22-250 for big Montana Mulies

[bamaranger]

I have never shot an elk. At this point in my life, physically and financially, I will now never get the chance either. I bought my first and only 22-250, a HB varmint model w/ a K12 on it, about 1980. When I lived in groundhog country, I hunted and shot it a good bit. But for long years it has set in the safe, only to come out occasionally to snipe crows and maybe a 'yote in the spring prior gobbler season. If I do my part, it will still shoot dime sized groups at 100 yds with 52gr MHP's. I've made my longest hits (and misses) with it. It is the most accurate rifle I've ever owned....the reason I have kept it, though largely unused, all these years.

Hit flesh on a crow at any range, blow a wing off, whatever....he's dead. Shoot a chuck or a 'yote through the nostrils/jaw by pulling the shot or missing a wind call or misjudging the range ( say a mere 1-2" error) he's dead too, and if the unfortunate critter gets away or down his hole, I can live with that. Crippling an elk or a deer by attempting a headshot (at any distance) with a varmint rifle would haunt me the rest of my life.

Some guys can live with that I guess, but I could not.

[Pumpkin]

I have never understood using a minimal caliber for med/big game.
Like the saying goes, “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.
If you can handle a high velocity.22 then why not get a .243, .257 or today’s wonder (in the US) caliber a 6.5/.264?
Best advice would be to sell, trade or add a more capable rifle/cartridge.

Never seen continued discussion change the performance of cartridge and what it DID before.
If you want to preserve hunting for future generations then responsible decisions need to be made.
Don’t give opponents of hunting anymore ammunition for
their anti-hunting cause.

[Tallest]

Not that this hasn't been said before, but there is at least enough evidence to fill a shipping container that every headstamp can successfully and cleanly kill given game. Simultaneously, there is an equal amount of evidence that said headstamp had X, Y, Z, P, D, and Q go wrong and didn't work.

For me, I couldn't agree more with 1972RedNeck. Because 22 Centerfires are not legal where I live, I've taken to varmint hunting with my .243. I use the same rifle to hunt everything. It's the same rifle I practice with. It has become the only rifle I have to buy or load ammo for. For that reason, I am very familiar and comfortable with it. Thus, my ability to place shots increases my chance of killing whatever game I am hunting vastly more than increasing the diameter or weight of the bullet I use. It is my confident and clear-conscience belief that a 95 - 108 grain frangible bullet placed precisely is always going to be sufficient in the context of North American game hunting.

Without a doubt, some will disagree. But if you're hunting with a clear conscience, we're ultimately on the same page.

[Pumpkin]

Did it ever say that he was a varmint hunter?

[samsmix]

Frankenmauser,
The 50gr bonded seems like it might be alright. If I can find it on the shelf anywhere I'll pick some up.
If not, he will have to make due. He and his wife have only 1 deer tag apiece left, and the 64gr load will probably do. Will he get close enough to a standing elk to head/neck shoot it? We'll see.

[FrankenMauser]

Elk necks are extremely tough. I wouldn't recommend that.
I've seen perfectly suitable bullets, from more appropriate cartridges, fail to penetrate to the spine or fail to exit, even without hitting bone.

I even had it happen with a home-brew 275 gr Bonded Flat Point in .444 Marlin. Muzzle velocity of 2,233 fps for that lot. Wounded bull elk at 25 feet.
It shattered the spine, but barely made it through any more muscle tissue and was far from exiting.
In testing and use, these bullets perform about like Nosler Accubonds. They're tough, as can be seen by the expansion (.699") and weight retention (66%) below. But it still didn't make it through the neck.

[Tallest]

What am I looking at? Did someone make a bullet of 40 S&W casing filled with lead? Is that a thing?

[Nathan]

I think you need to think about this more logically. A 22-250 is a high velocity, slow twist cartridge. The twist makes it less than ideal.

That said….break the problem down, don’t punt!

To kill a deer, I want to hit where I’m aiming, expand my bullet fully and drive through to exit.

In the last shot, I think you saw it over expand at high velocity at close range causing it not to exit. That said, it is a dead deer.

If it were me, I would find a mono that works with twist rate. FrankinMauser mentioned the Barnes. Over 1800 fps, that is your bullet. As long as it has enough energy, it should exit.

[FrankenMauser]

What am I looking at? Did someone make a bullet of 40 S&W casing filled with lead? Is that a thing?

Yes, I did. It is a thing.
Uncommon, but a thing.
They're pretty decent .44 caliber bullets.

[44 AMP]

A 22-250 is a high velocity, slow twist cartridge. The twist makes it less than ideal.

I have to disagree with part of this. It isn't the twist rate that makes it a less than ideal round for big muleys or elk, it's the size of the bullet. The twist rate is not the dominant factor.

The common twist rate for the .22-250 is 1-14", other (and bigger) rifles using the same twist rate are the .375H&H (Browning) and the .458 Winchester Mag (Remington, Winchester, & Ruger).

The .32 Special, .35 Remington, .350 Rem mag and the .460 Weatherby all use an even slower twist 1-16", the .45-70 uses a 1-20" and the .444 uses a 1-38" twist.

Clearly the twist rate itself is not the dominant factor in whether or not a given round is suitable for certain game.

[Nathan]

I have to disagree with part of this. It isn't the twist rate that makes it a less than ideal round for big muleys or elk, it's the size of the bullet. The twist rate is not the dominant factor.

If not the twist rate, to what would you attribute the lack of factory ammo offered in 70gr+ mono bullets or 80gr+ standard bullets? ….like perhaps a 22 Creedmoor might be available in?

Your comparable calibers all shoot bullet sizes which are stable in their slower twist rates as I see it. Am I missing your point?

[stagpanther]

Sounds like another chicken before the egg argument.

[Pumpkin]

I think rate of twist is very important.

It was important enough to cause Remington to change the 244’s twist from 1-12 to 1-9 and rename it, the 6mm Rem after the 1-10 twist 243 Winchester got the jump on it. Winchester’s 24 was already 3/4 of the way down the race track while the 244 still in the pits. Max bullet weight was 90 for the 244 and 100 for the 243. Sadly, the 244/6mm never caught up to the 243.

It’s also what differentiates a lot of the new “heavy for their caliber” rifle loads available today.

Lastly, the killing reputation of the European faster twist 6.5’s and 7mm’s in Africa and elsewhere can be largely attributed to their ability to handle deep penetrating “heavy for their caliber” bullets fired at moderate velocities.

[stagpanther]

I think rate of twist is very important.

Of course it is, I was commenting on 44amp's observation which is also true to the extent that it depends on the projectile. I don't know the history of the 22-250 that in-depth (I do have one and I think it is 1:12)--but I'll hazard a wild guess that heavy high SD 224's simply weren't not around when the 22-250 was designed and/or the cartridge was designed for optimal results using shorter lighter bullets--but as always I could be wrong.

[44 AMP]

If not the twist rate, to what would you attribute the lack of factory ammo offered in 70gr+ mono bullets or 80gr+ standard bullets?

Lack of interest, primarily.

Am I missing your point?

A little bit, I think.

I think rate of twist is very important.

It was important enough to cause Remington to change the 244’s twist from 1-12 to 1-9 and rename it, the 6mm Rem after the 1-10 twist 243 Winchester got the jump on it.

Remington changed the twist rate on the .244 for marketing reasons, not mechanical reasons. It has become one of the classic examples of a manufacturer misreading the market, something Remington has done on several occasions. Winchester envisioned their .243 as a dual purpose round (and the gun writers of the time pushed it as such) gave it a twist rate that would handle both the lighter varmint, and the heavier deer bullets, and got it on the market about a year before Remington released their .244. Remington envisioned their round as a varmint round, and twisted their barrels for the varmint bullets in the first couple years production. When they finally realized that because the .244 twist rate didn't handle the100/105gr deer bullets very well, they changed the twist rate to do so.

But, by that time, public perception had "fossilized" that the .244 wasn't a good dual purpose cartridge because the rifles wouldn't shoot the deer loads very well. Remington fixed that, (you can find later production .244 rifles with the faster twist) but it was a case of "too little, too late" and even though Remington changed the name of the round to 6mm Remington a few years later, sales never caught up to the lead the .243 had.

I don't know the history of the 22-250 that in-depth (I do have one and I think it is 1:12)--but I'll hazard a wild guess that heavy high SD 224's simply weren't not around when the 22-250 was designed and/or the cartridge was designed for optimal results using shorter lighter bullets...

The .22-250 originated with wildcatters in the 1920s, and had pretty much settled down to 2 or 3 varitions of case details by the 30s. It remained a wildcat (though a popular one) until Remington adopted and standardized it in the 1960s. The longer, heavier heavy high SD bullets didn't come along until more than a couple decades after that.

So, the "shorter, lighter bullets" were the standard, and the ONLY bullets available for .22 centerfires until late in the 20th century. All the .22 Centerfirest from the Hornet to the Swift through the .222 Rem and even the .223 Rem were designed to run on 40-55gr bullets and twist rates of 1-14" or 1-12" were used because they worked well for those bullets and nothing else was needed.

SO, essentially, you don't see fast twist or heavy weight bullet loads in .22-250 is because both the makers and the buying public still regard the .22-250 as a varmint round, NOT a deer round. And, I don't see that likely changing much, or soon.

[Nathan]

I get that it is viewed as a varmint round, but isn’t it the twist rate primarily that separates it from the 22 Creedmoor which many people are killing large deer and even elk with.

With the faster twist, I think 22-250 would have ammo made for it that was mono metal or at least heavy cup n core. Without the twist, these are unstable and therefore inaccurate. Slow twist also hurts expansion some. One could add short throated to this also.

The thing that makes the new wonder rounds wonderful are steep shoulders, long/heavy bullets, long throats, fast twist and much better reamer, case, die shape matching.

This is another case where SAAMI has no revision system so we need something new.

[44 AMP]

I get that it is viewed as a varmint round, but isn’t it the twist rate primarily that separates it from the 22 Creedmoor which many people are killing large deer and even elk with.

No, its more than just the twist rate. You can get a 1-8" twist barrel and chamber it for the .22-250 and the .22 Creedmoor will still out perform it.

The Creedmoor case is about an inch longer than the .22-250, with a larger powder capacity. This means higher velocity, and the ability to shoot heavier bullets faster. The longer heavier bullets need the faster twist for acceptable accuracy.

I had to do a bit of looking as I'm not very familiar with the .22 Creedmoor, but a few things stand out. The round is just now pushing 10 years old, and was designed from the start to be the "ultimate" performer possible.

The .22-250 had about 30 years of use as a wildcat, before Remington standardized it in 1967. SO as a factory round, its been around for 57 years.

Goals were different then. Bullets were different then. Don't fall into the trap of looking at the 20th century with 21st century eyes.

[stagpanther]

I have a 30 BR robinett and at close ranges (out to 300 yds +/-) it will outshoot anything that I've ever shot. It has a 1:17 twist and I use bullets up to 125 grs.

[tangolima]

1:12 twist will have difficulty stabilizing bullets longer than 0.75". 55gn flat base bullets is probably the limit.

Bigger calibers don't have this issue as much. For instance, .30 cal can stabilize up to 1.2" long. That greatly extends the bullet weight limit.

I don't know the hunter couple's situation. If it is for food to live on, whatever tool available is good. Empty stomach changes perspectives. If not, perhaps hunting is just a luxury one can do without.

I don't hunt for similar reasons. There are other priorities waiting for me to take care of.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[georgehwbush]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...The Creedmoor case is about an inch longer than the .22-250, with a larger powder capacity....(than the 22-250)...

22-250
Case length 1.912 in (48.6 mm)
Case capacity 50.92 gr H2O (3.362 cm3) 0.205188 in3

6.5 cm Parent case of the 6mm cm Originally dubbed the 6mm HOLE (Hornady-Outdoor Life Express),
Case length 1.920 in (48.8 mm)
Case capacity 52.5 gr H2O (3.40 cm3) 0.228156 in3

.008" != 1" capacity is a little higher yes. but you make it sound like a lot more.


did i miss something ?

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by georgehwbush

22-250

Case length1.912 in (48.6 mm)

Case capacity 50.92 gr H2O (3.362 cm3) 0.205188 in3



6.5 cm Parent case of the 6mm cm Originally dubbed the 6mm HOLE (Hornady-Outdoor Life Express),

Case length1.920 in (48.8 mm)

Case capacity52.5 gr H2O (3.40 cm3) 0.228156 in3



.008" != 1" capacity is a little higher yes. but you make it sound like a lot more.





did i miss something ?

The difference is 3%. Don't know whether it will translate directly into MV. If it does, it will be significant. 100fps more or 6% more in energy.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[georgehwbush]

yeah i agree, roughly 2900 ft/s compared to 3050 ft/s for the 77smk but i get 2900 ft/s from 69smk in a 223 so it should still shoot the longer bullets ok if it had the twist for it. that's all i as on about.

[44 AMP]

did i miss something ?

No, I did.
My apologies, I misread the numbers on an online case drawing, and I apologize for the mistake. You are correct, I have rechecked and looked at more (and different) data, and the Creedmoor case is only slightly longer than the .22-250, with a sharper shoulder and less body taper.

The data I saw ran the 55gr bullet in the 3800fps range from the Creedmoor, which is something the .22-250 will also do.

With 75gr bullets the Creedmoor ran in the 3400s, with 80.5gr in the 3300s, and with 95 grain a bit over 3,000fps. All loads given were in the 62,000 psi range.

With a couple grains less powder capacity, and a lower working pressure limit, I would expect a .22-250 twisted for the heavy bullets to be in the general performance range of the Creedmoor but a little bit less.

[georgehwbush]

hey i happen that way too... just glad i cought it before someone took it at face value and made a blunder because of it...

that is the way life works, or should work. we all make mistakes, you catch mine i catch yours... we're all happy.

[Nathan]

22-250
Case length 1.912 in (48.6 mm)
Case capacity 50.92 gr H2O (3.362 cm3) 0.205188 in3

6.5 cm Parent case of the 6mm cm Originally dubbed the 6mm HOLE (Hornady-Outdoor Life Express),
Case length 1.920 in (48.8 mm)
Case capacity 52.5 gr H2O (3.40 cm3) 0.228156 in3

.008" != 1" capacity is a little higher yes. but you make it sound like a lot more.

Based on my own experience, I’d call them “practically” the same size.