Jump to content

Which Gun


markws80
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am making a mistake!??????? why is that :unsure:

I want a good fox tool, the land i shoot on has lots of valleys, hills and long fields

 

Because its more .22 cf than you need. It will take just about the same amount of wind as the same projectile fired from the .223 (speed does little for windages). In order to shoot flatter the penalty is faster barrel burn out. .223 rem is the military 5.56 Nato developed for use in full auto / semmi auto combat, your looking at thosands of rounds longer barrel life and less recoil /noise .

 

Shooting at extended ranges requires practice and skill at judging the wind not just a faster muzzle velocity, 6mm varmint bullets take less wind than .22 varmint bullets in time you might find that usefull but presently having asked the question you will find the .223 more capable than yourself. Go into one of those fields and pace out 250yds put a marker in and look at it from the firing point, you need to be further than that to gain anything much from the 22-250 (it aint gonna make up a lot of your shooting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am making a mistake!??????? why is that :unsure:

I want a good fox tool, the land i shoot on has lots of valleys, hills and long fields

 

Mark,don't get put off!-get a .22-250 mate because it is a fantastic Fox tool!You asked the original question and you chose to get the .22-250.As I said I would never change from .22-250 to a .223 simply because I am more than happy with it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading this and everyone has an opinion,persoanlly I would have a 22.250 purely just because i shot one for many years,Iam sure the 223 boys will advice you to go there way

anyway if your buying a new rifle hold on,I have just got wind of a custom built 223

blueprinted action

loather walther match barrel

arnold jewel trigger

Mc milan lazoroni thumbhole stock (fully beded)

Nightforce NSX scope

PES short mod

its fired 79 rounds reason for sale the guy is emergrating,built by Steve Kershaw,now the above kit is £2500,about the same as a factory rifle set up,the guy spent over £4000 having this lot put together

worth a thought on the 223 as this will be a tack driver and consistant out to silly distance

Edited by Ackley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22/250 is far better in crosswinds - therefor more accurate for average shot.

Faster - therefor impact is greater with better chance of clean kills.

Flatter to greater range - therefore more accurate for average shot.

Shall I go on?

 

No, you have heard enough - Go and buy a Tikka T3 with a moderately good scope and you will be a happy man ... except you will wish you had bought a 243 when someone says 'these deer need thinning out'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22/250 is far better in crosswinds - therefor more accurate for average shot.

Faster - therefor impact is greater with better chance of clean kills.

Flatter to greater range - therefore more accurate for average shot.

Shall I go on?

 

No, you have heard enough - Go and buy a Tikka T3 with a moderately good scope and you will be a happy man ... except you will wish you had bought a 243 when someone says 'these deer need thinning out'!

 

 

indeed unless you compare it to .243, if you are going for more noise and clout you might as well have something that can fire projectiles betweeen 55grn and 100grn as it will out perform the 22-250 in every way. Then its deer legal if you so choose rather than needing another gun. Its all easily justifiable, in normal situations if you are just on foxes then a .223 is fine perfectly adequate to normal CF ranges. The .22-250 is too close to a .243 in terms of powder use and running costs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indeed unless you compare it to .243, if you are going for more noise and clout you might as well have something that can fire projectiles betweeen 55grn and 100grn as it will out perform the 22-250 in every way. Then its deer legal if you so choose rather than needing another gun. Its all easily justifiable, in normal situations if you are just on foxes then a .223 is fine perfectly adequate to normal CF ranges. The .22-250 is too close to a .243 in terms of powder use and running costs

 

al4x - Your right on the button with this. When I upgraded from 222 to my 22/250 we were quite sure that it would be made deer legal when the review was made. And so it was - for Scotland!

Now I wish that I had gone for the 243 then. Now, retired and impoverished, I am trying to justify to myself, and The Memsahib, that I should change again. (Or move north of the border).

Trouble is I just love my Tikka 22/250 - super rifle.

Edited by Grandalf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end it will be "You" who owns the rifle, ask advice and ask for other peoples opinions, some you will agree with some you wont. Thats life !

But one thing is for sure,if what you buy in the end is NOT what you really like yourself and wonder if you had bought the other you will regret it, and it will cost you. You will no doubt be far happier taking a rifle out that you enjoy spending time with.

 

The choice is yours in the end. Both will do the job well,niether one is "better" than the other at dispatching your chosen quarry the extra distance would not normally come in to play 99 times out of 100. I have only shot 1 fox in 4 years at much over 200yds using a 22.250 and even that could have been taken with a 223 with correct range finding and finding out the correct POI at the given distance.

 

Buy what "you" are happy with its your rifle, you will be shooting it :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol:

 

It was in a magazine so it must be true, come on bullet boy! :lol::lol: !

 

And nobody said he wouldn't be happy with a 22-250. BUT, he is making a mistake in the context of the question asked.

 

This is where I am coming from, nothing to do with barrel burning or developing hot loads for a .223!

 

For the simple reason he will most likely want another rifle for deer, the 22-250 is not even Roe legal in England/Wales, so why bother with an aggressive noisy tool that will give no benefit in the field over the much easier to deal with .223? So what does he do then, buy a .243 or .308? If you can't deal with a bunny/fox/muntjac at 200 yards plus with a .223 you need lessons, NOT a 22-250! Lets stop all this bull about daft distances, few people get involved in long distance on a regular basis, and if they did they would not be looking at a 22-250!

 

Get a .223 now and then get a .243/.308 on top later which will give an excellent spread of tools and ammo!

 

The 22-250 has a place, but just which part of it makes it a better Varmint round than, for instance, a 58g V Max .243 which will make it look like a peashooter in every respect, and is an absolute pussy cat to shoot!

 

:good::good:

 

 

Because its more .22 cf than you need. It will take just about the same amount of wind as the same projectile fired from the .223 (speed does little for windages). In order to shoot flatter the penalty is faster barrel burn out. .223 rem is the military 5.56 Nato developed for use in full auto / semmi auto combat, your looking at thosands of rounds longer barrel life and less recoil /noise .

 

Shooting at extended ranges requires practice and skill at judging the wind not just a faster muzzle velocity, 6mm varmint bullets take less wind than .22 varmint bullets in time you might find that usefull but presently having asked the question you will find the .223 more capable than yourself. Go into one of those fields and pace out 250yds put a marker in and look at it from the firing point, you need to be further than that to gain anything much from the 22-250 (it aint gonna make up a lot of your shooting)

 

As above.

Go out into the field with two markers and mark out the distance and put down a target of a similar size to a fox cut out of a brown /fawn cardboard box and then go back and lamp it up at night looking through a scope. 223. >>>243/308

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22/250 is far better in crosswinds - therefor more accurate for average shot. :lol::lol:

Faster - therefor impact is greater with better chance of clean kills. :lol::lol:

Flatter to greater range - therefore more accurate for average shot. :lol::lol:

Shall I go on?

 

No, you have heard enough - Go and buy a Tikka T3 with a moderately good scope and you will be a happy man ... except you will wish you had bought a 243 when someone says 'these deer need thinning out'!

 

YES..you forgot a few things, Just what is it you are shooting at that a 22-250 will kill that a .223 will not?, it is harder to shoot, noisier, less ammo choice, more expensive to reload, it ISN'T any more accurate and it isn't required for the VAST majority. ...and like you said a 22-250, WHY? You will want a .243 for deer and a .223/.243 will give a much better Cabinet choice than a 22-250/.243!

 

Can I please very strongly make the point which many seem to have missed I am not dissing the 22-250, it just doesn't seem the route to go here!

 

And frankly, in view of markws80I comments in post 25 perhaps a .243 should be considered anyway, a 58gV Max .243 is very possibly the easiest to shoot sweetest and most effective Varmint round there is!.

 

ATB!

Edited by Dekers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

al4x - Your right on the button with this. When I upgraded from 222 to my 22/250 we were quite sure that it would be made deer legal when the review was made. And so it was - for Scotland!

Now I wish that I had gone for the 243 then. Now, retired and impoverished, I am trying to justify to myself, and The Memsahib, that I should change again. (Or move north of the border).

Trouble is I just love my Tikka 22/250 - super rifle.

 

 

Indeed that is the big issue and one we usually learn, if you go for a gun you don't think you'll want to upgrade you save yourself a packet in the long run.

 

As for worrying about rangefinding with a .223 on 200 yard shots and dialling in. Give me a break if you set zero at 200 yards it will be an inch to an inch and a half high at 100 and less at 50 yards you simply point and shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22/250 is far better in crosswinds - therefor more accurate for average shot.

Faster - therefor impact is greater with better chance of clean kills.

Flatter to greater range - therefore more accurate for average shot.

Shall I go on?

 

No, you have heard enough - Go and buy a Tikka T3 with a moderately good scope and you will be a happy man ... except you will wish you had bought a 243 when someone says 'these deer need thinning out'!

 

 

It cannot be "far better" in cross winds coz it fires the same bullets - speed is only about 350fps faster with a 55 grn bullet and that don't amount to a hill of beans in terminal energy or wind, you can't kill them double dead.

 

No question the 22-250 is a capable fox gun, the question posed asked .223 or 22-250 and 22-250 it can be answered by looking at the real balistics for the two chamberings and i suggest you do just that with an open mind. Many other arguments can be made for the .20 ruger or my favourite the .243, though it has to be said .223 is all the gun 99% of foxers actually need. If you just want justification for the 22-250 you wont find it in the balistic tables though.

 

I did similar a while back trying to proove to myself i needed a .20, lets just say i havent got one :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for worrying about rangefinding with a .223 on 200 yard shots and dialling in. Give me a break if you set zero at 200 yards it will be an inch to an inch and a half high at 100 and less at 50 yards you simply point and shoot.

 

If that was to my reply, i appologies for not making myself clearer, i was refering to a 360 yard shot i made a couple of weeks ago while after a problem fox that we had great difficulty in getting closer to. :good: In that case either 223 or 22.250 could have done the job,as long as the POI was checked in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES..you forgot a few things, Just what is it you are shooting at that a 22-250 will kill that a .223 will not?, it is harder to shoot, noisier, less ammo choice, more expensive to reload, it ISN'T any more accurate and it isn't required for the VAST majority. ...and like you said a 22-250, WHY? You will want a .243 for deer and a .223/.243 will give a much better Cabinet choice than a 22-250/.243!

 

Can I please very strongly make the point which many seem to have missed I am not dissing the 22-250, it just doesn't seem the route to go here!

 

And frankly, in view of markws80I comments in post 25 perhaps a .243 should be considered anyway, a 58gV Max .243 is very possibly the easiest to shoot sweetest and most effective Varmint round there is!.

 

ATB!

what planet you on,maybe harder for an old man who cant hold a rifle steady

Edited by Ackley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you're not, as for barrel burners, a 223 will burn out just as quick if you reload hot rounds, the accuracy doesn't just "go" either, look after it and it'll be fine

 

Sorry for straying slightly off topic :yp:

 

But out of curiosity what are "hot rounds"?

Edited by the enigma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for straying slightly off topic :yp:

 

But out of curiosity what are "hot rounds"?

 

In reloading terms a powder charge at the maximum or even above the maximum levels quoted in the reloading guides. Though tbh I doubt a hot load in a .223 even approaches the barrel wear of a factory .22-250

Barrel erosion is a complicated issue but powder charge is a major contributor. A stiff load in a .223 is not going to get beyond 28 grains as there isn't the physical capacity. In a 22-250 it is closser to 40 grains. All other factors being equal the 22-250 will have a far shorter lifespan, but for most users 1000-1500 rounds is still a long time. The only advantage in barrel life of the .223 over a 22-250 will come if you use it at a range where you would have to be seriously rich to want to use a 22-250 for target shooting.

 

As for which to recommend for foxing. I wouldn't like to say. They both work, and they both work well. Me I would get a .204 Ruger just to be different :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reloading terms a powder charge at the maximum or even above the maximum levels quoted in the reloading guides. Though tbh I doubt a hot load in a .223 even approaches the barrel wear of a factory .22-250

Barrel erosion is a complicated issue but powder charge is a major contributor. A stiff load in a .223 is not going to get beyond 28 grains as there isn't the physical capacity. In a 22-250 it is closser to 40 grains. All other factors being equal the 22-250 will have a far shorter lifespan, but for most users 1000-1500 rounds is still a long time. The only advantage in barrel life of the .223 over a 22-250 will come if you use it at a range where you would have to be seriously rich to want to use a 22-250 for target shooting.

 

As for which to recommend for foxing. I wouldn't like to say. They both work, and they both work well. Me I would get a .204 Ruger just to be different :rolleyes:

 

Thanks for the explanation. :good:

 

Every day's a school day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES..you forgot a few things, Just what is it you are shooting at that a 22-250 will kill that a .223 will not?, it is harder to shoot, noisier, less ammo choice, more expensive to reload, it ISN'T any more accurate and it isn't required for the VAST majority. ...and like you said a 22-250, WHY? You will want a .243 for deer and a .223/.243 will give a much better Cabinet choice than a 22-250/.243!

 

Can I please very strongly make the point which many seem to have missed I am not dissing the 22-250, it just doesn't seem the route to go here!

 

And frankly, in view of markws80I comments in post 25 perhaps a .243 should be considered anyway, a 58gV Max .243 is very possibly the easiest to shoot sweetest and most effective Varmint round there is!.

 

ATB!

 

 

what planet you on,maybe harder for an old man who cant hold a rifle steady

 

Ha Ha..it IS Harder to shoot, the .223 is easy, YOU CAN tell the difference, but if that is the best you can do then obviously everything else I said you agree with!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha Ha..it IS Harder to shoot, the .223 is easy, YOU CAN tell the difference, but if that is the best you can do then obviously everything else I said you agree with!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

you can tell the difference with a 375 HH against a 223 dosent make it any harder to shoot

if that the best YOU can do "harder to shoot" what a joke

and no I dont agree with anythung you say as its all bull **** from an arm chiar expert

Iam still waiting for a link to your published articles in the shooting press :lol::no::no:

by the way the 23rd I will be on the 100 yard range in the morning then 300 falling back to 600 in the afternoon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...