Looking to get back into hunting/shooting. From looking at various ballistic tables/charts it seems the .22-250 out distances the .223 by about 25-50 yrds (with in same window of rise and fall, if that makes sense). Does this sound fairly accurate and if so (or not), is it worth the extra cost for shooting .22-250 (seems to run about 35-50% more per round)? I don't reload (as of now, may get into it later), will be shooting mainly paper (range currently maxes out at 300 yrds), and occasional prarie dogging. Thanks for opinions. kcihak

I like the extra range/powder of the 22-250 but no, for the relatively minor increase in performance over the 223 it probably isn't worth the extra cost. Most shooters probably would not be shooting at the ranges at which the 22-250 has the clearest advantage.

I have both the 223 is a lot cheaper to shoot when one is buying ammo and does the job out to 300 yards.

What I found out when P dogging is I get red mist with 223 out to about 250 with the 22-250 out to about 350. With 243 and 25-06 out to as far as one can hit them.

If I was only getting one it would be the 223 more for the cost factor then anything.

If one was reloaing there isn't much cost differants once one has the casings, same bullet costs, primers the same, a bit more for the powder, I dought that there is more then a couple of cents differants after one has the casings.

For the non-reloader who is shooting nothing larger than prairie dogs, the .223 makes the most sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
For the non-reloader who is shooting nothing larger than prairie dogs, the .223 makes the most sense.

+1

Even if you reload, the .223 will do 95% of what the 22-250 will do and do it for less $$.

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
For the non-reloader who is shooting nothing larger than prairie dogs, the .223 makes the most sense.

+1

Even if you reload, the .223 will do 95% of what the 22-250 will do and do it for less $$.

roger

Thanks everyone, was leaning toward the .223. Already have a .243 so was thinking if needed to go any further then the .223 can reach would likly just use that (Thanks for mentioning it p dog shooter). Thanks again to all. kcihak

quote:

Originally posted by kcihak:
Thanks everyone, was leaning toward the .223. Already have a .243 so was thinking if needed to go any further then the .223 can reach would likly just use that (Thanks for mentioning it p dog shooter). Thanks again to all. kcihak

If I need to reach out further than my .223, I pull out the 6mm Rem.

The 22-250 would be an intermediate to your .243 and a .223.

Buy that one NEXT...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
For the non-reloader who is shooting nothing larger than prairie dogs, the .223 makes the most sense.

There is no better way to say it!

And you can get ammo with slightly higher BC's in 223, which makes the 22-250 the underdog. That is until you reload for both...

I have, use and love both; however, my go-to rifle for plinking and varmints under 300 yards I usually take the 223...or 17 Rem. And since you already have a 243, it's really a no brainer. Lou

I have a .223, a 22-250 and a .243 set up for long distance shooting. Using lighter weight bullets in all three and getting to higher velocities through reloading on the warm side, they all work great.

The recent interest has been with the .223 that has a silencer on it but each has it's place and it's fun to alternate through them. If I was going to be shooting a little at long long ranges for coyotes I would be shooting the .243 while heavy shorter range stuff would cause me to reach for the .223. Actually the 22-250 is probably the most accurate, Rem 700 VSSF version one.

If I already had a .243 I would fancy a .223.

I have shot a .223, .22-250, and a .243 all will take out P-Dogs efficiently the .234 bucks the wind a little better but the more powder you burn the nosier it will be. When I used the .223 I had a lot more shots. P-Dogs don’t like a lot of noise or they will stay hid longer. if I could have legally use a silencer that would have been way cool.

If shooting paper and the occasional dog then go the .22-250 route. The .22-250 as been respected as a competitive benchrest round. Take a good look at the Savage Long Range Precision Varmint Right Bolt Left Port in fast twist .22-250. When you get into hndloading consider the Ackley Improved conversion.

quote:

Originally posted by kcihak:
…Does this sound fairly accurate and if so (or not), is it worth the extra cost for shooting .22-250 (seems to run about 35-50% more per round)? I don't reload (as of now, may get into it later), will be shooting mainly paper (range currently maxes out at 300 yrds), and occasional prarie dogging. Thanks for opinions. kcihak

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
If shooting paper and the occasional dog then go the .22-250 route. The .22-250 as been respected as a competitive benchrest round. Take a good look at the Savage Long Range Precision Varmint Right Bolt Left Port in fast twist .22-250. When you get into hndloading consider the Ackley Improved conversion.

To answer his ORIGINAL QUESTION:
If you don't reload (as of now, may get into it later), will be shooting mainly paper (range currently maxes out at 300 yrds), and occasional prarie dogging, then buy a .223.
If you want to stretch it out to 400+ yards, then buy a 22-250.
If you are going to shoot benchrest, that’s a whole ‘nother thread…AND forum!

You already OWN a .243 and a .243 is what a 22-250 wants to be when it grows up...

It really is that simple.

flippy I have to agree..

Flippy-

That was both very well analyzed and summarized.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head...

Buy both. That way you are sure to be happy. Then decide for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by sam626:
Buy both. That way you are sure to be happy. Then decide for yourself.

Back to original question…

Oh, what the heck!

Go out and buy both. While you are at it pick up a 22Mag and Hornet, because sometimes you don’t need that much horsepower. Oh, and a 17HMR and a 17M2. Because they fill all those nitches around your other rimfires.

You also need a 220 Swift (because sometimes the shots are longer than 500 yards), and a 240WBY Mag, because the .243 might not have enough poop past 400.
Then a 6mm Rem (AI if you want) is in order because it falls about halfway between the .243 and the 240WBYM, just in case.

Then we move to the quarter bores…

After you have burned a hole through your wallet and a couple credit cards you will find that like all of us, WE ARE NEVER REALLY SATISFIED WITH THE GUNS WE ALREADY OWN.

There is ALWAYS one more gun…

And we are always just one gun away from being happy.

A friend who is a devotee of the 22-250 questioned my choice of a 223 rifle as a varmint rig....

One day when we were out at the range he asked
once more why I prefered the 223.... after JUSt complaining about barrel heat mirage off his 22-250 barrel.

I had him fire three fairly quick shots from my 223 and
he had a sudden understanding.

AD

IMO it depends how much you shoot since you are not a reloader. If your really going to be going through the ammo I would say go with the .223. Also, ammo is not going to get any cheaper with the way things are going. I reload so I would go with the 22-250 as I think it's a better round.

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:

quote:

Originally posted by sam626:
Buy both. That way you are sure to be happy. Then decide for yourself.

Back to original question…

Oh, what the heck!

Go out and buy both. While you are at it pick up a 22Mag and Hornet, because sometimes you don’t need that much horsepower. Oh, and a 17HMR and a 17M2. Because they fill all those nitches around your other rimfires.

You also need a 220 Swift (because sometimes the shots are longer than 500 yards), and a 240WBY Mag, because the .243 might not have enough poop past 400.
Then a 6mm Rem (AI if you want) is in order because it falls about halfway between the .243 and the 240WBYM, just in case.

Then we move to the quarter bores…

After you have burned a hole through your wallet and a couple credit cards you will find that like all of us, WE ARE NEVER REALLY SATISFIED WITH THE GUNS WE ALREADY OWN.

There is ALWAYS one more gun…

And we are always just one gun away from being happy.

Flippy,

It was a good fight, it was interesting, but sometimes you just need to give up and Save yourself for another day.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
Flippy,

It was a good fight, it was interesting, but sometimes you just need to give up and Save yourself for another day.

MickinColo, ya you are right.

Some people either don't think logically or have too much money.
The second problem I could live with, the first problem not-so-much.

I was addressing the ORIGINAL question and attempting to save kcihak some money and frustration.

quote:

Originally posted by Swede44mag:
I have shot a .223, .22-250, and a .243 all will take out P-Dogs efficiently the .234 bucks the wind a little better but the more powder you burn the nosier it will be. When I used the .223 I had a lot more shots. P-Dogs don’t like a lot of noise or they will stay hid longer. if I could have legally use a silencer that would have been way cool.

Does Kansas not permit the use of silencer? If not they are available to all who qualify under Fed Regs, no felonies, and for a transfer fee of $200 plus the cost of the silencer you can have one.

I have a HTG George Vais made silencer for the .223 and it reduces the sound level down to a subsonic 22lr basically. But the other thing about silencers, that might be attractive to you and your shooting situations, is that they make the identification of the location of the source of the shot very hard to determine. This has been repeated many times by many of the manufacturers of silencers. I once shot at a coyote and missed by shooting over him with my silenced .223 and he looked confused and ran in a circle trying to identify the source before he ran right at me!!!! Second shot did the trick.

If you plan on re-loading, I would go with the 204. Basically a ballistic twin to the 22-250 and burns a 1/3 less powder.
If you don't re-load, I would use a 223. Off the shelf ammo is much cheaper than the 204 stuff. No difference in cost once you re-load.

quote:

Originally posted by Gube204:
If you plan on re-loading, I would go with the 204. Basically a ballistic twin to the 22-250 and burns a 1/3 less powder.
If you don't re-load, I would use a 223. Off the shelf ammo is much cheaper than the 204 stuff. No difference in cost once you re-load.

Was a .204 one of the choices?
I musta missed that...

If the .204 is basically the same to reload as a 22-250, why go with the .204?

You can always reload DOWN, but you can't reload UP...

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:

quote:

Originally posted by Gube204:
If you plan on re-loading, I would go with the 204. Basically a ballistic twin to the 22-250 and burns a 1/3 less powder.
If you don't re-load, I would use a 223. Off the shelf ammo is much cheaper than the 204 stuff. No difference in cost once you re-load.

Was a .204 one of the choices?
I musta missed that...

If the .204 is basically the same to reload as a 22-250, why go with the .204?

You can always reload DOWN, but you can't reload UP...

No, the 204 was not one of the choices. I only mentioned it because ballistically it is similar to the 22-250 while burning a 1/3 less powder which means it's cheaper to re-load for.
Just giving out another option.

quote:

Originally posted by Gube204:
...I only mentioned it because ballistically it is similar to the 22-250 while burning a 1/3 less powder which means it's cheaper to re-load for.
Just giving out another option.

While the .204 has external ballistics (trajectory) similar to the 22-250 out to about 250 yards, that's where the sililarities end.

When you are talking terminal ballistics, the 22-250 with a 50g V-Max has more energy at 250 yards than the .204 with a 33g bullet does at the muzzle.

Plus as was stated by the asker, he does not presently reload and around here at least, loaded .204 ammo is the same or more expensive than 22-250 ammo. Not exactly a bargain for considerably less horse power.

Don't get me wrong, the .204 has it's place, and it is a lazer out to about 300 yards.
However, in this case it is not the answer.

The .204 Ruger is an excellent candidtae for this scenario.

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
The .204 Ruger is an excellent candidtae for this scenario.

Not really.
As the ASKER OF THE QUESTION doesn’t reload at this time, the .204 is too expensive for the output (bang for the buck) than the .223. If he reloads, the price just goes further in his favor with the .223.

Sorry, but no matter how good the .204 is, it won't beat the .223 in cost VS. effectiveness.
Especially if you don't reload.

Next time read the question, VarmintGuy, oh sorry, Buliwyf.

...and you can rant and rave as much as you want, it does not change the facts.

HINT: Look, at the terminal ballistics for both rounds.

ANSWER: The .223 loaded with a 55g V-Max has more energy at 150 yards, than the .204 with a 33g bullet has at the muzzle. AND it uses the same or less powder. (The .204 is based on the 222 Rem MAGNUM case which has greater capacity than the .223)

Oops, I forgot to add: the trajectories for these two loads are nearly identical and the .223 load is actually a bit flatter than the .204 load.

More power with less powder and flatter trajectory. The nod goes to the .223.

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:

quote:

Originally posted by Gube204:
...I only mentioned it because ballistically it is similar to the 22-250 while burning a 1/3 less powder which means it's cheaper to re-load for.
Just giving out another option.

While the .204 has external ballistics (trajectory) similar to the 22-250 out to about 250 yards, that's where the sililarities end.

When you are talking terminal ballistics, the 22-250 with a 50g V-Max has more energy at 250 yards than the .204 with a 33g bullet does at the muzzle.

Plus as was stated by the asker, he does not presently reload and around here at least, loaded .204 ammo is the same or more expensive than 22-250 ammo. Not exactly a bargain for considerably less horse power.

Don't get me wrong, the .204 has it's place, and it is a lazer out to about 300 yards.
However, in this case it is not the answer.

The person did mention he may get into re-loading and he shoots out to 300 yds. Yes the 22-250 has more energy with a 50 gr V-max. With the sierra 39 gr BK with its high B.C. can easily match the trajectory of the 22-250. As for energy. How much do you need to kill a rodent? If a person re-loads, the cost will be less with the 204 as compared to the 22-250 as 1/3 less powder is used. The other major plus factor is being able to see your own hits through the scope. To me the 204 has more positives than negatives when compared to a 22-250 when being used in a prairie dog field. He already has a 243 that can be used for extended ranges.

Vulture Flippy,

There is no reloading price difference. Kenitic energy is not the key driver CSCS. The .204 is a better choice for this application.

Vulture Flippy,

Have you ever shot a rifle? Have you been on a varmint shoot you CSCS?

You are a troll

Such predictable responses. Buliwyf sounds more and more like VarmintGuy everyday!!

quote:

Originally posted by Gube204:
Yes the 22-250 has more energy with a 50 gr V-max. With the sierra 39 gr BK with its high B.C. can easily match the trajectory of the 22-250. As for energy. How much do you need to kill a rodent?

A 22LR will kill a rodent, anything with more than that level of energy is more than is necessary.

The 22-250 is a much more versatile round than the .204 unless you are looking for less energy for less pelt damage, or some other specific reason. The 22-250 has the .204 covered completely in sheer bullet selection, terminal ballistics and exterior ballistics. And it costs the same OR LESS to reload, when and if the asker decides to reload, yes, as he alluded to.

As I said before, you can load a bigger cartridge down, but you can't load a smaller cartridge up.
(for the cognitively challenged that means you can load a more powerful cartridge to match a less powerful cartridge, but it can't be done the other way around)

Buliwyf (VarmintGuy), your foul response can't change the facts, it indicates I was correct. When you rant and your reponses turn foul it is a sign you are wrong and have nothing positive to add.

The .223 is cheaper to shoot than the 22-250, period. I never said it was a better round, however, for this application it most definetly is. I said it was less EXPENSIVE. Whether you reload or not (your opinion not withstanding) it doesn't change the facts.

If you need more power than the .223 provides to shoot paper at 300 yards, you got bigger problems than I can help you with or even want to try.

kcihak.....Go with the .223. Barrel won't get so hot shooting pds, and ammo is cheaper if you don't reload........
And for the .204 guys; the 22-250 has got a lot more ass........Grant.

I have rifles chambered in both the 22-250 and the 223. One thing I think is important and that is the 223 is a tamer round to shoot from a muzzle blast point of view. The 22-250 has a very loud bark, while the 223 does not. In settled areas, the 223 might be a better choice.
There is zero question about the long range capability of the Varminter. It can reach out and touch things beyond the capability of the 223.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
Vulture Flippy,

Have you ever shot a rifle? Have you been on a varmint shoot you CSCS?

You are a troll

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
Vulture Flippy,

There is no reloading price difference. Kenitic energy is not the key driver CSCS. The .204 is a better choice for this application.

Did I call it or what?

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
...and you can rant and rave as much as you want, it does not change the facts.

Yes I did.

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buliwyf:
Vulture Flippy,

Did I call it or what??? Yes I did.

Have you ever thought that there are folks on this forum and the other AR forums that post under different handles, sometimes playing good guy bad guy???

Present company truely excluded. roger

bartsche wrote:

quote:

Have you ever thought that there are folks on this forum and the other AR forums that post under different handles, sometimes playing good guy bad guy???

How true! However, some simply can't control themselves, and the polar persona -- their proverbial true personality --emerges no matter what handle they may be posting under!

The dreaded 204 rug argument again
The 204 is a fine round but to say it is the equal to the 22-250 is a pipe dream
Why not compare the 204 and the 17 rem ?
btw
I am with the 223 crowd
versatility and economy just about perfect