Which Rifle?

[Deker 3,478]

the only real down side to the .204 is the price of the ammo £23.50 for 20 remmington 32gn thats why i reload my own and glad i did start its good fun really ..150yrds is close shooting for a .204 ...194yrd head shots on rabbit at night can get really easy..i would never use another .223 ..its the 204 for me from now on ...there so sweet to shoot i have loads of pics of foxs that iv shot with my .204 its just right for a foxing round and crows .the rabbit pic is of a rabbit shot at 180 yrds ? i think you will find it did its job

 

Impressive stuff you've just confirmed that the .204 is what i'm after, yes i totally agree ammo is expensive but hopefully if the round gets more popular the price may come down. Still waiting on the grant to come through its only been 4 months they're abit slow in my neck of the woods! Will let you know how i got on but thanks for your replyhttp://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

 

Each to their own of course and every problem and piece of land has its favoured tool, the .204 has its uses without any doubt, but it is NOT the new Messiah, a .223 has a LOT more stopping power and a 40 grain round is VERY flat and fast. A .204 is NOT a great Fox round, it is capable, but so is a .22LR... a .223, 22-250 or indeed .243 is arguably a better and longer range Fox tool.

 

Don't shout..but don't jump that quickly either..!!!!

[Mr_Logic 5]

the only real down side to the .204 is the price of the ammo £23.50 for 20 remmington 32gn thats why i reload my own and glad i did start its good fun really ..150yrds is close shooting for a .204 ...194yrd head shots on rabbit at night can get really easy..i would never use another .223 ..its the 204 for me from now on ...there so sweet to shoot i have loads of pics of foxs that iv shot with my .204 its just right for a foxing round and crows .the rabbit pic is of a rabbit shot at 180 yrds ? i think you will find it did its job

 

Impressive stuff you've just confirmed that the .204 is what i'm after, yes i totally agree ammo is expensive but hopefully if the round gets more popular the price may come down. Still waiting on the grant to come through its only been 4 months they're abit slow in my neck of the woods! Will let you know how i got on but thanks for your replyhttp://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

 

Each to their own of course and every problem and piece of land has its favoured tool, the .204 has its uses without any doubt, but it is NOT the new Messiah, a .223 has a LOT more stopping power and a 40 grain round is VERY flat and fast. A .204 is NOT a great Fox round, it is capable, but so is a .22LR... a .223, 22-250 or indeed .243 is arguably a better and longer range Fox tool.

 

Don't shout..but don't jump that quickly either..!!!!

 

WHat's your source on the 204's stopping power? muzzle energy is broadly comparable with a 223, and it retains that energy better than 223. If anything, it should be more capable on fox than the 223 as it's doing 22/250 energy/velocity at the longer ranges, and 223-like ballistics up close.

 

I've heard tales of the light rounds exploding on the surface of a fox, but remedied with 39 or 40 gr bullet.

 

but, I've not seen one in the field so don't know for sure, just going on theory until I can afford one!

[Deker 3,478]

the only real down side to the .204 is the price of the ammo £23.50 for 20 remmington 32gn thats why i reload my own and glad i did start its good fun really ..150yrds is close shooting for a .204 ...194yrd head shots on rabbit at night can get really easy..i would never use another .223 ..its the 204 for me from now on ...there so sweet to shoot i have loads of pics of foxs that iv shot with my .204 its just right for a foxing round and crows .the rabbit pic is of a rabbit shot at 180 yrds ? i think you will find it did its job

 

Impressive stuff you've just confirmed that the .204 is what i'm after, yes i totally agree ammo is expensive but hopefully if the round gets more popular the price may come down. Still waiting on the grant to come through its only been 4 months they're abit slow in my neck of the woods! Will let you know how i got on but thanks for your replyhttp://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

 

Each to their own of course and every problem and piece of land has its favoured tool, the .204 has its uses without any doubt, but it is NOT the new Messiah, a .223 has a LOT more stopping power and a 40 grain round is VERY flat and fast. A .204 is NOT a great Fox round, it is capable, but so is a .22LR... a .223, 22-250 or indeed .243 is arguably a better and longer range Fox tool.

 

Don't shout..but don't jump that quickly either..!!!!

 

WHat's your source on the 204's stopping power? muzzle energy is broadly comparable with a 223, and it retains that energy better than 223. If anything, it should be more capable on fox than the 223 as it's doing 22/250 energy/velocity at the longer ranges, and 223-like ballistics up close.

 

I've heard tales of the light rounds exploding on the surface of a fox, but remedied with 39 or 40 gr bullet.

 

but, I've not seen one in the field so don't know for sure, just going on theory until I can afford one!

 

 

.204 was designed by all accounts for 32g, the heavier group like a 20g HMR apparently!

 

Also consider a .17HMR 17g has 245ft lb and .22LR 40g HP Sub has 100ft lb....I'd take the .22sub any time over the HMR for fox!!

 

It isn't all about speed and power, its about terminal effect...therefore........

 

.204 has its uses without any doubt, but it is NOT the new Messiah, a .223 has a LOT more stopping power and a 40 grain round is VERY flat and fast. A .204 is NOT a great Fox round, it is capable, but so is a .22LR... a .223, 22-250 or indeed .243 is arguably a better and longer range Fox tool.

 

Apparently!!!!!!!!!!......but I still look forward to trying your .204 and testing all the hype!!

[Mr_Logic 5]

I did think of the HMR vs 22RF debate, but it's different for a number of factors.

 

First up, up close the HMR is bloody lethal, because of the expansion of the bullet. This relies on velocity and I've seen the magic figure of 1600fps bandied about as the point at which ballistic tip stops being explosive - HMR loses velocity to put it under this relatively quickly.

 

Secondly, bullet weight between HMR and 22LR is very different, in 204 vs 223 it's the same, just configured differently. Now, all things being equal, the round with the larger diameter wins, because the energy gets transferred fastest with the fatter profile.

 

However, if you combine velocity of 223/204 and the ballistic tip, the expansion is violent because of the design of the bullet, and not just the cross section.

 

Therefore, driven fast enough, either bullet will expand violently, and therefore, since the 204 holds velocity better, it will have better long-range terminal ballistics than the 223. 22-250 and 243 do beat it though.

 

In terms of the 40gr accuracy, I've seen that some rifles don't like it too, so time will tell! Maybe Sierra's 39gr BlitzKing saves the day?!