22-250 vs 223

Varminting and vertebrate pest control. Small game, hunting feral goats, foxes, dogs, cats, rabbits etc.

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Elmer » 20 Jan 2021, 6:29 pm

Like Jim I have both. I use the .223 out to 450 and the 250 to 600yds .
I must say i really like the .223 but also the 250... :crazy:
If I had to choose it would be the .223 , very accurate, not too noisy and of course longer barrel life.
With a good balliatics chart, anemometer and a quality rf you will be surprised just how far away you can drop varmints....especially in calm conditions.
Elmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 632
South Australia

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Diamond Jim » 21 Jan 2021, 2:11 am

I can reasonably consistently hit a 10cm circle (clay target) at 250m with my .223 with a rest and a favourable wind. Not guaranteed but pretty consistently. At 400 plus I'd struggle to hold steady enought regardless of the cartridge - I'm just not that good. Target shooters regularly exceed those ranges and more power to them - they put in the time and money to get those results. If you can shoot varmints in a paddock with a 22-250 (or any other cartridge) consistently at 600 yards I say "good shooting" and I'd love to get your tips. I struggle to see and identify the beggars that far away.
Listing your firearms is as good as a fingerprint. Why supply a DNA sample?
User avatar
Diamond Jim
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 224
Western Australia

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by straightshooter » 21 Jan 2021, 7:31 am

It's all well and good to provide personal perceptions and anecdotes for one's choice, one way or another, but the only enlightening comparison is with numbers by simply comparing point blank ranges.
Since both are primarily small game cartridges an appropriate choice of PBR is 2 inches above or below the line of sight.
So for both cartridges using the same Sierra 55 grain projectile loaded to sensible top reloader guide velocities we get
223 - MV 3150 fps - PBR 245 yards
22-250 - MV 3750 fps - PBR 286 yards
So the 22-250 extends one's PBR by 41 yards.
What does that mean in terms of practical hunting, probably not as much as one may like to think.
I doubt if anyone's unassisted range estimating ability could reliably tell the difference and if you have to fiddle with range finders and sights then the comparison between the two blurs into meaninglessness. Then the only thing that matters is true accuracy.
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
“No nation can be freer than its most oppressed, richer than its poorest, or wiser than its most ignorant.” Henry George
straightshooter
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 675
New South Wales

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Bugman » 24 Jan 2021, 9:15 am

A mate had the same dilemma a few months back. Met up with him the other day and asked what he bought. Ended up with a 223, said he liked it but didn't really say why he chose it. My guess is that ammo is pretty well available in most major places and I think cheaper than 22.250.
User avatar
Bugman
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 420
New South Wales

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Bill » 24 Jan 2021, 10:23 am

I think with a better understanding of twist rates, reloading and bullet construction these days its pretty easy to say Hello 243 goodbye 22-250 and you have so much more gun in your hands :lol: :drinks:
When a guy is digging his own grave, you don’t fight him for the shovel.

Success leaves clues, Fools follow failure !

17 WSM, 20 Hornet, 218 Bee, 256 WM, 6mm ARC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5x55 Scan, 270 Win, 357 Mag, 358 Win, 9.3x62, 500 A Square
User avatar
Bill
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 919
New South Wales

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Grandadbushy » 24 Jan 2021, 11:36 am

I think either of these calibers put in the hands of a competent shooter (ie Elmer) would produce the same out come, to find a difference one would have to ask why the military chose the 223 for a weapon of choice, i doubt it was for cheapness of ammo, personally i think it is a personal choice for a shooter for which caliber they chose because other than the 250 having a little more ''umph'' there isn't much of a difference in outcome especially with good bullet selection, i chose the 250 because i think it is a little ''more'' for what i use it for , I've almost never had a runner so i like that little more thump it works for me, but when it comes to the wire i believe it will end up being a personal choice , but as i said with no bias either caliber put in the hands of a competent shooter will produce the same outcome so there is only price difference which lends itself to the 250 being slightly more expensive to load for or to buy ammo for.
Grandadbushy
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 372
Queensland

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Bugman » 24 Jan 2021, 11:43 am

Bill wrote:I think with a better understanding of twist rates, reloading and bullet construction these days its pretty easy to say Hello 243 goodbye 22-250 and you have so much more gun in your hands :lol: :drinks:



Yes. I ended up with a 243. Suits me well.
User avatar
Bugman
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 420
New South Wales

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by animalpest » 24 Jan 2021, 12:06 pm

I have both calibres and use both. For foxes, they both work well, although the 250 has a better reach so tends to get more use on bigger properties.

For wild dogs, the better whack factor favours the 250 over the .223 although for shots under 100m there is little difference between the two. The .223 is marginal for dogs in some circumstances.
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 162
Western Australia

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by on_one_wheel » 24 Jan 2021, 12:10 pm

Grandadbushy wrote:, to find a difference one would have to ask why the military chose the 223 for a weapon of choice, i doubt it was for cheapness of ammo,


The military moved from 7.62 to 5.56 to save on cost, weight, increase carrying capacity and to reduce recoil. The 5.56 met specifications that required maintaining supersonic speed beyond 500 yards and could penetrate a standard issue ballistic helmet at that distance.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2151
South Australia

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Grandadbushy » 24 Jan 2021, 12:31 pm

Thanks on_one_wheel didn't know that ,it's very interesting thanks
Grandadbushy
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 372
Queensland

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Die Judicii » 21 Feb 2021, 1:48 am

animalpest wrote:I have both calibres and use both. For foxes, they both work well, although the 250 has a better reach so tends to get more use on bigger properties.

For wild dogs, the better whack factor favours the 250 over the .223 although for shots under 100m there is little difference between the two. The .223 is marginal for dogs in some circumstances.


Yep, I agree pretty much wholeheartedly.
Supported by way of recent experience (my post "The dog that refused to die")
And, these type of experiences make one think a whole lot more about other possibilities.

I'm currently hunting another (big dog) that I have seen some trail cam pics of.
To suit the terrain on this particular property, and as well gain the extra (above mentioned) "whack factor" I have opted for the .308 with HPs
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
User avatar
Die Judicii
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2352
Queensland

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by SCJ429 » 21 Feb 2021, 9:05 am

on_one_wheel wrote:
Grandadbushy wrote:, to find a difference one would have to ask why the military chose the 223 for a weapon of choice, i doubt it was for cheapness of ammo,


The military moved from 7.62 to 5.56 to save on cost, weight, increase carrying capacity and to reduce recoil. The 5.56 met specifications that required maintaining supersonic speed beyond 500 yards and could penetrate a standard issue ballistic helmet at that distance.

The US Army make decisions based on interesting data. They were told a 308 was ballistically identical to the older 30/06, how could this be true?
They were shown the wounds from a M16 62 grain bullet fired from a slow twist barrel. The bullet was on the edge of stability and tumbled when hitting the target and creating these massive wounds. Later they were not happy with the long range accuracy so they asked for a faster twist barrel to fix this. The now very stable bullet just pencilled through the target but the top brass were already convinced that the 223 was able to produce greater wounds than the 308. The rest of the world just goes along with what ever the US decide because they are the big dogs.
SCJ429
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2730
New South Wales

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by boingk » 21 Feb 2021, 12:06 pm

SCJ429 wrote:
on_one_wheel wrote:The military moved from 7.62 to 5.56 to save on cost, weight, increase carrying capacity and to reduce recoil. The 5.56 met specifications that required maintaining supersonic speed beyond 500 yards and could penetrate a standard issue ballistic helmet at that distance.

The US Army make decisions based on interesting data. They were told a 308 was ballistically identical to the older 30/06, how could this be true?

The rest of the world just goes along with what ever the US decide because they are the big dogs.


SCJ429, gotta disagree on that first part. They were not told that the 308 was ballistically identical at all. What they did was agree to an intermediate round after WW2 recovery of German weapons exposed their superior small arms technology.

The rest of the world wanted a cartridge that would allow extended range fighting but still cycle through an automatic weapon - the Brits, French and Canadians liked the .280 British cartridge because of its compact size, modest recoil and superior ballistic trajectory to most automatic catridges of the time.

The US agreed to take whatever was chosen, however then secretly designed what would become the 7.62x54mm as 'nothing other than 30 cal will do'. This went on to be commercialised by Winchester from the original T45 designation, but the lag between it being commercialised and the military adopting it led to slight changes in the rounds, thus being compatible but slightly different in designation..
Nil
boingk
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 273
Other

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Oldbloke » 21 Feb 2021, 2:06 pm

A little off topic but that .280 British looks interesting.
Would be ok on pigs, goats and smaller deer I reckon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 6641
Victoria

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by animalpest » 21 Feb 2021, 2:20 pm

The difference in MV of comparable bullets of 500+ fps between the .223 and the 22/250 says a lot and is reflected in performance, especially past 100m.

If, as many do, you think that the .223 is far superior to the .222 with only 150-200 fps difference, the the 223 versus 22/250 argument is more about personal preferences rather than reality.
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 162
Western Australia

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by on_one_wheel » 21 Feb 2021, 2:45 pm

Hmmmm..... its like comparing apples and oranges.
20210221_151328.jpg
20210221_151328.jpg (99.7 KiB) Viewed 120 times
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2151
South Australia

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by Oldbloke » 21 Feb 2021, 6:03 pm

Screenshot_20210221-184245_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Screenshot_20210221-184245_DuckDuckGo.jpg (398.27 KiB) Viewed 109 times


Screenshot_20210221-184127_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Screenshot_20210221-184127_DuckDuckGo.jpg (377.96 KiB) Viewed 109 times
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 6641
Victoria

Re: 22-250 vs 223

Post by SCJ429 » 21 Feb 2021, 6:53 pm

[quote="boingk")
SCJ429, gotta disagree on that first part. They were not told that the 308 was ballistically identical at all. What they did was agree to an intermediate round after WW2 recovery of German weapons exposed their superior small arms technology.

The rest of the world wanted a cartridge that would allow extended range fighting but still cycle through an automatic weapon - the Brits, French and Canadians liked the .280 British cartridge because of its compact size, modest recoil and superior ballistic trajectory to most automatic catridges of the time.

The US agreed to take whatever was chosen, however then secretly designed what would become the 7.62x54mm as 'nothing other than 30 cal will do'. This went on to be commercialised by Winchester from the original T45 designation, but the lag between it being commercialised and the military adopting it led to slight changes in the rounds, thus being compatible but slightly different in designation..[/quote]
Interesting, I thought it went that the 30/06 shot a 150 grain bullet at 2800 fps in WW2, after the war they started making ball powder and the 30/06 was now capable of shooting the same bullet at more than 3100 fps but the Army thought that it might be too much for a Machine gun so they continued with 2800 fps loads even though the ball powder only filled 3\4 of the case. Then they later tell the Top Brass that the 308 can duplicate the ballistics of the 30/06, that being that it shoots a 150 grain bullet at 2800 fps. No one questions why this smaller case can keep up with the much bigger one but that is staff officers for you.
SCJ429
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2730
New South Wales

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Hunting - Varminting and vertebrate pest control