.204 vs .223

C

cityslicker

New member
I plan on building an AR for predator hunting next year, but I can't decide which caliber. I'm gonna go with a .204 or .223, but I'm leaning towards the .204 for it's ballistics. I'm just looking for some informed opinions on one caliber versus the other. Thanks
 
.223 if its strictly for predators. If your gonna throw colony varmints in the mix then I would consider a .204 ruger. I have one and like it but its a better varmint gun then calling rifle. I consider them two different types.
 
Last edited:
I have one of each. The 204 is a sweet shooter but not a calling gun as stated above. Its gets heavy during stands if you do a lot of walking. The 223 is way lighter and easy to carry. It's a lot more manoverable if you have to swing on a yote. They both shoot nice but for a caling gun I would go with the 223.
 
Originally Posted By: MPFD.223 if its strictly for predators. If your gonna through colony varmints in the mix then I would consider a .204 ruger. I have one and like it but its a better varmint gun then calling rifle. I consider them two different types.

+1
 
I disagree. The 223 doesn't compare ballistically to the 204. Better velocity and energy. The only thing the 223 has over the 204 is the cost and availability of ammo.
 
If you are talking about factory ammo good stuff is almost all the same price. Hornady 40gr 223 vs 204 40gr is almost the same price but ballistically speaking the 204 is king.
 
I think most of the cons to the 204 are it's heavy and makes for a long day when packing it around. The 24" barrel does make it a little difficult to maneuver when trying to get on target like has been said. Bullet wise you can either shoot 40gr V-Max or reload. 32gr V-max are okay, I haven't had any issues but I know others have. That's why I shoot the Bergers. Lots more choices with the 223 for factory ammo.
 
Last edited:
I have both calibers in AR platforms... The .204 really requires a minimum 22" barrel to get the velocity and trajectory that the ammunition/cartridge is capable of producing...It's excellent for Prairie Dogs and use with a bench and bag set up...

My .223s are 16"barrels and much lighter for carrying and maneuvering relative to predator hunting...

Most of my predator shooting will be much less than 150 yards, so ballistics between the two is not really that significant...whereas Varmint shooting is stretching out past the 300 yard mark and the .204 shines in that respect, but I'd never try a Coyote at that range...I prefer a DRT situation, rather than having to try and chase one down..
 
If you reload then I think the .204 is a no brainer. You can reload the 35 grain bergers or the 39 grain sierras. I have shot yotes with these bullets and 32 noslers, 32 vmax, and 40 grain offerings in both. I will have to say that the 35 bergers and 39 sierras are instant death to the yotes. My upper shoots both of them equally well so its a toss up. I have shot several now with the 35 bergers. I now have my gun zeroed with the 39 sierras and will be shooting them this season with the 39 grain sierras. I have shot a few with them already but not enough to compare them yet to the 35 bergers on terminal performance.
 
I have 2, 223 and a 204. I would say it comes down to how much you shoot and if you reload. If you are buying factory ammo the 223 shines. It if were me and it was my 1st AR I'd go with a 16 or 18 mid weight 223.
As said above the 204 needs a longer barrel and in an AR that usually means a HB. My 204 is a DPMS barreled upper that I built 24" fluted HB. I would not want to carry this thing around. Remington has a nice light camo 204 in the R15 line. My 223's are a 10.5" SBR and a 18 mid weight. The 18 is my go to gun. It is lite enough and very accurate.
 
I wouldn't right off the 204 over a 1/2-3/4lb of barrel (22in vs 18in)

most guys aren't disciplined enough to keep their shots under 150 yds which is what you will need to do with the 223 not so with the 204

you terrain will also be a factory in shot selection, out here shots can be anywhere from 5ft-500yds although I tire to not shot at anything over 200yds just so as not to educate them
 
I have an r 15 in 204 and love it with the 22 inch barrel it is lite enough to carry all day. I shoot the 40 grain bergers from mine and they shoot awesome. I have taken 58 coyotes with it and all have been drt with no runners shoots have ranged from 20 feet to 300 yards with no problem.
 
Pick your poison, do you want a flat shooting rifle that has really light weight bullets that weigh 32 to 40 grains or do you want a somewhat flat shooting rifle that can shoot bullets that weigh 40 grains up to 77 grains. The 204 does a nice job with the lighter bullets and its 40 grain bullets pull off a better ballistic coefficient then the 40 and even 50 grain bullets in the 223. but if you want a bullet that will hold onto its energy further down range. A 75 grain bullet going 2800 fps will still be holding onto 514 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards whereas the 204 Ruger shooting a 40 grain V max will only have 404 ft lbs of energy even though it started out at 3900 fps. The 32 grain load which starts at 4225 fps which you really need a 26 " barrel to reach that velocity will only have 326 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards. So if you want knockdown power further out the 223 carries it but it will have more drop. With the 204 Ruger you will get a laser like trajectory but have less oomph when you get out there a ways. I like both and think they both have merit. I think the 204 Ruger with 39 grain Sierras are awesome, but if you are shooting big Coyotes a 77 grain nosler or a 75 grain Hornady out of a 223 will anchor a dog quicker and penetrate better.
 
There are light .204s out there. All of my shooters are heavy though. Looking for a Tikka t-3 lite stainless in .204. Heard they exist in some parts of the country.
 
i like the 223 better even though i had the 204 in a ar i just was not happy with the bullet penetration of it i tried 40 grain vmax and 35 grain bergers and didnt have good luck with either just my 2 cents.
 
Originally Posted By: varmintgitterPick your poison, do you want a flat shooting rifle that has really light weight bullets that weigh 32 to 40 grains or do you want a somewhat flat shooting rifle that can shoot bullets that weigh 40 grains up to 77 grains. The 204 does a nice job with the lighter bullets and its 40 grain bullets pull off a better ballistic coefficient then the 40 and even 50 grain bullets in the 223. but if you want a bullet that will hold onto its energy further down range. A 75 grain bullet going 2800 fps will still be holding onto 514 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards whereas the 204 Ruger shooting a 40 grain V max will only have 404 ft lbs of energy even though it started out at 3900 fps. The 32 grain load which starts at 4225 fps which you really need a 26 " barrel to reach that velocity will only have 326 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards. So if you want knockdown power further out the 223 carries it but it will have more drop. With the 204 Ruger you will get a laser like trajectory but have less oomph when you get out there a ways. I like both and think they both have merit. I think the 204 Ruger with 39 grain Sierras are awesome, but if you are shooting big Coyotes a 77 grain nosler or a 75 grain Hornady out of a 223 will anchor a dog quicker and penetrate better. I agree, getting hit with a softball or golfball. That's the difference.
 
Originally Posted By: ozzy
varmintgitter said:
Pick your poison, do you want a flat shooting rifle that has really light weight bullets that weigh 32 to 40 grains or do you want a somewhat flat shooting rifle that can shoot bullets that weigh 40 grains up to 77 grains. ...A 75 grain bullet going 2800 fps will still be holding onto 514 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards whereas the 204 Ruger shooting a 40 grain V max will only have 404 ft lbs of energy even though it started out at 3900 fps. The 32 grain load which starts at 4225 ...will only have 326 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards. So if you want knockdown power further out the 223 carries it but it will have more drop. With the 204 Ruger you will get a laser like trajectory but have less oomph when you get out there a ways.
+1
It depends on your distances, targets. If you are only concerned about exterior ballistics (which bullet flies flatter), then the 204 generally wins out. If you will be (and I'm sure you are) concerned with terminal ballistics (in a nutshell = killing power), then the 223 MIGHT win (WILL win if you are comparing heavier bullets in 223 with 204 bullets at longer distances). A good range-finder and dialing in your scope will take care of the bullet drop factor - with practice
wink.gif
.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with whats been said so far- if your mainly popping P-dogs and such with the odd yote then the 204 will fit the bill! If your primary goal is yote with maybe deer /pigs in the mix go with the .223/5.56mm!
 
My 2 cents would be this. I've looked at the balistics of the 204 in bolt action guns 24" barrels very impressive. And Ive looked at the .223 in both short AR, and bolt 24". I have not looked at how fast a 204 is in a 16", 18" or 20" AR but may be alot slower then in bolt, and thus not nearly as good a round as its bolt action reputation. I addition to the barrel length the AR action takes away some velosity too. Get a load manual and ask guys how fast the 204 is in their short barrel ARs. Make sure they are realy usein a gragh, every one that speculates alway seems to be really shooting alot slower (in all calibures)in my expierence. Alec
 
Back
Top