.223 vs .22-250

[walshie 2,804]

I bet the OP wishes he'd never asked a simple question. He was probably expecting answers along the lines of "22-250 for me" or "I'd go for a 223" but instead is regaled with tales of loads of other calibres that he didn't even ask (or probably care) about. 

If velocity was the be-all and end-all in shooting then people would be loading lighter bullets to greater and greater velocities, but they don't. There's a lot more to good shooting than bunging a load of powder in the case. I've never heard so much baloney. Making sure you are a decent shot is a bigger factor in a clean kill than making sure the bullet is travelling faster than the next man's.

Every calibre has its own uses. I wouldn't use my 22lr on fallow and I wouldn't use my 308 on rats. Most of my rural fox shooting is in the 100-200 yard range, pushing ti occasionally to 300, so my 223 is perfect for the job. Would I go for longer shots than that if I had a 22-250? Probably not.

I've never even heard the term "bullet splash" before this thread. I think I'll stick with what I know rather than someone else's interpretation of someone else's research. 

[Deker 3,478]

39 minutes ago, walshie said:

I bet the OP wishes he'd never asked a simple question. He was probably expecting answers along the lines of "22-250 for me" or "I'd go for a 223" but instead is regaled with tales of loads of other calibres that he didn't even ask (or probably care) about. 

If velocity was the be-all and end-all in shooting then people would be loading lighter bullets to greater and greater velocities, but they don't. There's a lot more to good shooting than bunging a load of powder in the case. I've never heard so much baloney. Making sure you are a decent shot is a bigger factor in a clean kill than making sure the bullet is travelling faster than the next man's.

Every calibre has its own uses. I wouldn't use my 22lr on fallow and I wouldn't use my 308 on rats. Most of my rural fox shooting is in the 100-200 yard range, pushing ti occasionally to 300, so my 223 is perfect for the job. Would I go for longer shots than that if I had a 22-250? Probably not.

I've never even heard the term "bullet splash" before this thread. I think I'll stick with what I know rather than someone else's interpretation of someone else's research. 

  Exactly, one caliber is NOT better than another, a .308 (or anything with Mr Ackleys name on it) is NOT better than a 12ft lb air rifle if you need to shoot pigeons at Tesco meat counter! 

They are different, and each caliber has its uses!

[Underdog 2,337]

1 hour ago, Deker said:

  Exactly, one caliber is NOT better than another, a .308 (or anything with Mr Ackleys name on it) is NOT better than a 12ft lb air rifle if you need to shoot pigeons at Tesco meat counter! 

They are different, and each caliber has its uses!

So that's what they use, I thought I recognize the taste!

 

U.

[Alsone 789]

2 hours ago, walshie said:

I bet the OP wishes he'd never asked a simple question. He was probably expecting answers along the lines of "22-250 for me" or "I'd go for a 223" but instead is regaled with tales of loads of other calibres that he didn't even ask (or probably care) about. 

Isn't this the point? The choice between .223 and .22-250 is preference. They both kill foxes and both have advantages and disadvantages. So far as I can see this is just a discussion of the advantages / disadvantages of each. I pretty sure if you were to ask owners of each calibre they preferred, from the majority you'd get different answers aligned with their preference.
 

Quote

 

If velocity was the be-all and end-all in shooting then people would be loading lighter bullets to greater and greater velocities, but they don't. There's a lot more to good shooting than bunging a load of powder in the case. I've never heard so much baloney. Making sure you are a decent shot is a bigger factor in a clean kill than making sure the bullet is travelling faster than the next man's.

Again agreed. It's not as simple as simply loading faster. However, there is evidence that a faster bullet of the right weight and design has a greater terminal effect. Whether you need the extra effect, is another argument.

 

Every calibre has its own uses. I wouldn't use my 22lr on fallow and I wouldn't use my 308 on rats. Most of my rural fox shooting is in the 100-200 yard range, pushing ti occasionally to 300, so my 223 is perfect for the job. Would I go for longer shots than that if I had a 22-250? Probably not.

Again agreed. But the reason for the question is because both .223 are suitable for fox. Ask .223 shooters, they probably tell you .223. Ask .22-250 shooters and they'll tell you .22-250. Both kill fox. It's all about weighing the advantages / disadvantages.

 

I've never even heard the term "bullet splash" before this thread. I think I'll stick with what I know rather than someone else's interpretation of someone else's research.

There was a whole debate on this in the .204 thread some time ago. Personally, I've never heard of it complained of in relation to .22-250. Everything I've ever seen from .22-250 was devastating. Not denying though that the experience of shallower wounds with certain bullets above doesn't exist. Question is did it kill? If yes, then there's not much to complain about. Splash is really only a surface phenomen. If the bullet penetrates and stops, then there's only one place the energy is going. A bullet that passes though, is wasting a whole load of energy in it's penetration and post exit flight. If penetration depth was the be all and end all, we'd all be shooting fox with armour piercing.

Deker I agree, horses for courses. You don't take a beach donkey to Cheltenham or a thoroughbred to Blackpool Beach.

Sorry for the quote layout. This boards quote system is not the greatest.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Alsone

[sniper19 4]

I was 22.250 for years until I got a 25/06 conditioned for deer & fox so accurate.