Should a Guy Own Both 223 and 243?

P

PainterJohn

New member
Does it make sense to own both 223 and 243 or is it redundant?
or would the 243 suffice for the needs? The 223 is just so cheap to shoot. I have a 204, 223, 243 and am running out of safe space. Opinions welcome and appreciated,,, BRING 'EM!!
 
I've never seen the point of a 223....

Ballistically incompetent for varmints. Under powered for big game.... it seems to fill a niche with nothing in the niche.

.204 is perfect for varmints, up to and including coyote. 243 is good for anything up to Elk at reasonable ranges.

223 sits in the middle, devoid of purpose.
 
Wow Peetzakilla, did you just open up a can of worms. I sure that the 40 or so coyotes I took this year, didn't know that they where being shot with a "ballisticly incompetent" cartridge but next time I'm on a prairie dog town, I will let them know before I start shooting. And although I have done it, I would not recommend the 243 for elk.
 
peetzakilla said:
223 sits in the middle, devoid of purpose.
Click to expand...

Who says that a rifle needs a purpose? Besides, we all know that the .223 has been officially declared the mouse gun.

NY City and NY State are NOT the same place!
Click to expand...
Sure it is. They are virtually synonymous! :eek:
 
A 223 was the last caliber I've bought, and I'll be the first to admit that it has hunting limitations, but it's cheaper to shoot and a lot less noisy than my 220 Swift, and I have to admit that I like it. Certainly it has a reason to exist. It'll do fine on coyotes. You can crank it up to around 3400 fps with a 55 grain bullet, and that's not bad at all. I keep the 223 by the front door of our ranch house - for the random coyote, pig, or possibly rabid skunk. And...note to self...don't ever again shoot a skunk west of the house when the wind is from the west.

So, if a guy wants a 223, then by golly...he should get one. Can't beat it for training teen grandkids to shoot.
 
The question is not whether one can kill something with a 223. The question is, when one has access to a .204 and a 243 what would one do with a .223?

The answer is, nothing.

The 223 doesn't do anything "more" than a .204 that a .243 can't do better. The 223 doesn't do anything "less" than a 243 that a .204 can't do better.

Therefore, in the presence of the other two, the 223 serves no purpose, provides no benefit.


If you have no gun and wish to buy one, would you choose a 223? Why? Again, it does nothing that a .204 won't do. Yes, it has more "power", perhaps, sometimes, but not enough to matter, not enough to shoot larger animals, and the ballistics are comparably horrible.
If you need more power than a .204 (or .22-250), you go to a .243, or 25-06, because, again, the 223 isn't enough more to matter.


Don't be offended. One man's opinion it is. Nothing more. Take it or leave. Look on the bright side. If I'm at the gun counter in front of you, there's ZERO chance I'm buying the last box of 223 ammo.;)
 
Geez...Peet...you've been on this forum for years and you know that there are zillions of guys with guns that don't do anything better than something else. I don't have a 204, but a guy I know has 7 of em. He's happy. I know a guy with a 30-40 Krag and a 32 Winchester. Why would he want those two? Heck if I know. And I just met a guy at a gunshop with a 17 Bee Ackley Improved. I guess he's going grasshopper hunting, but he loves that gun (custom single shot job). Gotta admit, the thought crossed my mind to get one. Cool caliber. I'm the guy that's been trashing 223's for years, and now I have one. Go get one. Quit fighting it...join us here on the dark side.
 
I have two .223 rifles H&R and Stevens, three if you count the AR in 5.56. My Stevens is soon to be a .223 AI since I found deal on a barrel. Thought I'd try it out. I currently have three .243, two Stevens and one Parker hale rifle as well. One Stevens is being built into a long range rifle .243 with a 1:7 twist 26" varmint barrel, and the other will probably become a .358 Win in the future. So yes there is always room for these two together.
 
The question is, when one has access to a .204 and a 243 what would one do with a .223?
Click to expand...
The correct answer is, save money on ammo. .223 is the cheapest centerfire ammo available.

Now, you and I both know that when you reload, all ammo approaches the same low price. But sadly, we reloaders are still in the minority. And if someone wants to shoot centerfire rifle economically, .223 is the best choice.

Another way to look at it--what WON'T the .223 do? Answer is big game. For anything else, its cool.
 
.223 has a LOT more bullet and load choices available than .204, so is a handloader's favorite. There are also a LOT more guns available in .223 than .204.

Personal preference - I have a .223, and have NO use for the .204 - it would be utterly redundant at best and insufficiently versatile at worst. ;)

I need no .243 - my .30-30 and .308 fill that 'niche'.
 
Geez...Peet...you've been on this forum for years and you know that there are zillions of guys with guns that don't do anything better than something else. I don't have a 204, but a guy I know has 7 of em. He's happy. I know a guy with a 30-40 Krag and a 32 Winchester. Why would he want those two? Heck if I know. And I just met a guy at a gunshop with a 17 Bee Ackley Improved. I guess he's going grasshopper hunting, but he loves that gun (custom single shot job). Gotta admit, the thought crossed my mind to get one. Cool caliber. I'm the guy that's been trashing 223's for years, and now I have one. Go get one. Quit fighting it...join us here on the dark side
Click to expand...

The true dark side is where people shoot cartridges that make the majority of shooters cringe.
".30-40 Krag, why would you want that?"
".22 Hornet? That's a stupid remnant from the days of crappy .22 caliber bullets."
"You hunt squirrels with a .416 Rigby? ...."
".220 Swift? I didn't know those were still around."
".500 Overbore.... What kind of a cartridge is that?"
".32 S&W? I have a BB gun that's more powerful..."
".240 Weatherby? That ammo is almost $100 a box!"

Some people don't enjoy owning and shooting the flavor of the month. Some people don't buy firearms just for the cheap trigger time factor.
Some of us see the true identity of the so-called "obsolete", "useless", and "stupid" cartridges.

The only common chamberings I own are 9x19mm, 7.62x39mm, .243 Win, .270 Win, and .30-06. Everything else is an "oddball", "obsolete", or offbeat.
Everything I own was purchased for a very specific reason, though. Each firearm has a very specific job to do, and they do it better than common chamberings. If they can be 'stretched' to do additional duty, that's a bonus.

Which brings me back to the OP:
I'm with Peetzakilla - In this particular case, the .223 is a superfluous addition to the lineup (for practicality). The .243 will do everything the .223 can. The .204 will do more than the .223 can, for varmints. --With one exception: .223 ammo is cheaper than either of the other cartridges. If super-happy-fun-time includes excessively blasting away at random targets and requires large amounts of ammunition, the .223 should stick around.

Side note:
I know a guy with a 30-40 Krag and a 32 Winchester. Why would he want those two? Heck if I know. And I just met a guy at a gunshop with a 17 Bee Ackley Improved. I guess he's going grasshopper hunting
Click to expand...
You're dramatically under estimating the capabilities of the .17 Bee (and its improved version).
I hunt Elk with a .30-40 Krag. I bought the rifle specifically for that purpose. .30-30 doesn't have the power. .30-06 has too much. .30-40 Krag launches 180-200 gr projectiles at exactly the velocity I wanted, and came in a sweet 115 year old rifle. ;)
 
In Australia, the .223 is favoured by professional kangaroo shooters. The law here states a .22 centerfire minimum for pro-roo shooters, thus ruling out the .204.
Although the 243 out performs the 223, the 223 is not as loud & allows several roos to be culled in one area. As the majority of kangaroos are culled under spotlight & have to be head shot to be accepted for butchering, the distances are relatively short & therefore the 243 does not really offer an advantage in this instance.
If however, you were mainly shooting deer, then I would say the 243 would make the 223 redundant. If you were mainly shooting small varmits then your 204 would also possibly make your 223 redundant.
 
The 223 and 243 aren't really interchangable, in fact this is first time I've heard them compared before. Definately keep the 243, the only redeeming quality a 223 has is it's cheap to shoot.

Both are towards the bottom of the food chain for .224 and .243 calibers, best advice I could give is ditch both and get a 220 Swift and a 240 Weatherby!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top