This post set me to thinking on the real virtues of the .22-250.
I've got a .222 - a .223 - and a .22-250 - and a .243. None of these are moderated or braked.
The small-case .22 Centrefires are housed in micro-actions, which is a hangup of mine. I use them for different purposes, but choose them whenever I'm going walkabout. They're quicker to handle in a snap situation, and so much lighter to carry. That's a conscious choice due to a spinal injury where they reduce backache and fatigue. They are also IMO inherently more accurate, and easier to work up a good load for than the .22-250 - certainly the one I've got. They're cheaper to run, but that's only in the amount of reloads out of 1lb of powder of course. The .222 is the more accurate of the two. That's reputed to be the case in most .222/.223 shootoffs. I use the 40gr - 55gr weight in each as that's what they're designed for, and the optimum velocity obtainable from the small rounds.
The .22-250 needs a full-size action, and the Tikka sporter I've got is noticeably heavier with a 6x42 S&B aboard. I'll just walk with that only to the nearest ambush site, or a spot where a 150-200 yard shot is likely - such as across a fair-sized open field. My .22-250 works best with 60gr -63gr bullets, and shoots flatter than the others even with these. I worked a lot with a dozen-plus of the lighter weights, and was about to give up on it until the heavier jobs made it perk. It is still not as accurate as the smaller .22CF's, and has needed a lot more work. I think this is down to the larger case capacity, which is probably optimum in the smaller .22CF's.
To be honest, I can think of only a few instances when the greater range of the .22-250 might have made a difference to an outcome. Whenever a shot comes up I've got more confidence in it's trajectory than it's accuracy. I use it only for fox, and muntjac. If there was a choice of Roe in Scotland I would use a .243 rather than a .22CF, although I did use a .222 in Scotland for a couple of years.