Utility Rifle

[Dead_Eye 0]

Hey folks

I'm a gamekeeper and need a new utility rifle, its gonna spend it's working life on the front of a quad and will mostly be used to shoot crows and other small vermin with the odd unlucky fox. Ranges anywhere between 50 - 200 yrds

My .17HMR was for this purpose but can't seem to get on with it

 

Currently thinkin about a .204 Howa Lightning, seems good weight, length and price of course!

 

Any thoughts or advice ?

Cheers

[steve109 43]

Hey folks

I'm a gamekeeper and need a new utility rifle, its gonna spend it's working life on the front of a quad and will mostly be used to shoot crows and other small vermin with the odd unlucky fox. Ranges anywhere between 50 - 200 yrds

My .17HMR was for this purpose but can't seem to get on with it

 

Currently thinkin about a .204 Howa Lightning, seems good weight, length and price of course!

 

Any thoughts or advice ?

Cheers

i have one, you wont go too far wrong with them..

[jamie g 17]

Hey folks

I'm a gamekeeper and need a new utility rifle, its gonna spend it's working life on the front of a quad and will mostly be used to shoot crows and other small vermin with the odd unlucky fox. Ranges anywhere between 50 - 200 yrds

My .17HMR was for this purpose but can't seem to get on with it

 

Currently thinkin about a .204 Howa Lightning, seems good weight, length and price of course!

 

Any thoughts or advice ?

Cheers

 

you plan on reloading for it to get best results ? factory ammo isnt as easy to find for it in all areas. if you dont reload then check to see if you can get factory ammo in your area. if not a 223 mite be a good choice

[HUnter_zero 58]

I'd have to agree with Jamie on this. The problem with the more exotic calibres is that they can be very expensive to feed. Why not just go with a .223 (you can use military FMJ which are cheap as chips on the crows etc) or if your after something with a little more punch go with a .243" with a 1 in 12 twist and shoot 50 - 60 grain bullets.

 

John

[kbtfowler 2]

im an underkeeper and use my .222 for everything. Foxes out to 250 and crows as far as you can manage with you scope.

andy

[RicW 67]

I'd have to agree with Jamie on this. The problem with the more exotic calibres is that they can be very expensive to feed. Why not just go with a .223 (you can use military FMJ which are cheap as chips on the crows etc) or if your after something with a little more punch go with a .243" with a 1 in 12 twist and shoot 50 - 60 grain bullets.

 

John

 

John -

I hesitate to disagree with someone with far more experience than myself, but is it wise to use mil.spec .223 ammo in a civilian rifle? The Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, the main advisory body in the USA, states that military 5.56x45 ammunition is loaded to a much higher pressure than sporting .223 and should NOT be used in weapons marked as proofed for .223, only those proofed for 5.56x45. You might get away with it but if it is too much for your gun it would be expensive at best and lethal at worst. Lethal to the shooter that is.

RicW

[Mr_Logic 5]

there's a lot of basically milsurp stuff which is headstamped 223 Rem, which is fair enough.

 

Only need to watch it if it's stamped 5.56 NATO

[HUnter_zero 58]

military 5.56x45 ammunition is loaded to a much higher pressure than sporting .223 and should NOT be used in weapons marked as proofed for .223, only those proofed for 5.56x45. RicW

 

I have to be honest and say that I have never seen or heard of any issues with Mil spec ammo BUT would point out that the only Military 5.56 I've used has been head stamped by Radwell Green and British made. I know that there was some old 55 grain Military stuff floating around and also some German (DAG)/Belgium (FN) ammo but these were standard (NATO SS109). My mates use a whole lot of 7.62 head stamped, military fodder in their .308 rifles (much to my disgust, as I can not use the brass) with no ill effects. Now I know that military rifles have a special proof mark, which may mean a higher working pressure. I also know that "NP" military proof marks (NP does not stand for Nitro-proofed in Military proofing marks) means that the barrels are not all proof tested but a selection of barrels from each lot is tested and the whole lot then mass proof marked, strange but true. So, to be honest I have no idea. If I recall correctly an SA80 has a breech pressure stamp of 19 tonnes per square inch (???). If we were to study the actual Mil spec round, velocities specification show an average of 3000 fps using a 62 grain FMJ. We know that the rounds are loaded with ball powder (the ones I have had were at any rate), so to reproduce the round we could use a Speer 62 grain FMJ (#1050) and 25.5 grain of H380 (ball powder) which would give a MV of 3059 fps and a warm chamber pressure. If we substituted H380 for Ball © at 25.5 we get an increased MV of 3099 fps and again a warm chamber pressure.

I would personally have no issues shooting some military fodder based on the above but obviously if there is any doubt, stay well clear.

 

Note: Just got off the phone with a friend who shoots a lot of military stuff and he has given me the specifications of US M855 ball ammo (5.56). COAL = 2.26" / Powder = WC844 (much the same as H335) / Bullet = 62 FMJ (make unknown) / 55000 PSI / MV = 3000 fps. This taken out of a book he has.

 

He weighed a round for me and it was 189 grains, so subtract 62 grains (bullet) and 100 grains for the primed case (taken from an RG case I have here and that leaves us with approximately 27 grains of powder. Quick load suggests 23 of H355 would produce a MV of 3002 fps with 27 grains being a dangerous load but well above 3000 fps. However switching from .223 to 5.56 NATO in quick load suggests 23 grains of H355 would give a MV of 30018 and at max pressure. A 5.56 NATO case having a max H2O capacity of 28.5 grains and a .223 having 28.8. The difference being due to the requirement of thicker brass in military ammunition. So yes, the 5.56 NATO rounds although being exactly the same calibre are designed slightly different with slightly different needs in mind, producing a max chamber pressure of 4050 BAR, whilst a civilian round in .223 produces 4300 bar. From what I can put together and from my understanding of the figures our civilian rounds produce higher chamber pressures and greater velocity (theoretical) than than of the NATO rounds. What I would say is that all of the above is based solely on one specification from an unknown (by me) source and Quick load to study a mathematical model of the two rounds and so it follows it would be dangerous to shoot .223 in a 5.56 proofed rifle, but if the above is correct 5.56 NATO would be safe in a .223 proofed rifle (?????).

 

 

 

 

John

Edited October 5, 2009 by HUnter_zero

[kbtfowler 2]

just looked at the ballistics for the 204. very impressed! I would go with it seems v flat! dont know what the wind does to it though?

Andy

[Squirrel_Basher 17,100]

Martin off this site uses one to good effect .Pm him .

[Dead_Eye 0]

I had initially thought about a . 223 and got the authority on my ticket to purchase one. However speaking to my local firearms dealer he recommended the .204 On paper it seems a better round and less wind affected than .223 He said he shoots one and its the business!

 

I already hold a .243 and was really after something to replace my 17HMR. I've zero intentions of reloading as just don't have the time and also my estate pays for the rounds anyways

 

mike

[RicW 67]

there's a lot of basically milsurp stuff which is headstamped 223 Rem, which is fair enough.

 

Only need to watch it if it's stamped 5.56 NATO

 

During the trials (1977) for the standard NATO round the British 4.85mm (.19-223) was blowing the opposition off the landscape. Then Fabrique Nationale brought in a new 60gr spire point boat-tail with a much bigger powder charge. This was nearly as good ballistically as the 4.85. The decision to stay with the 5.56 was reached on the basis that the 4.85 could not use a folding cleaning rod. It says here. Far be it from me to suggest that vested interests played a role.

 

As I understand it, the chamber pressure is measured in different ways by the US military and by SAAMI. Whatever may be the case, I for one don't want to have my face next to an action that self destructs under too much chamber pressure.

 

Also, just for the record, the .308 is loaded to higher pressures than the 7.62x51 NATO.

 

Ric

[Deker 3,478]

military 5.56x45 ammunition is loaded to a much higher pressure than sporting .223 and should NOT be used in weapons marked as proofed for .223, only those proofed for 5.56x45. RicW

 

I have to be honest and say that I have never seen or heard of any issues with Mil spec ammo BUT would point out that the only Military 5.56 I've used has been head stamped by Radwell Green and British made. I know that there was some old 55 grain Military stuff floating around and also some German (DAG)/Belgium (FN) ammo but these were standard (NATO SS109). My mates use a whole lot of 7.62 head stamped, military fodder in their .308 rifles (much to my disgust, as I can not use the brass) with no ill effects. Now I know that military rifles have a special proof mark, which may mean a higher working pressure. I also know that "NP" military proof marks (NP does not stand for Nitro-proofed in Military proofing marks) means that the barrels are not all proof tested but a selection of barrels from each lot is tested and the whole lot then mass proof marked, strange but true. So, to be honest I have no idea. If I recall correctly an SA80 has a breech pressure stamp of 19 tonnes per square inch (???). If we were to study the actual Mil spec round, velocities specification show an average of 3000 fps using a 62 grain FMJ. We know that the rounds are loaded with ball powder (the ones I have had were at any rate), so to reproduce the round we could use a Speer 62 grain FMJ (#1050) and 25.5 grain of H380 (ball powder) which would give a MV of 3059 fps and a warm chamber pressure. If we substituted H380 for Ball © at 25.5 we get an increased MV of 3099 fps and again a warm chamber pressure.

I would personally have no issues shooting some military fodder based on the above but obviously if there is any doubt, stay well clear.

 

Note: Just got off the phone with a friend who shoots a lot of military stuff and he has given me the specifications of US M855 ball ammo (5.56). COAL = 2.26" / Powder = WC844 (much the same as H335) / Bullet = 62 FMJ (make unknown) / 55000 PSI / MV = 3000 fps. This taken out of a book he has.

 

He weighed a round for me and it was 189 grains, so subtract 62 grains (bullet) and 100 grains for the primed case (taken from an RG case I have here and that leaves us with approximately 27 grains of powder. Quick load suggests 23 of H355 would produce a MV of 3002 fps with 27 grains being a dangerous load but well above 3000 fps. However switching from .223 to 5.56 NATO in quick load suggests 23 grains of H355 would give a MV of 30018 and at max pressure. A 5.56 NATO case having a max H2O capacity of 28.5 grains and a .223 having 28.8. The difference being due to the requirement of thicker brass in military ammunition. So yes, the 5.56 NATO rounds although being exactly the same calibre are designed slightly different with slightly different needs in mind, producing a max chamber pressure of 4050 BAR, whilst a civilian round in .223 produces 4300 bar. From what I can put together and from my understanding of the figures our civilian rounds produce higher chamber pressures and greater velocity (theoretical) than than of the NATO rounds. What I would say is that all of the above is based solely on one specification from an unknown (by me) source and Quick load to study a mathematical model of the two rounds and so it follows it would be dangerous to shoot .223 in a 5.56 proofed rifle, but if the above is correct 5.56 NATO would be safe in a .223 proofed rifle (?????).

 

 

 

 

John

 

I rather think everyone should stop and read these articles

 

http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/n...aspx?storyid=11

 

http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html

 

Chap...it's Radway Green, part of BAE Systems and the British military small arms munitions supplier.

 

The 5.56 62g FMJ standard Nato Round has a higher cartridge pressure than the .223!

 

It's simple, if it says 5.56 then use it in a 5.56 (NOT .223), if it says .223 then use it in a .223 (or 5.56 if you must)!

 

Edited October 5, 2009 by Deker

[jamie g 17]

I had initially thought about a . 223 and got the authority on my ticket to purchase one. However speaking to my local firearms dealer he recommended the .204 On paper it seems a better round and less wind affected than .223 He said he shoots one and its the business!

 

I already hold a .243 and was really after something to replace my 17HMR. I've zero intentions of reloading as just don't have the time and also my estate pays for the rounds anyways

 

mike

 

thats fair comment but if there isnt a big lot of factory ammo in the shop and they only sell a couple of brands. what happens if your rifle dont like them ! its going to be very hard to get the accuracy it needs

[HUnter_zero 58]

It's simple, if it says 5.56 then use it in a 5.56 (NOT .223), if it says .223 then use it in a .223 (or 5.56 if you must)!

 

 

Very interesting stuff, as I say I've never come across this before but in saying that I don't shoot a .223 anymore or buy ammunition from the shops. So in theory, it would be more economical to reload 5.56 brass due to needing less powder? I have a stack of RADWAY GREEN brass here that is neither head stamped with .223 or 5.56 and produced some fine reloads.

 

John

Edited October 6, 2009 by HUnter_zero