.204 vs .223?

Calibres, cartridges, ballistics tables and ammunition information.

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
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 21 Aug 2016, 8:03 pm

Sheesh!
Remind me not try and upset you bigfella!
I can feel the heat from here.
Calm days and happy hunting bloke.
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, 8:48 pm

Tank wrote:Sheesh!
Remind me not try and upset you bigfella!
I can feel the heat from here.
Calm days and happy hunting bloke.
Regs,
Tank.


Cheers mate - I'd suggest moving away from the heater if ya getting too hot :D
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by MR. WINCHESTER » 22 Aug 2016, 9:52 am

These calibre comparison threads also seem to 'get the juices flowing'.

Love 'em.

P.S. I've owned and shot .... Hornet, .223 .222 Magnum, .204 and .220 Swift.

I reckon the .204 easily outstrips the .223 regarding performance, both down range and at the muzzle / butt.

Cleaning / costs to run etc are separate issues that may or may not be, significant to some ....
User avatar
MR. WINCHESTER
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 379
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Wes » 22 Aug 2016, 10:41 am

MR. WINCHESTER wrote:These calibre comparison threads also seem to 'get the juices flowing'.


Everyone has to argue they made the right choice to protect their ego :lol:
User avatar
Wes
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 364
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 22 Aug 2016, 5:01 pm

Wes wrote:
MR. WINCHESTER wrote:These calibre comparison threads also seem to 'get the juices flowing'.


Everyone has to argue they made the right choice to protect their ego :lol:


And to think all this time I mistakenly believed the .204 was a small game calibre!
Wonder if they do it in a double rifle for my next trip to the continent?
:wtf: ........ :lol:

It's all good fun......kinda? :huh:
Keep calm......and hold centre of mass.
User avatar
Tank
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by MR. WINCHESTER » 22 Aug 2016, 5:08 pm

^ Spot on ....

'Just because' a particular calibre was used with success, to down game of a notionally 'larger than ideal' size, it seems that the automatic response / take home message, is that that calibre will do it / is suffice enough !

Is way weird !
User avatar
MR. WINCHESTER
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 379
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by happyhunter » 22 Aug 2016, 6:23 pm

Tank wrote:
Wes wrote:
MR. WINCHESTER wrote:These calibre comparison threads also seem to 'get the juices flowing'.


Everyone has to argue they made the right choice to protect their ego :lol:


And to think all this time I mistakenly believed the .204 was a small game calibre!
Wonder if they do it in a double rifle for my next trip to the continent?
:wtf: ........ :lol:

It's all good fun......kinda? :huh:


It is a small game cartridge.. it's just bigfella likes to blow on his big ego.
<insert credibility assuring dead animal that's been uploaded to death here..>

I like to use my .177 air rifle to shoot buffalo, but you have to hit them in the eyeball with a poison dart to ensure a humane kill.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by MR. WINCHESTER » 22 Aug 2016, 6:31 pm

happyhunter wrote:
Tank wrote:
Wes wrote:
MR. WINCHESTER wrote:These calibre comparison threads also seem to 'get the juices flowing'.


Everyone has to argue they made the right choice to protect their ego :lol:



it's just bigfella likes to blow on his big ego.


Gotta love 'confidence' in ones' own opinions / principles.
User avatar
MR. WINCHESTER
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 379
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by happyhunter » 22 Aug 2016, 6:42 pm

Opinions are like Holden Commodores :D
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by bigfellascott » 22 Aug 2016, 10:59 pm

Yawn - Do you even hunt bro? Cos I don't see jack s**t comin from ya other than dribble and baggin people - and the ego is goin fine, am I confident when out hunting, you bettcha, I don't miss to often, am I allowed to say that without upsetting the girls here? :D

Fire away girls, should be good for a laugh, the mates are loving it as am I. :lol: :clap:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Tank » 08 Sep 2016, 9:15 pm

bigfellascott wrote:Yawn - Do you even hunt bro? Cos I don't see jack s**t comin from ya other than dribble and baggin people - and the ego is goin fine, am I confident when out hunting, you bettcha, I don't miss to often, am I allowed to say that without upsetting the girls here? :D

Fire away girls, should be good for a laugh, the mates are loving it as am I. :lol: :clap:


Removed....

Apologies Nuke.
Last edited by Tank on 08 Sep 2016, 10:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Keep calm......and hold centre of mass.
User avatar
Tank
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
South Australia

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by NukeBOMB88 » 08 Sep 2016, 9:18 pm

For f***s sake guys if ya wanna bitch about each other , do it through private messages rather than Hijacking my thread!
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 Apollo » 08 Sep 2016, 9:52 pm

NukeBOMB88 wrote:For f***s sake guys if ya wanna bitch about each other , do it through private messages rather than Hijacking my thread!


Gee, only 4 pages long thread and you expect it to stay on track.

Wait until they start talking about adding a threaded barrel adapter plus oil filter and it will turn into 20 pages.... :violin:
Apollo
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1327
New South Wales

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by NukeBOMB88 » 09 Sep 2016, 9:44 pm

Apollo wrote:
NukeBOMB88 wrote:For f***s sake guys if ya wanna bitch about each other , do it through private messages rather than Hijacking my thread!


Gee, only 4 pages long thread and you expect it to stay on track.

Wait until they start talking about adding a threaded barrel adapter plus oil filter and it will turn into 20 pages.... :violin:

: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 Supaduke » 10 Sep 2016, 12:46 pm

I killed an elephant with a rock, but it was a .50 cal rock.......
Supaduke
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1230
Victoria

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by happyhunter » 12 Sep 2016, 1:34 pm

When using a water pistol, shot placement becomes critical.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by Norton » 13 Sep 2016, 12:02 pm

Chronos wrote:6000f/sec louder. :)


Interesting units of measurement you've adopted there mate :lol:
CZ 550 American Safari Magnum in .416 Rigby

Other puny calibre rifles... What man would want you now?
User avatar
Norton
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 838
Queensland

Re: .204 vs .223?

Post by jovialjosie2002 » 07 Jul 2019, 11:46 pm

I am reloading 204 for 55c
Projectiles 27c (SPEER 40GR OR VARMAGEDDON 32GR)
Primer 8c
Powder 20c.
So thats a saving or around $1 per round.
A Lee hand press is $130 and a set of dies is $80. You could also get a scale for $40-$90.
In the end you will break even at the 200-300 reloads mark.
I find reloading to be an enjoyable exercise. However, it takes me an hour to make about 40 rounds with the hand press. That makes reloading 204 worth it for me. Other calibres like 44magnum/44 special are also worth the effort.
You can also get winchester brass (for 204) for 40cents. I am reloading it with good accuracy, however, I don't know how many reloads I will get.
I personally wouldn't bother reloading 223.....there is just so many specials on all the time and the Hornady steel case is only 55cents for 223.
jovialjosie2002
Private
Private
 
Posts: 73
Queensland

PreviousNext

Back to top
 
Return to Calibres, cartridges and ballistics