads they've had through em (******) :lol: the one good thing about shooting at ranges is you often get ya brass for nothing ( used to suss out what people were shooting and if they didn't want them they'd give em to me which was a great way to recycle and keep ones shooting costs down.

She's rare for me to leave brass in the field, I generally just put my hand over the port when I open the bolt, catch it and drop it back in the ammo box or container depending on the type of shooting I'm doing (occasionally lose one in the vehicle and find it later when giving the car a clean :lol:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 20 Aug 2016, 8:52 pm

Tank wrote:Comes back to fitness for purpose I guess.
Have shot foxes with a mates 204 to ranges I mightn't have tried with the 223. They really are like a bloody laser beam.
Reloading will make a huge difference!
If you're gonna go through a lot of rounds around and get them off the shelf.....the 223 is the pocket friendly alternative.
Maybe the 223 is a bit more versatile too? The 204 isn't made for any sort of penetration.....a few snoutless foxes will attest!
My 2 cents...
Regs,
Tank.


Haven't noticed any deer get up after being shot with the 204 mate (shot placement is important) and no chest shots (Head and Neck) only. :thumbsup: same with pigs, drop a pill in behind the ear and they are down as a rule, last fox I poked in the Snoz never went anywhere either, infact I've only had one fox bugger off after being shot with a 204 (bloody sure I hit it in the diamond and yet it bolted like nothing happened) :unknown: I can only assume I pulled the shot.

I've even heard of them Mexican Deer that wonder over the border being rolled with 204's :lol:

Shot placement is king when you want to kill something, especially something big! :thumbsup: in NZ the 222 was used for many many years to cull red and fallow deer from helicopters from memory (most would call that cal inadequate for deer) yet it was used and used very effectively for many many years, it still get's used in some Euro Countries still. :thumbsup:

This silly little girl stuck her nose through some ferns and got it poked by the 204

Image
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 21 Aug 2016, 12:50 pm

bigfellascott wrote:
Tank wrote:Comes back to fitness for purpose I guess.
Have shot foxes with a mates 204 to ranges I mightn't have tried with the 223. They really are like a bloody laser beam.
Reloading will make a huge difference!
If you're gonna go through a lot of rounds around and get them off the shelf.....the 223 is the pocket friendly alternative.
Maybe the 223 is a bit more versatile too? The 204 isn't made for any sort of penetration.....a few snoutless foxes will attest!
My 2 cents...
Regs,
Tank.


Haven't noticed any deer get up after being shot with the 204 mate (shot placement is important) and no chest shots (Head and Neck) only. :thumbsup: same with pigs, drop a pill in behind the ear and they are down as a rule, last fox I poked in the Snoz never went anywhere either, infact I've only had one fox bugger off after being shot with a 204 (bloody sure I hit it in the diamond and yet it bolted like nothing happened) :unknown: I can only assume I pulled the shot.

I've even heard of them Mexican Deer that wonder over the border being rolled with 204's :lol:

Shot placement is king when you want to kill something, especially something big! :thumbsup: in NZ the 222 was used for many many years to cull red and fallow deer from helicopters from memory (most would call that cal inadequate for deer) yet it was used and used very effectively for many many years, it still get's used in some Euro Countries still. :thumbsup:

This silly little girl stuck her nose through some ferns and got it poked by the 204

Image

Shoot whatever you like with YOUR 204 Bigfellascott!
I've shot pigs with a 22......would I recommend it.....no.....no I wouldn't.
Marksmanship is always key regardless of calibre chosen.
Thought this was 'ENOUGH GUN!'
C'mon....your 204 isn't your go to gun for pigs and deer?

Just saying.....
Regs,
Tank.
Keep calm......and hold centre of mass.
User avatar
Tank
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 21 Aug 2016, 1:49 pm

My go to gun for hunting anything is the one I have in my hands at the time, if I see a pig I will definitely shoot it with my 204 same goes for deer and any other vermin on the property, Last Fallow I shot was a good 200m away and dropped to a pill in the neck from the 204, bang flop down and out for the count.

I've seen plenty of deer shot with bigger cals only to run off and never be seen again, as I said earlier if you want to stop them the best thing you can do is shoot them in the head or neck, 99% of the time they just drop like stones if you do it right. :thumbsup:

End of the day it all comes down to the operator and his/her skills - not much good shooting anything regardless of of cal if you ain't got the skills to drive it right in the first place, yet plenty compensate with big cals to help overcome their lack of skills I'm sure, me thankfully I don't need a bigger cal than the 204 and 224's I run, I like seeing the action down the pointy end too. :D
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 21 Aug 2016, 4:41 pm

Your not trying to say it's your pick over .243 or 25-06 though are you?
Marksmanship over horsepower every time.....for sure. But don't push its virtues as 'medium game' calibre. Those not as able as yourself will find themselves wounding game they may have anchored using 'enough gun'.
A mate of mine recently dropped a nice fallow stag with his 17 Fireball whilst whistling foxes.....so sure.....using small calibre, high velocity rifles can be made to work.....no argument here.
Just pointing out that the 204 isn't 'the' every day choice for swine nor Bambi....to say otherwise to the average Jo is inviting disappointment.
Awesome calibre....acknowledged. But would I choose to use it for anything other than varminting....no.
Keep calm......and hold centre of mass.
User avatar
Tank
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 21 Aug 2016, 5:50 pm

No mate but if it's what's in my hand and a shot presents and I'm confident of a successful outcome I say go for it. As you point out with your comment re pigs and 22s not first choice but if that's what's in your hand and you are confident of a successful outcome go for it I say.

A mans gotta know his limitations mate ie if ya ain't up to using small cals on larger animals well don't it's commonsense I would have though but maybe not hey. :unknown:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 21 Aug 2016, 6:13 pm

Go your hardest.
If you're new to shooting.....don't try this at home without lots and lots of trigger time.....ok kids?

Later Bigfellascott.....or is that Teenycalscott? :drinks:
Keep calm......and hold centre of mass.
User avatar
Tank
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 21 Aug 2016, 6:52 pm

Tank wrote:Go your hardest.
If you're new to shooting.....don't try this at home without lots and lots of trigger time.....ok kids?

Later Bigfellascott.....or is that Teenycalscott? :drinks:


That's what I've said all along if you read what I said mate, as I said a Mans gotta know his limitations and if ya know ya limitations and ya ain't up to it well don't bloody do it hey, ain't rocket science, just good ol common sense which doesn't seem that common from what I've been seein lately. :unknown:

Cheers mate
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Calibres, cartridges and ballistics