I just don't get it.

The .223 makes a dandy varmint round out to 300 yards or so.
My 14 year old sons M-4 shoots itty-bitty groups as good as many bolt rifles right out of the box. With H-335, a 60 grain bullet, it will shoot 1/2 inch at 100 regularly. Not bad for a short barrel carbine AR.
My Remington R15 (an AR in disguise) will also shoot 1/2 groups with the same reloaded ammo.
Wonder how many bolt action rifles will do that well right out of the box?
I'm not comparing the AR platform or the 5.56/.223 with a dedicated
match rifle or benchrest rifle.
Some AR rifles shoot better than 1/2 m.o.a.
 
The quote function wouldn't work for me... so...

"I dont think 223 goes at 4000 fts, more like 2.5 / 3000 fts. And I think most of the people using ar (not bolt cuz I dont know) use 55gr and 62gr bullets and not 35gr. Myself, im looking for a much heavier bullet, my colt has a 1-7 twist rate.
I reload for my 22-250, my reload are a bit hot and the average on my chronos is 3940 fts. Usually for that caluber its around 3500fts"

Yea it will. A fellow gun club member rebarelled a 223 with a 28" barrel. His loads were over 4k with 35gr Noslers. Just under 4k he was really really accurate. He rechambered the same gun to 22-250.

Also, Hornady makes .223 in a 35 gr that claims 4kfps. I don't have any experience with it, though.

"Don't get it then.

The .204 is my favorite cartridge and the 17WSM has a very important feature when center-fire cartridges aren't allowed... it isn't one."

That's all you had to say. I ain't even mad. As far as the centerfire/rimfire situation goes, I don't have to deal with that. That issue wasn't on my radar.
 
As is generally concurred, I believe the .204 does offer something and is here to stay. .22-250 performance with slightly less recoil than .223 rem. Yep, that's good. Seeing hit through scope is fun (which is why Brian, you may want to re-think a semi-auto in a light recoiling varminter round like this - why ruin the "see the hit" fun, which the semi-auto action does to you?) But if you DID get a .17 cal in an AR15, .17 Hornet (Hornady not Ackley) is the way to go, seems to me. Much better performance with better reliability and the same or less cost (once you factor in recycling brass) than .17 WSM.
 
I have taken wood chucks with a .308 and I can see the hit? If you cannot, you're either not properly supported, braced, or shouldering the rifle, or you have your scope magnification set too high for the distance.

When I was a kid my uncle and father both had Remington 40x's out of the custom shop, one in 6mm and another in .308. I now have a Kimber 8400 Advanced Tactical that wears a Vortex Razor 5-20. I can watch my hits.
 
Most long range shots are prone with a bipod and only one hand touching the gun and magnification at 32x. Even with the .22-250 you can't stay on target. Yeah, it's still "in the scope" but it's too much motion to have a clear picture. The .204 solves that.

I am surprised at the notion that a semiauto rifle would have more recoil movement than a bolt gun.
 
"I am surprised at the notion that a semiauto rifle would have more recoil movement than a bolt gun."

Well it does - or not necessarily "more" movement, period, but more *lateral* movement "vectors" with the BCG moving - more torque-ing rather than straight back. At least that's the way I recall it when I paid attention one day. Easier to keep a turnbolt on target through scope than an AR15, ceteris paribus, IIRC.

Having said that, with a .17 rimfire, not only do you have less overall recoil than say a .204 or .223, you have less bolt group movement - in fact, aren't all rimfire AR15s straight blowback? The .22lrs I had were, both a Ceiner conversion kit and an M&P 15 - thus not much movement overall at all - should be fairly easy to keep stuff in scope, even with .17 WSM, I should think.
 
I'm not a lawer by any means, by the NYS regulations seem to basically try to prevent people from hunting deer illegally and claiming they were fur hunting if caught.
So, if you're fur hunting during deer season you have to use a rim fire.
Same idea as making it illegal to carry a gun while bow hunting - as is the case in ME.

As far as the OP: I like it because I can buy ammo cheap.
I built an AR only because I figured I might as well while it's still legal.

For those of us who like to shoot a fair bit at moderate distances, but don't have a reloading set up, it's hard to beat.
 
Let's skip this .223/5.56 nonsense and get to the more pressing question- when are they gonna make enough .30 Carbine so that it's cheap again? :)
 
Most long range shots are prone with a bipod and only one hand touching the gun and magnification at 32x. Even with the .22-250 you can't stay on target. Yeah, it's still "in the scope" but it's too much motion to have a clear picture. The .204 solves that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like 32x might be the issue at hand not the caliber. I shoot my Kimber .308, prone, with a 20x scope, long range, with either a sand bag or a rolled up shirt for rear support, and I can watch hits on targets at distance using Federal Gold Match 175gr SMK's.

Too much magnification, or having a rifle or scope not properly set up for you probably plays a bigger roll in this than the round. Sure some are harder than others... but 9 times out of 10 people slap a some weaver bases on a rifle and some high rings to hold their high powered scope, and never properly adjust eye relief, or even better yet.... building up the comb to have a proper cheek weld that is not you holding on your jaw with your head high. Obviously adjustable stocks, like my McMillan A5 make this easier. Your head should be on the gun stock like you are almost trying to fall asleep with your face on the stock, and your eye when closed and opened should give you a perfect sight picture. This will help your groups, and also I would say help you keep a sight picture on your target.

Not saying it is always possible, but it is do-able. I never used a scope over 24x so idk how hard it would be on a 32x but I could imagine that makes it quite difficult. My 5-20x56 Razor HD is huge on my Kimber Advanced Tactical, I couldn't imagine anything bigger on it lol.
 
Well yes, higher magnification means less field of view, all else being equal. If "seeing the hit" was the ultimate goal, that might matter to me but it's not. It's nice but why not have it all? Accuracy, trajectory, magnification, low recoil and see the hit? If I had to give one up, it's going to be seeing the hit... but I don't.

I'm quite familiar with proper scope mounting, eye relief, cheek weld, etc and my groups don't need much help either, thanks though.

That's at 25x, I wouldn't want any less. I'd take 50 if I could get it.
 
50x would be one hell of a scope lol. I have seen fixed 40x on bench rest guns, I never personally used one though.
 
I am in the market for a .338 Lapua..... however I don't even think I'd go that high. Maybe someday when I can afford a .408 Cheytac and the land to shoot it on.:D
 
I think if you go beyond normal scope magnification, you just see a bigger shimmering blur from the mirage instead of a clearer image.
 
Very nice - that .204 will sure get er dun, looks like. Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a new thread - what do I want my CZ 527 to be in -- .17 Hornet or .204 Ruger? Probably .17 Hornet, since what I'm looking for is the best gapper for .22 magnum to .223 rem.
 
.223 on decent sized deer seems like more of a stunt than practical hunting. You need properly constructed bullets, a close shot and perfect placement.

It is illegal in many states and for good reason. I wonder how many deer are wounded and not cleanly killed with this cartridge.
 
I wonder how many deer are wounded and not cleanly killed with this cartridge.
Click to expand...

Probably a lot fewer than are wounded by far more popular cartridges. Simply by shear numbers. If 10% of people hunt with a .223 and 10% or them wound deer while only 2% wound deer with other cartridges, there's still going to be far more deer wounded by other methods. (Numbers are for illustrative purposes only)

Plus, one might argue that folks who do hunt with a .223 might be more likely to be careful with their shots. Who knows? It's all just a guess.

I can say absolutely that I've never seen any difference in wounding likelihood between any of the various implements I've personally known folks to use. Seems like there's PEOPLE who tend to wound animals, rather than cartridges.
 
Probably a lot fewer than are wounded by far more popular cartridges. Simply by shear numbers. If 10% of people hunt with a .223 and 10% or them wound deer while only 2% wound deer with other cartridges, there's still going to be far more deer wounded by other methods. (Numbers are for illustrative purposes only)

Plus, one might argue that folks who do hunt with a .223 might be more likely to be careful with their shots. Who knows? It's all just a guess.

I can say absolutely that I've never seen any difference in wounding likelihood between any of the various implements I've personally known folks to use. Seems like there's PEOPLE who tend to wound animals, rather than cartridges.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.

Considering poacher specials tend to be .22LR or .22mags for deer around here (my one co-worker is a game warden) it does not take much to bring down a white tail.

I have seen idiots wound deer with .300Win Mag's because they need all that knock down power yet flinch when they shoot it.:rolleyes:

My .243 with a 100gr tip makes white tail sit down rather nicely. Never had one run further than 20-30 yards.
 
The .223 is probably the upper limit of the average person's flinch limit, whether they will admit it or not. That probably is one reason the military adopted it and another good reason for its popularity, people enjoy shooting a gun they can hit with, even after shooting 50 rounds in a row.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top