CZ 527 walnut varmint in 204 or 223.

[rollmyown]

I'm tossing up between a 204 and a 223. I have 223 brass, projectiles and dies already.
The 204 has its own flat shooting long range appeal. The 223 should get better barrel life.
What's your preference? Assuming still conditions, how much extra range will th 204 give over the 223?
Is a 204 louder than the 223?

[petroid]

I haven't shot the 204, but on paper, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of gain. Yes it's over 4000fps but the lighter bullet slows down quicker. Point blank range isn't more than 40-50 yards difference with the 223 55gr at about 235 and the 204 32gr at 277. I know there are different bullet weights but you can load lighter bullets in the 223 but then you lose BC, etc. There is a certain appeal to that 4000fps number, and from what I've heard, they're not too hard on barrels, at least not like a 22-250 or 220 Swift. Because their isn't nearly as much powder being burned, they appear to last quite a bit longer.

[Mauser48]

Id get the 223. If I was going to go with anything else id go 22-250.

[Dryball]

I have all 3 calibers mentioned. The .204 is really fun and just destroys stuff. I like the 22-250 too. It will handle heavier bullets but it all depends on what you want to do with the gun/caliber. Don't let anyone fool ya though, I'm usin 40gr in the .204 and it gets out there. Furthest shot on a woodchuck is 400 but that's all the further I can shoot around my area.

[rollmyown]

Does head shooting rabbits with the 204 leave you with an edible kill, or is the meat badly bruised and damaged?

I've only got the choice of the two calibers mentioned at a really good price. I had a 22/250 25 years ago, and it was an amazing caliber, and the most accurate rifle I have ever owned.

[dh2]

I am a fan of the .204 Ruger it will get a varmint at better range than the .223 Rem. it will keep up with the .220 Swift for my use, and do it in an AR-15 frame I am not worried about the meat on any thing I shoot with the .204 Ruger or the .220 Swift,

[Three44s]

Speed is addictive.

Since you had a .22-250 and liked it ........ I'd say you'd be more happy with a .204 than a .223 Rem.

I have both but my .204 is a Savage I swapped into the caliber. My .223 is a CZ.

I would not trade either but if you want lights out at extended range the .204 in my opinion is the better ticket. They are simply too flat shooing to "put down".

I can take our American coyote and place a good hit with a .204 and see it drop before I lose the sight picture. On my very first, I hit it in the neck (that and the head was all I could see) and saw the bottoms of it's feet in the scope before I lost it in the recoil. Upon inspection, I discovered that a Hornady 32 gr. v max never went out the other side.

With .223 I get a lot more run arounds before they die.

I have a friend that's a Predator hunter for a native American tribe and he's so enamoured with his CZ 527 in .204 it is not even funny.

Best of luck with whatever you decide. They are both great calibers but there are differences.

Three 44s

[Mauser48]

The 204 is definitely devastating. If I was going for shots very far id get a 22-250 with heavy bullets. For 400 yards and in either one is great. The problem with 204 is the wind. Since you already have 223 loading stuff id get that and shoot 40 grain bullets. At the end of the day you would probably want the other one anyway to complete the pair! Good luck with your decision, you will be happy with either one. 204 is a very interesting round.

[CHeatermk3]

From extensive experience on prairie dogs, I can tell you that the 204 has a solid 100yd advantage over the 223.
this is comparing the 50gn vmax 223 to the 40gn vmax 204. I shoot AA2230 in both, neither is loaded to max velocity just max accuracy tested at 100. Shot side-by side, me shooting 223 and my buddy shooting 204, he was easily hitting dogs 100 yds farther out than I was.

Shot the 223 in an accurized M700 Rem PSS 26" barrel vs Ruger M77VT stock from the factory--26" barrel.

Using the same powder charge, 24.5 gn AA2230 the 204 is going a couple hundred fps faster and the higher BC of the 40vmax 204 just adds icing on the cake. The muzzle blast of the 204 seems worse that may be due to the smaller hole giving a higher pitched, more penetrating loudness. Neither should be shot without hearing protection. In a shorter barrel, say an H&R, it is much worse especially if shooting at a bench.

As far as being a barrel burner I think that if you're shooting out a barrel you're having a LOT of fun.

It took me 8000 rounds before my PSS needed rebarreling--I call that success. I've only got three seasons for 2500 rounds thru my 204 and I'll gladly re-barrel it if/when it becomes necessary.

[Dryball]

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4X25ZjJKE

There are other good videos too

[Gofaaast]

I would go for the 204,fast and flat. I prefer my .17 Rem though with a heavy barrel, it doesn't blur the scope and is excellent for saving fur. Doesn't shoot boolits though.

[roysha]

204 Ruger. The answer to the question that was never asked.