Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts
Elliott

Rebarrel from 223 to 204

Recommended Posts

Mulling this new over for my Tikka T3 Varmint, currently in 223 and is a 1:12 twist.

 

What kinds of costs, or do you think it's worth p/x'ing for a new rifle? The Howa Varmint looks decent. Spotted one for sale with a GRS Beserk stock for around £680

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't bother Elliott,... Too much hype and bull#### about regarding bullet b\c and velocity in this calibre.Very little difference in "real time" shooting between it and your .223 to be noticeable....and I certainly wouldn't p\ex my t3 super varmint for a howa...just my opinion,

 

Regards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't bother Elliott,... Too much hype and bull#### about regarding bullet b\c and velocity in this calibre.Very little difference in "real time" shooting between it and your .223 to be noticeable....and I certainly wouldn't p\ex my t3 super varmint for a howa...just my opinion,

 

Regards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree. Although i loved my .204 i wouldnt change from my now .223 to a .204 for the same reasons given. Just so little in it in real world terms. I.m currently playing about with 40 grain vmax in my .223. Ive had some promising results, albeit ive not chrono'd them yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elliott

I use a Howa .223 Varmit which is an excellent tool.

Friends of mine use 17 Hornet, 204 and 17 Fireball.

They are lovely and very accurate rounds but sourcing 17 Fireball cases is a pain.

Another consideration is MOD Range use.

We shoot on an MOD range for practice but the 17/204 listings are no goes !!!!

They exceed the speed rating of 1000m/sec.

The military also have a 7000 J limit.

Some MOD Ranges are diffent but when the NRA were contacted yesterday we discovered that there are difined limits .

Cheers

I enjoy your You Channel .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll buck the trend here. The 223 does a good job, that's for sure. But if you want to try something else, the 204 would no doubt do you proud. I have a 223 and a 20 Tac. The 223 , which is a stunning rifle, a Dakota Predator single shot with a Jewel trigger and beautiful wood, rarely sees the light of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.204 vs .223 aside. I've been watching your Youtube videos, under 'Trigger Pull TV'. What a great channel, and some great videos. Thanks for uploading! :)

Trigger Pull TV'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a custom 204 and a custom Dolphin 223 The 223 is a legend ! If I had to keep one rifle out of my 9 rifles it would be the 223 and if I had to drop two it would be the 17hmr closely followed by the 204.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed,the MVs,for the .204,stated by the manufacturers are probably unobtainable,but,as has been often been stated,out to 350 yards,the drop/drift figures are very impressive. Saying that,your 1:12 .223, firing 40gr Blitzkings won't be that different,it's your choice,but I'll be keeping my ,204 and for "vermin",I can't think of a better calibre than the .20s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

204 Ruger Fed 40g Sierra BlitzKing. BC .287 @3750fps 200y. 0/3.3. 300y. 4.7/7.8. 400y. 14.1/14.7 energy 490 ft lb

 

223 Rem. CorBon 40g S BlitzKing BC .210. @3400. 200y 0/5.3. 300y 7/12.9. 400y 22/25.1 energy 269 ftlb

 

SAAMI spec,24 inch barrels,drop/drift inches,200y zero

 

gbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

204 Ruger Fed 40g Sierra BlitzKing. BC .287 @3750fps 200y. 0/3.3. 300y. 4.7/7.8. 400y. 14.1/14.7 energy 490 ft lb

 

223 Rem. CorBon 40g S BlitzKing BC .210. @3400. 200y 0/5.3. 300y 7/12.9. 400y 22/25.1 energy 269 ftlb

 

SAAMI spec,24 inch barrels,drop/drift inches,200y zero

 

gbal

 

 

It is well known and proven that the .20 cal BC's are hopelessly exaggerated and you are also being very mean on the speed of your .223 40gr load which makes the .204 show a significant edge that in the real world it doesn't possess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is well known and proven that the .20 cal BC's are hopelessly exaggerated and you are also being very mean on the speed of your .223 40gr load which makes the .204 show a significant edge that in the real world it doesn't possess.

 

+ 1

 

And a few .204 users around my neck of the woods have now realised this and decided to jump off the .204 bandwagon - it cannot possibly compete with the popularity or versatility of the .223, comparatively speaking

 

Would much prefer the .243 myself ..others prefer the 22-250, each to their own..

 

(personally I think it won't be too many years before the .204 will be resigned to the bargain bin like the triple-deuce)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments.

 

The load I've developed with my 223 uses 53gr V-Max, which have a BC of 0.290 so there's probably not much in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.204 vs .223 aside. I've been watching your Youtube videos, under 'Trigger Pull TV'. What a great channel, and some great videos. Thanks for uploading! :)

Trigger Pull TV'.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. Videos have unfortunately taken a back seat for me at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Al, SAAMI loads chosen as closest to actual bullet/BC already mentioned in the thread.Yes,there is variation,and the 224 can look better...I won't use non SAAMI loads for comparisons,as pressures are simply not known by reloaders....QL-"quite likely' is a generous summary.

Snakeman,not at all surprised-204 is excellent in its envelope,as is 223 which is more versatile/bigger envelope.Past say 300y,the 6mms -6BR esp-trash both,'ballistically'.

 

The understandable diversion of opinions,and with variable data ,derives from only considering MV/BC drop/drift.I quote-usually without comment-just to have a level-ish base playing field. BC of course is not a constant,and correlates (somewhat variably) with velocity.

But there is another way to make meaningful comparisons,following Litz -target hit percentage analysis....so:

 

20 calibre 40g bullet at 3700MV BC.220(at 3700fps) gives this (range measured to 5 yards accuracy):% hits:

 

300yards 1mph accuracy of wind judgement 10" target 100% 5" target 100%. 5mph wind accuracy 10'' 92% 5" 60%

400y. ". '. ". ". 10" target 100% 5" target 95%. ". '. ". 10"63%. 5" 33%

500y. ". '. '. ". 10" target. 99%. 5" target 75%. '. ; '. 10" 39% 5"18%

 

224 calibre 55g bullet at MV 3800 BC .225.

 

300y 10" 100%. 5" 100%. 10" 97% 5 " 97%

400y. !0". 100% 5" 96%. 10". 74% 5" 42%

500y. 10". 99%. 5" 77%. 10" 50% 5"24%

 

The 20 cal data is in the 204 Ruger ball park,the 224 data is in the 22-250 class;and you can exercise your imagination/experience etc as to where the 223rem falls-somewhere in between.... wiggle /wriggle room...Notice how at extreme ranges,for small targets under '5mph error wind conditions' hits drop off and tend to be similar (roughly 20%)....if ranging is out,it's considerably worse. Put another way,none of these options are really effective-and the 6mms offer a bit more...

 

All these assume very good rig/near perfect shooting etc( and 1/2 moa at 100y,MVSD fps) except for the effects of wind reading error ( given for 1 and 5 mph error) and ,of course target size(given for 10" and 5"). Note too,these are 'over 100shot' data- you might get lucky at 500 with your first two shots,but not all the rest....

 

 

 

'For group' shooting apart,hitting the target has a certain validity for most shooting..it's "accuracy" rather than just 'Dispersion/group' -the rig precision. Of course,%s assume rifle is target centred-reduced percentages show how dispersal affect accuracy under the specified conditions....."head shots at 500yards all day long " need some pretty GM'd bunnies ( bigger tha 5" heads)!

 

 

If your 20/224 rig beats all this,keep it...you won't likely get another!!

 

gbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Rem 50g BC.242 @ 3410. 200y 0/4.5. 300y. 6.4/10.8

2) Win 50g BC.239 @ 3410. 200y 0/4.6. 300y 6.4/11.1

3)BHills. 50g BC.242 @3310. 200y 0/4.7. 300y 6.8/11.4

4)Fiocchi 50gBC.242 @3310. 200y 0/4.7 300y 6.9/11.3

5)Umax 50gBC.232. @3100. 200y 0/5.7. 300y 8.4/13.8

6) Umax. 50g BC.238. @3100.200y 0/5.2. 300y 8.1/12.6

 

All SAAMI commercial loads;pressure controlled;24 " barrel;200 zero drop/drift 10 mph; 3&4 are Vmax,5 is TNT,6 is Nosler bullet.

 

Allows quite reasonable comparisons for effects of Velocity,and BC-which are rather small at 200y and 300y (1,2,3,4).

Only when both are reduced considerably (5 and 6) and at 300y does over an inch In drop and inch and a half in wind show up.

 

Taken with the hit % analysis already given in post 16 above,the case for a substantial difference/advantage between 223/204 is somewhat underwhelming,which is broadly what non partisan users tend to say,and common sense might suggest,with a near common case capacity. There are too few 40g loads to analyse such two variable effects,but probably quite similar.

 

There are other factors which help explain some of the experiences/reality shootes may have with such calibre/bullet comparisons. Ballistic coefficient is actually a continuous variable while the bullet is in flight,and reduces with time of flight (itself correlating wih distance,but not linearly) just as does velocity (to which BC is related). SEcondly,and a little more complex,the rate of loss of velocity varies over calibre and BC etc....

Simply put,very fast light bullets tend to lose velocity,BC,and energy rather faster than initially slower,heavier,better BC bullets....the early zippers rather run out of steam sooner....as the 17Rem evidenced,before the current interest in the fine 20 calibre...so what appears impressive at the muzzle-and is-velocity is advantageous to around 300y (approx) but then increasingly BC becomes influential..always remembering these are not independent factors. ( and claimed BC may/not be measured the same way for all;and advertised velocities might not transfer to reloaded ammo.....). Energy (differnt sorts) and it's terminal transfer come in too,for quarry. All physics,but 'Vorsprung durch technik' (progress happens)-and not all readily measurable 'in the field'.

There are of course variably non ballistic differnces,which may be relevant-noise,ricochet (vel related though),costs etc and plain old choice/subjective /fashion or niche preference. Best not to claim many sweeping generalisations. :-).

 

gbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gbal....realtime shooting is what counts not quoted figures.

 

 

 

Regards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gbal....realtime shooting is what counts not quoted figures.

 

 

 

Regards..

 

 

so the F1 guys are wasting their time with all that engineering analysis and simulation, it's what the driver feels is happening that counts ??

 

wonder what the Big Data revolution is all about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

minkstone,the point of giving 'figures' is to limit the claims sometimes made about the performance of various cartridges. To a fair approximation,the figures are actually real....

The quoting of SAAMI specification ammo figures is to have a reasonably level playing field,under fairly standard cconditions-like known pressures etc.Then we are looking at apples to apples reasonably.

It's clear that not every shooter needs to know about physics I detail...but the old timers who thought the 22/250 shot flat to 250 yards and then rose up a bit were-or are- not well informed....though it was a heck of a cartridge at the time..but not that good-nothing can be.

The more detailed analysis of the data show how sometimes differnt opinions come from cherry picking the data-not deliberately,but for example assuming a fast bullet remains a fast bullet,compared to others...or that BC is a constant...what may well be defensible at say 200yards is no longer true at 400...many 'know' that -the physics show why...and to what extent.

Knowledge of measurement is also variable-shooting is in many ways probabilistic-too many variables we cannot know/measure shot to shot influence the bullets path,though each shot is decidedly determined by the laws of physics-it's 'just'that the conditions-wind,bullet tension,atmospherics etc etc can change shot to shot. Once we accept probability,statistics can be useful,but they are misleading -not lies damned lies and statistics-but rather unrepresentative samples,and simplest of all ,small samples just do not 'represent' the rifle/ammo performance....as a very simple example,currently coming up,ES is just the two extreme shots-fastest and slowest-and may be very unrepresentative ofall the other shots....so It'sa very limited 'measure' of variability-unless it's very small I've all the shots are very close in MV....SD is a bit better,but limited too- in twenty shots SD might be considerable because one is way out,yet all the rest are the same....

OK-take away-the interpretation of rather limited data is prone to error....and working it out to the third decimal does not help....

 

I'd be interested,though in what you mean by 'realtime shooting'-for example ,I spent 2 hours on Sunday shooting about 70 rounds at 400-500 yards at reactive targets. I didn't have a physics book,but am prettysure all the shots were within what 'physics' allows-and the hold overs etc seemed just as expected/predicted near enough.

I'd be very shaken indeed if that were not so-the description of cf trajectories as 'lazer' cannot be so,at least beyond a couple of hundred yards....and beyond 350,if you are one of those old guys with their first 22/250 (and no,I don't think they really believed the bullet would eventually fall off the edge of the flat earth....they just meant new performance was a game changer,but not from a differnt universe,really. :-). That does not mean there isn't some hype in the commercial world,or hopes of the enthusiast (as 22/250 myth).

 

"Realtime shooting" eh....been doing that for a whiles....never had any reason to suspect that 'physics' were dodgy,at least broadly Newtonian physics...gravity and all that malarky-it just works...

All the rest-if indeed there is anything else (I am also an academic research psychologist) has to be compatible-I'll put it no more strongly than that. There is an 'inner mental game'-essentially it's attention/focus etc...but it is not an alternate to physics....But I do understand -from that research etc-that humans have some trouble sometimes with evidence etc that does not quite fit with their hopes ,beliefs,investments,and ...err.. Errors...

...and may the physical forces be with you-because most assuredly,shooting will be even more frustrating if they are agin you,or neglected! As Djokovich showed today-the mental lapse not helped by the physical wind.....:-)

 

 

atb

g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is an 'inner mental game'-essentially it's attention/focus etc...but it is not an alternate to physics....But I do understand -from that research etc-that humans have some trouble sometimes with evidence etc that does not quite fit with their hopes ,beliefs,investments,and ...err.. Errors..."

 

I like that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gbal...you stated " the point of giving figures is to limit the claims sometimes made about various cartridges" and in this exact case the highly exaggerated b\c's and velocities quoted for the 204. In "real time " shooting unless u "adjust b\c's and velocity figures from " quoted" factory figures they just don't stack up,this is the point I was trying to make. Thank you for your very in depth reply.

 

Regards

 

Oh and thank you tika4sika for your "input"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,minkstone. There is some. Err. 'Discussion' about whether factory ammunition performance (quoted or real?) can be replicated. By reloaders...this is sometimes unclear-as reloaders cannot get the 'speciaal' factory load powder.

I agree that the actual experience of reloaders is a good comparison. Of course,none of them have access to pressure measures,so their velocities may be partly derived from over SAAMI pressures,and not really comparable either,even if a good chrongraph has been used on a decent sample of rounds.

The BC issue has been addressed by Litz,and much more reliable data published,but not for every bullet.There may also be different measuring methods used by differnt manufacturers,and the 'best' BC quoted-I've at the highest achieved velocity-which takes us back to the first point...!

"Adjusting" BC etc has it's own pitfalls-generally limiting the range to which the adjusted "alternate facts" program inputs remain predictive,but it's a botch solution for an initial botch(poor primary input data-some derived from not enough real time shooting-like one three shot groups at 500y). So yes,much more real time shots In the input would help (25 hits and no misses begins to look reliable).

 

The general take away is that a detailed multi manufacturer analysis,and several ways of evaluating performance are more likely to give more reliables nd comparable data.

But that should include good data from reloaders-subject to above-and we don't always know (powder load is one guide,which is usually available).

 

As I joked wrt the then new 22/250 factory ammo,exaggeration isn't confined to marketing departments. The invention of the affordable chrongraph set back wildcatting several decades,as reality emerged,and no doubt led to the introduction of several bigger spoons for powder. :-). The modern addiction is to split kernels,and -I kid you not-new,optimal rounded end stick kernels,to ensure uniform dispensing. Well,why not...."real time shooting" will soon suggest whether it's for the many,not just the few- in safe and strong actions,of course. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy