.223 or 22-250?
 

Which is better for a long range varmint gun the .223 or the 22-250? I want to use it on prairie dogs and 'yotes. I saw some pictures of the new Tikka varmints...SWEET! Looks like they'll be available in .223, .22-250, and .308. Pretty sure I don't want the .308, so that narrows it down to the other two.

Thanks for the input.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

Both would be fine for the application you mentioned. I would choose the 22-250 as I believe it has a bit more range than the .223. Either way you can't go wrong. IMHO

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

22-250.

Mike

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

If you want to compare two cal. its better to compare the 22.250 to the 220 swift not .223. And both are great long range cal. The .220 swift has been the standard for which many manufactures have compared there round too. give it a look.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

22-250

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

I have both. The 22-250 has a higher velocity and a little better range but the .223 is dirt cheap to shoot. I also get a little better accuracy with the .223 factory ammo. If you are reloading I would go with the 22-250.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

I don't reload at the moment, but do plan on starting soon. The varmint rifle is on the back burner for a little while as I'm buying something bigger for elk. Just saw some pictures of the new Tikka varmint rifle and started drooling. That got me wondering about which was the better caliber. Thanks for all the input.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

Buy them both if you can. The 22-250 is the better choice for longer range shooting.
I own them both, I shoot the 223 more often than he 22-250. I just like the idea of burning less powder & keeping my barrel cool longer.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

You should look at he Bushmaster in .223. Sub MOA from a semi!!!

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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....

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

22-250!!!

RE: .223 or 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.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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!:D

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

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

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

Stuff any case full of the wrong powder and throat erosion can occur. The whole barrel burner crap pretty much went out the window with powder development and modern load data.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

Also, how important are the heavy, fluted barrels on target/varmint rifles. (I guess the fluting is designed to disipate heat... is this important for target shooting?) I'm all for accuracy, but I don't want too much weight since I have a bad back.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

22-250:D

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

It all depends what you're target is. I know this might sound a bit odd, but have you talked to any .17 Remington owners? I'm not talking about that ridiculous 17HMR stuff, I'm talking about real .17 Remington. Dead accurate 300+ yard shots are commonplace with that round, perfect for varminting anything from mice to 'yotes. Virtually no recoil, accurate past 300+ yards, and high velocity. It doesn't explode prairie dogs like a 22-250, but it doesn't destroy coyote pelts, either. It kills very cleanly.

Now, before any of you come out of the woodwork to try to spread more myth and misinformation about this round, please see the following article about 17 Rem that sets the record straight. It is written by a .17 REM owner. I have to confess, it is one of the best articles I've ever read in terms of trying to learn about any particular round (the mythology index in the sport of firearms is astounding).

http://www.coyotegods.com/pagepart15.html

I for one plan on buying a good .17 Rem. for Prairie Dogging that won't embarrass me like a 17HMR or break the bank like a 22-250 or a swift. It will be my "middle" rifle between my 223 (200+ yards) and my 22-250 (400+). Again, this is a rifle that has great accuracy, long range, and little recoil, allowing you to see the target take the hit through the scope.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

If you are going to get into prairie dog towns, you must have at least have two rifles or a huge amount of self control, so as not to overheat a barrel. I have a Tikka Sporter in 223, a Savage varminter in 22-250 and a custom built WWII Mauser with very heavy barrel in .243Win. If I had to dump one, it would be the 22-250. If I could only keep one, it would be the 22-250. The heavier bullets that I can load for the .243Win will get me the range that I want, with a little less effect from wind. The .223 is deadly on anything within 300 yards and the 22-250 is left in the middle. The varmint stock and heavy barrel on the .243Win make the recoil so light, that I can observe the impact of my bullet. Just as a side note: The Tikka has mounted a Taiwan made Tasco 6-24x40 scope, while the Savage sports a Burris Signature 6-24x40 scope. I have never seen any advantage to the Burris, over the Tasco, although the Burris set me back four times as much money. The Mauser in .243 is mounted with a very old 24X Unertl, which while still serviceable, is inferior to either the Tasco or the Burris optics.

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

220 SWIFT !!!!! so my answer is neither!!!!!!

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

i would go with the 22-250 even though the 223 ammo is alot cheaper because you could buy army surplus bullets, but the would stip out your rifling preaty fast. go with the 22-250

RE: .223 or 22-250?
 

22-250 I have both and even though I have extensive experience with the .223 at distances considered extreme to this posting (out to 500 yds without optical sight), I still prefer the 22-250. If you purchase the heavy barreled version of whatever rifle brand you choose (I suggest it) there will not be a substancial gain in recoil over the .223.

Surplus military ammo for the .223 usually will not be corrosive and will not "burn out" your barrel any faster than factory ammo. As for price if you are using quality ammo you will not see a great difference in price. If you are looking for accuracy I'm sure you will not be shooting cheap military surplus or the cheap Russian made ammo anyway. The bullet design of the military ammo will not perform on small game as you might expect. A FMJ round will not expand greatly from a 223, much less with a steel core vrs. a lead core.