204Ruger

I have both a 204 and 223 in 23in for my TC Contender and like both. However looking at a bolt rifle in one and can not decide which to go with. I kind of favor the 223 for the use of heavier bullets, at times, even tho I shoot mostly 32- 39 gr Dogtown and SBK's in both with good results. What are some opinions on which one to go with first ? Thank you for info. Bill K

I have both calibers in bolt guns. My personal favorite is definately the 204. But I am starting to look for a new 223 in a Cooper. If I can find what I am looking for, the Cooper just may become my favorite rifle. Me thinks!

They overlap in a big way when it comes to their capabilities: pd's, foxes, coyotes, paper punching, etc.....

Ideally a man should have at least one of each if not more (I've got 3 of one and 2 of the other).

If, however, I was forced to make a choice, I'd go with the .204 since I believe it will do everything the .223 will do, and more.

I say that because of the .204's ability to throw 32 grain bullets down range at speeds which far outstrip anything the .223 can do. It's certainly as effective if not more so on coyotes.

If you didn't handload, the .223 might have the edge based on the availability and the cost of ammunition....

JMO....YMMV.

Bill, you left out a pretty important factor. What are you going to do with this new rifle?

I use the 223 and 204 both for paper, plinking and varmint hunting. I have used the 223 on a couple of deer, as my state allows any centerfire ( I think the 204 is a little on the light side, bullet wise for them) but I usually use either a 25-06, 30-06 or 30-30 for deer and larger. The more I think about it and look at the vaious bolt rifles out there, I may just go with the 204, as I also have and shoot
a 22-250. I posed this question to kind of see what the majority on this site would lean to, seems like the 204 is favored, so far. I should mention, that yes, I do reload, have been since about 1954, I am a old guy.. Bill K

I have both calibers in rifles and would pick the 204 hands down if I could only have one. The 204 will out perform the 223 in my opinion. It actually has more energy at the longer ranges, faster and flatter shooting.

If I could only have one, I'd sooner have a .222 Rem Mag, which -- Surprise! -- was the parent case for both the .223 Rem and the .204 Ruger. It has better small bullet performance than the .223 and better barrel life than either.

I believe that every American male should have a bolt-gun at home chambered for the current U.S. Military cartridge currently in use. But.....that's just me. If you need to know the reasoning behind such a statement, then more education and worldly experience is required on the part of the reader. I'm an old guy too, this is one thing I've learned along the way.

But on a lighter note, you need both.
You'll end up with both. (You'll see....just wait.)
Get the 204 first; in a rifle, it'll open up a whole new world. And as you're an old hand at handloading, you'll really smile when you see what your new rifle will do with its pet loads.

As others have mentioned, like them, I have five 223's and four 204's. Not sure about them, but I'll wager they are like me, in that my 204's get shot more these days than my 223's do. I love my 223's, always will, but that's the truth FWIW.

Once you get it, remember......we like pics.

RIO. I fully agree with the bolt gun and a military cartridge. However I stuck with the old 06, as that was the first large caliber I bought, and shot many a round out of the Grand Old Garand.
I am leaning towards a 204 in a bolt action. Looking at a few rifles at the local gun shops. I presently only have one 204( that being in the 23 SS contender barrel) but I have three 223's in contender barrels, 223, 14 & 12 inch. The wife, as most do, ask's what another gun, silly lady.. Bill K

A 223 with a 6.5 to 8 twist barrels can shoot very well at distances of 600 yards and beyond. Not too sure how much further the 204 will go, accurately. The beauty of the 223 is twofold, it's used in competition and it's a military round. The 204 is neither.

Compare the two tables below. At all velocities greater than 200 yards, the .204 Ruger has more velocity AND ENERGY than the .223 Remington.

Now, you could decrease the bullet weight of the .223 to 40 grains and get a bullet trajectory closer to that of the .204 - but at the expense of energy. If we go the other way and increase the bullet weight to 60 or 65 grains, again we do so at the expense of trajectory. The .204 Ruger offers both flat trajectory AND energy that the .223 can't match! And consider the 25% reduction in wind drift!

However, the .223 does have the edge in bullet selection.

Just saying...

My vote is for you must have both. I love my Contenders and have had .223 Remington in 14” and 21” barrels for decades. Last fall I finally checked to see what a .204 Ruger was all about and soon had a Remington 700 to cover the bolts and a ss 23” no taper G2 barrel arrived last month. Part of my attraction to Contenders is seeing how close to bolt gun accuracy they can be made to shoot so high up on my “must have” list is a .223 bolt gun. My “problem” is deciding between plain ole .223 or the Improved 40 version where if going to that much trouble and having .204 brass I think it’s only a tapered expander away from the .222 Magnum Improved 40. Of course the Contender chambers would then have to be made to match.

The toys are still going through DIY tuning right now and I’m slower than dirt but if success yields something worthy I’ll fight my way through the dial-up connection to show off my efforts.

I say sell something so that you can have both. Just make sure is aint one of your rifles.

204Shooter wrote:Compare the two tables below. At all velocities greater than 200 yards, the .204 Ruger has more velocity AND ENERGY than the .223 Remington.

Now, you could decrease the bullet weight of the .223 to 40 grains and get a bullet trajectory closer to that of the .204 - but at the expense of energy. If we go the other way and increase the bullet weight to 60 or 65 grains, again we do so at the expense of trajectory. The .204 Ruger offers both flat trajectory AND energy that the .223 can't match! And consider the 25% reduction in wind drift!

However, the .223 does have the edge in bullet selection.

Just saying...

My ballistics tables tell me a 223 with an 80 SMK @ 2860 fps (which is what I get, consistently);

-Travels further above Mach 1: 1100 yards vs. 800 yards;
-Hits harder (@ 800 yds, 204 drop off below Mach 1): 340 ft/lb vs. 105 ft/lb;
-Bucks wind (@ 800 yds w/15mph @ 90 deg); 11.7 vs. 17.6 (MOA)
-Drop (@ 800 yds) ; 204 (19.3) 223 (23.3) (MOA)

With the exception of drop, the 80 SMK runs circles around a 39SBK 204. The point is, a 223 can-be very capable and importantly, it depends on what you're shooting at. I have an abundance of 77/80 SMK and 75/80AMAX 224 bullets. I wouldn't hesitiate for a moment to shoot small criters with them. For the larger varmints I have a 6mm Remington for those far away shots.

The point of this is to high-light Rick's point of owning military cartridges.

Jim, if you are going to increase the 223 from 55 to 80 grain bullets, then increase the 39 grain bullet to 55 for the 204. I do not have the charts to print it out but I am sure that it would close this gap. I have shot prairie dogs at 600 yards with the 39 grain 204, but would not shoot at anything larger that is alive at that distance, well except for that badger last year that was eating the dead prairie dogs!