.223 vs .22-250

[IanB 0]

I prefer the  .223 also, less recoil ,quieter... I also own a .243 which I use 58gr vmax in and that offers more power and is equal if not flatter than a .22-250 plus much more versatile..

On a night I just use my 1:12 .223 now with 40gr heads its doing 3750fps using N130 and its basically aim and point out to 300yds..More quiet than all the above and much less recoil.

[andyf 144]

OK

As a reloader with 3 centrefire rifles, I choose the 22.250 because it uses large rifle primers, and has the same bolt head as my other guns (.270 & 7x57).

If you don't reload then it really doesn't matter, but I do so that's my natural choice.

Anyway I've had a .223 and also 3 different 22.250's the .223 uses 'small' rifle primers and the cases are comparatively 'fragile' compared to the thicker

more robust 22.250 ones.

These are 'practical' issues and do not address the difference between the two if any, in my case the .223 rifle I bought was new but of 'modest' quality, as was the scope fitted, the subsequent rifles upscaled the rifle make but the scope went up in price many times, the result (not surprisingly) was that the 22.250 set ups were 'better' by a country mile. 

I have looked at the 22.250 performance of my current set up (Ruger #1 with Hardy Gen 2 Mod, Leupold VX3 and 'carefully' hand loaded 55gr Sierra Hollow points) this will take down anything Fox size from 50 to 300 yards from a rested shot 100% if you keep still, and turn them inside out.

That the same set up in .223 would be as good I'm fairly sure it would.

Figure that one out??

AF

 

[Meece 1,958]

Those Sierra's are good. I use the 55 bthp Game king # 1390 I think.  I'm about 150fps slower than the 250 and those bullets are devastating out to 300 although I  usually try to get them in to about 80.

[Yokel Matt 918]

Norma 50gr factory rounds move at 3600 and are crazy accurate out of my CZ 527. Airgun like recoil. Heard good stuff about the 22/250 mind.

I originally bought the .223 as I read somewhere that the 22/250 has a shorter barrel life... after various maintenance issues im on my 3rd .223

[Meece 1,958]

9 hours ago, Yokel Matt said:

... after various maintenance issues im on my 3rd .223

What are these maintenance issues that have got you on your 3rd rifle ? 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Meece

[Yokel Matt 918]

All my own fault and not caliber specific. Just saying that for all concerns about barrel wear by neglecting basic maintenance I made the whole thing irrelevant

After a busy but wet winter the chamber got so pitted in the first one the brass was fire forming round it and getting stuck. The second one was a cheap second hand knee jerk purchase to replace the first. It had a 26” barrel which I had cut down and the gunsmith miss-measured it and turned it into a 16” barrel.  The one I’ve got now is the business

[riflehunter583 58]

a good way to look at the difference is 250fps.

22250 produces about 250 fps more speed with exactly the same bullet.

for that extra 250fps you need to add more powder, create a little more noise and have a little more recoil with a little less barrel life.

if it were me i would have a 243 instead of a 22250.

brass for 223 and 243 is very common

 

[Alsone 789]

The debate will continue for ever....

For me it's the .22-250. More stopping power in my opinion and as someone much better placed than me to judge once said, I believe a Mr. Ackley no less, it's velocity that kills. Anyone doubting that should look at the performance of the .204 Ruger. It's terminal explosive power exceeds that of almost all the larger .224 rifles. The difference is the velocity. Then again as some will point out dead is dead. Personally, I see not deadness but margins for error, and greater terminal damage increases the error margin for a clean kill. Equally though it comes at a price in both recoil and wear.

[Deker 3,478]

7 hours ago, Alsone said:

The debate will continue for ever....

For me it's the .22-250. More stopping power in my opinion and as someone much better placed than me to judge once said, I believe a Mr. Ackley no less, it's velocity that kills. Anyone doubting that should look at the performance of the .204 Ruger. It's terminal explosive power exceeds that of almost all the larger .224 rifles. The difference is the velocity. Then again as some will point out dead is dead. Personally, I see not deadness but margins for error, and greater terminal damage increases the error margin for a clean kill. Equally though it comes at a price in both recoil and wear.

Where do you get this stuff?

The debate will not continue forever, because the .223 and 22-250 are different, and will therefore be best suited for different applications/situations, even though there is an area of crossover.

So a 22-250 (circa 3500-4200FPS) kills better than a 50 BMG API 647 gr FMJ because that's only 2750FPS.  As for margins of error, the SLOWER 50BMG wins hands down again. 

The real world is not about turning the pages in a book and regurgitating words out of context.

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Deker

[Underdog 2,337]

To be honest my limited (4years) experience with 22/250 was disappointing!

We had bullet failure from several weights and types on fox's below 150yds via shallow wounds. By 300 yards bullet integrity returned.

The cartridge was developed for shooting prairie dogs, small rodents.

It is beyond most Brits to comprehend the huge prairie dog towns and the damage and disease they can inflict on a ranch.

That aside we had much better success rate on fox at normal distances once we brought the 250 down to 223 performance!

Ackley is correct, velocity does kill. However to assume he meant more is better is wrong!

Is not velocity the primary necessity of any projectile launching device?

Ackley also did alot of work on lesser cartridges too, surely that would of been a waste of time if he believed as often assumed that only the fastest is best!

 

Choose any you want but don't, please don't assume anything. It has disappointed me many many times.

 

U.

[Alsone 789]

13 hours ago, Deker said:

The debate will not continue forever, because the .223 and 22-250 are different, and will therefore be best suited for different applications/situations, even though there is an area of crossover.

 

 

Or simply because different people have different preferences. If .223 was superior, then no-one would be using .22-250 or vice versa. It's a very personal choice between the two.

[Alsone 789]

12 hours ago, Underdog said:

To be honest my limited (4years) experience with 22/250 was disappointing!

We had bullet failure from several weights and types on fox's below 150yds via shallow wounds. By 300 yards bullet integrity returned.

 

I've never heard of any complaints of splash with .22-250. By shallow wounds I'm presuming you mean it didn't penetrate all the way through as often seen with fox and slower bullets such as .223. Isn't this what Ackley was always promoting though? Velocity = max energy transference = max expansion / fragmentation and max hydro static shock rather than less transference and more penetration.

[Underdog 2,337]

20 minutes ago, Alsone said:

I've never heard of any complaints of splash with .22-250. By shallow wounds I'm presuming you mean it didn't penetrate all the way through as often seen with fox and slower bullets such as .223. Isn't this what Ackley was always promoting though? Velocity = max energy transference = max expansion / fragmentation and max hydro static shock rather than less transference and more penetration.

As you said it, " you never heard of".

I have witnessed it many times and not incomplete penetration, bullets completely failing to enter a chest cavity.

I ain't going to get in a debate over it, I am recalling my experiences.

A 250 in my opinion is a long range small pest gun in this country, in fact the parent cartridge the 250/3000 Savage would be a much better foxing round!

[Deker 3,478]

46 minutes ago, Alsone said:

I've never heard of any complaints of splash with .22-250. By shallow wounds I'm presuming you mean it didn't penetrate all the way through as often seen with fox and slower bullets such as .223. Isn't this what Ackley was always promoting though? Velocity = max energy transference = max expansion / fragmentation and max hydro static shock rather than less transference and more penetration.

Is there any chance you can stop reading and get some experience?

When do you actually plan on getting a FAC?

[Alsone 789]

5 hours ago, Underdog said:

As you said it, " you never heard of".

I have witnessed it many times and not incomplete penetration, bullets completely failing to enter a chest cavity.

I ain't going to get in a debate over it, I am recalling my experiences.

A 250 in my opinion is a long range small pest gun in this country, in fact the parent cartridge the 250/3000 Savage would be a much better foxing round!

Not quite. I've never heard of it complained of. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't doubt your experience. However, there are 3 factors to shallow wounds, velocity, bullet design and bullet weight.

Take PO Ackley's work - someone with more experience than anyone on here and probably the greatest bullet designer that ever lived. A characteristic of a small fast light bullet is lower penetration but higher energy transference. That doesn't necessarily make it less effective as it transfers greater hydrostatic shock. Ackley reckoned if there was a single calibre he could choose to hunt with, for any North American game it was a .220 Swift!!!! It was his calibre of choice for deer.

A shallow wound doesn't necessarily mean the bullet is ineffective unless taken to extremes as a shallow wound is simply an indication of more energy transference as the bullet expends it's energy expanding  or fragmenting instead of retaining energy and penetrating. If it's dead I wouldn't worry about no deep chest penetration. It's obvious shock did it's job. It's only when you get no penetration and surface splash that it then becomes an issue eg .204 ruger with early 32gr bullets. Was it the calibre or bullets? I let you decide. But there are no recent reports I can find of issues with .204 anymore and .204 remains one of the most devastating rounds around eclipsing most .224's for terminal effect (and yes it pains me to say that having previously derided .204 for splashing)..

If wounds are too shallow, then it's time to look at weight and design. In a famous test performed a few times, Ackley took 3 rifles .30-06, .270 and .220 Swift and a 1/2 inch thick armour plate from an APC. From 30 feet the 2 larger calibres splashed on the plate despite 1 being armour piercing and the other FMJ, whilst .220 Swift factory rounds consistently drilled 3/8 inch holes straight through. Proof if ever any was needed that penetration comes down to bullet design / weight and not necessarily the calibre, and that speed is king when matched to the circumstances with the right bullet.