30-6 Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 I recently started a topic asking about 40g or 55g in .223. This got me thinking, I have a .204 acquire on my cert. But is there basically, bearing in mind that I am not a ballistic guy and relatively new to cf, anything different from shooting a .204 or .223 in 40g bullet weight ? Would one be vastly different in some way, or are they the same thing ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 The fox will not notice the difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 .204 has superior ballistics (faster flatter and longer)but .223 is cheaper and more plentiful. I shoot .223 and it does all i need, mate shoots .204 and will often take on the long range stuff beyond about 220 that I will decline. .204 is not legal for some foxes but unlikely to concern you in wales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 Where is the 204 not legal for foxes ? Confused. Cracking cartridge without doubt but in the right hands the end result will be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 26 minutes ago, Walker570 said: Where is the 204 not legal for foxes ? Confused. Cracking cartridge without doubt but in the right hands the end result will be the same. Badgers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 Hah culling regs of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benthejockey Posted December 23, 2020 Report Share Posted December 23, 2020 On 21/12/2020 at 19:35, oowee said: Badgers Give them chance theyre slowly coming round to the idea I think. If you're not going to reload then its logical to stay with the 223, ammo is plentiful and cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammo Posted January 4, 2021 Report Share Posted January 4, 2021 On 23/12/2020 at 06:38, Benthejockey said: Give them chance theyre slowly coming round to the idea I think. If you're not going to reload then its logical to stay with the 223, ammo is plentiful and cheap. I sincerely hope so!! Also .204 ammo is not hard to come by if you use factory only, prices slowly coming down as popularity gains momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted January 4, 2021 Report Share Posted January 4, 2021 On 21/12/2020 at 18:51, oowee said: .204 has superior ballistics (faster flatter and longer)but .223 is cheaper and more plentiful. I shoot .223 and it does all i need, mate shoots .204 and will often take on the long range stuff beyond about 220 that I will decline. .204 is not legal for some foxes but unlikely to concern you in wales. As he says the .223 is cheaper. So if you have the ability to do so you'll likely practice with it more often. That alone may mean that you've a better knowledge of how to get the best out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 4, 2021 Report Share Posted January 4, 2021 7 hours ago, Hammo said: I sincerely hope so!! Also .204 ammo is not hard to come by if you use factory only, prices slowly coming down as popularity gains momentum. If there is just but one case of 'being careful what you wish for', this is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammo Posted January 5, 2021 Report Share Posted January 5, 2021 15 hours ago, wymberley said: If there is just but one case of 'being careful what you wish for', this is it. You have me totally baffled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 5, 2021 Report Share Posted January 5, 2021 10 hours ago, Hammo said: You have me totally baffled. Fair dos, so am I to a degree. Too many hints and too much innuendo for clarity. I posted assuming that the idea was to relax the current legislation and with which you agreed. If that was not the case in either instance, then my profuse apologies. Now, I'll add to the uncertainty because I'm not quite sure about this bit in as much as I do not know if the one aspect was changed when the law protecting the badgers/setts came into force simply because there would have been no need to do so. The requirement for rifle ballistics for the cull bears no resemblance to what was the norm before the Acts of '73, 81 and '85. The thought of the possibility of every Tom, Richard and Harry running around shooting at Brock with a 22 LR doesn't bear thinking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammo Posted January 5, 2021 Report Share Posted January 5, 2021 5 hours ago, wymberley said: Fair dos, so am I to a degree. Too many hints and too much innuendo for clarity. I posted assuming that the idea was to relax the current legislation and with which you agreed. If that was not the case in either instance, then my profuse apologies. Now, I'll add to the uncertainty because I'm not quite sure about this bit in as much as I do not know if the one aspect was changed when the law protecting the badgers/setts came into force simply because there would have been no need to do so. The requirement for rifle ballistics for the cull bears no resemblance to what was the norm before the Acts of '73, 81 and '85. The thought of the possibility of every Tom, Richard and Harry running around shooting at Brock with a 22 LR doesn't bear thinking about. No. To clarify, I am led to believe that restrictions within the cull won't allow .204, although it does deliver a similar energy as some.22 centre fire. Its only anecdotal stories ive heard second hand. Nothing murky being hinted at by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 5, 2021 Report Share Posted January 5, 2021 3 hours ago, Hammo said: No. To clarify, I am led to believe that restrictions within the cull won't allow .204, although it does deliver a similar energy as some.22 centre fire. Its only anecdotal stories ive heard second hand. Nothing murky being hinted at by me. Whoever did the leading is correct. If you think about it, in c2010 when the culls were being planned - if not earlier - the 204 was still in nappies so with a choice from a cast of numerous others it wouldn't have been considered - and don't forget other trials were taking place well before this time - I was doing the carcass survey in my local 3 counties in c2001. What is good for the culls is way beyond that which was required before the '73 Act. In 1887 we had the 22LR as we know it and the next one up was big. Then in 1930 the 'farmers' gun' appeared - the 22 Hornet. So, if you pass a law giving 160ftlbs as a minimum requirement, it negates the 22LR but permits the 22 Hornet and up. Stick in the requirement for a minimum of 38g bullet and you're home and dry. Well, you were until 1959 when the 22 WMR arrived. However, there wasn't all the media fuss then as now so nothing changed until the law did in'73. Now you can immediately think of 3 rimfire rounds that exceed the 160 plus 2 more that also do but could under certain circumstances be considered a viable possibility. Once the bTB is under control Brock should be left alone except in the case of a specific problem which requires action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammo Posted January 5, 2021 Report Share Posted January 5, 2021 2 hours ago, wymberley said: Whoever did the leading is correct. If you think about it, in c2010 when the culls were being planned - if not earlier - the 204 was still in nappies so with a choice from a cast of numerous others it wouldn't have been considered - and don't forget other trials were taking place well before this time - I was doing the carcass survey in my local 3 counties in c2001. What is good for the culls is way beyond that which was required before the '73 Act. In 1887 we had the 22LR as we know it and the next one up was big. Then in 1930 the 'farmers' gun' appeared - the 22 Hornet. So, if you pass a law giving 160ftlbs as a minimum requirement, it negates the 22LR but permits the 22 Hornet and up. Stick in the requirement for a minimum of 38g bullet and you're home and dry. Well, you were until 1959 when the 22 WMR arrived. However, there wasn't all the media fuss then as now so nothing changed until the law did in'73. Now you can immediately think of 3 rimfire rounds that exceed the 160 plus 2 more that also do but could under certain circumstances be considered a viable possibility. Once the bTB is under control Brock should be left alone except in the case of a specific problem which requires action. Thanks, I find that quite interesting. Quite a bit of history that I had not considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.