Have both the 22-250 and 223 with a 220 swift for a kicker. Of those two if you're a loader then it's the 22-250. I like the 223 because it's cheap and accurate to shoot.
Polack

The 223 is allot cheaper to shoot. If you reload the 22-250 would be a good choice.If you rely on factory ammunition then the 223 would be a better choice IMHO.
Ruger Redhawk.

I love a 22 250. Great load. Either of the loads you mention will do great, the 223 would be a cheaper factory load. Another to consider is the 220 swift.

Go with the 22-250. It's a better round for what you want.
I personally don't look at cost as an issue. For the type of shooting you want to do and practice for one doesn't sit down and shot boxes and boxes.
Buy the Tikka or any other good bolt. With hornady or federal ammo they'll give you under 1" groups and even with good glass the outfit will run under $900 and probably under 800. Last I looked a National Match AR is going to run more than that.

It's probably a toss up. I'm looking at a .223 for 'yotes, but then again, around here, maximum range for a shot is under 200yrds. If you're thinking your going to be shooting farther than that, look at one of the faster rounds, .22-250, .220swift, or .223wssm. Also remember that the .223 is going to be cheaper to shoot, even when you reload you still have to put more powder in the .22-250 to get those higher velocities. That said, I would also love to have a .22-250, maybe next year....

22-250!!!

What's not being discussed here is the differences between the two. 22-250 is a great round, with a 400 yard+ range with fantastic accuracy. But even if you reload, it's still not cheap. The bullets cost as much as everything else and that's one whole bunch of powerder behind each and every one of them. The 223 has an effective varmint range of 250 yards or so, and not much beyond that. 223 is dirt cheap though, and really should be everyone's first rifle for 100 different reasons. If you reload, 223 makes the world your oyster, and is as easy on the wallet as it gets. Besides, with 223, you'll use it way more than any other unless your shooting specifically requires farther ranges. I also notice that whenever someone starts asking around about 22-250, the 220 Swift people always come out of the woodwork. Let's be honest - the difference between 22-250 and 22- swift are basically like splitting hairs with one exception - you'll find 223 and 22-250 ammo in nearly any country hardware store, but consider yourself very lucky if you see 220 swift on the shelf there, because it usually isn't. The 220 swift has made a nice comeback, but not enough to get the ammo into the mom & pop stores or get commercial manufacturers to chamber half as many rifles for it as they do for 22-250 or 223. Also, swift is slightly more expensive to reload than 22-250. In fairness, swift is no longer the barrel burner it's demonized as (this is now a very very old myth due to improper power combinations back in the 1930's), but the other downside to swift and even 22-250 is that the recoil is strong enough to where you don't get to watch your prey take the hit through the scope. Too much recoil. 223 lets you see all the action through the scope with very little recoil, which really gives your hunting a good dose of fun (especially with an AR-15 rifle, which has that brilliant recoil buffer spring/piston assembly in the stock - virtually eliminates all recoil). Start with 223 and move up from there. I own a Bushmaster Varminter (24" fluted) and absolutely love it. Consistent 1/4" groups at 100 yards with the right hand load. My next rifle is going to be a 22-250. Once I have the 22-250, I just can't see any reason that would ever propel me to buy a 220 swift.

HI
I have a 223 i believe it to be a fun gun have shot a lot of targets hope to get to do some varmit hunting. I know th 22 250 is a good caliber from what all the people are saying I chose the 223 for it is mild as far as recoil see what your have hit. And is less barrel fouling and really does not get the barrel very hot thats about all the advantages but if i had to choose one I would probably choos the 223. for a first center fire rifle if you limit your range to 250 yds for me its great. 22 250 is a great caliber and has prooven itsel but the real interestin varmit ruger 2004 is real a flat shooter and less recail that a 223 but I am waiting for some reports on accuracy and reloading data. ect. It looks to be interesting. have a good day and good luck in your choice and have fun shooting

After reading all the previous posts, the only thing I see that has been left out is the throat erosion that can occur, espically when loading hot 22-250 rounds.
In my experience there seems to be less erosion with the .223 than either the 22-250 or the 220 Swift. Hot loaded rounds that create erosion reduce barrel life and accuracy.
Yes, 4000+ f.p.s. can be a lot of fun, but it comes with a price...
All that said, my vote goes to the .223 or even the new .204 Ruger!

I'm looking for a new 100-300+ yard target rifle, and I've been considering everything from the .223/.22-250 range, to the .243/.25-06 range. I was not aware of barrel-burning issues and the like, so that may need to be a consideration... but my goal is to get a very accurate, preferably flat-shooting (so there's not too much bullet rise if I'm shooting at 100 yards and I'm sighted-in at 150) rifle without too much recoil. But now I guess I should add "long-lasting / non barrel-burning" to my wish list.
Are the .243 and .25-06 good target alternative to the .223 and .22-350 for my applications? Does anyone know a resource for researching specs on various rounds - such as velocity, bullet rise/drop at given yardages, etc.
Anything else I should be considering in my decision?

By the way, whatever the caliber, I seem to be set on the Sako 75.

Thanks for your help,

- Aaron