22-250 vs 223

For shooting paper at 200 yds, the .223 has the advantage of being cheaper, BUT not much cheaper with premium ammo. It is a lot cheaper with GI ball ammo, but might not be quite as accurate as the premium stuff.

When shooting a sporter weight rifle (7lbs +/-) there is a slight noticable difference in recoil. IF you are shooting a varmint weight rifle (10lbs+) there is still a difference in recoil, but its really, really small.

The .22-250 is common, and ammo is not hard to find. The .223 is common as dirt and ammo is everywhere. The .22-250 is the premier .22 cal varmint round (although the .220 Swift fans hold fast to their favorite), while the .223 is more popular (due to military & police usage) it does take a back seat to the .22-250 in performace with varmint loads.

Accuracy will depend on the rifle (and the shooter), not the choice of cartridge.

Personally, I don't use the .223 for varmints, I use it for plinking as my .223 is a Mini 14. For varmints I use a .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .222 Rem, or .22-250. And that is because of the guns I have these cartridges in.

I would suggest you look more at the rifle you intend to use, and how much you plan to shoot. If you don't have a use for the performance edge the .22-250 has over the .223, get a .223.
 
For the relatively "short range" you are using the rifle for I would pick the .223. My 1 in 9" twist .223s work extremely well with 50 - 69 grain bullets. For 200 yds and below target/varmint I like the .223. The .22-250 would be great for extreme long range varminting.
 
I had always thought the .223 for short range works well. For longer range the .243 works well. How doest he 22-250 compare between the two?
 
The .22-250 is more than the .223, and less than the .243.

Other than that, design philosphies come into play. The .22-250 (designed decades before the .223) is intended to be a varmint rifle, and has a standard barrel twist rate optimised for the 50-55gr varmint bullets. Some rifles will shoot the heavier 63gr SPs fairly well, others will not. Until recently with the developement of ultra heave .22cal bullets and fast twist barrels to shoot them, the extra 500fps or so of velocity that the .22-250 offers with 50-55gr bullets made it clearly a better long range performer than the .223.

And if you use a fast twist barrel in a .22-250, its speed advantage will still hold over performance edge what can be gotten from the .223 using the 70-90gr vld bullets.

The .243 has a bullet weight advantage (although there are some very light bullets available today, in the 58gr range), as the regular light weight .243 bullet is 70gr or so. The larger case capacity allows for good high speed from the light bullets, and their heavier weight over the .22 cal means less wind drift.

However, most .243s are not intended as varmint only rifles. That is what hurt the .244 Remington. At the time, the .24/6mm bore size was being touted by the writers of the day as an excellent dual purpose bore, varmints with the light bullets, deer with heavier (100/105gr) ones. Remington viewed the .244 as a varmint round, and the twist in its barrels didn't handle the heavy bullets well. Sales slumped against the .243 Win, which used a faster twist and handled light an heavy bullets well.

Remington changed their twist after a couple years, and later renamed the round the 6mm Rem, but sales never matched the .243 Win.

The .243 has more blast and recoil than the .22-250 (more powder, heavier bullet). Except for the lightest bullets, less velocity than the .22-250, but better wind bucking ability at longer ranges.

There's no free lunch. Even though its performance at longer ranges is superior, don't expect a 22" barrel 7lb .243 sporter to outshoot a 12lb heavy barrel .22-250 varminter. IT might, but I wouldn't count on it.
 
You did not mention whether or not you handload your ammunition. If you handload, there isn't very much difference in cost just a little more powder cost for the 22-250 depending on your load. If you dont reload, the .223 is generally a little cheaper for the ammunition.

I read an interesting article in the June 2011 American Rifleman. Here is the link:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/handloading-22-250-rem/

For a 200 yd max gun with good factory ammunition, the .223 has the capability.

The 22-250 is a much better choice for the handloader as the article pointed out. The 22-250 has the reputation of retaining accuracy across the whole spectrum of loads, whereas say the .220 swift has it's best accuracy with the hotter loads. That's why the .220 swift kind of has the reputation as being tough on barrels.

Like the article said, you can back off a 22-250 to .223 velocities and trajectory very easily. And even further back it off if you want.

Personally, I have been experimenting with several different handloads for my 22-250 for the last couple of years. Not to the extreme that the writer of the above article did. But from what I have seen when comparing the 22-250 with 223, due to the verstility of the 22-250 I see no reason to ever go back to a .223. So I guess it kind of depends on if you handload or not.
 
That really is a good article there, thanks for the link. I have been having an internal debsate over this same issue of 22-250 vs. .223. I currently handload for 6 different rifles and the more I do it, the deeper my addiction at both the experimenting/tweaking part and the actual shooting part of the equation. I typically take 3 rifles with me when I go shoot just to allow time for the barrels to cool down. When I first started getting really accurate loads, I marveled that I could make such great ammo at such a cheap price. Currently my per round costs range from about $0.40 for .243 to $0.49 for .308 and about $.57 for my 7mm mags and WSMs.

Like I said, at first I figured $8-12/box of 20 seemed a real bargain. I shoot a lot of paper, but I also hunt big game in the fall and all my practice loads are designed for hunting. But it occurred to me that if I bought a .223 bolt action rifle, I could get even more shooting for $0.27/round.

As luck would have it though in my search for a good accurate .223 bolt action rifle I stumbled across an even better deal on a 22-250 rifle that I am pondering. I have no experience with either rifle, so I looked at the load ranges recommended. The bullet and primer cost would be the same, but the recommended loads for the .22-250 would cost a whopping $0.04 more per round, pushing the cost up to $0.31 per round minimum. Not a lot, but it adds up over a few thousand rounds.

Some cartridges just don't shoot all that well with reduced loads, but according to that article, the .22-250 shoots just fine loaded down to .223 levels.

The only problem that I se is that most .22-250 rifles have a 1:14" twist. The one I'm looking at is 1:12", so shooting 55 gr bullets should be OK. But a lot of .223 rifles have 1:9" twists so they can take the 60-69 gr bullets. But even that varies a bit. I think it is Tikka that offers both a 1:8" and a 1:12" twist in their .223 rifles.

And if you look around even more, you will find a lot of great deals on Winchester mod 70 rifles (my long-time favorite) chambered in .223 WSSM. It looks like a lot of people were wowed by the hype of that cartridge then realized that extreme velocity comes with a price.

As for me, I think I might take another close look at the .22-250 I saw.
 
My 1:14 twist Remington 700 shoots 55 grain bullets great. Many of it's favorite rounds use a 55 grain bullets - most Sierra but several different types - #1345s are a particular favorite.
It likes more versions of 50 and 52 grain bullets but the favorite rounds all shoot just about as well - under 0.5 inches for a long term average including the groups that this shooter lets open up. Best groups are in the 0.20 to 0.25 range across the bullet range from 40 grains to 55 grains.

Remember, though, the .22-250 can be very hard on barrels - much more so than the .223 - especially if you let the barrel get hot.

If you intend to shoot it regularly, the .223 is a better choice, simply because you will be able to shoot the barrel at least 3 x more before it wears out.
 
Last edited:
Barrel life is indeed important to me, although it's not a make-or-break thing. That's why the linked article is nice. Shooting .223-level loads out of the 22-250 would extend the barrel life. Nice to see that those loads can still be fairly accurate. But you would still have the option of shooting the fire-breathing 22-250 loads when desired.
 
22-250 is a fine versatile cartridge which I reload.
My 22-250 is a bolt and my 223's are semi autos..Both the 223 or 22-250 would make a nice 200 yard paper puncher.
 
@ KMAX

My choice of 223 or 22-250 is because if I have to I can run down to Walmart on Sunday morning and get ammo.
Click to expand...

Very true. These two calibers are easy to find ammunition for.

.223 seems to be much more available and a lot cheaper to waste ammo.
Click to expand...

The .223 is more common, but I wouldn't say it's a lot cheaper especially if you are buying Remington, Federal, Winchester ammunition like you would find at Wal-Mart. Last I checked .223 was only about $2.00/40 rd. box cheaper than 22-250 from both Winchester and Remington at Wal-Mart.

Like 44amp said earlier, it is a lot cheaper with GI ball ammo. But remember that 5.56 NATO and .223 are not interchangeable. The only way that it would work is if you bought say an AR-15 that is chambered for 5.56. Most bolt actions are chambered for .223 Remington. I'm sure you can search this forum and find threads on the 5.56/.223 rem interchangeability question. But in short 5.56 can cause excessive pressures in .223 rem chambers. The 6mmbr.com page goes way into detail on it.

As far as barrel life is concerned, due to the nature of the two cartridges, you can expect a longer barrel life from the .223. But I would just like to point out that the 22-250, at least from my research, does not really have the reputation as a really bad "barrel burner" like some would have you believe. In fact in this article:

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/2009/01/01/the-great-22-250/

They figure that the 28 degree shoulder of the 22-250 keeps the powder burning in the case rather than the throat of the barrel. Besides you can shorten the life of any barrel if you never let it cool sufficiently. This is probably the bigger culprit.

ANother thought, how many people have actually shot a rifle "to the grave"? I found on another thread one guy estimated 3500 rounds from a 22-250 before a barrel replacement was in order. I calculated that if you shot factory ammunition from Wal-Mart you would have spent $2800 just in ammunition. To have a gunsmith turn of a thread and ream the chamber is a drop in the bucket compared to ammo costs. I wouldn't let the barrel life issue sway you. Besides if you reload and don't shoot the hot loads all the time it's not really an issue.

The above article also has a ton of great info on why the 22-250 is considered one of the top 22 caliber centerfires. Hope this helps.
 
I also went through the process of choosing between a .22-250 and a .223 when I was buying a rifle a year ago last spring. I found a lot of people that said that a .223 could essentially shoot as well as the .22-250 but it took more hold over to do it. The problem with the .223 is that it loses accuracy beyond 300 yards with any wind at all. I ended up with a .223 for the same reasons everyone else has mentioned - longer barrel life and more off the shelf ammo choices. I went with a 1:9 twist so I could go up to about a 75 gr. bullet. It has worked well for me but even with heaver bullets wind is still a problem. But I have to think I'll get better barrel life from the .223 and I don't mind aiming a little high. I have a heavy 26" barrel and heat doesn't seem to be an issue. I've read where people have gotten good results even out as far as a 1000 yards with a .223 and the heavy bullets.
 
I've had a couple of rifles in .22-250 Rem for 40 years, but got a .223 Rem about 10 years ago and like that cartridge better for dual range-200+/-yd varmint use.

The .223 Rem is really fun to shoot at the range because it's very accurate, has little recoil, and doesn't heat barrels as much as larger-capacity centerfire calibers, including the .22-250. The difference is quite remarkable!

If a person handloads, constant case-trimming of .22-250 cases is necessary due to the tapered case-caused stretching more than most calibers. Case life is therefore limited, though I've never had a separation. I considered having a barrel re-chambered to the Ackley-Improved version, but didn't want to hurt accuracy of that fantastic barrel.

I've since had the .22-250 re-barreled to .243 Win for various reasons, including wind-bucking ability and for flexibility for coyote/deer hunting in Maine. It better fills the gap in my rifle battery (.22LR, .22 WMR, .223 Rem, .243 Win, .270 Win).

Bottom line: If a person wants to shoot more than hunt varmints out to 350 yards, buy a .223 Rem. If hunting requires shots out to 350 yards or more, the .22-250 is better. If wind is always a problem and not too many shots are to be fired (read, prairie dog slaughtering), the .243/6mm family are better, but noise/recoil barrel heating are somewhat greater.
 
223 vs 22-250

the 22-250's advantage is that it can launch a equivalent projectile faster and flatter than a 223. That advantage comes at the cost of shorter barrel life, louder report, and if your reload you burn more powder. So you must decide if the juice is worth the squeeze. I have pinned 4 inch target clays at 300 yards with my .223 and a 12 inch round plate at twice that distance. If your requirements don't include actually hunting, I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. If your requirements do include actually hunting, If your range is 300 yards and less, a 223 is more than enough gun.
 
i get 1800 fps and 500 ft-lb at 500yds with my 223 so i would say there more than able to kill a yote or a target at long range.

the 22-250 just does it out alittle farther and with more noise.:D
 
I have a lot of love for the 22-250 Remington... My longest shot on a ground squirrel was with a Ruger #1V 22-250 at just shy of 400 yards... It does what I ask it of it... Yes its loud, its burns more powder and it kicks a little harder than a .223 but it does what I want... When a barrel needs replacement, yes its a hit on the pocketbook, but that means I had a lot of fun with that particular gun... So the barrel burning aspect is a non-issue...
 
Have you considered 204 ruger.
They're cheaper to reload that a 22-250, easier on barrels, quiter burn less poweder, go faster, less wind drift and less drop.
Depends on what size varmint you want to shoot could be a very good option too.
If you do a bit of research the wind bucking ability is pretty amzing with the 55gr bullets and even the 40gr bullets.
Don't know what they'd be like on coyotes, but t204s devestating on ground hogs.
 
...is pretty amzing with the 55gr bullets and even the 40gr bullets.
Click to expand...

Sorry to get off topic here but who makes a .204 55 gr. Bullet?

The reason I ask is because I am considering building a 20 VT but am not all that impressed with there only being a couple of different .204 bullet weights. But if somebody is doing 55's that would open up the verstility for the 20's quite a bit.
 
hornaday make every thang from 24 to 45 but no 55 to tell you the truth i dont think i have seen any


oh wait berger has 50gns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top