.22-250 Question

[Prof]

I shoot rifles in .223 because my eyes can't handle heavy recoil (glaucoma). However, I have noticed several nice rifles in .22-250 and I thought it might be nice to have something a bit different. However, I know nothing about the .22-250 round. Is it more powerful than a .223? Is it also a .22 bullet? And how is the recoil, velocity, etc. compared to the .223? Thanks!!

 

[Rupestris]

According to info at the Chuck Hawks website:

Cartridge (Wb@MV)
.222 Rem. (50 at 3200) Rifle Weight-7.5 Recoil energy-3.0 Recoil velocity-5.1
.223 Rem. (45 at 3500) Rifle Weight-8.5 Recoil energy-2.6 Recoil velocity-4.5
.223 Rem. (55 at 3200) Rifle Weight-8.0 Recoil energy-3.2 Recoil velocity-5.1
.22-250 Rem. (55 at 3600) Rifle Weight-8.5 Recoil energy-4.7 Recoil velocity-6.0

 

[kaferhaus]

same size bullets.

If you get a 22-250 in a "varmint" heavy barrel type rifle, the recoil will not be noticeably different, in like weight rifles, it's a bit more stout, but still not anything approaching a 25 or 30 cal hunting rifle.

 

[Prof]

Thank you, gentlemen! Kaferhaus, since the recoil will be about the same (this would be for a Remington 700 VLS), would the performance be significantly different (i.e.- more accurate, longer distances, etc.). Thanks!

 

[dakotasin]

the 22-250 shoots faster/flatter, and therefore hits harder w/ similiar bullet weights. the 250 also handles heavier bullets better. accuracy is a wash.

so, yeah, the 22-250 does outperform the 223, 222, and most other 22's. the 22-250 is outclassed by the 220 swift, the 224 tth, and 22 howell.

the 22-250 is about as hot as most shooters will tolerate... hotter 22's are even harder on barrels. the nature of the 22's (light recoil, cheap) lends themselves to shooting lots of shots.

the 22-250 wears out barrels fast enough, the swift even faster, and the others even faster than that. the 223 is easy on barrels, but lacks performance in comparison to its big brothers... so, like i said, the 22-250 is about the best blend between performance and barrel wear.

 

[Prof]

Thanks, Dakotasin! That's great information! One last question: I am pretty much limited to a 220-yard shooting range. At that range, will I really notice any difference or should I just get another .223??

 

[12-34hom]

223 vs 22-250

220 yard range, both calibers will have excellent ballistics. The edge comes in for the 22-250 when you start shooting at 300 yard + ranges.

For what it's worth, 22-250 Ackley Improved is one of the finest wildcat varmint rounds.

12-34hom

 

[Coltdriver]

Hey Prof!

I know your asking about 22-250 but take a good look at the Ruger .204.

I shoot a lot of .223 (AR and Ruger #3) and I reload it.

The Ruger .204 is faster, flatter and has a point blank range of about 277 yards! That means if you sight it in at 1.5 inches high at 100 yards that it hits 1.5 inches low at 277 yards! The .223 has a point blank range of around 235 yards for comparison.

I dial my .223's in to shoot spot on at 200 yards. You could dial your .204 in at 200 yards all day. It would probably shoot about an inch high at 100 yards.

My Ruger #3 is getting rebarreled to a .204. This round is now the fastest production rifle you can get. It displaced the .220 swift. Standard cartridges with a 35 grain bullet are over 4000 feet per second.

And it shoots softer than a .223!

 

[Prof]

Thank you, both! It looks like I have a lot to learn about these various calibers! And, it looks like I need to get into reloading!!

 

[g56]

I have a Remington Model 700 Varmint Special bull barrel in 22-250, and a 24" bull barrel AR15 in 5.56/.223. Both are accurate, but quite frankly I enjoy shooting the AR more due to less recoil and a lot less muzzle blast, as I have gotten older I have problems with my spine, and am somewhat recoil sensitive. If shooting long range the 22-250 will outperform the .223, but if you aren't into really long range shooting, IMHO it isn't worth the difference. Reloading costs for .223 are cheaper than 22-250 also, once fired cartridge cases for .223 are cheap because of the military use of 5.56 and the .223 uses less powder, so the .223 costs less to reload.

 

[kaferhaus]

The Ruger .204 is faster, flatter and has a point blank range of about 277 yards!

And it shoots an itty bitty bullet that the wind plays hell with..

I had one and even in moderate breezes it's a nightmare. also no one I know has gotten the advertised velocity out of it.

I couldn't get it out of a 26" barrel and my two friends that bought them couldn't either. The chronograph tells no tales....

If you want speed, the 22-250 will push a 40gr bullet (which is still heavier than the 204s...) to 4,000fps out of a 26" tube. But what do you need that for?? Down range ballistics are not great so as a long range bullet it's not of much use... the "effective" range of the .204 is no better than the 223. and with the heavier bullets, the .223 is MUCH better at long range.

But speed doesn't always mean better....

Mine and one of my buddie's is gone, the other is for sale.

.204 is nothing more than a marketing gimmic, it does nothing any better than other cartridges already on the market, it's just the latest...

Just like the WSMs/WSSMs which everyone had to have a couple years back... now it seems hardly anyone wants one..

 

[Jim K]

On the subject of .223 vs. .22-250, I think you might find this amusing. Back when the AR-15 was being pushed for the new military rifle, I spoke with a Colt rep at an NRA convention. He gave me the whole spiel about how super powerful the .223 was. I demurred and said I would like to test it, but didn't have a rifle in that caliber. I said if I could get FMJ bullets, I would load my .22-250 down to .223 velocities and see what it would do.

The Colt guy went berserk! What was I talking about? The .223 was the most powerful cartridge ever made, nothing could match it, a hit anywhere on the body would kill instantly, it would go through dozens of bodies, one shot would destroy whole cities. (OK, I am kidding about the last, but you get the picture.) Of course, the .223/5.56 was and remains a fairly decent varmint cartridge, and not a bad anti-personnel round under favorable circumstances and at fairly short range. But I have no doubt that it was that kind of baloney from Colt, coupled with an endorsement from JFK which resulted in military adoption of the M16. We know the rest of the story.

Jim

 

[kaferhaus]

The .223 was the most powerful cartridge ever made, nothing could match it

Funny how companies like to hype their product!

endorsement from JFK which resulted in military adoption of the M16. We know the rest of the story.

I always have to differ with people on this one... is it as powerful as a 30-06 or 308? nope... does it kill just as good at the average range of rifle engagement, yep it sure does.

Not anecdotal, first hand experience, and the cartridge has been tested to death... there's been some improvements in ammunition, improvements in the platform and the next service rifle will also shoot the same round.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Kaferhaus,

I cannot contradict that, since my evidence would be anecdotal (I have never been in combat, with the M16 or anything else). Doctors who treated wounds in Vietnam have stated that they could not tell the difference among wound from the 5.56, 7.62x39 and 7.62 NATO.

But the early M16's did definitely have problems, at least in part due to Colt propaganda which told the army the rifle would never need cleaning (wrong!), so adequate cleaning supplies were not issued. I have no doubt that at average combat ranges (which some folks tell me is less than 100 feet), the 5.56 will do fine, as will the 7.62x39. In penetrating barriers and the like, there is no way the 5.56 can equal a full power 7.62 NATO or .30-'06.

But the 5.56mm and M16 were not really chosen for lethality, the army repeatedly saying, in effect, that the killing power was "good enough." The round and rifle were chosen because the army had no capable selective fire rifle and the Soviet bloc did (the AK-47). The M14, while a fine semi-auto, was useless in full auto fire (and I can personally testify to that). Selection of the AR-15/M16 was as much a matter of U.S. prestige in the arms race as it was a desire to field a good rifle. IMHO, the AR-18 would have been as good or better, if the 5.56 was kept, but the army chose to take the first available rifle that could fill the bill.

Of course, the army has now effectively admitted that the 5.56 is not as good as it could be, by going to a 6.8mm which will, it is hoped, be better.

Jim

 

[Rupestris]

220 yard range, both calibers will have excellent ballistics. The edge comes in for the 22-250 when you start shooting at 300 yard + ranges.

300+ should be where the .22-250 just starts to get into its element. I know folks that have confirmed prairie dog hits at 700+ yards with the .22-250.

Of course they were not "off-the-shelf" rifles and they never tell you how many times they missed before breaking into the 500/750/1000 club.

 

[JBP]

Prof like you I'm under a recoil restriction because of my eyes (in my case it's retina problems). I also like variety in what I shoot so I'm always looking for a "light" load. The 22-250 is a great caliber. I have a Ruger M77 Mark II Varmint that is super accurate and recoil friendly. I also have NEFs in .223 and .204 Ruger. I've only taken the .204 out to 100 yards so far but as soon as it warms up a bit I'll be sighting it in at 200. I'm curious to see how it compares to the 22-250. I also picked up last year an old Savage 340B in .222 (used to be king of the varmint calibers).

In less you are shooting prairie dogs all day I wouldn't worry about either a 22-250 or 204 Ruger barrel burning up. My typical range session is no more than 100 rounds per rifle and even then I switch off between rifles every 40 rounds.

 

[kaferhaus]

But the early M16's did definitely have problems, at least in part due to Colt propaganda which told the army the rifle would never need cleaning (wrong!),

Actually Colt told them (us) the rifle would require "less cleaning". And they were in fact correct. We (US Army) changed the powder specifications after the fact... the new powder was extremely dirty, this combined with inadequate training and a procruement screw up (cleaning supplies) led to the problems. So we really can't blame this one on Colt, it was our own fault.

Of course, the army has now effectively admitted that the 5.56 is not as good as it could be, by going to a 6.8mm which will, it is hoped, be better.

NO, that is not even being considered... this entire huge "internet commando rumor mill" about the 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel is the most rediculous piece of fallse information I've ever seen.

These cartridges ARE NOT being tested, evaluated or otherwise considered as a replacement for the 5.56. The next generation service rifle WILL be using the 5.56 ammunition.

The XM8 will replace the M16/M4 platforms and it has been designed to use the 5.56. The only remaining questions are contractural on who is going to produce it, HK or some other contractor who we select.

The decision would have already been announced but for HKs attempting to change the terms of the production rquirements under pressure from the German Govt.

We require the weapons to be manufactured in the USA... the German Govt is pressing HK to demand they be allowed to build them in Germany... that's not going to happen....

The Army owns the production rights and has spent 40 Million dollars developing and testing this system. Once we formally adopt it we can have Colt, Armalite or whoever we want to manufacture it thus. We want HK to manufacture the weapon because we know they can do it right because they've been involved in all the development (that we've paid for)

HKs patents are moot, as we'd have to agree to let them produce it otherwise, which we've told them is a deal breaker...

Sorry for the long post, but I get more irritated everytime I see something like this posted.... where do people come up with this crap? (not you... the folks that start and perpetuate this stuff)

We're not going to spend $40mil developing exactly what we want, and change at the last minute because a couple "wildcatters" think they've solved all of our problems in their backyard......

You've got a small number of people trying to sell something and give it some "mystique" by either insinuating or flat out lying about the DOD has some interest in what they're doing, that "hush hush" special ops guys are using it in Iraq...

It just isn't so...

 

[Prof]

Thanks, JBP! I'll keep in mind the "light loads" in my research on these new-to-me calibers!

 

[g56]

The .223 was the most powerful cartridge ever made, nothing could match it, a hit anywhere on the body would kill instantly, it would go through dozens of bodies, one shot would destroy whole cities. (OK, I am kidding about the last, but you get the picture.)

Back in the 60's the non-coms were telling us all of this BS, a hit anywhere on the body would turn all the internal organs to jello, blah-blah.

They also told us that a hit anywhere on the body, even if you hit them in their pinkie finger with the 45 automatic would knock them down!

The stories they told us were greatly exaggerated!

 

[Gordon]

IF you want something different , with the ability to use factory ammo: a 22-250 Improved with a 1-9" twist barrel. You can reload those 80 grain Very Low Drag bullets to 3300fps, which will do magic things to 1000 yards!

 

[Art Eatman]

Count me as another who was underwhelmed when the .223 first came out as a military cartridge. 3/4 of a .220 Swift. Duh? They're fine for jackrabbits and turtles, and will do for coyotes at closer ranges...

My uncle built up a "Varminter" back in the late 1940s. That was the name of the 250-3000 Savage when necked down to .22, before Remington made it a factory round. He used a Mauser action with a Gebby barrel. Truly a tack-driver with a Weaver K-10.

I've messed around a bit with both the .22-250 (Sako sporter) and the .220 Swift (Ruger 77 heavy barrel). I could get tighter groups with the Ruger. I just never could work up a good load for the .22-250. Just one of those things, since the cartridge is noted for good groups.

The nice thing about reloading is that you can tailor your load to conditions and whatever you're hunting. Shorter ranges and jackrabbits/coyotes, load below max with lighter bullets. Coyotes and smaller deer, use heavier bullets and go max. The cost savings is that it keeps you out of the beer joints at night...

, Art