223 or 22-250?

[Blackbart]

Wow nowts changed on here then..why have a discussion when an argument is in the offing

 

I think the lad wanted a bit of help making his mind up about 223 or 22-250 for shooting foxes and the odd munty not the ballistic merits of every lump of lead that can fly.

 

I had the same dilema and opted for the 22-250 i have shot lots and am happy but to be honest at "realistic" fox shooting ranges it doesnt really matter,most of them die and a few live a bit longer.

[bullet boy]

Wow nowts changed on here then..why have a discussion when an argument is in the offing

 

I think the lad wanted a bit of help making his mind up about 223 or 22-250 for shooting foxes and the odd munty not the ballistic merits of every lump of lead that can fly.

 

I had the same dilema and opted for the 22-250 i have shot lots and am happy but to be honest at "realistic" fox shooting ranges it doesnt really matter,most of them die and a few live a bit longer.

 

I agree with you mate.

The original question is .223 or .22-250.Not a thread for any other calibre for that matter!

Both are a superb Fox Calibre!

[12borejimbo]

Bang, thump, end of! I say .22-250 but that's because I have one! I originally wanted a 243 but long story! I'm chuffed with the performance of my .22-250 though!

[kent]

Sorry for the diversion of the thread guys.

 

Underdog,

Sorry to say it but your talking rubbish and obviously have no in depth knoledge of windages and how and when to apply them. I aint about to divert the thread further. If you want me to explain were you going wrong pls use the PM system. The extreame example given was intentionaly extreame you dont get faster than 1.5 times as fast it illustates the point perfectly

[basil-blaster]

wow 436 foxes in 1 year that 36.3 foxes per month,must be a UK record.

so you have been shooting a C/F for 5 years that would make you 16 when youn had your first FAC I thought you had to be 17 for a firearms ticket ??

your yearly count has gone up form 250 to 300 in a matter of a few posts you have made

ballistic mean everything mate when shooting.

as its been said on this thread no one is disputing how good a 250 is a 223 is also a good claiber BUT a 250 isnt as good as a 243 and never will be as the 243 is far more verstile and uisng a 70 gr bullet will be flatter faster and better in the wind than a 250,thats a fact mate which cannot be disputed

obvoulsy your not a reloader so may I suggest goping and buying yourself a box of factory 75 gr Norma V max then go and shoot both your rifle side by side then come and tell me which is the best

by the way Iam not arguing just stating undisputed facts

as to not bein g able to judge distances at night,dont you do your homework for someone who shoots as many foxes as yourself surely you will know distances of walls,hedges land marks on your land as I knoe I do,but saying that any caliber correctly zeroed should be fine for 300 yards give or take an inch or two,but the best way is use a range finder

can you please explain why a 250 is a better fox caliber than a 243

your maths dont stack up 1600 foxes since owning a C/F and you say you shot it out,now thats not many shots to burn a rifle out for a man who never misses

 

"I shoot over 250 foxes a year with 22-250 and about 70 with 243. Never missed or had a runner off either but had some low shots at 300 yards on small foxes with 243."

 

 

dont get me wrong 436 foxes isnt record breaking but its a hell of alot more than alot of people. and my birthday is in 3 week actually and i got my rifle as soon as i was old enough i applied for 17hmr and 22-250 and cos my dad had it wasnt hard for me to get it and if you read the other post properly you will see that i shoot around 250 with the 22-250 and about 70 with the 243 and also i do go to the range i have put loads of rounds down the range i go once every couple of weeks and shoot a box of 20, and the gun was starting to be less accurate so i got a new one, and no i havent reloaded a single round ever i wouldnt know were to start well i would i know the basics but i wont be trying it. i would rather buy them as i can get 22-250 sako for £20 a box or £10 for ppu or whatever it is called and 243 sako for £25 so its only either 50p, £1 or £1.20 a round and reloading seems like a long winded thing to do unless your good at it, also putting 70 gr in a 243 is light for what it can take so thats why i wouldnt use them, i dont posses a rangefinder but we have a 16 acre feild behind my house and it is about 600 yards long and i shoot foxes most of the time just under half the length. its very rare i shoot close foxes. wish i did to be honest a few 50 yarders would be nice to see them go down properly not just see it fall or eyes go out. only shoot maybe 30 a year with 22-250 and 10 or 15 with 243.

now were not going to agree which is the best as in your eyes a 243 is the best and i think that the 22-250 is better for FOXES i dont shoot deer either so i dont get to see the power of 243 really i see more shattered shoulders with it but i feel more confident shooting a fox in the head with the 22-250. so in my type of shooting i think the 22-250 is better i can see your point if you put lighter bullets in then you will get great flatness. but with 90 gr in the bullet drops conciderably compaired to a 22-250 and the bullets i use shoot faster than 3600 i think there about 3850 ish. i think the 22-250 is better because it is seriously flat and also it is a very accurate cabilbre and nice amount of recoil and great killing power for what it is used for.

i still think that the 70 gr 243 will drop more than the 22-250 50 gr as there not much more powder. and like 40% heavier. anyway either way fox is dead either way even shot in the ****! saying that i know a lad that shot a fox in the **** (accidently) with a 25-06 and it run off from the middle of a feild and it was dead right at the far side of the next feild like 400 yards and did not find it till the next day. i know how far the walls ect are, at other land that i only go on at night i arnt so sure, theres some land i have never been on properly in the day and sometimes you dont realise how far it is till you have to go pick it up. anyway im not arguing about this because i cant be bothered with it, i have enough stuff to argue about with my simple lazy late employees (well one got the sack today the usless ***** he was 40 mins late and couldnt even punch 4 holes per plate at 30mm from each edge at the corner properly) and r lass, not about shooting that the only thing that chills me out.

[jamie g]

love to know what powder people are using to push a 80 grain bullet in a standard 243 at the same speeds of a 22/250 with 55 grain bullet.

 

3600fps for a 55 grain bullet in 22/250 seams pretty slow to me. yet that same speed for a 80 grain bullet in a standard 243 seams very fast.

 

petes rifle will do it as its 243 ai but a standard 243 doing those speeds with a 80 grain bullet seams abit much to me.

 

dont forget the accuracy isnt always at the top end of the speed. if your pulling the trigger and the foxes are going down. i wouldnt worry to much

Edited February 8, 2012 by jamie g

[Mr_Logic]

dont get me wrong 436 foxes isnt record breaking but its a hell of alot more than alot of people. and my birthday is in 3 week actually and i got my rifle as soon as i was old enough i applied for 17hmr and 22-250 and cos my dad had it wasnt hard for me to get it and if you read the other post properly you will see that i shoot around 250 with the 22-250 and about 70 with the 243 and also i do go to the range i have put loads of rounds down the range i go once every couple of weeks and shoot a box of 20, and the gun was starting to be less accurate so i got a new one, and no i havent reloaded a single round ever i wouldnt know were to start well i would i know the basics but i wont be trying it. i would rather buy them as i can get 22-250 sako for £20 a box or £10 for ppu or whatever it is called and 243 sako for £25 so its only either 50p, £1 or £1.20 a round and reloading seems like a long winded thing to do unless your good at it, also putting 70 gr in a 243 is light for what it can take so thats why i wouldnt use them, i dont posses a rangefinder but we have a 16 acre feild behind my house and it is about 600 yards long and i shoot foxes most of the time just under half the length. its very rare i shoot close foxes. wish i did to be honest a few 50 yarders would be nice to see them go down properly not just see it fall or eyes go out. only shoot maybe 30 a year with 22-250 and 10 or 15 with 243.

now were not going to agree which is the best as in your eyes a 243 is the best and i think that the 22-250 is better for FOXES i dont shoot deer either so i dont get to see the power of 243 really i see more shattered shoulders with it but i feel more confident shooting a fox in the head with the 22-250. so in my type of shooting i think the 22-250 is better i can see your point if you put lighter bullets in then you will get great flatness. but with 90 gr in the bullet drops conciderably compaired to a 22-250 and the bullets i use shoot faster than 3600 i think there about 3850 ish. i think the 22-250 is better because it is seriously flat and also it is a very accurate cabilbre and nice amount of recoil and great killing power for what it is used for.

i still think that the 70 gr 243 will drop more than the 22-250 50 gr as there not much more powder. and like 40% heavier. anyway either way fox is dead either way even shot in the ****! saying that i know a lad that shot a fox in the **** (accidently) with a 25-06 and it run off from the middle of a feild and it was dead right at the far side of the next feild like 400 yards and did not find it till the next day. i know how far the walls ect are, at other land that i only go on at night i arnt so sure, theres some land i have never been on properly in the day and sometimes you dont realise how far it is till you have to go pick it up. anyway im not arguing about this because i cant be bothered with it, i have enough stuff to argue about with my simple lazy late employees (well one got the sack today the usless ***** he was 40 mins late and couldnt even punch 4 holes per plate at 30mm from each edge at the corner properly) and r lass, not about shooting that the only thing that chills me out.

You believe what you want. If it works for you stick with it, but a 243 will beat it every time. This is fact, but 22-250 will work just fine.

[kent]

love to know what powder people are using to push a 80 grain bullet in a standard 243 at the same speeds of a 22/250 with 55 grain bullet.

 

3600fps for a 55 grain bullet in 22/250 seams pretty slow to me. yet that same speed for a 80 grain bullet in a standard 243 seams very fast.

 

petes rifle will do it as its 243 ai but a standard 243 doing those speeds with a 80 grain bullet seams abit much to me.

 

dont forget the accuracy isnt always at the top end of the speed. if your pulling the trigger and the foxes are going down. i wouldnt worry to much

 

Ackerly don't increase the speed much till the tube gets long, extra powder aint a big requirement in .243 it already burns more than needed just look at the BR To compare speeds the data books are best as they do it at measured pressure within spec (just make sure the test gun is the same and the lab). different tests will get different results

[JR1960]

Ah sod it, I'll just get a catapault, apparently you can use them for deer........

[Dougy]

 

 

Answer to the question,

 

 

 

Either 223 or 22.250 which ever you decide on, it aint gona make allot of difference. You wont be shooting much over 250 yds, so its not going to make enough difference worrying about trajectory's for this that and god knows what. get down the gun shop see what they have in and buy the rifle,223 OR 22.250 stick the best scope on you can afford, which in my oppinion is more important than listening to B#S on here about someone shooting "X" amount of fox's and "my calibre is better than your calibre"

 

If your strapped for cash or your some one who spends wisely look at the cost of running the rifle too, i'm refering to the cost of ammo, its no good having a nice rifle but not being able to afford to use it now is it

[kent]

 

 

Answer to the question,

 

 

 

Either 223 or 22.250 which ever you decide on, it aint gona make allot of difference. You wont be shooting much over 250 yds, so its not going to make enough difference worrying about trajectory's for this that and god knows what. get down the gun shop see what they have in and buy the rifle,223 OR 22.250 stick the best scope on you can afford, which in my oppinion is more important than listening to B#S on here about someone shooting "X" amount of fox's and "my calibre is better than your calibre"

 

If your strapped for cash or your some one who spends wisely look at the cost of running the rifle too, i'm refering to the cost of ammo, its no good having a nice rifle but not being able to afford to use it now is it

 

Theres a lot of truth there, though most factory rounds in the class are more or less the same, reloading costs cheaper on .223 as it uses less powder and brass is perhaps the most available of any calibre. One cost that is often not considered is barrel life if you shoot a lot based on £700 for a new tube and fitting 22-250 or .243 could amount to approx 50pence a shot were .223 rem should place you under 20pence, .222 will do better and a Hornet you will never re-barrel if you look after it

[Ackley]

dont get me wrong 436 foxes isnt record breaking but its a hell of alot more than alot of people.

436 fowes in 1 year to 1 rifle is a staggering amount iam sure Iam not the only one who never heard of such numbers being shot

 

 

and my birthday is in 3 week actually and i got my rifle as soon as i was old enough i applied for 17hmr and 22-250 and cos my dad had it wasnt hard for me to get it and if you read the other post properly you will see that i shoot around 250 with the 22-250 and about 70 with the 243 and also i do go to the range i have put loads of rounds down the range i go once every couple of weeks and shoot a box of 20, and the gun was starting to be less accurate so i got a new one, and no i havent reloaded a single round ever i wouldnt know were to start well i would i know the basics but i wont be trying it. i would rather buy them as i can get 22-250 sako for £20 a box or £10 for ppu or whatever it is called and 243 sako for £25 so its only either 50p, £1 or £1.20 a round and reloading seems like a long winded thing to do unless your good at it, also putting

70 gr in a 243 is light for what it can take so thats why i wouldnt use them,

the 243 is best suited to a 70 to 80gr bullet do your homework before spouting rubbish

 

 

i dont posses a rangefinder but we have a 16 acre feild behind my house and it is about 600 yards long and i shoot foxes most of the time just under half the length. its very rare i shoot close foxes. wish i did to be honest a few 50 yarders would be nice to see them go down properly not just see it fall or eyes go out. only shoot maybe 30 a year with 22-250 and 10 or 15 with 243.

so you dont even know the true ranges your shooting at,let me tell you a little secret at night things look further away than what they really are,forgive me but didnt you say your shoot over 300 foxes a year but you are stating now 30 withg the 250 and 10 with the 243 come on which is it

 

 

 

now were not going to agree which is the best as in your eyes a 243 is the best and i think that the 22-250 is better for FOXES i dont shoot deer either so i dont get to see the power of 243 really i see more shattered shoulders with it but i feel more confident shooting a fox in the head with the 22-250. so in my type of shooting i think the 22-250 is better i can see your point if you put lighter bullets in then you will get great flatness. but with 90 gr in the bullet drops conciderably compaired to a 22-250 and the bullets i use shoot faster than 3600 i think there about 3850 ish. i think the 22-250 is better because it is seriously flat and also it is a very accurate cabilbre and nice amount of recoil and great killing power for what it is used for.

of course a 243 using a 90gr pill will drop more then a 250 using a 55gr pill thats pretty obvious,hence use a 70 gr in the 243,by the way your 250 wont be no where near 3800 FPS

 

 

 

i still think that the 70 gr 243 will drop more than the 22-250 50 gr as there not much more powder. and like 40% heavier. anyway either way fox is dead either way even shot in the ****! saying that i know a lad that shot a fox in the **** (accidently) with a 25-06 and it run off from the middle of a feild and it was dead right at the far side of the next feild like 400 yards and did not find it till the next day. i know how far the walls ect are, at other land that i only go on at night i arnt so sure, theres some land i have never been on properly in the day and sometimes you dont realise how far it is till you have to go pick it up.

thats right you only "think" the drop will be more with a 243 uisng a 70gr pill,you have no idea what the facts are and so unwilling to be educated by people who actually know.

so your admitting shooting at foxe not even knowing the distance there sat at,thats very silly and irresponsable

 

 

 

anyway im not arguing about this because i cant be bothered with it, i have enough stuff to argue about with my simple lazy late employees (well one got the sack today the usless ***** he was 40 mins late and couldnt even punch 4 holes per plate at 30mm from each edge at the corner properly) and r lass, not about shooting that the only thing that chills me out.

yep best not to argue as its pretty clear you aint got a clue what your talking about and your stories keep changing like a harry potter book

[marky123]

I can get 3800 fps with my 22.250

MARK

[Ackley]

I can get 3800 fps with my 22.250

MARK

home loading I can get 3850 fps from my 243

[jamie g]

Ackerly don't increase the speed much till the tube gets long, extra powder aint a big requirement in .243 it already burns more than needed just look at the BR To compare speeds the data books are best as they do it at measured pressure within spec (just make sure the test gun is the same and the lab). different tests will get different results

 

i understand what your saying kent. barrel length plays a big part in fps speed. but lets just say a 243 and a 243 ackley with the same barrel lengths. you could ring more speed out the ackley

 

difference about this also it seams. well the standard 243 could run at top speed. its accuracy load is a bit short of that.

 

where the 243 ai its accuracy seams to be up there at its top speeds. and looking at reloading side of things. the ai comes into its own when pushing the heavier bullets at longer range with the right twist of course.

Edited February 9, 2012 by jamie g

[kent]

i understand what your saying kent. barrel length plays a big part in fps speed. but lets just say a 243 and a 243 ackley with the same barrel lengths. you could ring more speed out the ackley

 

difference about this also it seams. well the standard 243 could run at top speed. its accuracy load is a bit short of that.

 

where the 243 ai its accuracy seams to be up there at its top speeds. and looking at reloading side of things. the ai comes into its own when pushing the heavier bullets at longer range with the right twist of course.

 

Struggling to understand your post but to respond

 

No if both tubes were 20" the extra powder in the Ack could not be burnt, all other things being equal the speed would be the same. If both tubes were 30" yes the ack would go faster as more powder could be burnt

 

accuraccy load (node) cannot be predicted it could be the very fasted a round could be pushed, generally you find two one high, one low. To explain you work a load up then it starts to shoot good then as the load increases it looses it then comes back in etc

[basil-blaster]

 

if you read what i said, i said i shoot that amount less than 50 yards per year there mostly 150 yards plus

 

and as for the amount of foxes, before i got with our lass and had a baby i used to go out shooting nearly every single night i used to shoot at home and up at my grandads and went out to my dads mates farm once a week whos farm is 650 acres and used to shoot 3+ every week on his farm alone. also used to go to a old chaps up in gisburn and shot a few every week i also used to go to my uncles every fortnight and used to get one 9 times out of 10

i can work out the distance like within 50 yards which is good enough to hit them every time and i only take safe shots actually and only shoot if im sure its a fox

i agree you know ballistics or seem to and you obviously know that i dont know about the performance of the 243 with different bullet weights in.

i know plenty about shooting mate, knowing about ballistcs doesnt make you a good shooter.

[basil-blaster]

You are talking rubbish. You might not UNDERSTAND ballistics, but they underpin everything you do in the field. You want to hit a fox beyond the distance of point and shoot, then you need to understand what happens to that bullet when it leaves the barrel.

 

Before i explain simple ballistics, two things - firstly you say:

 

"the 22-250 is the best calibre for fox distruction without a doubt"

 

and

 

"80% of people who have a 22-250 and a 243 would say that the 22-250 is better for foxes."

 

the first statement is simply wrong - there is no such thing as the BEST calibre, because each situation is different. You allege your fox destruction numbers - you must be out every single second of every day with that number. Either that or you shoot near the RSCPA dumping ground. I find it hard to believe because of the BS you are spouting here about 'best' calibre. If I need to shoot a fox in a back garden I really don't want a 22-250 (or a 243 for that matter), in that case the 22LR is the best fox round there is.

 

The second statement is made up fiction unless you've done a survey. Also, if you have a 22-250 and a 243, then you aren't likely to say that your 22-250 is actually rubbish - what are you doing with it if not shooting fox?

 

Ballistics are vital - careful bullet choice, together with drop and windage numbers allow humane kills at longer ranges, when the benefit of using a bigger round on a small animal can be felt. The 6mm bullet has a better BC than most 22 bullets, even the lighter ones. The 243 will send a 55gr Nosler as fast as the 22-250 does a 50gr (faster actually, 4000fps +) and it will fly flatter because it retains energy longer. When it arrives it will do so with more thump than the 22-250 can ever hope to achieve.

 

So if power is your out-and-out concern, then 22-250 STILL loses.

 

right, alot of the people at the range prefer the 22-250 for foxing against what others they have not saying they all have 243 also. also i dont want massive power i just prefer my 22-250, i think it is better and with my custom sound mod its just lovely to shoot, if the 243 with a 55 is so fast and flat then thats fine but as i have said i like the 90 gr in it and wont be changing. also the 243 is louder than the 22-250 but i have just bought 4 extra baffles for my sound mod and fitted them so should be quiter than 22-250 now, so may be used more, there are alot of foxes that i shoot on my dads mates farm and they sometimes have shaved areas on legs so what would you say? could that be near were the rspca let foxes out?? and used to go out every day before i had a little one to up to 8 farms a week

[jamie g]

Struggling to understand your post but to respond

 

No if both tubes were 20" the extra powder in the Ack could not be burnt, all other things being equal the speed would be the same. If both tubes were 30" yes the ack would go faster as more powder could be burnt

 

accuraccy load (node) cannot be predicted it could be the very fasted a round could be pushed, generally you find two one high, one low. To explain you work a load up then it starts to shoot good then as the load increases it looses it then comes back in etc

 

well if you had a short barrel you would use a fast burning powder. but then i couldnt see why anyone would want a 243 ackley with a 20 inch barrel. it would be abit pointless.

[Ackley]

if you read what i said, i said i shoot that amount less than 50 yards per year there mostly 150 yards plus

 

and as for the amount of foxes, before i got with our lass and had a baby i used to go out shooting nearly every single night i used to shoot at home and up at my grandads and went out to my dads mates farm once a week whos farm is 650 acres and used to shoot 3+ every week on his farm alone. also used to go to a old chaps up in gisburn and shot a few every week i also used to go to my uncles every fortnight and used to get one 9 times out of 10

i can work out the distance like within 50 yards which is good enough to hit them every time and i only take safe shots actually and only shoot if im sure its a fox

i agree you know ballistics or seem to and you obviously know that i dont know about the performance of the 243 with different bullet weights in.

i know plenty about shooting mate, knowing about ballistcs doesnt make you a good shooter.

wrong again mate,knowing and understanding basic ballistics makes you a great shooter,obviously you dont need to improove seeing you dont need a range finder and you never miss,your some talented guy.you make people like the warrener look like an beginer

[Blackbart]

436 charlies a year :o

 

I reckon from experiance if they are rural foxes you would need about 16000 acres of land and have to be out at least 5 days a week providing there are no crops on this land and 11 days a week if there are crops,have a vehicle that makes no noise,use full night vision(gen 3 at least for the ranges stated)and above all never miss !

 

And i still think 436 is wishfull thinking.

[kent]

well if you had a short barrel you would use a fast burning powder. but then i couldnt see why anyone would want a 243 ackley with a 20 inch barrel. it would be abit pointless.

 

In theory at least. With regards to the .243" it already has a bigger case than it needs in sporter length barrels, have a look at a 6mm BR case

[basil-blaster]

436 charlies a year :o

 

I reckon from experiance if they are rural foxes you would need about 16000 acres of land and have to be out at least 5 days a week providing there are no crops on this land and 11 days a week if there are crops,have a vehicle that makes no noise,use full night vision(gen 3 at least for the ranges stated)and above all never miss !

 

And i still think 436 is wishfull thinking.

 

i used to go out nearly every single day, i dont now i still go out all the places but not as much and i used to, i used to spend nearly all night trailing round all the farms and our own farms and i have night vision (kite) and a night vision monocular and deben light that has a battery that lets me go out all night. i used to bait them all over and spent hours calling them in, i used to shoot near a naker yard too and that draws loads in even though i use to only go on the first day of the month i used to get 4,5 and 6 every time but i had to shoot them with shotgun depending where they were.

 

anyway i know what i have done i have over 350 pictures all took in 2010 to prove plus all the others i didnt take a pic of and i wrote in my shooting diary.

[Blackbart]

i used to go out nearly every single day, i dont now i still go out all the places but not as much and i used to, i used to spend nearly all night trailing round all the farms and our own farms and i have night vision (kite) and a night vision monocular and deben light that has a battery that lets me go out all night. i used to bait them all over and spent hours calling them in, i used to shoot near a naker yard too and that draws loads in even though i use to only go on the first day of the month i used to get 4,5 and 6 every time but i had to shoot them with shotgun depending where they were.

 

anyway i know what i have done i have over 350 pictures all took in 2010 to prove plus all the others i didnt take a pic of and i wrote in my shooting diary.

 

 

It has got nowt to do with going out every day,unless you have access to thousands and thousands of acres of land there simply wont be that many foxes there for you to shoot !

1600 in the 3 year you have had a license !!

 

Bait them,call them even put a knackers yard conveniently there for them,you cant shoot what wont be there.

The only person your kidding is you.

[gixer1]

It has got nowt to do with going out every day,unless you have access to thousands and thousands of acres of land there simply wont be that many foxes there for you to shoot !

1600 in the 3 year you have had a license !!

 

Bait them,call them even put a knackers yard conveniently there for them,you cant shoot what wont be there.

The only person your kidding is you.

 

Not that I'm proving or disproving this blackbart - I think your land estimate is a bit off, we (myself and two friends) took just over 110 foxes off of a 2400 acre bit of ground per year on consecutive years - the volume of foxes really does depend on the ground etc, we once saw 6 in the same field screeching and fighting over a vixen, making all sorts of horrible noises!

 

If we had had nightvision etc I bet the 110 could have been closer to the 170 - 200.

 

Although the post doesn't say how big a piece of ground and what type of land...

 

Regards,

Gixer