.223 or 22-250? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : .223 or 22-250?


goose1873
08-28-2002, 12:35
I'm looking for a good varment rifle. I think (by looking at ballistic charts) the the 22-250 is a flater shooting cartridge. Has a little more power as well. Does anyone have a preference to a make or model? Or maybe have a used 22-250 bolt-action synthetic, bi-pod, (preferably synthetic) rifle that they would like to sell?
I'v always used my deer rifle (.270win), but I'm looking for something that will make a little smaller hole, and is a little more accurate...

Any help would be appreciated :cool:

tjpet
08-28-2002, 14:16
Under 300 yards - .223
Over 300 yards - 22/250

Generally speaking, the .223 is a better all-around varmint cartride whether walking up varmints or shooting from a stand. If, however, you're shooting starts at the 300+ yard mark or you just like to see critters blow up and have their remains scattered into the next county then a 22/250 will definitely give you the edge. Go to a driving range and take a good look at the 300 yard marker. It is a hell of a LONG way out there. Make your adjustments accordingly.

mpol777
08-28-2002, 14:39
the .22-250 is more accurate than .223. i don't see how a .223 is more accurate at shorter distances. if you work up the best load possible for .223 and one for .22-250 the .22-250 will be on top because of the increase velocity. the only thing the .223 has over the .22-250 when it comes to accuracy is the shooter. you can buy .223 a lot cheaper and possibly practice more.

i have a savage 12fv in .22-250. the trigger is easily adjusted and what you save on the gun (compared to rem700 VS) you can put towards good glass. it's not much to look at, but who cares, it works great. with the weight of the gun recoil is next to nothing.

tjpet
08-28-2002, 22:04
The 22/250 is not more accurate then a .223. In rifles of equal quality and when stoked with good ammunition they are dead even. The 22/250 shoots flatter and hits harder at longer ranges making it a winner over the .223 for distance. However, most folks can't shoot worth s**t at long range under field conditions so power and flatness of trajectory don't mean that much. Looks good on paper or when making comparisons while sipping whiskey around the campfire.

WalterGA
08-28-2002, 22:20
My Rem. VS .223 shoots 1/4 m.o.a. @ 100 yds. Friend of mine put seven shots in a 3"X5" card at 550 yds with it. All those guys who shoot prairie dogs out past 400 yds. with .223's will be sad to hear that they're not really killing those prairie dogs out that far with their .223's. There's nothing unique about a 22-250's design that makes it more accurate than a .223...just has a SLIGHT velocity advantage.

If you shoot any volume at all, get a .223. If you want something that makes a 22-250 look like a sissy, get a .243 and load up some 55-60 gr. bullets.

rogerdodger
08-28-2002, 22:39
i wouldnt trade my Sako forester 22-250 for anything in its class.

m65swede
08-29-2002, 04:06
always reply to the "which is better for a first rifle" question: .223 by a wide margin.

.223 Advantages: much wider selection of rifle makers and action types. Much wider selection and availability of ammo types, bullet weights, etc. Usually more accurate. Barrels usually last longer than .22-250. Milder recoil - not so much for comfort, but to better see the effects of a bullet hit. :)

.22-250 Advantages: Velocity and power. Possible longer effective range (though some potential advantage is lost because heavy bullets aren't normally used in 250's).

Don't get me wrong. The .22-250 is a great caliber and one of my all time favorites. But the .223 is more suitable as a first varmint rifle.

Swede

glockster96
08-29-2002, 09:08
Originally posted by WalterGA
... All those guys who shoot prairie dogs out past 400 yds. with .223's will be sad to hear that they're not really killing those prairie dogs out that far with their .223's. ...

:) :)

Most of the advice above is good advice. Personally, I shoot Prairie dogs with a Remington 700 VS in .223. It seems to do the job well, even at longer ranges than 300-400 yards.:cool: Plus ammunition is inexpensive and easy to find and there is usually a large selection of different loads to choose from. Good luck! :)

goose1873
08-30-2002, 08:42
Thanks for the advise. I would have to say that I'm leaning towards the 22-250 (although I'll keep my options open). Again, thanks for the advise...I'll let everyone know what I end up with.;)

Sharker
09-03-2002, 19:08
I would go with the 223 for a number of reasons, the most important is cost of ammo. Even if you could afford more, why pay more. I havent seen a prarie dog yet that survived the 223 that hit him. If you think there will be a bigger puff of crimison from the 22-250 then by all means go for it, but it will cost you. I think the 22-250 makes a great squirrel gun for those pesky squirrels that are annoying you from a 1000 yards away however... ;)

09-05-2002, 18:37
Originally posted by WalterGA
My Rem. VS .223 shoots 1/4 m.o.a. @ 100 yds. Friend of mine put seven shots in a 3"X5" card at 550 yds with it. All those guys who shoot prairie dogs out past 400 yds. with .223's will be sad to hear that they're not really killing those prairie dogs out that far with their .223's. There's nothing unique about a 22-250's design that makes it more accurate than a .223...just has a SLIGHT velocity advantage.


What do you mean by slight velocity advantage?

WalterGA
09-06-2002, 18:04
By "slight", I mean, for example, around 200-300 fps m.v. with 55gr. bullets. I'd much prefer .243 to .22-250, but prefer .223 to both.

09-06-2002, 19:02
Originally posted by WalterGA
By "slight", I mean, for example, around 200-300 fps m.v. with 55gr. bullets. I'd much prefer .243 to .22-250, but prefer .223 to both.

according to Hornady's Reloading Handbook Fourth Edition Vol. 1

You can get 3800 fps with a 55gr projectile with 41.4 grs of Win 760

You can get 3300 fps with a 55gr projectile with 27.7 grs of Win 748


these are max loads, however in my 22-250 I have never had any high pressure signs with max loads listed.


I think the 223 is a great round also but I would say 300-500 fps for the same bullet weight is more than a slight advantage.


Why do you prefer the 223 to both the 243 and 22-250?

By looking at the Reloading Manuals that I have it looks like the 243 is superior to both the 223 and 22-250, at least in the weight of the projectiles and the m.v.

Nelybarg
09-06-2002, 19:32
depends on how far you plan to shoot. i had a rem 700 chambered in a 22-250. with the synth. stock and a bull barrel. it would group sub 1 MOA at 250 yards, rested on a harris bipod. in my experinence, the 22-250 was a pretty flat shooter, and the rounds i loaded were the 55 gr v-max by hornady. powder was IMR 3031, i dont remember the charge weight. i was getting somewhere around 3700+ FPS if i remember correctly. it was a great shooting rifle, hardly any kick at all. only problem i had was that there were no ranges anywhere within an hour that had distances further than 300 yards, so i sold it. compared to the .223, i prefer the 22-250. just my .02

WalterGA
09-07-2002, 12:32
I didn't say I preferred the .223 over the .243 and 22-250 due to performance differences, just that I prefer the .223 to both. Almost all my varmint shooting is done @ 300 yds. or less. While I have a .243 Rem. VS (used to be a VLS), that'll sling 55gr. bullets to 4000 fps+, I find those velocities irrelevant to the type of shooting that I do. The .243 gives more choices of bullet weights and velocities than either the .223 or .22-250.

However, I get great performance out of my .223, using cheap brass and 24gr. of cheap 2200 powder. Owning both the .223 and .243, both of which'll shot dimes all day long at 100 yds., I just don't have any motivation to use a .22-250.