.204 Rug VS. .223

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cubdad67

Inactive
During some looking around, I have come down too two rounds, the .204 Rug and the .223. I am going to reload and will be using it for varmints. I know the big difference is the .223 has a heaver round than the .204. But I am not too sure that really matters too much. It how well you can shoot the round you are using. Any advice out there?
 
Tough call, I was not a .204 ruger supporter until I purchased one a few months back, I believe the .204 has the accuracy edge once you get beyond 200 yards, it all depends what type game your after, honestly think you would be happy with either caliber,the 223 gets the nod in terms of lower cost ammo and variety.
 
204 is a awesome gun. The only issue you might have is bullet weight. You are pretty limited in that catagory. It's a faster gun by far,but with it's bullet limitations IMHO that is a set back. If you have not purchades one yet.My vote would be for the 223 all the way. As for last poster.Im not sure on the accuracy part for a 204. The 223 is a very accurate rifle.:D Reloading is going to be cheaper also in 223. At the risk of being shot down here.I think the 204 is slowly going to fade away as it is being replaced by the bigger brother 223.
 
223 has more variation in bullet weights which could be more useful.
204 is a great little round but then so is 223, you could realistically shoot to a much longer range with 223, but you wouldn't really notice it untill about 4 or 500 yrds though.
 
At the risk of being shot down here.I think the 204 is slowly going to fade away as it is being replaced by the bigger brother 223.
Click to expand...

I said same thing but after owning and shooting one I changed my mind.;)
 
The 223 will be a little better with a slight wind. Either gun would be great for varmints. Personally I'd stick with the 223 just because of ease of finding cases, bullet selection, etc.
 
I shoot more 223 then just about any other rifle caliber I have. I shoot it quite a bit. Mostly target shooting and practicing for target shooting. I do have a 223 bolt gun I take out every now and then for varmints.

BUT: If I was going to get one (223 or 204) just for varmints, I'd go the 204. I'm talking prairie dogs to coyotes. I've shot some coyotes at a pretty good distance and never hit one I had to shoot twice.

I only use the 32 grn bullet but it works. The only problem I had with when I first got it was underestimating how flat, far and fast that little pill goes.

I'll never shoot service rifle high power matches with it, the the 204 Ruger is my go to varmint rifle.
 
I am sorry 4runnerman but I don't see that the 204 is that much better or faster. If you compare them bullet weight for bullet weight they are only 100fps apart. Not enough of a difference to even discuss until 400 yards. Vermin will not know the difference when they get hit anyway. The only difference worth discussion (to my mind ) is the availability of ammo and reloading materials. You will find more variety in the 223, both in factory and reloading. Since you are reloading getting the materials is the only other deciding factor. Hurray for the internet!!!!! you can order any thing you want in the way of bullets, primers, powder, and unfired casings. Soooo....... the only decision left to make is which one the new owner of the rifle likes. We can't make that decision for you, we can only make it easier. If you won't be shooting the little critters past 400 yards the 204 will do anything you want it to. After 400 I would go with a 243 win but thats me, you may want to consider the 223. Why you ask 223 beyond 400, well you can up the bullet weight to 55 grains and buck wind a little better. Hope this helps you decide.
 
Bullet weight for bullet weight? 32 grains vs. 55? Duh?

It's more like the .223 at around 3,200 ft/sec vs the .204 around 4,000 ft/sec, give or take a bit.

I've talked to a couple of coyote hunters who use the .204 and they seem to think of it as "super zappers".

I'm happy with my .223's performance on coyotes, but I've not had to try beyond 150 to 200 yards. I note that on 300-yard prairie dogs, I hold some six inches high over my usual 200-yard zero. As near as I can tell, the .204 is flatter-shooting.

Most folks' comparing of the .204 is with the Swift or the .22-250, and it compares favorably with them.
 
You thought to hard about that one. I was refering to the same bullet weight. Hornady lists ammo for both in 40 grain v-max with the 204 at 3900 fps and the 40 grain v-max in 223 at 3800 fps. Next you will say but they are different diameter bullets, yah I know. The coyotes still won't know the difference.
 
Both are slow and less powerful than the 220 Swift, which has been around since 1935.

50gr @4000fps, and excellent accuracy.

""What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."""
 
I'm with Skywag. That 220 of mine really does a job on coyotes. I load the 55 gr Nosler BT at about 3850, and it's very effective. But...I will admit that my 270 is far more effective. I don't have a 204, and I noticed that for quite a while there were 204's for sale in just about every place I went (the big stores), but now there aren't any for sale, or at least none are discounted. That tells me that the caliber must have gotten popular very quickly. But, if you have a 220 or a 22-250, why get a 204 (unless you just want one, which is all the justification that most of us need).
 
But, if you have a 220 or a 22-250, why get a 204 (unless you just want one, which is all the justification that most of us need).
Click to expand...

I've owned 22-250's excellent caliber however the 204 has less noise and muzzle blast which makes a difference in bench shooting and perhaps in some hunting situations.
 
Depends on the varmints you are hunting. I think the .204 is a little light for coyotes at long ranges. I am basing this on using 32 grn bullets for 204, and the more effective, bigger 55 grain bullet for the .223. But for prairie dogs at 400 yards it can't be beat. It is deadly accurate, laser flat, and has devastating power on smaller targets. The great thing is the recoil is so slight that you can be your own spotter. You never lose sight of the target when you shoot.

The 22/250, 22 Swift, and the .223, except in the very heaviest rifles and lightest bullets, you do not have this advantage.

Bill
 
big al hunter-- I did not say is was better in any way. It is a much faster rifle than a 223. In so much as what the normal load is for the two,Maybe not on same bullet wt. I don't know lots of people that shoot anything lighter than a 55 gn in a 223. I actually only shoot 75 gn's in mine There are those that do im sure. Kraigwy for one,and i don't doubt any thing he says. I can imagine the barrel life on a 204 is much shorter also with the increase in speed(on average).
 
Last edited:
Wingman,

That's a good point - regarding the reduced noise and muzzle blast of the smaller caliber. Your statement reminded me that's why I bought a 223, when I already had a 220. I did consider getting a 204, but thought that the bullet was a little too small for my range of targets (Crows, coyotes, pigs).
 
Aw, well, they're all fun. It seems to me that the 17s and 20s are a bit more restricted for use than the 22s.

If I lived in prairie dog country, I'd likely own and load for a "Lil Zapper". :D
 
If possible buy both, I usually take a 223 and 204 to the range sort of a contest between rifles plus one has the time to cool while the other heats up.:D
 
It is difficul to decide which cartridge to choose with so many good reasons to have each one. I suppose this means we all will just have to go get one of each caliber and have some fun figuring out what we prefer.:D Hope my wife agrees. I believe that we have all of these cartridge choices because those who designed the cartridges had a specific purpose in mind. Too bad most of us can't afford a rifle for every situation. The best we can do is get a few that meet most of our criteria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top