.204 vs .223

BC's are only accurate when you do the work and calculate them for your gun, load, and shooting conditions. It would be surprising if your data in the UK matched that of Grand Island, Nebraska. You can email Hornady and ask what altitude and velocity they used for calculating their BCs...~Muir

Hornady say in their reloading manual (6th edition, Vol 2, page 7):

All ballistic coefficients and ballistics tables in this book have been adjusted to standard conditions.
Altitude = sea level
Temperature = 59 degrees F
Atmospheric pressure = 29.53" of Hg
Relative humidity = 78%
These are the standard conditions for the [US Army's Prooving Ground at the] Aberdeen test site.

Hornady also say that their BCs are relative to the G1 model standard projectile. If somone is using a different standard projectile model, the numbers they obtain will look different. Hornady also says that their BCs are calculated from test firings undertaken in their 200 yards undergound range.

Often best to get it from the horse's mouth. :)

-JMS
 
I'm not aware of his work. But has he truly compared like for like? Did he test under identical temperature, pressure, humidity? If not, you'll get differrent results so need to adjust to STP. Luke Haag has tested various bullets, and adjusted his results to STP, and found that all of those he tested delivered lower BCs than their manufacturers claim.

-JMS


Bryan Litz is Berger Bullets' bullet designer and ballistician as well as having his own ballistics and ammunition consultancy, Applied Ballistics LLC. I'm not aware of his work on short-range bullets like these, but know of him (and have met him briefly in the US) through his work on mid to long range bullets where he has become the leading authority in recent years and authored a whole series of very useful books, the best known being Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting. He is a meticulous researcher, is the man who almost individually has caused the switch from using the G1 BC model to G7 for LR designs, and yes his tests are all undertaken on a private range where he records full environmental data at the time of the shots and converts it to 'standard ballistic conditions'. I suggest Googling his name - you'll get a lot of hits.
 
Actually going a little further on this and noting sir-slots-alot had mentioned the 80gn .224 Hornady A-Max which is very much a long-range bullet, I looked it up in Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting 2nd edition. The book also has the 52gn model in its extensive data section, and I'm afraid that sir-slots-alot's values are not those produced by Litz's work

52gn A-Max, G1 average BC: 0.234 with a (speed induced) variation of 0.044; average G7 BC: 0.119, variation: 0.008
80gn A-Max, G1 average BC: 0.452 with a (speed induced) variation of 0.083; average G7 BC: 0.231, variation: 0.014

Therefore in Bryan L's tests, the 80 is exactly as per the published value, but the 52 is lower. Neither sees an improvement.
 
Often best to get it from the horse's mouth


Sadly not! Firstly, US manufacturers have traditionally used the G1 ballistics model model, an extremely dated one, in which the 'reference projectile' has a short body, flat-base and blunt round nose. To envision it, picture a standard 40gn LRN bullet as used in a typical .22LR round. The G7 model uses a streamlined boat-tail shape as its reference point, and is therefore much more relevant to most modern bullet designs.

The problem with G1 BCs when applied to modern projectiles and velocities is that they are very speed affected. Sierra mostly (but not entirely) gets over this by publishing three BC v velocity bands for nearly all of its bullets, four and even five for some models. Most manufacturers quote a single value, and since high BC sells bullets, it's often that from the muzzle velocity (higher speeds = lower drag = higher BC with most modern projectile designs). So, if the BC is accurate at say 3,000 fps azt the muzzle, it will be significantly optimistic at 300 yards and even more so at 600 yards.

However, in a 204 v 223 ballistics discussion, we're talking about short-range applications generally and for people who use these bullets and cartridges at up to 250 yards, the ballistic differences between the two forms are neithere here nor there.

Taking the 52gn A-Max at 3,300 fps and using Litz's two values at 250 yards, we get:

G1 BC 0.234, MV 3,300, 250yds: 2,290 fps retained velocity ................... 6.18" drop ..................... 8.11" drift in a 10 mph 90-deg crosswind.

G7 BC 0.119, MV 3,300, 250 yds: 2,315 fps .......................................... 6.06" ............................. 7.77"

(Run them for 600 yards though and the G1 model becomes extremely 'optimistic' compared to the G7.)
 
Last edited:
Actually going a little further on this and noting sir-slots-alot had mentioned the 80gn .224 Hornady A-Max which is very much a long-range bullet, I looked it up in Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting 2nd edition. The book also has the 52gn model in its extensive data section, and I'm afraid that sir-slots-alot's values are not those produced by Litz's work

52gn A-Max, G1 average BC: 0.234 with a (speed induced) variation of 0.044; average G7 BC: 0.119, variation: 0.008
80gn A-Max, G1 average BC: 0.452 with a (speed induced) variation of 0.083; average G7 BC: 0.231, variation: 0.014

Therefore in Bryan L's tests, the 80 is exactly as per the published value, but the 52 is lower. Neither sees an improvement.

QUOTE
Figure 2 shows G1 ballistic coefficients plotted against sectional density (lbs/in²) for the AMAX bullets measured by Litz. The Hornady and Litz G1 BC measurements are close together, and both are highly correlated with the sectional density, suggesting these bullets have nearly the same form factor, likely attributable to similar ogives and boat tailangles.The G1 BC to SD ratio of 1.97 is excellent, showing that the AMAX line of bullets is one of the sleekest on the market. The polycarbonate tip also maintains excellent shot-to-shot consistency of ballistic coefficients, and reliably initiates expansion even at extended ranges. Many manufacturers of both open tip match bullets and polycarbonate tipped bullets make claims of excellent BCs, but the Hornady AMAX is one of the few whose claims have been verified by an independent source

Style

Diameter (in)

Mass (gr)

SD

(lbs/in²)

Hornady G1 BC

Litz G1 BC

Litz G7 BC

Overestimate (%)

AMAX

0.224

52

0.148

0.247

0.280

0.119

3.78

AMAX

0.224

75

0.214

0.435

0.424

0.212

2.59

AMAX

0.224

80

0.228

0.453

0.463

0.231

-2.16

AMAX

0.243

105

0.254

0.500

0.505

0.252

-0.99

AMAX

0.264

140

0.287

0.585

0.600

0.299

-2.5

AMAX

0.284

162

0.287

0.625

0.617

0.307

1.30

AMAX

0.308

155

0.233

0.435

0.424

0.212

2.59

AMAX

0.308

168

0.253

0.475

0.461

0.230

3.04

AMAX

0.308

178

0.268

0.495

0.481

0.240

2.91

AMAX

0.308

208

0.313

0.648

0.651

0.324

-0.46

 
Last edited:
Where is your quote from Alan? Mine is from the horse's mouth, Litz's book.

To be honest, I'm not bothered one way or another as I don't have an interest here. (I did shoot the 52 years back in 223 in a 1-12" twist barrel Remy VS, but haven't shot any 224 lighter than 73gn for a long time, and even that is a light bullet for me in the calibre. The 52gn A-Max did very well for me, but it did get blown around a LOT in 600 yard target shooting like any small calibre bullet of that weight!)
 
Just my twopenneth, the .223 is a more versatile calibre and you will be using factory ammo so don't limit yourself unnecessarily. One day you may see a deer and the .204 ain't gonna be man enough for the job whereas a well placed heavy .223 (63gn 70gn carried just in case) will deck it.
 
I emailed Dave Emary at Hornady and he sent me this response.

"All our BCs are calculated over 200 yards and corrected to standard atmosphere sea level conditions, 29.59", 59 F. Atmospheric conditions can have a huge impact on bc. A crosswind can lower the bc because the projectile yaws into the wind, etc." Note the second sentence.

For what it's worth... ~Muir
 
I emailed Dave Emary at Hornady and he sent me this response.

"All our BCs are calculated over 200 yards and corrected to standard atmosphere sea level conditions, 29.59", 59 F. Atmospheric conditions can have a huge impact on bc. A crosswind can lower the bc because the projectile yaws into the wind, etc." Note the second sentence.

For what it's worth... ~Muir

How come no one has ever come close to quoted .204 40 grain Vmax figures, not even close! Everyone who has carried out their own testing has come up with almost identical figures, all being around (0.242) This result is the same for me at 10 degrees at 200 ftps above see level, my mate in Scotland 000's of feet up in - 15 and my friend in up in South Dakota. We all come up with the same figures despite being 000's of miles apart??? We all cant come up with the wrong "same figure" can we???

Its as simple as BC sells!

How come Noslers 40 grain bullet only advertises 0.240 for their 40 grain bullet??? its an identical bullet to the 40 grain Vmax, and Noslers published BC's are identical to what real life results and testing everyone else gets for the 40 grain Vmax, funny that. ;)

Ps i love my custom .204R and out to 350 yards it is my go to rifle despite having over estimated BC's!
 
How come no one has ever come close to quoted .204 40 grain Vmax figures, not even close! Everyone who has carried out their own testing has come up with almost identical figures, all being around (0.242) This result is the same for me at 10 degrees at 200 ftps above see level, my mate in Scotland 000's of feet up in - 15 and my friend in up in South Dakota. We all come up with the same figures despite being 000's of miles apart??? We all cant come up with the wrong "same figure" can we???

Its as simple as BC sells!

How come Noslers 40 grain bullet only advertises 0.240 for their 40 grain bullet??? its an identical bullet to the 40 grain Vmax, and Noslers published BC's are identical to what real life results and testing everyone else gets for the 40 grain Vmax, funny that. ;)

Ps i love my custom .204R and out to 350 yards it is my go to rifle despite having over estimated BC's!

I have been doing this enough to know that if you get the same BC at all altitudes, all temps, all humidities, and all barometric pressures, something is amiss. Why don't you contact Hornady and grill them on it?~Muir
 
I'd say the thing's that amiss is your methods.

Of course you should take altitude etc. into account when testing for BC (i.e. BC is defined in standard conditions, and you should do the conversion from your testing conditions).
 
Why don't you contact Hornady and grill them on it?~Muir


I could but there really is no need, only for Hornady to be sped a load of rubbish to try and justify their figures, lots of people including myself have figured out the truth and fact with our own ballistic testing. Funny how its only the .20 cal bullets that we all come up with the same identical false results for! A lot of other bullets i have tested come very very close to if not exact to Hornady figures, sometimes they are underestimated! If it was down to my location (pressure, altitude,temp etc) then all my ballistic testing would result in inaccurate or different ballistic figures to the manufacture, but it doesn't.....again only for the massively over published 20 cal ones. ;)
 
I could but there really is no need, only for Hornady to be sped a load of rubbish to try and justify their figures, lots of people including myself have figured out the truth and fact with our own ballistic testing. Funny how its only the .20 cal bullets that we all come up with the same identical false results for! A lot of other bullets i have tested come very very close to if not exact to Hornady figures, sometimes they are underestimated! If it was down to my location (pressure, altitude,temp etc) then all my ballistic testing would result in inaccurate or different ballistic figures to the manufacture, but it doesn't.....again only for the massively over published 20 cal ones. ;)

Ok then. Carry on.~Muir
 
Whilst I have neither rifle calibre I do have some experience being in your position. I was not then prepared to home load and so calibre choice had to be based on factory loads. Around me there are no good gun dealers who consistently keep a stock of the same ammunition. This for me meant I had to choose a calibre based on what they kept most of. Hope you have a better gun dealer locally but between those 2 calibres I would hazard a guess your gun dealer will have more choice in .223 for factory loads. Food for thought.

You're only about 45 minutes from Dauntsey Guns if you come down via South Cerney and Royal Wootton Basset, they are pretty reliable and have a good range of .223 factory ammo in stock.

I considered 0.222, 0.223 or .204 recently, the consesnsus as this thread bears out is there's not a lot in it ballistically (at the shorter ranges I shoot) ended up going 0.223 for versatility but foolishly got a bit excited/impatient and went 1:12 instead of something quicker, however the gun shoots well so not the end of the world.
 
Last edited:
Just to update this lads, firstly thanks for everyone for taking the time to reply to this thread as it has made for some very interesting reading and im sure will for others when they join this great site. Ive finally tracked down a new CZ 527 varmint in the uk so my local dealer has to import it into Ireland here, i have listened to everyone's experiences and opinions and i just had to try the 204.......so ill be back with a review hopefully and it will be what i was expecting. Ive also done my homework here and ammo doesnt seem to be a problem to get in both 32 and 40 grain vmax.

My next posts will be on advice on a good scope without breaking the bank and a good mod on the 650mm barrel.



Thanks again for all the reply.

Night Bandit
 
Actually going a little further on this and noting sir-slots-alot had mentioned the 80gn .224 Hornady A-Max which is very much a long-range bullet, I looked it up in Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting 2nd edition. The book also has the 52gn model in its extensive data section, and I'm afraid that sir-slots-alot's values are not those produced by Litz's work

52gn A-Max, G1 average BC: 0.234 with a (speed induced) variation of 0.044; average G7 BC: 0.119, variation: 0.008
80gn A-Max, G1 average BC: 0.452 with a (speed induced) variation of 0.083; average G7 BC: 0.231, variation: 0.014

Therefore in Bryan L's tests, the 80 is exactly as per the published value, but the 52 is lower. Neither sees an improvement.


Where are you getting your info from mate, I have read part of Brians book where he state that the manufactures BC is wrong for the 80 grain Amax and gives his own correct real life value.
 
Back
Top