22-250 vs 223

T

t3tikka250

Inactive
I have a tikka t3 lite stainless 22-250 with a weaver 6.5-20x44 and would like to know what you all think of this set up.

I also want to know what you think about the 22-250 vs the 223.
I like the 22-250 but the 223 seems to do the job at lesser expense.

What are your thoughts?
 
I do not have a .223 bolt gun but I do shoot a lot of 22-250. Both rounds have a great following and .223 ammo is plentiful and pretty cheap.

I shoot a lot of .223 on AR platforms and mostly use iron sights or non-magnifying red dot scopes. As a result, I don't know how accurately I can shoot that round.

The 22-250 is a whole 'nother game. I have made some really great shots with that round on groundhogs and the round is really accurate. I find the rifles I use, do better when loaded down from maximum.

My go to load for that round is 52 gr. SMK over 38 gr. H380 and CCI magnum primers. It will shoot where you hold it round after round. My best group with that load is about .4325 inch for 5 shots at 100 yards.

Many shoot tighter groups with that round and shoot groups that good with handloads in .223.

The .223 will be a little cheaper. The 22-250 is just a whole lot of fun.

Geetarman:D
 
22-250 launches everything faster and pretty much beats the .223 out in every category except a AR which isn't made for a 22-250. But yes the .223 is much cheaper to shoot if you do not reload.
 
I have heard good things about Tikka rifles sounds like a good set up.
As far as 22-250 vs 223 both are very good cartridges.The 22-250 will shoot the same weight bullet 300-500 fps faster than the 223 which equates to a much flatter trajectory.
 
I used to have a 22-250 - Remington 700. Yes, it was expensive to shoot - had to reload for it. I never hunted with it, though. It was great for long range target shooting. I suppose it would have been great for long range varmint hunting, but .223 would work for that too. I never could quite figure out what you could hunt with 22-250 that you couldn't hunt with .223??
 
I own both. I am a huge fan of the 22-250. That said, I shoot my 223 more than my 22-250 anymore. The 22-250 can easily reach out 150 yds further than the 223 for the average shooter. The 223 is cheaper to load and more pleasant to shoot. Which one you should choose has a lot to do with the intended use. Long range varminting, 22-250. Target shooting, 223.
 
For my use a 22-250 offers nothing but additional costs. I shoot rock chucks out to 200-300 yards at which the 223 is excellent as is the 22-250, just a more spendy excellent.
 
T3Tikka,

I have a setup very similar to yours (though it's a 220 Swift), and I also have a 223. I like them both very much, but for coyote hunting the advantage (to me) of the faster flatter cartridge is that less thought is required regarding holdover when I get out past 300 yards. Of course you could get a range adjustable scope and the holdover 'thinking' then goes away, but I don't have that type scope on either rifle. And, out past 300 yards, the faster bullet probably anchors the coyotes a bit better. So, out in the back pasture, the longest possible shot is about 425, and I always take the Swift. In a smaller pasture (200 yards to the corners) I often take the 223. If I could only have one of those rifles, I'd keep the Swift.
 
t3tikka250:

The .223 Remington and the 22-250 are not kissing cousins: they are distant cousins. The 22-250 adds fifty yards or so to the effective range over the 223. When I shot prairie dogs in Arizona I shot the 223 before the wind came up. Once the wind came up is switched to my 22-250 until the wind blew us out of the dog town.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired
 
Last edited:
Out west with more open country the 22-250 comes into its own... I own 2 22-250s and currently zero .223s... The noise and muzzle blast of the 22-250 is more noticeable than with the .223 that's the only knock I have on it..

If you compare the cost of factory loaded ammo with the the same bullets, its around $2 more for a box of 22-250... Yes its more but not prohibitive...

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=703221
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=755603

Admittedly, though I do want a .223 rem to fill a gap in my arsenal.. I do not have anything in between the .17 HMR and the 22-250... I need a .223 to fill that niche...

My best 22-250... Savage Model 12 VLP Single Shot :D
0612091540a.jpg
 
Last edited:
I love my 22-250. They are a barrel burner though, the velocities this caliber achieves is something else and when you launch a 40.grain through a 26in Bbl accuracy at long distance is impressive...

Higher case capacity equals a greater expense in powder over the .223
Velocity needs to be factord in for barrel life. The .223 will have the longer life.
 
Tikkas are great rifles. Weavers are great scopes.

The only 223 that is notably cheaper is the bulk stuff, and it will not do the same thing. The accuracy will not be there.

What I think you should do is take up handloading. Your 22-250 will become instantly more accurate, since you'll be able to roll ammo that is fireformed for your rifle's chamber. Oh, and it will cost about the same as 223 bulk.

Lastly, you can load 223 power level loads. Handloading is really wonderful for bolt action rifle shooters.

Get collet dies, or even a Lee Loader for small quantities.

I think you would kick yourself if you swapped that rifle for a 223.
 
back 41 years ago I had a Rem 700 in 223 and one in 22-250 and one in 220 Swift (custom).
The 223 is a POOOR Relation to the 22-250!
I could pick-up a moving bunny with the 22-250 @400 yards and turn him inside out: 2 halves in 2 differnt directions with no lead, the bullet travels that fast. The Swift would do the same ( I down loaded the Swift to save the barrel rifling). I have dropped small WT deer in thier tracks w/22-250 and a 63 grn bullet,,sniper style, not shootin at a running target!
The 223 is limited to 300 yards on small rodents, 200 on yotes, 100 yards with heavy bullets on deer and small pigs.\
Of course your milage may vary. I speak in general terms.
Before I went to a 6.8mm/223 conversion I'd go 762X39. I've seen elk dropped with that caliber at close range!
 
I have both calibers-a Savage 12FV with heavy 26" barrel and accu-trigger. This gun was made for competition as it shoots REALLY well. My -250 is a Browning A-Bolt.. Also a very well made, accurate, balanced, rifle.

I ALWAYS choose the -250 if I plan on shooting critters. Not just because the .223 is so much heavier, but simply I have confidence that whatever is in the cross-hairs when I pull that trigger will be vaporized as soon as the hammer falls. Sometimes I think the -250 is so fast that I can see the bullet impact the target before the recoil pulls my vision off through the scope.. Yes, it "seems" like it is that fast. One word to describe both 22-250=wicked. .223=Capable.
 
I am amazed to this day that Stoner used the 223 cartridge for his weapon. The 22-250 had been around long before and is a much superior cartridge. All the things the 223 can do, the 22-250 can do just as well and some of them much better.
 
i own a tikka t3 Varmint in .223, and love it :)

im my mind the .223 and .22-250 have a similar role as they tend to shoot the same weight projectiles.

the only real difference i think is that the 22-250's effective range on game is 150m or so further.


in the end i went with the .223 so i could spot my shots through the scope, i find the 250's recoil doesnt allow me to do this. i predominantly shoot foxes under spotlight so that was a big factor for me.


with my Hornady Superformance 53grain v maxs coming out the barrel at just under 3500fps i have taken foxes and roos (legally) out to 300m. only really giving up in the region of 400fps compared to the 22-250 but without burning out my barrel :)


nothing against the 250, i have shot several of them and will eventually own one. But they way i see it they are a very similar cartridge up to the 250m mark, if i shot past that distance often i would be reaching for a 250
 
Something that kawabuggy said was so very true. Many folks think that the 223 is great because you can see the bullet impact the target, which is what they think you can't do with the 22-250 or the Swift. Speaking only for myself, when I shoot the Swift I most often see the impact. Maybe it's due to a good follow through or a good cheek weld or who knows what. The recent long shot on a coyote was over 300 yards, and I distinctly remember the little dance he did when the bullet hit him. I get that same view of impact even with the 270. I won't attempt to explain it, since I can't. Anyway, the Swift for me is for serious business and the 223 is more for fun shooting. I may have the condition I recently read about in one of the gun mags. They called it Swiftus Erectus....
 
the 22-250/220SWIFT requires a 308 platform to shoot it, they are not military rounds and expensive to produce, they do` not create a net gain in a military situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top