Probably Been Done Before But 223. Or 22-250 For Fox ?

[slipper 116]

I would go 243 like charlie caller said light bullet flat as hell

[Bigad 136]

Not even thought of 243 with a light bullet would it be like 17hmr point and shoot for a lot of rangers ?

[charlie caller 3,654]

I shoot grain Sierra blitz in mine,re-loads I have to say, out to 300yards it really is very very flat,basically, as you say point and shoot,58 grain Hornady v-max are a cracking round, very fast,very flat, and very explosive, you wont go wrong with a .243 mate,and ammo is available virtually everywhere.

[GEOFF.223 83]

.204 is a flat as a .22-250 out to 300yards

 

Less recoil more explosive energy than a 223

 

Well thats my thoughts

 

Just ordered a tikki super varmint in .204

Edited December 11, 2015 by GEOFF.223

[Alsone 789]

 

TBH there's one thing wrong with this test - it's measuring penetration.

 

What it should be measuring is energy transferrence. The fact that .223 has penetrated further doesn't mean it's the more powerful round as the presenter appears to conclude, because it could just be the .22-250 transferred more of it's energy on impact. So it was more explosive on the target and less penetrative. That's what you actually want in any event, maximum energy transferrence on the target combined with sufficient penetration to prevent splash (not a known issue with these calibres).

 

I'm sure with solid bullets you'd see a penetrative difference in favour of the .22-250 and equally I'm sure if you were to use a slow motion camera and observe the effects on the ballistic gel of baliistic tipped rounds, you'd find the destructive power of the .22-250 much greater than the .223.

 

Either way, they're both effective foxing rounds but having seen the terminal effects of both on fox, personally, I'm more convinced by the .22-250.

[walshie 2,804]

 

 

TBH there's one thing wrong with this test - it's measuring penetration.

 

What it should be measuring is energy transferrence. The fact that .223 has penetrated further doesn't mean it's the more powerful round as the presenter appears to conclude, because it could just be the .22-250 transferred more of it's energy on impact. So it was more explosive on the target and less penetrative. That's what you actually want in any event, maximum energy transferrence on the target combined with sufficient penetration to prevent splash (not a known issue with these calibres).

 

I'm sure with solid bullets you'd see a penetrative difference in favour of the .22-250 and equally I'm sure if you were to use a slow motion camera and observe the effects on the ballistic gel of baliistic tipped rounds, you'd find the destructive power of the .22-250 much greater than the .223.

 

Either way, they're both effective foxing rounds but having seen the terminal effects of both on fox, personally, I'm more convinced by the .22-250.

 

 

Why's that then? Are the foxes deader?

[Alsone 789]

Why's that then? Are the foxes deader?

 

 

Ha ha.

 

I guess that depends where you shoot them!

 

It's all about mistakes and margins.

[charlie caller 3,654]

As a general rule .223 produces around 1300ftlbs energy, .22-250 around 1700ftlbs obviously re-loading with different projectiles will produce slightly different results, but the .22-250 is more powerful than .223 and of course they both fire the exact same .224 bullets, the .22-250 rather faster than .223 hence the increase in muzzle energy.

[drut 9]

Personally I use a .222 without feeling undergunned & often reload to down 22 Hornet energy.The real question,to me,is how far do you need to shoot:if I had different permissions I might need a .204/22-2250/.243 instead of the .222.I freely admit I would love to find a good reason to buy some other calibres but .222+22lr covers all my needs.Back to your choices,my take is you need to be routinely shooting beyond 200yds or have windswept land to need more than .223 but you can't be wrong with either choice.

[DeerhoundLurcherMan 997]

 

Why's that then? Are the foxes deader?

 

 

Ha ha.

 

I guess that depends where you shoot them!

 

It's all about mistakes and margins.

 

 

While I agree in theory that more ft-lbs should be more forgiving if you do cock up the shot..... In reality, my opinion of that is, its simply not true!

 

That is based on the fact that I've shot a 220 swift and .223 week in week out for over two years.... both using 40grn Nosler BTs....

 

There is a considerable speed difference between the two with the swift pushing over 4000fps (slightly faster than the 22-250).... But having seen hundreds of foxes shot with both calibres using the same bullet...None is more deadly than the other... I've seen just as many foxes run after a direct hit in the boiler room from the swift as I have the .223.

 

There are obviously pros and cons to both....the main advantage I see with the faster rounds are, they are marginally flatter, but when lamping 99% of shots are sub 250m anyway so can you really take advantage of that inch or two once past 200...... Personally I think with either calibre you will end up with the same result, but one will be a bit louder and use a bit more powder....

[GEOFF.223 83]

Very little difference get the one that you want if it's just for foxing

 

If ur wanting to do longer shoots a .223 with a 1/10 twist shooting 75gr will shoot better than a 22/250

 

Only real difference is the 22/250 makes a load more mess seen a few rabbits shoot at my mates, body parts everywhere.

 

Get what you fancy you only live once

Edited December 15, 2015 by GEOFF.223

[charlie caller 3,654]

If you want to start shooting 75 grain bullets mate buy a .243 not a .22 cf, you really are defeating the object of a .22 cf in my opinion.

[GEOFF.223 83]

I live in n.I not aloud 243

So its 222 223 204 20tac 22-250 220-swift

 

If I lived in the main land I would have a 243 and a 204

Edited December 16, 2015 by GEOFF.223

[Tremo 138]

I use my .223 in the night and my .22-250 in the day. My night shots are rarely past 200m, so the .223 is more than sufficient for Charlie. Besides that any further and I need my binos as my eyesight is crap but I never want to wear my specs!

[Alsone 789]

 

 

Why's that then? Are the foxes deader?

 

 

Ha ha.

 

I guess that depends where you shoot them!

 

It's all about mistakes and margins.

 

 

While I agree in theory that more ft-lbs should be more forgiving if you do cock up the shot..... In reality, my opinion of that is, its simply not true!

 

That is based on the fact that I've shot a 220 swift and .223 week in week out for over two years.... both using 40grn Nosler BTs....

 

There is a considerable speed difference between the two with the swift pushing over 4000fps (slightly faster than the 22-250).... But having seen hundreds of foxes shot with both calibres using the same bullet...None is more deadly than the other... I've seen just as many foxes run after a direct hit in the boiler room from the swift as I have the .223.

 

There are obviously pros and cons to both....the main advantage I see with the faster rounds are, they are marginally flatter, but when lamping 99% of shots are sub 250m anyway so can you really take advantage of that inch or two once past 200...... Personally I think with either calibre you will end up with the same result, but one will be a bit louder and use a bit more powder....

 

 

I agree and also I don't! Again I believe it comes down to energy transferrence. TBH, I'm not impressed by the .220 Swift. No doubt it's the most powerful .22cf vanilla, but again I personally agree with you in so far as I don't believe you get the same energy transferrence as some of the lesser rounds. Maybe it's just too fast. To my eyes, the most explosive .22Cf's are (well bit of licence with the 1st one on the .22 bit) .204 Ruger, .22-250. Personally not convinced by the .204 because whilst the destruction is impressive, there have been some issues in the past with the calibre and certain bullet weights. .22-250 certainly impresses. The others fall somewhere in between in destruction in my opinion. I suspect .220 swift might be better on small deer, (although ironically there you don't want explsovie performance and would probably choose a round to suit with more controlled expansion), but on fox I've seen more explosive results from .22-250. Only my opinion though and others may disagree.

 

What I would say personally though, is any .22CF will despatch fox very well within it's own limitations of reasoanble range. As Charlie says, if you need more gun, for more range, look to the .243 and a light round. At the end of the day, the choice of .22CF calibre or .22CF vs .243, in the OP's instance is more liekly to come down to range considerations and ballistics than mere out and out terminal performance. Where out and out range isn't an issue, then choice come down to the usual considerations - cost, noise, margin for error etc.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Alsone