22-250 vs 223

Your rig should be very accurate. Have you shot it? Any problems?

I have a .22-250. Range is 400+yards with a hand loaded .52gr HPBT Matchking over 38.5 grains of 4364. It comes out of the barrel somewhere around 3800-3900fps. It is devastating on varmints. It will almost cut a coyote in half at 100 yards.
 
I have put roughly 300 rounds through the rifle and most of those were in hunting situations on foxes and roos but have done some target shooting.

Off a bench at 100 yards it easily groups three shots under an inch.

And as mention brfore in this thread the 22-250 does the 223's job just better and i love it. What ever you point it at seems to instantly just die or explode in the case of a few rabbits i have shot with it.
 
There are so many variables to the argument here...

Ammo for one, lets throw the cost aside. At the end of the day, it's about what you're putting on the table that's important!

At 150yds. w/ .223 I once had, you put your finger on the target and I'll be w/i 1/4" every shot!...

Having said this, I've made 300yd shots with it, marked by laser on woodchucks and fox. I never had a chance to really ring the rifle out where I had to adjust for elevation. Anybody know how far till they start dropping?

This is why the .22-250 is boss in the argument, because it will shoot further and flatter! It's all about rifle set-up and what you are feeding it!

LOL, just like cars, it's the old horsepower to weight ratio!!!
 
A .223 if zeroed at 200 will be around five to six inches low at 300. That was my holdover on laser-ranged prairie dogs, anyhow, with 55-grain bullets...
 
sc928porsche
Senior Member

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.
Click to expand...
Wasn't his idea, his platform was originally designed for the 7.62x51 and then the military stepped in and improved it by committee. :eek:
 
For extreme range varminting the .22-250 is going to be more widely used. For a dedicated varminter I too would be inclined to go with one.

For a target rifle I use the .223 and some of the rifles I have exceeded my expectations in accuracy. The fast twist .223s can also fire the 69 - 75 grain match rounds.
 
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.
Click to expand...

22-250 might as well be .308 cartridges - they are too fat for military use.

.223 is really good at one thing - cramming substantially more rifle rounds into magazines. It is a relatively lightweight, compact rifle cartridge - capable of longer range accuracy. You could argue that 7.62x39 is better, but that round is still heavier and bulkier than .223. You can't really argue that 22-250 has any military application. You can get as many .308 rounds in a magazine as you can 22-250. Also, 22-250 would be a terrible round for full-auto fire - too hot and too prone to misfeeds and getting stuck in the chamber, because of how much it is necked down.

Even though I owned and shot a Rem 700 22-250 for about 5 years, it simply wasn't a practical rifle. It's not good for dear hunting or hog hunting, its expensive and not all that fun or easy to reload for. When I reloaded for 22-250, the cases would deform quite a bit, were hard to resize and were prone to splitting after 2-3 reloadings.

Its really for things the size of Coyotes - which are not a problem anywhere I go....Although, I'm not quite sure why folks don't just use 30-06 on Coyotes - it costs about the same as 22-250.
 
Last edited:
I will agree its not a jack of all trades cartridge.. But I have too much fun whooping on people with either of mine... I doesn't hurt my longest kill on a ground squirrel was with a 22-250...
 
I have both .223 (CZ 527) and .22-250 (Remington 700) bolt guns.
As others have noted, the .223 has less recoil and is cheaper to buyfor than the .22-250. I can load .223s for just over 29 cents a round and the .22-250 rounds cost about 3 cents more. At that difference, it isn't much difference.
Both rifles are great shooters and both are so accurate that they continuously bring a smile to my face when I shoot them..

The CZ in .223 is a Kevlar Varmint model with a HS Precision Stock and a 1:9 twist barrel.
It shoots 50 grain to 65 grain bullets with favorite loads under 0.45 inches.
In fact it has averaged under 0.57 will all the groups it has shot to date (315 measured groups). It has shot over 20 groups that are under 0.3 inchs and 10groups under 0.2 inches. I don't agree that the .223 not an accurate cartridge. It and the CZ are far more accurate than I am.

The Remington 700 in .22-250 is an SPS Varmint model with a Bell & Carlson Medalist stock and a Timney trigger with a 1:"14 twist barrel.
It shoots 40 to 55 grain bullets with favorite loads under 0.49 inches on average. It has averaged 0.605 inches for 275 measured groups with bullet weights from 40 to 65 grains.
The recoil is a bit more than the .223 and the heavy barrel heats up pretty quickly, but it is a joy to shoot. It too is far more accurate than I can shoot.

I can shoot either of them all day and not get tired of them.
The only thing that limits my shooting is how hot the barrels get before I have to set them aside to cool.

If you want to reach out a bit further and touch some varmints with some serious energy, then the .22-250 is the one for you.
But if you intend to stay within 500 yards, the .223 is a very good choice.

For me, they both give me a thrill when I shoot them, they are that accurate.
I just love the idea that they just keep hitting what I aim at.
 
Lot of good points on Military aspects!

Art, my .223 was a 9 to 1 twist or something like that. Make any sense?

It loved 50 grain V-max Black Hills ammo! Shot very nice! Anything heavier was not good at all accuracy wise.

So you think that the drop would be about 6" at 300yds still? I used to aim for the head at laser ranged chucks that far, I wonder if I was hitting them in the body??? I know they wouldn't move after the first round!!!

The Older guy's I used to hunt with had the range finder and they were very impressed. I think the one had a 30.06? I know the other had a 22-50
 
in most guns, 223's have less recoil than a 22-250; which means you're better able to keep the scope on the target after firing. As a guy once told me, "you don't wanna miss the sight of the (prairie) dog exploding"
 
Huh. I have found that 1:10 will handle blunt-nosed 70-grain bullets quite nicely. Mini-14, 77 Mk II. (Dunno where my uncle found the bullets for his handloads; an inheritance from 1975 and they still work quite nicely.)

Many of the AR shooters say that 1:9 should do okay with conventional bullets to around 70 grains.

1:14 to 1:10 seems to be the general range for most bullets of 40 to 55 grains in weight. (I've never loaded any 35s.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top