[Big Bo]

I have a Savage 12fv in .223. It is a great shooter. Would I gain anything by going to the .204 and dumping the .223? Any advantages of one over the other? I shoot out to 400 yards sometimes. I mainly shoot the WW 45gr hp from Wal-Mart. A buddy loads some .223`s for me, 50gr. and 55gr. I am cheep, the WW 45gr. .223 is readily available at Wal-Mart.

 

[Dog Buster]

204 vs 223

You will never shoot the 204 as cheap as the 223....especially with factory ammo..223 ammo is everywhere...like you said at Walmart....cheap...I shoot both (223 AI & 223) & 204....but not factory ammo or factory barrels..strickley handloads & Pac Nor barrels....the 204 is one of my favorites...I'm on my second 204 barrel...the 204 is simply awesome..fast..flat & acurate...my 223 AI uses 55 NBTs...the 204 uses 40 V max...3880 fps w/204 & 3500 fps w/223 AI...if ya wanna try a 204...simply buy or build a 204 from Pac Nor or Lothar Walther...you will not be disappointed...another interesting 20 cal..the 20 Vartarg...but thats another can of worms...

 

[doughboy]

If it aint broke dont fix it,sounds like your happy where you are. My next rifle will be in 204, I feel the need for speed

 

[Ackman]

If you like the .223, why mess with it? Most people don't realize what a .223 will do with the right loads and don't shoot to it's potential. My 26" barrel .223 shoots 40gr bullets (BC .220) at just over 4000. Another (factory) barrel shoots small ragged hole groups with 50's (BC .242) at over 3700. Your Savage should come close to or equal these. It's just a matter of using the right combination, which isn't difficult. Other than maybe a bit of recoil, I doubt you'd notice any actual real world, in-the-field difference between these and a .204.

 

[Big Bo]

OK, thanks for the advice. I will hang on to my .223.

Another question if you do not mind? My buddy has a .17 Mk4. I have shot with him and the .17 Mk4 once or twice but we were in different locations on the hillside. He claims to kill consistantly at 400 yds and more with his .17 Mk4. For longer distance will the .17 Mk4 out do the .223? I know the .17 Mk4 shoots lighter bullets, does it shoot much flatter/and faster that the .223? He claims to get volocities of 4000 to 4100fps with his Mk4.

 

[Paul Workman]

If you like the .223, why mess with it? Most people don't realize what a .223 will do with the right loads and don't shoot to it's potential. My 26" barrel .223 shoots 40gr bullets (BC .220) at just over 4000. Another (factory) barrel shoots small ragged hole groups with 50's (BC .242) at over 3700. Your Savage should come close to or equal these. It's just a matter of using the right combination, which isn't difficult. Other than maybe a bit of recoil, I doubt you'd notice any actual real world, in-the-field difference between these and a .204.

Well, if you're getting those speeds from a standard .223, I would agree w/ you. Considering the "standard" velocity for a 52 gn pill in a .223 is around 3200 fps, 3700 for a 50 is a huge difference - way up into 22-250 speeds, fer cryin out loud!

What are you pushin' those pills with, Mr. Ack??

P.

 

[Kermit in Va.]

I had a 204 when they first came out

and guess i didn't give it time to really see what it would do but, I have 2 223 and have shot them alot and couldn't see how much better i was with the 204 so i sold it. If your used to the 223 it will do all you need it to do. Just my opinion.

Donnie

ps In case you didn't catch it I love the 223.

 

[Catfish]

The .204 has a definate advantage over the .223 when shooting at longer ranges and I can prove that to you on paper. When we go to the field however, the difference will only be obivous at those ranges where the .204 is astill shooting point blank and the .223 is not. In other words from about 285 yrds. to 305 yrds. The .223 wil have more knock down with the heaver bullets but hold over will be greater. The .223 will be cheaper to shoot, but not that much. When shooting groundhogs I like to use bullets that I know will not bounce and the .204 has an edge there. Both are good rounds along with the .222, .222 mag. , .22-250, .17 Rem ect, ect.

 

[Hawkeye]

I have several 223s and one 204 now, should have my second 204 finished within a couple weeks.
Both cartridges have their place in varmint/predator hunting. I think it all depends on what your comfortable shooting. I enjoy shooting both equally, each one has its advantages over the other.
I was very impressed with my 204 last year out in South Dakota on a PD hunt, "laser" like trajectory out to 400+ yards is a benefit shooting those little rodents.
If yah are still on the fence, just go ahead and buy a 204, but keep your 223. Its nice to have a couple varminters, that way when one gets to hot to shoot, grab the other and keep blazin away. Hawkeye

 

[Ackman]

Well, if you're getting those speeds from a standard .223, I would agree w/ you. Considering the "standard" velocity for a 52 gn pill in a .223 is around 3200 fps, 3700 for a 50 is a huge difference - way up into 22-250 speeds, fer cryin out loud!

What are you pushin' those pills with, Mr. Ack??

P.

Yes, that's a huge difference. But you and I and everyone else also have a big advantage over the people who make factory ammunition and the people who publish loading manuals......we don't have to worry about what'll work in everyone else's gun under all conditions, just our own.

For years I shot AA2015BR (25.5gr) with 50TNT's through a 26" Shilen .223 at 3630.....26.5gr push 40's very accurately at 4000. The VV powders are even better. I haven't chrono'd VV133 and 40's or 50's through that particular gun, only VV135 and 55's. But a quick looksee through a Rem. fluted varmint barrel with 50's and 26.5gr of VV133 produced 3713. So 3700 with a 50 or 4000 with a 40.....in real world shooting, except for some recoil there's probably not much difference between that and a .20 cal 32gr at 4100 or a 39gr at whatever it'll do. I can't see there'd be enough to make me change from a .223 and build a new gun. As has been posted before, a standard .223 will push 55's very accurately at over 3600 with VV powder. Mine does it with 27.5/VV135 for 3625fps. It's not just my gun.....Ole told Keith and Keith told me, and there are doubtless a bunch of other people whose guns also do it.

 

[Paul Workman]

Sorry Ack...I disagree

I got a chance to compare the .224 40 gn V-Max (BC-.200) with the .204 V-max (BC-.275) at a couple different speeds, and as one might expect, the same weight at the same speed but with different cross sectional area perform quite different. In short, the 204 performance with the 40 gn blt is a significant improvement in flatness, wind drift, and the biggie...retained energy (splat factor).

The scale at the left is MOA correction for a dead-on hold assuming a zero at 200 yards, and MOA correction for a 10 mph right angle crosswind. The scale at the right is foot pounds of energy in 1000s.

In this case, both bullets MV is 4000 fps. (bullet w/ .275 notation = 204 blt)

Here is the same comparison where the .224 40 gn V-Max at 3700 fps is compared to a 40 gn V-Max at typical 204 Ruger velocities.

I guess the point is, the 204 (by virtue of it's BC advantage and or muzzle velocity) walks away from the .223 performance wise in all three categories, once ya gets past the muzzle!! The advantage of the .204 is HUGE compared to the .223 shooting 40s.

When comparing the .224 50 gn V-Max at 3550 to the .204 40 V-Max at 4000fps, the gap closes some, and if one could push the .224 50 V-Max at the 3700ish (your numbers) then the gap would shrink up considerably, I would suspect.

Comparing the .224 50 gn V-Max at 3550 fps to the .204 40 gn V-Max at 4000fps:

Yeah...I'd have to say the 204 would kick a .223's butt beginning almost from the muzzle on out, regardless whether or not the two pills start out at the same velocity or not. Advantage = 204!


P.

 

[Redrock]

Grass isn't always greener...keep your .223 you'll spend alot more money and won't see much differance in the field.

 

[Ackman]

I got a chance to compare the .224 40 gn V-Max (BC-.200) with the .204 V-max (BC-.275) at a couple different speeds, and as one might expect, the same weight at the same speed but with different cross sectional area perform quite different. In short, the 204 performance with the 40 gn blt is a significant improvement in flatness, wind drift, and the biggie...retained energy (splat factor).

The scale at the left is MOA correction for a dead-on hold assuming a zero at 200 yards, and MOA correction for a 10 mph right angle crosswind. The scale at the right is foot pounds of energy in 1000s.

In this case, both bullets MV is 4000 fps. (bullet w/ .275 notation = 204 blt)

Here is the same comparison where the .224 40 gn V-Max at 3700 fps is compared to a 40 gn V-Max at typical 204 Ruger velocities.

I guess the point is, the 204 (by virtue of it's BC advantage and or muzzle velocity) walks away from the .223 performance wise in all three categories, once ya gets past the muzzle!! The advantage of the .204 is HUGE compared to the .223 shooting 40s.

When comparing the .224 50 gn V-Max at 3550 to the .204 40 V-Max at 4000fps, the gap closes some, and if one could push the .224 50 V-Max at the 3700ish (your numbers) then the gap would shrink up considerably, I would suspect.

Comparing the .224 50 gn V-Max at 3550 fps to the .204 40 gn V-Max at 4000fps:

Yeah...I'd have to say the 204 would kick a .223's butt beginning almost from the muzzle on out, regardless whether or not the two pills start out at the same velocity or not. Advantage = 204!


P.

It's true that BC makes things shoot flatter, and the 40VMax has a very low BC. I shoot 40's in a Fireball, but have only tested them in the .223/.223AI. and it's the 40Ballistic tip which has a .220BC. But for comparisons, a 40gr/.224 is more like the .32gr/.204. You don't mention what "typical .204 Ruger velocities" you used, but I've never heard of a .204 Ruger getting anywhere near 4000 with a 40gr bullet. Even with your jockeyed numbers and depending on how jockeyed they are, the charts show a trajectory advantage of 1/4"-1/2" at 300....hardly anything, and 3/4" to 1-1/4 at 400.....not much when you're doing holdover. Windage....1-1/4" to 1-1/2" at 300. Now it doesn't take much to kill a prairie dog, but 40gr bullets at 400yds are gonna mostly just knock it over. And why would anyone want to shoot varmints at 400yds in a 10mph crosswind with 40gr bullets? Whatever floats your boat I guess, but that's why we have so many different guns.

Now, my .223 would be shooting 40BT's at 4000, not 3700. And zero is 225-250, not 200. Definitions vary with the individual, but your statements "HUGE" and "kick butt almost from the muzzle out" are nonsense.

 

[Paul Workman]

It's true that BC makes things shoot flatter, and the 40VMax has a very low BC. I shoot 40's in a Fireball, but have only tested them in the .223/.223AI. and it's the 40Ballistic tip which has a .220BC. But for comparisons, a 40gr/.224 is more like the .32gr/.204. You don't mention what "typical .204 Ruger velocities" you used, but I've never heard of a .204 Ruger getting anywhere near 4000 with a 40gr bullet. Even with your jockeyed numbers and depending on how jockeyed they are, the charts show a trajectory advantage of 1/4"-1/2" at 300....hardly anything, and 3/4" to 1-1/4 at 400.....not much when you're doing holdover. Windage....1-1/4" to 1-1/2" at 300. Now it doesn't take much to kill a prairie dog, but 40gr bullets at 400yds are gonna mostly just knock it over. And why would anyone want to shoot varmints at 400yds in a 10mph crosswind with 40gr bullets? Whatever floats your boat I guess, but that's why we have so many different guns.

Now, my .223 would be shooting 40BT's at 4000, not 3700. And zero is 225-250, not 200. Definitions vary with the individual, but your statements "HUGE" and "kick butt almost from the muzzle out" are nonsense.

Well, "kick butt" might be a subjective term, so here are some numbers...

From the first chart (40 .204 vs. 40 .224 at 4000fps)

Energy @ 300 yards - the 204 delivers 50% more
Wind drift @ 300 yards - the .223 is 52% more
Trajectory - tho the difference at 300 yards is only a 1/4 MOA (3/4"), @ 500 the .223 has 30% more drop.

From second chart (40 vs. 40 w/ the .204 at 4000 fps and the .224 at 3700 fps)

Energy @ 300 yards - the 204 delivers 122% more
Wind drift @ 300 yards - the .223 is 63% more
Trajectory - tho the difference at 300 yards is only a 1/2 MOA (1-1/2"), @ 500 the .223 has 52% more drop.

From the third chart (40 gn .204 at 4000 fps vs. 50 gn .224 at 3550 fps)

Energy @ 300 yards - the 204 delivers 25% more
Wind drift @ 300 yards - the .223 is 36% more
Trajectory - tho the difference at 300 yards is only a 1/2 MOA (1-1/2"), @ 500 the .223 has 46% more drop.

All data was developed using PCB ballistics calculator, which I have verified in the field to be very reliable. One could get lost in arguing about this velocity and that, but it is obvious that even with some give and take the advantage of the 204 is obvious to the casual observer.

In my book, at 300 yards, 50 to 122% more energy (depending on actual speed), 52 to 63% less wind drift - both becoming greater as range increases is "kicking butt" (my summation). Plug-in any numbers you want, but it would be a mistake to say as you have (in effect), 'there is no difference', based on muzzle velocity alone - assuming the rest of us could safely reach the velocity levels you claim in your .223s!

I've seen a 204 on PDs out to 400 yards, and there is NO doubt in my mind their "terminal performance" is head and shoulders above the .223s I've seen, to say nothing of its ability to better buck the wind.

It is the ol' 22-250 vs. 220 Swift argument: The Swift comes out on top every time on paper, but most critters wouldn't know the difference. I'm not dissing the .223! It remains one of my favorite varmint calibers. But, semantics aside and taking nothing away from the .223, it would be less than entirely accurate to say there is no significant advantage of the .204 over the .223, at least in the performance arena...For what that is worth.

YMMV

P.

 

[Keith in Ga]

There has been a lot of stats listed, pretty interesting and a lot of it "over my head". I do remember last pd shoot in June, and I got to compare my .223 performance with our guides .204. I shot 50 gr v-max in the .223 and he had 32 gr blitzkings loaded for the .204. With the Montana wind, the .204 was much more effective than my .223, and we're not talking about bullet drop, yet. I shot next to my buddy, he was shooting his .223 with Winchester white box varmint 45 gr ammo (which is pretty hot). I shot circles around him with the .204. It was more the gun than the shooter!
We watched another buddy shoot his Ruger .204 at over 300 yds. In all that wind, he was sending them flying several feet in the air, with the 32 gr blitzking. I can't quote ballistics, but I did get to see in person the comparison between the two. It's not what I thought it would be in my humble mind. I know, I know, I'm comparing two bullet diameters, weights, fps, etc., which can't be right. But am I convinced? Bought a .204, and will leave the .223 at home this upcoming trip.

 

[Rick in Oregon]

Now that the dust has settled a bit....

I'll chime in and say that I'm a rabid ground squirrel, prairie dog, and rock chuck shooter, and shoot the 223, 223AI, and the 204 (among others).

I've been a fan of the 223 since returning to "The World" years ago, and have shot my 223AI since '98 and love the caliber. That said, with two seasons under my belt with the 204, I believe it's more effective at all practical varmint shooting ranges than both the 223 and the 223AI in terms of trajectory and wind deflection.

You can argue numbers all you want, but the original poster was asking about performance, and to me at least, the 204 out performs the 223 in the field, and it is noticable at the bench. It will not be cheaper, and if money is the issue, then stick with your 223. But if performance is what you're after, don't sell your 223, just buy/build a 204. You won't be disappointed.

 

[Ackman]

Paul, you can cook numbers any way you want. Comparing .20cal to .224 is apples and oranges. But if you're gonna do that, it really should be light loads to light loads. Obviously a .275BC will better a .221BC if they're the same speed. But, I've never heard of a .204 shooting 40's anywhere near 4000....are you doing that with yours? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Your pretty little graphs are meaningless if they're from bogus numbers to begin with. They're also in MOA at the scope which is very misleading. I ran some numbers using 6500' elevation/85*temp, 2.0" scope C-L height, .221BC (Nosler 40BT) and .275BC (.204/40VMax). Now it's real common to zero 1" to 1-1/2" high at 100, which is about a 250-300yd zero depending on the gun.

The .223 and 40BT's at 4000 (I've told you the load, using IMI brass) compared to a .204 and 40's at 3850 (which is what people say they're getting) and a 250yd zero......300yd drop is 2.0" for both, 400yd drop is .1" less for the .204, and 500yd drop is all of 20.9"/204 and 21.7"/.223..... with over 20 drop at 500yds, .8" is HUGE? Gimme a break. Wind drift at 300....5.8"/204 and 7.2"/223, at 400 it's 10.7"/204 vs 13.2"/223.....holding off fur by about 9" anyway at 400yds, another 1-1/2" isn't "HUGE". The thread was about shooting to maybe 400yds. And I don't care about shooting 40gr bullets at a 500yd varmint either.

The whole thing is silly anyway. If a .204 rings someone's bell, that's what they should use. The .224 caliber works fine and I've no urge to mess with a .204. The original thread was Big Bo saying he's happy with his good shooting .223 and wondering if he should change to .204. I say it's not worth changing. I mostly shoot the .223AI and hardly ever use that .223 anyway, but still it shoots really well and I'd never pull the barrel just to make it a .204. When that barrel is gone the gun will probably become another .223AI. The .204 is a good looking case, kind of like a super .222Mag with the shoulder pushed way forward. I'm surprised that it doesn't perform any better than it does considering it holds more powder than a .223AI. A .204 case necked to .224 should be really good.

 

[PinMd]

A .204 case necked to .224 should be really good.

I'm a little confused, well I'm more than a little confused, but that's another story. I thought the .204 was a .222 Mag necked down to .20, If that is so would not a .204 necked up to a .22 be a .222 Rem Mag? or were you making a joke?

The reason I ask, is that I'm having a .222 Rem Mag built and was toying with the idea of using .204 brass and necking it up. I'd look at the deminsions, but I don't have the .204 in any of my manuals. Sorry to hijack the thread, y'all go back to arguin'.

 

[Paul Workman]

Paul, you can cook numbers any way you want. Comparing .20cal to .224 is apples and oranges. But if you're gonna do that, it really should be light loads to light loads. Obviously a .275BC will better a .221BC if they're the same speed. But, I've never heard of a .204 shooting 40's anywhere near 4000....are you doing that with yours? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Your pretty little graphs are meaningless if they're from bogus numbers to begin with.

Hey, hey, HEY! I'm trying to be objective here. Let's not get ugly.

The .223 and 40BT's at 4000 (I've told you the load, using IMI brass) compared to a .204 and 40's at 3850 (which is what people say they're getting)

Well, alright, but fair is fair. If you want to use "what people say they're getting", then let's keep it to that. 4000 fps for a standard .223 is statistically (at the very least) outside of the bell curve - a fringe number worth a footnote perhaps, but hardly a fair representation of what us mortals can expect from a standard (read: NOT an AI'ed) .223; I know cuz in the mean time I've consulted with several knowledgeable folks that hotrod the .223 & .223AI, and 4000 fps for a standard .223 40 gn V-max has been claimed by you and maybe a couple others. Say you're right. That is hadly relavent to "normal" .223 performance norms for a 40 gn V-Max.

Therefore, for the general comparison of any two calibers, would it not make sense to stay within "what people say they're getting" (to use your words)?

So, for the sake of "apples to apples", lets use a number that better fits the performance of both. Using "what people say they're getting", lets pick 3850fps for both the 204 and the .223 for the 40 gn V-Max. (After all, it's only 150fps away from the 4000 fps that seems to upset the apple/orange cart )

For the following graph, the AMSL is 1500', temp is 70 degrees, scope centerline height is 1.57" above the bore centerline, the BC for the .224 40 gn V-Max (Hornandy's published chart) is .200, the BC for the 40 gn 204 (Hornandy's published chart) is .275, 200 yard zero and there is one small cloud in the sky (just kidding 'bout the cloud )

OK...Data loaded into the balisitic calculator, trafered to Excel for graphing, and we have this comparision showing MOA correction (MOA = 1.047" - call it 1" at 100 yards) for drop to maintain a zero hold, MOA correction for wind drift, and foot pounds of energy for both bullets...

Energy at 300 yards favors the 204 by some 52%,
Trajectory is only one click (on a 1/4"/click scope) different or ~ 1-1/5" at 300 yards, but at 500 yards the drop correction is 32% more for the .223
Wind is 46% more drift for the .223 than the same 40 gn bullet from the 204.

They're also in MOA at the scope which is very misleading.

MOA very misleading? No need to go off on a tangent here: Inches are inches, and all that was done is convert the inches of correction to MOA for easy "knobing" on the scope. If you don't like the MOA scale, ignore the numbers on the scale at the left, and the graph still plainly shows the distinct advantage of the 204's higher BC. (No need to get distracted by splitting a hair over 1.047"/MOA vs. rounding off to 1.0" to see what is going on with these two... )

Wind drift at 300....5.8"/204 and 7.2"/223, at 400 it's 10.7"/204 vs 13.2"/223.....holding off fur by about 9" anyway at 400yds, another 1-1/2" isn't "HUGE"

Perhaps it is a difference in calculators or the fact that I used Hornandy's BC of .200 for the .224 40 gn V-Max where you used a different BC. But in the graph (above) the hold off for 10 mph of crosswind at 400 yards is 13.6" for the 204 and 20.2" for the .223...From a ratio perspective, that's a 48.5% greater drift for the .223. Call that "huge", or "significant", or whatever...It's a LOT more drift!

Course using the wrong BC will make everything wacky. (I'll scan the Hornandy BC chart for the record and post it, if needed.)

The thread was about shooting to maybe 400yds. And I don't care about shooting 40gr bullets at a 500yd varmint either...The original thread was Big Bo saying he's happy with his good shooting .223 and wondering if he should change to .204. I say it's not worth changing.

Well, you saying it isn't worth changing is your opinion. I took this discussion up because I felt your opinion was based on some exceptional .223 numbers and based on that gave short shrift to the 204. I don't have an axe to grind for the 204. But, Velocity differences aside, if nothing else the higher BC of the 204 gives it significant performance boost, especially in energy and as ranges get longer; i.e., past 400 yards. If you don't shoot past 400, thats fine. But, it isn't fair to say (as you did initially) that the difference was (in effect) nill.

The .223 is a sweet cartridge and a high performer to be sure. But, the 204 will out perform the .223, at least when shooting the 40 V-max at 3850 fps at 1500 feet AMSL at 70 degrees, when there is only a couple clouds in the sky...

p.

 

[Ackman]

Hey, hey, HEY! I'm trying to be objective here. Let's not get ugly.



****Give it a rest. The numbers are all bogus.





Well, alright, but fair is fair. If you want to use "what people say they're getting", then let's keep it to that. 4000 fps for a standard .223 is statistically (at the very least) outside of the bell curve - a fringe number worth a footnote perhaps, but hardly a fair representation of what us mortals can expect from a standard (read: NOT an AI'ed) .223; I know cuz in the mean time I've consulted with several knowledgeable folks that hotrod the .223 & .223AI, and 4000 fps for a standard .223 40 gn V-max has been claimed by you and maybe a couple others. Say you're right. That is hadly relavent to "normal" .223 performance norms for a 40 gn V-Max.

****"What people say" is because I don't shoot the .204 myself. So how else would I get numbers? C'mon, use your brain. Is 3850 wrong?.....are you getting 4000 and if not, or do you just like to throw that number around? I've read all kinds of stuff by "knowledgeable people" that was so off as to be ridiculous, so I take that knowledgeable people term with a grain of salt. One of the things I originally posted was that the .223 isn't always shot to it's potential. Any mortal can load 26.5/AA2015BR and a 7-1/2 in an IMI case with a 40BT and go shoot it, there's nothing magic. You could do it too.....honest. And again, it's a Ballistic Tip w. 221BC, NOT a VMax. Again, not a VMax.

Therefore, for the general comparison of any two calibers, would it not make sense to stay within "what people say they're getting" (to use your words)?

****No. I stay within my experience and go by "what people say they're getting" when I haven't used it. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

So, for the sake of "apples to apples", lets use a number that better fits the performance of both. Using "what people say they're getting", lets pick 3850fps for both the 204 and the .223 for the 40 gn V-Max. (After all, it's only 150fps away from the 4000 fps that seems to upset the apple/orange cart )

*****This is getting sillier. See prior answer.

For the following graph, the AMSL is 1500', temp is 70 degrees, scope centerline height is 1.57" above the bore centerline, the BC for the .224 40 gn V-Max (Hornandy's published chart) is .200, the BC for the 40 gn 204 (Hornandy's published chart) is .275, 200 yard zero and there is one small cloud in the sky (just kidding 'bout the cloud )

******* I live at 7,000' elevation. My shooting is done at 4500' minimum and mostly 6500' or higher. You don't find prairie dogs in Midwest cities.....how many have you seen at 1500'? Summertime shooting temps usually start about 85* and go up from there. My guns are set up with a 2" C/L.....1.57 won't clear a 50mm OD bell on a fat barrel. Except for velocity and BC, I used the same numbers for everything.

OK...Data loaded into the balisitic calculator, trafered to Excel for graphing, and we have this comparision showing MOA correction (MOA = 1.047" - call it 1" at 100 yards) for drop to maintain a zero hold, MOA correction for wind drift, and foot pounds of energy for both bullets...

Energy at 300 yards favors the 204 by some 52%,
Trajectory is only one click (on a 1/4"/click scope) different or ~ 1-1/5" at 300 yards, but at 500 yards the drop correction is 32% more for the .223
Wind is 46% more drift for the .223 than the same 40 gn bullet from the 204.

***** One click on a 1/4" click scope is 3/4" at 300 yds. At 500, .8" is 8/10"....and 19.7" vs 17.9" isn't 46%. Your percentages are crap.



MOA very misleading? No need to go off on a tangent here: Inches are inches, and all that was done is convert the inches of correction to MOA for easy "knobing" on the scope. If you don't like the MOA scale, ignore the numbers on the scale at the left, and the graph still plainly shows the distinct advantage of the 204's higher BC. (No need to get distracted by splitting a hair over 1.047"/MOA vs. rounding off to 1.0" to see what is going on with these two... )

***** Yes, MOA is irrelevant. Spend more time in the field and less time juggling numbers. When you're actually shooting targets at different distances, drop at the target is what you worry about. You need to get out more. And again, the graph is bogus.



Perhaps it is a difference in calculators or the fact that I used Hornandy's BC of .200 for the .224 40 gn V-Max where you used a different BC. But in the graph (above) the hold off for 10 mph of crosswind at 400 yards is 13.6" for the 204 and 20.2" for the .223...From a ratio perspective, that's a 48.5% greater drift for the .223. Call that "huge", or "significant", or whatever...It's a LOT more drift!

Course using the wrong BC will make everything wacky. (I'll scan the Hornandy BC chart for the record and post it, if needed.)

*****I don't care about the Hornady BC chart. I told you what BC's were used and still once more.....read my lips, I'm using a Ballistic Tip. My readout came from the ballistic computer in a Pact Pro chronograph.



Well, you saying it isn't worth changing is your opinion. I took this discussion up because I felt your opinion was based on some exceptional .223 numbers and based on that gave short shrift to the 204. I don't have an axe to grind for the 204. But, Velocity differences aside, if nothing else the higher BC of the 204 gives it significant performance boost, especially in energy and as ranges get longer; i.e., past 400 yards. If you don't shoot past 400, thats fine. But, it isn't fair to say (as you did initially) that the difference was (in effect) nill.


The .223 is a sweet cartridge and a high performer to be sure. But, the 204 will out perform the .223, at least when shooting the 40 V-max at 3850 fps at 1500 feet AMSL at 70 degrees, when there is only a couple clouds in the sky...

p.

Forget "past 400 yds". Read Big Bo's thread again.....he says he shoots"....out to 400yds SOMETIMES." Actually, I think you took up this discussion as an exercise in anality.