PDA

View Full Version : Gun selection question


StL Bill
January 16, 2009, 06:38 PM
What I really want is a .223 I think....
What I have a choice of (free) is one of the following:

Remington 700 .222 unknown scope
Remington 788 .243 6x Burriss
Sturm Ruger 22-250 (maybe) 12x Redfield

I already have a Marlin 336 30-30 so I don't really need a deer gun.
I think I want a .223 for pretty long shots (200-300 yds) on small game and varmints....and I want it to be cheap (hence the .223 ammo).

What would you pick and why (assume you were going to keep it--given what I want it for)....I have no experience with any of these longer range rifles.

Thanks...

banditt007
January 16, 2009, 07:04 PM
I take it the rem 700 is chambered in .223 not .222? b/c i dont see any .223 guns listed..

wpcexpert
January 16, 2009, 07:32 PM
If it were me, I'd take the Ruger in the 22-250. More than likely a good shooter. the 22-250 has better ballistics with the same bullet as the .223.

Now the .223 is no slouch, but as far as down range energy and flight path, hands down 22-250.

With the 22-250, you'll be able to take down anything up to deer sized game. A lot of deer are killed every year with a 22-250. On the other hand, a lot of deer are also killed with a .223. Ask Armedtotheteeth.

Another question to ask yourself is how many shots per year are you going to be shooting? Are you going to plink at the range if you get a .223. If not, and it's only for hunting purposes, then even the hunting .223 rounds are going to cost. Not as much as a 22-250, but still expensive. More than a dollar a shot for good ammo.

VaFisher
January 16, 2009, 07:33 PM
The 22-250 in one of my favorite calipers so I would be head in that direction myself.

Brian Pfleuger
January 16, 2009, 07:54 PM
22-250, no doubt at all for varmints among those choices.

MeekAndMild
January 16, 2009, 08:02 PM
What does the barrel look like on the 22-250? That would seem like the best of them unless it's shot out.

taylorce1
January 16, 2009, 08:14 PM
What will you be using this rifle for? Make sure that Rem is a .223 and not a .222. The .222 is a fine rifle but you can't feed it .223 ammunition.

jckeffer
January 16, 2009, 11:18 PM
I'd definitely vote for the 22-250 (I own one). I've shot more than a few hundreds round of .223 and found it reasonably accurate out to 500 meters (peep sight/prone position :D). But as wpcexpert wrote the 22-250 beats the .223 in the ballistic numbers. My rem 700 in 22-250 is a tack driver. And the prior owner (my dad) has take both mule deer and antelope with a single (out to 325 yards) with it.

I reload so the cost of cartridges is not an issue for me.

StL Bill
January 16, 2009, 11:31 PM
Lots of good perspective and I thank you.

Actually I probably won't hunt that much, but practice and occasional take varmint if the opportunity presents.

I would have liked one of the Remingtons to be a .223, but alas.

I suppose I could reload the 22-250 as was said as I have access to reloading equipment in this deal too. I anticipated reloading some 9mm for my CZ75.

Against retail, what kind of break (%) do you get for reloading?

Para Bellum
January 17, 2009, 03:10 AM
I don't know what you want to hunt with it and maybe that might even change over time.

So if you want a light recoil all-around flat trajectory caliber for everything from rabbit to boar: 7mm Mauser (= 7mm Mauser = .275 Rigby).

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7x57mm_Mauser
has this to say about it:

The ballistics of the 7x57mm became popular with deer and plains game hunters. The relatively flat trajectory and manageable recoil ensured its place as a sportsman's cartridge. The 7x57mm can offer very good penetrating ability due to a fast twist rate that enables it to fire long, heavy bullets with a high sectional density. This made it popular in Africa, where it was used on animals up to and including elephants, for which it was particularly favoured by noted ivory hunter W. D. M. Bell, who shot 1,011 elephants using a 7x57mm rifle, when most ivory hunters were using larger-caliber rifles. It was also the favored cartridge of Eleanor O'Connor, wife of famous hunter and author Jack O'Connor. Eleanor accompanied her husband on multiple hunting expeditions all over the world, killing small and large game with the 7x57mm. Though not as popular today, the 7x57mm is still produced by most major ammunition manufacturers and many modern rifles are available chambered for the cartridge.

Due to the age and metallurgical characteristics of the rifles for which it was originally designed, many of which are still functioning, most U.S. commercially manufactured 7x57mm is loaded to lower pressures. European-produced rounds originating from C.I.P. member states are often loaded to give higher velocities and pressures, and these can only be safely used in modern rifles chambered for the 7x57mm cartridge. Older rifles may fire modern loads, but should be checked by a competent gunsmith and declared safe before being fired.

Para Bellum
January 17, 2009, 03:12 AM
...should have read all of you post. Wasn't quite the info asked for, was it... :rolleyes:

jaymag
January 17, 2009, 03:40 PM
I don't own a 22-250,but I have seen the round and I can say it is a sceamer.It's so fast, I know guys that has taken deer,with serious looking wound holes!For long range there is not much better.maybe the 22 swift is the only thing faster.

Daryl
January 17, 2009, 04:38 PM
For me, it would depend on what I intended to do with the critters after I shot them.

If I didn't care about wasting them, and wasn't going to skin them, then I'd go for the 22-250. I had one for a couple of years back in the mid-1980's, and it was a lot of fun. It's hard on coyote, fox, or bobcat hides though; just about as hard on them sometimes as the .243 is. I remember once shooting an english sparrow out of the top of a mesquite tree with that 22-250 at about 250 yards as the result of a bet (there was a mountain behind it). That little Win model 70 would shoot!

If I intended skin or eat the critters, then I'd go for the .222 Rem. "The Deuce" is about as accurate of a cartridge as you'll find, and it's far easier on fur and meat than the 22-250.

I have a .243, and while it's a great deer rifle, it's a little much for small game and varmints IMO.

Daryl

bcarver
January 17, 2009, 05:15 PM
If you are getting this free you could rebarrel it to what you want.
Might could just ream .222 to .223. may have to set barrel back to do this.
Not sure about the bolt face on ruger being right for .223 rebarrel.

Bottom Gun
January 17, 2009, 05:42 PM
For your stated prupose, I would buy a .223. The ammo is more readily available than most calibers and it's some of the least expensive centerfire shooting you will find.

If you are getting the .222 at a good price and can lay in a good supply of brass to reload, that would be my 2nd choice.

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65
January 17, 2009, 06:36 PM
G'day StL Bill. I had the choice between .222 & .243. An old boss failed to renew his weapons licence and had to get rid of his guns. I got them cheap on one condition (from my wife), I had to sell one to recoup my costs. As I already had a .270 and a .22lr I decided to keep the .222. Many years ago I picked the .223 as the gun that would best suit my needs except for one thing (actually 2 things)
1, Minimum legal caliber for deer hunting.
2, Only 1 chance to get a gun in the foreseeable future ( young family ).

Art Eatman
January 17, 2009, 07:54 PM
Since it's free, I'd take the .22-250. It's a great varmint cartridge, and easily good to 400 yards on coyotes.

Reloading? Per shot it's about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. of "storebought" ammo.

I like the .243, but IMO the 788 is just not quite as inherently accurate as the Ruger. While the .243 is excellent on varmints, prairie dogs at 300 yards demand very good accuracy. A .243 is a good compromise varmint/deer rifle, though, if you reload...

armedtotheteeth
January 17, 2009, 10:52 PM
Of the three you listed . probably the 22-250.
It haS its downfalls though. Barrell life will be very short compared to the 222. I have seen is a few places, for reasons of supply and demand, 22-250 ammo being cheaper than 222. This makes zero sense to me, but I guess that is how it is sometimes.
The 243... I have never been very fond of them. Then again I have never shot one.
I have a 22-250. I havent shot it in years. the 223 Remington does all i need to do out to at least 300 yards. If I need to shot farther, I grab the Armalite Ar30 300 WINMAG

Art Eatman
January 19, 2009, 04:13 PM
Thinking about this some more, and agreeing that the .223 is a good little cartridge, the .22-250 is probably better trading material for a swap.

Some comments about the 788 are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_788

jaymag
January 19, 2009, 11:58 PM
I own a 222 and it also kicks a@@ at far ranges good guns if the price is right???

phil mcwilliam
January 20, 2009, 02:35 AM
I'd favour the 22-250, but see if you can fire a packet of ammo through both the 22-250 & 222 to see what shoots best for you. Since you already have your 30-30 for deer, I'd give the 243 a miss.

publius
January 20, 2009, 09:41 PM
Since you sound like you pretty much want a dedicated varmint rifle I would say the 22-250. but gosh I love 788's, I've found them very accurate w/great triggers. And if you look at it from another perspective, it wouldn't hurt to have a deer rifle capabile of shooting at longer ranges that can also do double duty as a varmint round. that is the 243 in my 788.

wpcexpert
January 20, 2009, 10:04 PM
As far as Reloading...

Like Art said, round for round it will be less expensive, but to make up for the cost of loading equipment, it will take quite a few shots to do that. But since you are going to be loading for 9mm anyway, the only cost you will be trying to make up is the cost of the dies.($35-$45)

Advise on the 9mm...It will be cheaper to start out buying the Winchester White Box ammo to start out with. Then save the brass and load them. For the 20 cents a shot with the Winchester, then free brass knocks you down to about 12 cents per shot or less dependent upon bullet choice.

James R. Burke
February 23, 2009, 12:49 PM
For varmints no doubt for me it would be the 22-250!