Figured out what caliber I want
08-25-2007, 10:59 AM
#13
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 136
RE: Figured out what caliber I want
Paul, their is nothing wrong with any of your listed cartridges for the purpose you stated "medium range woodchuck/target...". You really don't need a .243 for this purpose. I currently have a .22-250, and have previously owned a .243. The .22-250 will give you all the range of the .243, and will put less into your shoulder. I love .243's, but if you are not going to hunt anything larger than say woodchucks, coyotes, ground squirrels etc., its really hard to beat a speed of light .22 for the maximum production of red wind after the hit. As stated previously, the .243 has a few factory loads available in 50 grain or so bullets, but this is more the territory for .22's. Really tough though to make a bad decision here. The .223 is superb if you will be shooting a lot, and shots will not go much beyond 250 yards IMHO, recoils less than the .22-250, 200-300 fps slower than the .22-250, same bullets.
08-25-2007, 01:38 PM
#14
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 9,085
RE: Figured out what caliber I want
paul, what do you consider "medium range" for woodchucks and targets??
if its 350 or less, id probably opt for a 22cal. really, no need for the 243 till you get passed 500...personally, i had the same choice, and i went with the 250. like you said, ammo is comparable when shooting decint/premium ammo. i just liked the little more the 250 has behind it. ive reached out to 350 with my 250 and put 40 chucks down this summer...i think i only had 2 make it to their holes due to bad shots...if my range was definently 350 or less id look at the 223, 222s, 204 etc...just for less recoil. all depends on what you consider medium range...but out to 350 i havent felt undergunned with the 250...the 223 would also work well for me im sure...
when you get into the 500+, thats when youll want the 6mm's/243s etc...more gas and heavier bullets..but i dont see the need for the recoil at shorter ranges....though, it would work nicely. heck...i used my deer rifle, a 3006 out to 300 for chucks for a long time till this year...talk about unneeded recoil
if its 350 or less, id probably opt for a 22cal. really, no need for the 243 till you get passed 500...personally, i had the same choice, and i went with the 250. like you said, ammo is comparable when shooting decint/premium ammo. i just liked the little more the 250 has behind it. ive reached out to 350 with my 250 and put 40 chucks down this summer...i think i only had 2 make it to their holes due to bad shots...if my range was definently 350 or less id look at the 223, 222s, 204 etc...just for less recoil. all depends on what you consider medium range...but out to 350 i havent felt undergunned with the 250...the 223 would also work well for me im sure...
when you get into the 500+, thats when youll want the 6mm's/243s etc...more gas and heavier bullets..but i dont see the need for the recoil at shorter ranges....though, it would work nicely. heck...i used my deer rifle, a 3006 out to 300 for chucks for a long time till this year...talk about unneeded recoil
08-25-2007, 02:46 PM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,264
RE: Figured out what caliber I want
If a varmit gun is what you want, get a .22-250, the .22-250 is unquestionably king for varmit hunting, especially praire dogs, which are a little smaller than woodchucks or about the same size, I believe.
