204 ruger

[JackReady]

I've rarely heard so much rubbish, the .223 has lots of bonuses over the "superior" .22cf's barrel life, component availability for amunition and to say its unsuitable for muntjac shows you've clearly never been anywhere near one. I mean for crying out loud its used on most battlegrounds for taking out people. The simple fact is to 200 yards there is negligible drop with an inch high zero and foxes don't get up again. I use 55grain bullets and certainly if I use ballistic tips they take foxes apart. So the idea you buy one on a whim rather than an educated decision just shows you need to get out more and read less books

 

Alex

 

Life is all about educated choices mate. Some of us invest time and effort in ensuring we make the best choices for our own individual requirements. Some of us work on the basis if it kills people at 200 yards its good enough for me. I try and be a little more scientific in my selection criteria. But if you're happy with your every grunt in nam had one so its ok with me tick box. I'm happy for you.

 

As for getting out more, I'm out every day, sometime 7 days a week. How about you?

[kyska]

Alex

 

Life is all about educated choices mate. Some of us invest time and effort in ensuring we make the best choices for our own individual requirements. Some of us work on the basis if it kills people at 200 yards its good enough for me. I try and be a little more scientific in my selection criteria. But if you're happy with your every grunt in nam had one so its ok with me tick box. I'm happy for you.

 

As for getting out more, I'm out every day, sometime 7 days a week. How about you?

 

Handbags ladies...this is about the wonderful unrecognised ruger .204 for people who will never shoot a deer.

[JackReady]

I guess you own .22-250, and only a .22-250. Wind your neck in and give some decent advice.

 

From what I can gather, the .204 is a great calibre, and more popular than you think. Flat shooting and plenty of energy. I'd love to try one

Comment such as yours just goes to show how wrong people can be. But hopefully they live long enough to learn the error of their ways. Along with some social skills into the bargain.

 

Live long SSS.

Edited May 26, 2010 by JackReady

[SSS]

Comment such as yours just goes to show how wrong people can be. But hopefully they live long enough to learn the error of their ways. Along with some social skills into the bargain.

 

Live long SSS.

And what part of that is wrong exactly?

 

So far I have gathered you have a very, shall we say, sheltered attitude on rifle calibres.

[JackReady]

I've got one, but I'm keeping my mouth shut, interested in some of the opinions given!

 

You've got one what?

 

I personally welcome all opinions and views on such matters. How else are we to gain knowledge and insight into things that interest us.

 

Only a fool and the gullible think they know everything. A wise man knows how much he has to learn.

[JackReady]

And what part of that is wrong exactly?

 

So far I have gathered you have a very, shall we say, sheltered attitude on rifle calibres.

 

There you go again, getting it all wrong.

[SSS]

There you go again, getting it all wrong.

Good answer, very meticulously thought out

[jay222]

As for getting out more, I'm out every day, sometime 7 days a week. How about you?

lol how could you be out everyday but only sometimes 7 days a week?

[Graham M]

.243 and a 70grn BT beats 'em all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There ya go...mines'e bigger than your's

 

 

G.M.

[JackReady]

lol how could you be out everyday but only sometimes 7 days a week?

 

I see what you mean.

 

What I meant to say was. I'm out almost every day, sometimes 7 days a week. I do try and get Sundays off when ever I can. It helps ensure a continued level of domestic harmony.

[JackReady]

There ya go...mines'e bigger than your's

 

And who could argue with that?

[Mr_Logic]

Jack I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove.

 

Thus far you seem to be arguing that 22-250 is the best calibre ever, so go sing, and that you can't kill a muntjac or roe past 200 yards with a 223. Unfortunately for you, you are talking ****.

 

So you got 2500 rounds from a 22-250 barrel and you have to deal with throat erosion - well that's nice. 223 doesn't have that problem, and I don't load mine to keep up with 22-250. If I wanted 22-250 velocity, I would have a 22-250.

 

I wouldn't use a 22-243 etc on these things as they are expensive, rare wildcat calibres. Yes they do offer things over and above your run-of-the-mill calibres, but I really can't be bothered. 243 on the other hand is a good contender, I've left it as we'd limited ourselves around 204, which is where the OP was coming from. However...

 

Let's include it for a minute... Ignoring for a moment the increased powder burn, even shorter barrel life and higher cost of ammunition, the 243 destroys the 22-250 - why don't you shoot that? 55gr bullet with BC .276 @ 4000+ fps. Stick that up your 22-250 and smoke it!

 

So if I am shooting long range vermin, a la America, and I want a factory calibre (because be honest - when did anyone other than you start talking exotic wildcats) your choices are 204, 22-250 or 243. Of those, 243 wins ballistically, with 204 in second place. 204 uses less powder, makes less noise and has better barrel life. Unless you are in high winds all day every day, then 204 is the one for you.

 

Now... muntjac. Please tell the muntjac I've shot with 223 at 250-odd yards that my bullet couldn't kill them, because they were not aware of this fact when they keeled over and died. You keep citing the Germans - I don't care what is in German law, I care what is in UK law, and what I can do with my rifle, and what I have seen others do. A roe deer is the weight of a very big dog, and the muntjac not much bigger than a fox. Relatively little penetration or energy is required for either species, so long as that bullet hits the animal in the vital organs.

 

And while I remember, I am very happy for you and your 300+ yard foxes - it takes good shooting to do that regularly, and if that is the situation that crops up, then yes 22-250 is a better tool for that job than 223. But I never said otherwise - merely that CONTEXT is the key.

[JackReady]

merely that CONTEXT is the key.

 

Context is only part of the answer Logi.

 

Suitability and capability should also be major considerations.

 

As for killing muntjac stone dead at 250m with a 223. we all get lucky once in a while.

 

As for talking ****. Well its like this. Opinions are like ######## every ones got one. Some are just better formed than others.

Mine's just absolutely peachy. So I've been told.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You can keep plugging away with that .223 and I'll keep zapping them with my 22-250. I'll get another 1000 rounds out of this current barrel may be. The last one went south at around 3200. Then it will be sent up to Borders for another new tube. But I'm going for a 6 groove and a slightly faster twist.

[Dekers]

Context is only part of the answer Logi.

 

Suitability and capability should also be major considerations. Thats What he said!

 

As for killing muntjac stone dead at 250m with a 223. we all get lucky once in a while. Some may get lucky, others can shoot straight ! I can V Bull a .223 at 600 yards, (so can Mr L) what makes knocking down a deer at 250 with one a problem??

 

I think you need to calm down a bit and accept there is another viewpoint!

 

 

.....and a .204 has its uses and strengths as does any calibre, but think carefully exactly what you want from it before investing!!

 

 

Have a nice day..............

[al4x]

Jack you're quite an opinionated person on rifle calibres telling a lot of people that do shoot that their guns shouldn't work. Usually round here that is a classic sign of a secies we've come to know as "walts" usually they come out of the woodwork having read a lot more than they have actually done then tried to force their opinions on people. The idea that there is that much between a .223 and 22-250 out to 300 yards is pretty laughable and in the real world the person behind the trigger makes more difference as does the weight of bullets and all number of things. As said a .243 will beat a 22-250 hands down on paper so at some point you have to stop rather than just going bigger is better which seems to be your mentality. Whether you're a proper walt or not I have no idea the internet is a place you can be whatever you want

[MC]

Context is only part of the answer Logi.

 

Suitability and capability should also be major considerations.

 

As for killing muntjac stone dead at 250m with a 223. we all get lucky once in a while.

 

As for talking ****. Well its like this. Opinions are like ar$£h0l£$ every ones got one. Some are just better formed than others.

Mine's just absolutely peachy. So I've been told.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You can keep plugging away with that .223 and I'll keep zapping them with my 22-250. I'll get another 1000 rounds out of this current barrel may be. The last one went south at around 3200. Then it will be sent up to Borders for another new tube. But I'm going for a 6 groove and a slightly faster twist.

 

Here we go again, it is the old steel is useless argument rearing its head again.

 

So in true repetitive spirit I will ask Jackready if he will stand 250M away and allow me to shoot him with a .223? After all they are useless and not up to the job.

[Colster]

I think we're doing well really, all this .22-250 debate and no one has mentioned muzzle flip yet.... surely a record

[Mr_Logic]

Muzzle flip? 22-250? Hmmm...

 

But I will second MC - Jack - if you think my 223 won't kill a muntjac cleanly at 250 yards, pop over and we'll put this to the test - humans are similar toughness to a muntjac, should work nicely.

[JackReady]

Jack you're quite an opinionated person on rifle calibres telling a lot of people that do shoot that their guns shouldn't work. Usually round here that is a classic sign of a secies we've come to know as "walts" usually they come out of the woodwork having read a lot more than they have actually done then tried to force their opinions on people. The idea that there is that much between a .223 and 22-250 out to 300 yards is pretty laughable and in the real world the person behind the trigger makes more difference as does the weight of bullets and all number of things. As said a .243 will beat a 22-250 hands down on paper so at some point you have to stop rather than just going bigger is better which seems to be your mentality. Whether you're a proper walt or not I have no idea the internet is a place you can be whatever you want

 

Alex

 

What's the point of having an opinion if you don't express it? If that makes me a "walts" in your eyes what ever a walt might be. I could give a stuff . I'm also not the least bit interested in whether you agree with me or not.

Like I have already said I base my opinions on practical experience, sound knowledge of the subject matter, first rate well proven scientific data and the views of those I respect. What you base your views on is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

If proof was needed of the irrelevance it is contained in the above quote from your post. "The idea that there is that much between a .223 and 22-250 out to 300 yards is pretty laughable and in the real world the person behind the trigger makes more difference as does the weight of bullets and all number of things."

 

"As said a .243 will beat a 22-250 hands down on paper " I suggest you would do well to start reading a differnt paper. As the one your reading now has got you very confused indeed.

 

My mentality is not "bigger is better". Its better is better.

 

I think that just about rounds this discussion off for me. So I'l leave you to your walting.

[JackReady]

So in true repetitive spirit I will ask Jackready if he will stand 250M away and allow me to shoot him with a .223? After all they are useless and not up to the job.

 

No worries. If you'll allow me to do the same to you using my .22-250. First one to reach their target is the winner.

 

I guess that would be me then.

[JackReady]

[quote name='Mr_Logic' date='May 27 2010, 01:09 PM' post='1087987'

But I will second MC - Jack - if you think my 223 won't kill a muntjac cleanly at 250 yards, pop over and we'll put this to the test - humans are similar toughness to a muntjac, should work nicely.

 

I see we have now entered into a who can #### higher contest.

[Mungler]

I am having de ja vu and the Walt-o-meter is pushing a strong 8.

 

Jack, you got any photos of your exploits, rifles or per chance one of a light weight Landy?

[JackReady]

I'm not a great one for photo's. Camera's and me just don't seem to be a good pairing. Even my Nokia mobile doesn't have a camera. It is rubber armoured though as its the only way I can get a mobile to last more than a few months. Dropping them is my favourite way of ********* them up.

 

Last camera I had was one of those film in a box disposables types. I was given a box full by a client who was closing down their business and they were old unsaleable stock.

 

I gave most of them away to the local school for the kids to use in their photography club and kept a couple back that sat in the pick ups glove box for about 2 years and never got used. They got binned in the end as the glove box use to get damp inside during the winter for some reason. I think I might have had a leakey windscreen seal.

 

So no photo's, no light weight landy. Do they still make them?

[SSS]

You dont go by another name do you? Bennellimonetfeltro perhaps

[Mr_Logic]

Jack, I too think you don't know one end of a rifle from another. Still...

 

22-250 vs 243, please supply data where the 22-250 wins, as I think you may struggle. So you telling other members that their paper is wrong, is, well, wrong.