223 Rem vs. 22-250: planning for requirements - components etc.

pathdoc · January 12, 2014, 07:00 PM

So I am contemplating the next thing to go in the gun safe, and I decided a small-calibre centrefire rifle is on the cards. As I am a reloader already, the first and foremost thing in my mind is care and feeding - especially feeding, which is why I'm putting this thread here.

(In terms of what I'm buying the gun for, reading up on local laws and conditions and taking the advice of others assures me that either would be eminently suited to the task. That's not what's up for debate.)

If I go with the .223, I burn approximately ten grains of powder less per shot than with the .22-250. I can use the same powders I already have for .303 British (IMR 3031 and Varget/ADI AR2208). However, it means I have to keep a separate stock of small rifle primers and change out the primer seating mechanism whenever I load for one or the other calibre.

If I go with the .22-250 I burn almost as much powder per shot as with the .303, and there is a concern about shorter barrel life, relatively speaking. However, I can still use the same powders, and as a bonus, I can also use the same primers (no need to keep a different size; just buy more). I also don't have to change to a different primer-seating cup every time.

(At some stage in the more remote future I'm also considering something in the large-calibre range - possibly .45-70 - which again means large rifle primers and at least one shared powder; IMR3031).

Commonality of components => buying in bulk => saved costs and reduced confusion for the relative novice, not to mention avoiding all the fuss with small vs. large primer seating systems (especially if a third or even a fourth centrefire cartridge enters the picture). All of this plus a slight performance edge suggests I would be better served by the .22-250, its somewhat greater hunger for powder (and barrels) notwithstanding.

Or is the complication of a different primer size offset by the .223's lesser appetite for powder, and the advantage of diversity in case large rifle primer availability is locally compromised for whatever reason? (As far as brass is concerned, I'm not in the US and I don't think I have access to cheap milsurp brass - I'm well aware of how much that would swing the balance to the .223 Remington.)

Can anyone pick a hole in my reasoning?

BuckRub · January 12, 2014, 07:11 PM

You make your decisions too complicated for me. If you want a 223 get one , if you chose the 22-250 - get one. If you want both, get both. It's not hard to tell the person at the store large primers or small primers. They have both. Jeez

William T. Watts · January 12, 2014, 07:48 PM

Your overthinking what should be an easy decision, I would pick the 22/250 and use the large primers and the same powder. If I had it to do over again I would pick/choose a 22/250 with a 1-12 twist barrel rather than the standard 1-14 twist. Personally I can't get too excited about a .223 when I think about a 22cal center fire rifle, the first caliber that comes to mind is a 22/250. With that said I wish I had picked a rifle with a 1-12 twist then it would handle the nosler 60gr Partition and could be used for deer hunting, it would be an excellent choice for a women or a young child who may be recoil sensitive. I'll touch on the 45/70, optimum powder for a 45/70 would be IMR4198 not IMR3031. I'm not intending to step on your toes but when I was younger I purchased some rifles if I had given a little more thought I might not have purchased. I prefer to purchase components that are optimum for the rifle, just because they can be used in more than one caliber doesn't make them the best choice.. If a given combinations of componets deliver the highest velocity usually these same components deliver the best accuracy. I hope this has given you something to think about! William

Chili Palmer · January 12, 2014, 08:08 PM

Think about over the counter ammo that you will re-use the brass. 22-250 is very expensive, .223 is somewhat reasonable. You also have a better chance finding .223 at ranges.

If you want to shoot minimal rounds with very accurate results, and you don't shoot a lot, go with 22-250.

If you want to shoot a lot or have ability too, and have more versatility go .223.

If you don't own either, and you don't have a specific reason to go with a 22-250, go .223.

603Country · January 12, 2014, 08:14 PM

Yup, WT Watts makes a good case for the 22-250 and I certainly agree on the desire for a faster twist than the standard 1 in 14 or the 1 in 12. If you get a 22-250 you will eventually want to shoot the heavier bullets.

But on the other hand...with a 223 you can shoot a 40 grain bullet to about 3700 fps versus the 22.250 shooting a 55 gr bullet at 3700. Trust me that the 40 grainer will do a job on a coyote. And with the 223 you can shoot up to 70ish grain bullets (with a 1 in 9 twist). More versatility with the 223.

My order of what I'd want would be: first choice is a fast twist 22-250; second choice would be a 223; third choice would be a standard slow twist 22-250.

4runnerman · January 12, 2014, 08:24 PM

Myself I would go with the 223. I have both right now and the 223 is much more than then the 22-250 will ever be. Granted my twist is my issue. I shoot 52 gn out of 22-250 and 60 to 75 gn out of the 223. Also the 223 is cheaper to load for,every bit as accurate and more more available. Barrel life is longer on 223.
The big one for me is Brass life. 22-250 brass life is short. I like 22-250,but the 223 out shines it always.

2ndtimer · January 13, 2014, 01:47 AM

I would go for the .223 for several reasons:
1. Cheaper to feed, both factory ammo and reloading
2. light enough recoil to see your shots hit if you are using a rest, the 22- 250 has just enough more recoil to lose the sight picture
3. increased barrel life
4.

1stmar · January 13, 2014, 05:52 AM

What are you going to do with this rifle, hunt? Punch paper? What distances?

Beentown71 · January 13, 2014, 09:48 AM

If you will do any volume shooting at all I recommend the 223. Much less cost per shot can be had.

Jim Watson · January 13, 2014, 10:19 AM

It sounds like you have pretty well sold yourself a .22-250.
I have one, it is a good rifle, but if somebody offered me a .223 for it, I would make the trade. Reason, the .223 is available with the rifling twist to handle the heavy bullets needed for midrange shooting I like. My .22-250 does not and I don't know of any that do. But you say you have determined that they are equal in the shooting you do.
Carry on.

mehavey · January 13, 2014, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Can anyone pick a hole in my reasoning?

The only (but biggest) hole is the answer for the question "What is the intended use?"

The 223 in a 24-26" bolt action will just do about anything the 22-250 will do out to
several hundred yards. Unless you're going after prarie dogs at 500-600+ the
223 is by far the most practical/least expensive choice.*

*(And this is from a guy w/ both a 223 in a 20" AR hosting a 6.5x20X ; and a 220Swift in
26" (same scope). Guess which one gets the most use -- by oodles more than an
order of magnitude.)

pathdoc · January 13, 2014, 06:03 PM

Use is predominantly paper at short range in the first instance (as much fun as anything else), with the possibility of vermin control (coyotes etc.) down the road.

If I get into the long-range target game at any stage, and need the high twist rates for the 70+ grain pills, I'll bite the bullet & buy a dedicated .223 target platform with the appropriate barrel.

I may be overthinking this, but I'd rather overthink it than underthink it, and you're all providing me with useful advice to take into consideration. Thanks heaps.

Chili Palmer · January 13, 2014, 06:08 PM

I'd say a Mini14 has your name written all over it.

jepp2 · January 13, 2014, 06:20 PM

The factors of keeping only one primer size or 1 powder wouldn't impact my decision. The distance of your shots, the wind, the twist rate, and the total number of shots would.

But my tastes favor:

pathdoc · January 13, 2014, 06:52 PM

I'd say a Mini14 has your name written all over it.

Sorry, no. Single-shot or bolt only for me, thanks.

BuckRub · January 13, 2014, 06:54 PM

I have both. The 22-250 does shine at 300 yards and better and a 223 shines at 100 to 300 yards. The 223 you can find ammo in stores easier and cheaper and Reloaders can find brass anywhere and less powder in every charge. If I didn't have either I'd get a 223

1stmar · January 13, 2014, 10:23 PM

I have both as well, while (for paper) both are sufficient for short to medium distances 22-250 is hard to beat IMO. Really a great cartridge.

Rimfire5 · January 13, 2014, 10:29 PM

I too have both and enjoy shooting both.

If you are a nut for getting the most out of your rifle, I find that the availability of brass at the range is not a factor.

I have gotten the best results starting with new Lapua brass for each rifle and have gotten incredible results with both calibers.

My CZ 527 Varmint (1:9 twist) .223 is very slightly more accurate than my Remington 700 (1:14 twist) .22-250.

The .223 has averaged 0.508 for

Clark · January 13, 2014, 10:38 PM

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

The shooting industry has really screwed up this one.

The 22-250 was SAAMI registered at 65,000 psi in ~ 1965. Using the 1889 Mauser case head with large Boxer primer pocket it is good to ~~67,000 psi.

The 223 was SAAMI registered at 55,000 psi in ~ 1964. Using the 1950 222 case head with small Boxer primer pocket it is good to ~~ 85,000 psi.

Given the above and slow twist factory 22-250 rifles, and both rifles pushed to the limit and backed off a appropriate safety margin, the 223 can do anything the 22-250 can do for velocity with a given bullet.

I have both reamers and build both types of rifles for myself.
Why bother with the 22-250?
Because the Mauser case head actions are more common and I can buy fast twist .224" groove barrels.

Rimfire5 · January 13, 2014, 10:59 PM

I too have both and enjoy shooting both.

If you are a nut for getting the most out of your rifle, I find that the availability of brass at the range is not a factor. You just won't get great results using the brass the you can find at the range. Most of it comes from junk ammo and doesn't provide the consistent neck tension that you need to get great results.

I have gotten the best results starting with new Lapua brass for each rifle and have gotten consistent results with both calibers.

My CZ 527 Varmint (1:9 twist) .223 is very slightly more accurate than my Remington 700 (1:14 twist) .22-250.

The .223 has averaged 0.508 for the 1380 groups that I have shot through it from 40 grain bullets to 75 grain bullets with a variety of different powders with a range of velocities and OALs. Its top 25 loads average 0.306 and its top 10 loads average 0.270. Its best load is 0.206.

The .22-250 has averaged 0.518 for the 992 groups that I have shot through it from 35 grains to 55 grain bullets, also with a variety of powders, with a range of velocities and OALs. Its top 25 loads average 0.334 and its top 10 loads average 0.310. Its best load is 0.227. The .22-250 has phenomenal hitting power and bullets like Nosler Ballistic Tips act like grenades when they hit prairie dog sized varmints.

Both calibers are fun to shoot. My .22-250 is a full sized rifle (26 inch varmint barrel and full size stock) so it is a good practice rifle for my .308 and larger calibers.

The .223, even with the varmint barrel, is lighter and more compact with a 22 inch barrel and a slightly smaller, lighter stock. It is easy to carry and a great rifle for my granddaughter to shoot.

The both actually use the same bullets and they both shoot 40 grain Nosler BTs and 50 and 52 grain Bergers and 52 and 53 grain SMKs marginally better than anything else.
The .223 shoots best with N133 powder with H335 powder a close second. The .22-250 shoots best with Reloader 15. I never would have figured that the .22-250 would do so well with R-15, but the numbers don't lie.

The difference in cost per load (using the 15 reloads that I get with Lapua brass) is 30.8 cents for the .223 and 32.0 cents for the .22-250 so the difference in cost (1.2 cents per round) is negligible. I shoot good target bullets in both (Sierra SMKs, Berger Target, and Nosler BTs) so my average cost is not as low as some, but to me the accuracy results are worth it.

If you don't reload, that is another story. I have never found a low cost .22-250 factory ammo but then again, I have never found cheaper .223 factory ammo that shoots very accurately.
Good .223 factory ammo costs 86.5 cents a round and .22-250 factory ammo costs 1.25 a round (based upon what I have bought).
If you depend upon factory ammo, costs would definitely favor the .223 but if you want accuracy, you will still be spending a lot more than you would if you intend to shoot cheap .223 ammo.

If you can afford it, by one of each and you probably will enjoy them both as much as I do.

SVTCobra306 · January 14, 2014, 12:22 AM

I shoot a lot of .223 (AR and Mini-14) and a lot of 22-250, and in a bolt action I'd never look at the .223. 50 gr Sierra SP or Blitzking, and 36.0 Gr of Varget, no perceived recoil when shooting coyotes for me. I see them fall on their nose through the scope pretty much every time. Maybe it's because I'm used to shooting my .243 LOL.

To my "feel", my AR kicks as hard as my 22-250. Recoil would not make my decision.

Everything the .223 does, the 22-250 is going to do just a little better, except the heavy-grain stuff, most of them are a "slow" 1:12 or 1:14 twist. Mine is a 1:12 but most of what I shoot are 50 grain loads, so a 1:14 wouldn't be a show stopper for me. I do kinda wish I had a 1:9 or so twist though, shooting some 65 or 69 grain to see how it reaches out would be a lot of fun.

mehavey · January 14, 2014, 12:05 PM

Quote:

The 223 was SAAMI registered at 55,000 psi in ~ 1964.
Using the 1950 222 case head with small Boxer primer
pocket it is good to ~~ 85,000 psi.

I'm going to have to challenge that last bit of info. My AR shows unacceptable primer pocket expansion
after ~5 firings when I exceed 55,-56,000psi. (Winchester brass. Lapua may last slightly longer)

My AR ejects head-expanded/primer-dropped/BIG ejector cutout-marked cases when it (mistakenly) hit ~77,000.

Stick w/ 55,000 and below.
It still gets the job done real well.

pathdoc · January 14, 2014, 06:38 PM

If you don't reload, that is another story. I have never found a low cost .22-250 factory ammo but then again, I have never found cheaper .223 factory ammo that shoots very accurately.

Oh, I most definitely reload - which was the entire point of me putting the thread here instead of over in the bolt- or general-rifle thread.

It surprises me to hear that fast-twist barrels don't seem to be a "thing" in the .22-250; that would definitely be a swaying factor towards the .223 Remington if I ever wanted the option, and there's no lack of heavy-bullet data for it. No doubt someone out there would be both willing and able to chamber a .22-250 in a fast-twist barrel if I really wanted it, but it seems they're far easier to find on an off-the-shelf basis for the smaller cartridge.

I don't see myself making very long (> 300yd) shots on live targets. I'm just not that good (yet) and I know it. The .223 is looking better and better.

4runnerman · January 14, 2014, 06:44 PM

Even with reloading, I would still go for the 223. I have a 22-250- It is my least used rifle out of all of them. Any thing my 22-250 can do, My 223 can do better,more accurate and cheaper.

kingranch1882 · February 1, 2014, 10:10 PM

22-250 is the best all-around caliber available, in my opinion. I shoot 50 gr. Hornady V-max with varying Hodgdon Varget charges and have killed everything from prairie dogs to coyotes to white-tailed deer with mine and I love it. I prefer reloading 22-250 over .223 as well seems a little easier, I haven't been reloading long. Would not trade it for any other gun. I have a Savage 12fv 26" bull barrel 1 in 12 twist. Out of the box with factory loads I was getting .602" groups and now reloading I have it down to .496", still working on what charge to use. I also have a .223 mini 14 and it doesn't get out of the safe much.

January 12, 2014, 07:00 PM	#1
pathdoc Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2013 Posts: 669	223 Rem vs. 22-250: planning for requirements - components etc. So I am contemplating the next thing to go in the gun safe, and I decided a small-calibre centrefire rifle is on the cards. As I am a reloader already, the first and foremost thing in my mind is care and feeding - especially feeding, which is why I'm putting this thread here. (In terms of what I'm buying the gun for, reading up on local laws and conditions and taking the advice of others assures me that either would be eminently suited to the task. That's not what's up for debate.) If I go with the .223, I burn approximately ten grains of powder less per shot than with the .22-250. I can use the same powders I already have for .303 British (IMR 3031 and Varget/ADI AR2208). However, it means I have to keep a separate stock of small rifle primers and change out the primer seating mechanism whenever I load for one or the other calibre. If I go with the .22-250 I burn almost as much powder per shot as with the .303, and there is a concern about shorter barrel life, relatively speaking. However, I can still use the same powders, and as a bonus, I can also use the same primers (no need to keep a different size; just buy more). I also don't have to change to a different primer-seating cup every time. (At some stage in the more remote future I'm also considering something in the large-calibre range - possibly .45-70 - which again means large rifle primers and at least one shared powder; IMR3031). Commonality of components => buying in bulk => saved costs and reduced confusion for the relative novice, not to mention avoiding all the fuss with small vs. large primer seating systems (especially if a third or even a fourth centrefire cartridge enters the picture). All of this plus a slight performance edge suggests I would be better served by the .22-250, its somewhat greater hunger for powder (and barrels) notwithstanding. Or is the complication of a different primer size offset by the .223's lesser appetite for powder, and the advantage of diversity in case large rifle primer availability is locally compromised for whatever reason? (As far as brass is concerned, I'm not in the US and I don't think I have access to cheap milsurp brass - I'm well aware of how much that would swing the balance to the .223 Remington.) Can anyone pick a hole in my reasoning?

January 12, 2014, 07:48 PM	#3
William T. Watts Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2010 Location: Central Arkansas Posts: 1,074	Your overthinking what should be an easy decision, I would pick the 22/250 and use the large primers and the same powder. If I had it to do over again I would pick/choose a 22/250 with a 1-12 twist barrel rather than the standard 1-14 twist. Personally I can't get too excited about a .223 when I think about a 22cal center fire rifle, the first caliber that comes to mind is a 22/250. With that said I wish I had picked a rifle with a 1-12 twist then it would handle the nosler 60gr Partition and could be used for deer hunting, it would be an excellent choice for a women or a young child who may be recoil sensitive. I'll touch on the 45/70, optimum powder for a 45/70 would be IMR4198 not IMR3031. I'm not intending to step on your toes but when I was younger I purchased some rifles if I had given a little more thought I might not have purchased. I prefer to purchase components that are optimum for the rifle, just because they can be used in more than one caliber doesn't make them the best choice.. If a given combinations of componets deliver the highest velocity usually these same components deliver the best accuracy. I hope this has given you something to think about! William Last edited by William T. Watts; January 12, 2014 at 09:05 PM.

January 12, 2014, 08:24 PM	#6
4runnerman Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,577	Myself I would go with the 223. I have both right now and the 223 is much more than then the 22-250 will ever be. Granted my twist is my issue. I shoot 52 gn out of 22-250 and 60 to 75 gn out of the 223. Also the 223 is cheaper to load for,every bit as accurate and more more available. Barrel life is longer on 223. The big one for me is Brass life. 22-250 brass life is short. I like 22-250,but the 223 out shines it always. __________________ NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional

January 13, 2014, 01:47 AM	#7
2ndtimer Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2004 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 293	I would go for the .223 for several reasons: 1. Cheaper to feed, both factory ammo and reloading 2. light enough recoil to see your shots hit if you are using a rest, the 22- 250 has just enough more recoil to lose the sight picture 3. increased barrel life 4. __________________ NRA Endowment Member

January 13, 2014, 06:20 PM	#14
jepp2 Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2008 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 1,476	The factors of keeping only one primer size or 1 powder wouldn't impact my decision. The distance of your shots, the wind, the twist rate, and the total number of shots would. But my tastes favor: __________________ NRA Benefactor Life member

January 12, 2014, 07:11 PM	#2
BuckRub Junior member Join Date: October 3, 2012 Location: Central Texas Posts: 1,046	You make your decisions too complicated for me. If you want a 223 get one , if you chose the 22-250 - get one. If you want both, get both. It's not hard to tell the person at the store large primers or small primers. They have both. Jeez

January 12, 2014, 08:08 PM	#4
Chili Palmer Member Join Date: July 15, 2013 Posts: 52	Think about over the counter ammo that you will re-use the brass. 22-250 is very expensive, .223 is somewhat reasonable. You also have a better chance finding .223 at ranges. If you want to shoot minimal rounds with very accurate results, and you don't shoot a lot, go with 22-250. If you want to shoot a lot or have ability too, and have more versatility go .223. If you don't own either, and you don't have a specific reason to go with a 22-250, go .223.

January 12, 2014, 08:14 PM	#5
603Country Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2011 Location: Thornton, Texas Posts: 3,998	Yup, WT Watts makes a good case for the 22-250 and I certainly agree on the desire for a faster twist than the standard 1 in 14 or the 1 in 12. If you get a 22-250 you will eventually want to shoot the heavier bullets. But on the other hand...with a 223 you can shoot a 40 grain bullet to about 3700 fps versus the 22.250 shooting a 55 gr bullet at 3700. Trust me that the 40 grainer will do a job on a coyote. And with the 223 you can shoot up to 70ish grain bullets (with a 1 in 9 twist). More versatility with the 223. My order of what I'd want would be: first choice is a fast twist 22-250; second choice would be a 223; third choice would be a standard slow twist 22-250.

January 13, 2014, 05:52 AM	#8
1stmar Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2012 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,378	What are you going to do with this rifle, hunt? Punch paper? What distances?

January 13, 2014, 09:48 AM	#9
Beentown71 Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2009 Location: Midwest Posts: 1,560	If you will do any volume shooting at all I recommend the 223. Much less cost per shot can be had.

January 13, 2014, 10:19 AM	#10
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,537	It sounds like you have pretty well sold yourself a .22-250. I have one, it is a good rifle, but if somebody offered me a .223 for it, I would make the trade. Reason, the .223 is available with the rifling twist to handle the heavy bullets needed for midrange shooting I like. My .22-250 does not and I don't know of any that do. But you say you have determined that they are equal in the shooting you do. Carry on.

January 13, 2014, 06:03 PM	#12
pathdoc Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2013 Posts: 669	Use is predominantly paper at short range in the first instance (as much fun as anything else), with the possibility of vermin control (coyotes etc.) down the road. If I get into the long-range target game at any stage, and need the high twist rates for the 70+ grain pills, I'll bite the bullet & buy a dedicated .223 target platform with the appropriate barrel. I may be overthinking this, but I'd rather overthink it than underthink it, and you're all providing me with useful advice to take into consideration. Thanks heaps.

January 13, 2014, 06:08 PM	#13
Chili Palmer Member Join Date: July 15, 2013 Posts: 52	I'd say a Mini14 has your name written all over it.

January 13, 2014, 06:52 PM	#15
pathdoc Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2013 Posts: 669	I'd say a Mini14 has your name written all over it. Sorry, no. Single-shot or bolt only for me, thanks.

January 13, 2014, 06:54 PM	#16
BuckRub Junior member Join Date: October 3, 2012 Location: Central Texas Posts: 1,046	I have both. The 22-250 does shine at 300 yards and better and a 223 shines at 100 to 300 yards. The 223 you can find ammo in stores easier and cheaper and Reloaders can find brass anywhere and less powder in every charge. If I didn't have either I'd get a 223

January 13, 2014, 10:23 PM	#17
1stmar Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2012 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,378	I have both as well, while (for paper) both are sufficient for short to medium distances 22-250 is hard to beat IMO. Really a great cartridge.

January 13, 2014, 10:29 PM	#18
Rimfire5 Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2009 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 922	I too have both and enjoy shooting both. If you are a nut for getting the most out of your rifle, I find that the availability of brass at the range is not a factor. I have gotten the best results starting with new Lapua brass for each rifle and have gotten incredible results with both calibers. My CZ 527 Varmint (1:9 twist) .223 is very slightly more accurate than my Remington 700 (1:14 twist) .22-250. The .223 has averaged 0.508 for

January 13, 2014, 10:38 PM	#19
Clark Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Location: WA, the ever blue state Posts: 4,678	CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information. The shooting industry has really screwed up this one. The 22-250 was SAAMI registered at 65,000 psi in ~ 1965. Using the 1889 Mauser case head with large Boxer primer pocket it is good to ~~67,000 psi. The 223 was SAAMI registered at 55,000 psi in ~ 1964. Using the 1950 222 case head with small Boxer primer pocket it is good to ~~ 85,000 psi. Given the above and slow twist factory 22-250 rifles, and both rifles pushed to the limit and backed off a appropriate safety margin, the 223 can do anything the 22-250 can do for velocity with a given bullet. I have both reamers and build both types of rifles for myself. Why bother with the 22-250? Because the Mauser case head actions are more common and I can buy fast twist .224" groove barrels. __________________ The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books." "Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist. Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?

January 13, 2014, 10:59 PM	#20
Rimfire5 Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2009 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 922	I too have both and enjoy shooting both. If you are a nut for getting the most out of your rifle, I find that the availability of brass at the range is not a factor. You just won't get great results using the brass the you can find at the range. Most of it comes from junk ammo and doesn't provide the consistent neck tension that you need to get great results. I have gotten the best results starting with new Lapua brass for each rifle and have gotten consistent results with both calibers. My CZ 527 Varmint (1:9 twist) .223 is very slightly more accurate than my Remington 700 (1:14 twist) .22-250. The .223 has averaged 0.508 for the 1380 groups that I have shot through it from 40 grain bullets to 75 grain bullets with a variety of different powders with a range of velocities and OALs. Its top 25 loads average 0.306 and its top 10 loads average 0.270. Its best load is 0.206. The .22-250 has averaged 0.518 for the 992 groups that I have shot through it from 35 grains to 55 grain bullets, also with a variety of powders, with a range of velocities and OALs. Its top 25 loads average 0.334 and its top 10 loads average 0.310. Its best load is 0.227. The .22-250 has phenomenal hitting power and bullets like Nosler Ballistic Tips act like grenades when they hit prairie dog sized varmints. Both calibers are fun to shoot. My .22-250 is a full sized rifle (26 inch varmint barrel and full size stock) so it is a good practice rifle for my .308 and larger calibers. The .223, even with the varmint barrel, is lighter and more compact with a 22 inch barrel and a slightly smaller, lighter stock. It is easy to carry and a great rifle for my granddaughter to shoot. The both actually use the same bullets and they both shoot 40 grain Nosler BTs and 50 and 52 grain Bergers and 52 and 53 grain SMKs marginally better than anything else. The .223 shoots best with N133 powder with H335 powder a close second. The .22-250 shoots best with Reloader 15. I never would have figured that the .22-250 would do so well with R-15, but the numbers don't lie. The difference in cost per load (using the 15 reloads that I get with Lapua brass) is 30.8 cents for the .223 and 32.0 cents for the .22-250 so the difference in cost (1.2 cents per round) is negligible. I shoot good target bullets in both (Sierra SMKs, Berger Target, and Nosler BTs) so my average cost is not as low as some, but to me the accuracy results are worth it. If you don't reload, that is another story. I have never found a low cost .22-250 factory ammo but then again, I have never found cheaper .223 factory ammo that shoots very accurately. Good .223 factory ammo costs 86.5 cents a round and .22-250 factory ammo costs 1.25 a round (based upon what I have bought). If you depend upon factory ammo, costs would definitely favor the .223 but if you want accuracy, you will still be spending a lot more than you would if you intend to shoot cheap .223 ammo. If you can afford it, by one of each and you probably will enjoy them both as much as I do.

January 14, 2014, 12:22 AM	#21
SVTCobra306 Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2013 Posts: 434	I shoot a lot of .223 (AR and Mini-14) and a lot of 22-250, and in a bolt action I'd never look at the .223. 50 gr Sierra SP or Blitzking, and 36.0 Gr of Varget, no perceived recoil when shooting coyotes for me. I see them fall on their nose through the scope pretty much every time. Maybe it's because I'm used to shooting my .243 LOL. To my "feel", my AR kicks as hard as my 22-250. Recoil would not make my decision. Everything the .223 does, the 22-250 is going to do just a little better, except the heavy-grain stuff, most of them are a "slow" 1:12 or 1:14 twist. Mine is a 1:12 but most of what I shoot are 50 grain loads, so a 1:14 wouldn't be a show stopper for me. I do kinda wish I had a 1:9 or so twist though, shooting some 65 or 69 grain to see how it reaches out would be a lot of fun. __________________ Former US Army Paratrooper (1/509th PIR and 2nd BCT 82nd ABN DIV) 2 time OIF Veteran NRA Certified RSO/CRSO NRA Certified Pistol Instructor

January 14, 2014, 06:38 PM	#23
pathdoc Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2013 Posts: 669	If you don't reload, that is another story. I have never found a low cost .22-250 factory ammo but then again, I have never found cheaper .223 factory ammo that shoots very accurately. Oh, I most definitely reload - which was the entire point of me putting the thread here instead of over in the bolt- or general-rifle thread. It surprises me to hear that fast-twist barrels don't seem to be a "thing" in the .22-250; that would definitely be a swaying factor towards the .223 Remington if I ever wanted the option, and there's no lack of heavy-bullet data for it. No doubt someone out there would be both willing and able to chamber a .22-250 in a fast-twist barrel if I really wanted it, but it seems they're far easier to find on an off-the-shelf basis for the smaller cartridge. I don't see myself making very long (> 300yd) shots on live targets. I'm just not that good (yet) and I know it. The .223 is looking better and better.

January 14, 2014, 06:44 PM	#24
4runnerman Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,577	Even with reloading, I would still go for the 223. I have a 22-250- It is my least used rifle out of all of them. Any thing my 22-250 can do, My 223 can do better,more accurate and cheaper. __________________ NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional

February 1, 2014, 10:10 PM	#25
kingranch1882 Junior Member Join Date: January 18, 2014 Posts: 2	22-250 Fanatic 22-250 is the best all-around caliber available, in my opinion. I shoot 50 gr. Hornady V-max with varying Hodgdon Varget charges and have killed everything from prairie dogs to coyotes to white-tailed deer with mine and I love it. I prefer reloading 22-250 over .223 as well seems a little easier, I haven't been reloading long. Would not trade it for any other gun. I have a Savage 12fv 26" bull barrel 1 in 12 twist. Out of the box with factory loads I was getting .602" groups and now reloading I have it down to .496", still working on what charge to use. I also have a .223 mini 14 and it doesn't get out of the safe much.