.222 or .22-250?

[Sharpie]

one uses 21-22gr of powder for 3100 with a 50gr VMax/SP
one uses 33-34gr of powder for 3600 with a 50gr VMAx/SP

45-50% more powder for 15-20% more MV
Do the deer know the difference? No

I have shot the .222 for a few years and shot a lot of roe with it.
Personal choice but I use 60gr Hornady SP over N133 for a pleasant 3000fps
a 200+ yds roe is not a problem
Cheap to feed, pleasure to use

Somewhat facile, albeit your post is nearly 18 months old. Though nothing fundamentally has changed in that period. Turn it around, using your numbers:

3600 fps vs. 3100 fps is 35% more energy at the muzzle. And 500 fps faster. Both of which are huge differences.

34gr powder vs. 22gr is 12gr more. Even at say £50 for a small 1lb/7000 grain tub, that's only 8.6p more per bang. Probably, realistically, rather less. So, over 100 shots, the 22-250 costs no more than £8.60 extra to run, vs. the 222. Is that really a deal-breaker for you ?

For which you get faster, flatter, and higher energy at whatever distance. Of course you may download 22-250 to equivalent 222 velocity/energy/powder cost. Though that would be missing the point.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Somewhat facile, albeit your post is nearly 18 months old. Though nothing fundamentally has changed in that period. Turn it around, using your numbers:

3600 fps vs. 3100 fps is 35% more energy at the muzzle. And 500 fps faster. Both of which are huge differences.

34gr powder vs. 22gr is 12gr more. Even at say £50 for a small 1lb/7000 grain tub, that's only 8.6p more per bang. Probably, realistically, rather less. So, over 100 shots, the 22-250 costs no more than £8.60 extra to run, vs. the 222. Is that really a deal-breaker for you ?

For which you get faster, flatter, and higher energy at whatever distance. Of course you may download 22-250 to equivalent 222 velocity/energy/powder cost. Though that would be missing the point.

Facile? Strange word to use in conjunction with "somewhat" in this case - whether the post is 18 months or 18 years old, the quoted data is still pretty much on the button. Given that both are emminently suitable for roe and indeed legal in Scotland the only remaining aspect is personal choice which the post stated sooooo you pays your money............

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Somewhat facile, albeit your post is nearly 18 months old. Though nothing fundamentally has changed in that period. Turn it around, using your numbers:

3600 fps vs. 3100 fps is 35% more energy at the muzzle. And 500 fps faster. Both of which are huge differences.

34gr powder vs. 22gr is 12gr more. Even at say £50 for a small 1lb/7000 grain tub, that's only 8.6p more per bang. Probably, realistically, rather less. So, over 100 shots, the 22-250 costs no more than £8.60 extra to run, vs. the 222. Is that really a deal-breaker for you ?

For which you get faster, flatter, and higher energy at whatever distance. Of course you may download 22-250 to equivalent 222 velocity/energy/powder cost. Though that would be missing the point.

Yes, for me anyway.
Paying more to burn more powder to produce an effect I don’t want.
Noisier,
More velocity for no obvious reason.
More energy I don’t need, never shot a roe or fox with a .222 and though “hmmm, could have hit that harder”
Flatter, to such a small degree inside 250m-300m that is impossible to demonstrate in the field.

Comes in a micro action, feels like cycling a .22lr, very light recoil

If this was New Zealand and I was shooting red deer, no brainer. 22-250 every time.
It isn’t and I am not
Will take a triple every time

 

[Sharpie]

Facile? Strange word to use in conjunction with "somewhat" in this case - whether the post is 18 months or 18 years old, the quoted data is still pretty much on the button. Given that both are emminently suitable for roe and indeed legal in Scotland the only remaining aspect is personal choice which the post stated sooooo you pays your money............

facile
adjective
ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
"facile generalizations"

somewhat
adverb
to a moderate extent or by a moderate amount; rather.
"matters have improved somewhat since then"

Somewhat facile ? Try "to a moderate extent ignoring the true complexities of an issue"

emminently ?

spellchecker
noun
a computer program that checks the spelling of words in a text, typically by comparison with a stored list of words.

 

[Sharpie]

If this was New Zealand and I was shooting red deer, no brainer. 22-250 every time.
It isn’t and I am not
Will take a triple every time

It seems that in NZ they like long shots, with disruption of brains preferred.

Agreed that 22-250 is unnecessary for roe, north of the wall, or muntjac and Chinese WD south of it. Not very subtle.

However, for sniping fox etc. it's hard to think of anything more suitable.

As for Ireland, well they can use, and do, a rifle of at least .220 calibre, delivering a 55 grain projectile, with 1700fpe, on any size of deer. That takes a muzzle velocity of 3731fps. A 22-250 can do that (the legislation was written for it). A 222 most certainly cannot.

Horses for courses, two very different things, the choice is yours. Which I think is where this thread started.

 

[Foxyboy43]

facile
adjective
ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
"facile generalizations"

somewhat
adverb
to a moderate extent or by a moderate amount; rather.
"matters have improved somewhat since then"

Somewhat facile ? Try "to a moderate extent ignoring the true complexities of an issue"

emminently ?

spellchecker
noun
a computer program that checks the spelling of words in a text, typically by comparison with a stored list of words.

Yep I too have access to google and the OED at those still few times I need it, thank you. I think EB’s response makes it all clear enough without further input from me, factual rather than facile methinks.

 

[HandB]

With modern powders the .222 is somewhat higher performing than it was originally. In my badly pitted 24" barrel 1954 BSA Hunter I get approx 3170fps from cheap 55gr FMJs using 22gr of N130 and I am a novice reloader. Someone with a new rifle and higher levels of reloading skills with fancier bullets could get even higher performance I suspect, all for relatively tiny amounts of powder.

 

[Foxyboy43]

With modern powders the .222 is somewhat higher performing than it was originally. In my badly pitted 24" barrel 1954 BSA Hunter I get approx 3170fps from cheap 55gr FMJs using 22gr of N130 and I am a novice reloader. Someone with a new rifle and higher levels of reloading skills with fancier bullets could get even higher performance I suspect, all for relatively tiny amounts of powder.

Just be careful H&B especially as a novice reloader, you are over the maximum load of N130 according to Viht’s latest and increasingly conservative manual and if you reload to below prescribed COAL it could be particularly dodgy! In the spirit of friendship - watch out for sticky bolt, flattened primers, bolt face scores/scrapes and extractor mark “smiley faces” on the case base. My own pet load for the triple deuce is a moderate (mid-range) charge of N120 and 50gns vmax going out about 2,900 fps, more than enough for foxes as far out as you can shoot.
Be careful my friend.

 

[HandB]

Thanks FB yes I worked up from minimum load as per usual and was surprised to find that the 22gr of N130 worked well without suffering from overpressure problems: no sticky bolt lift, no scored cases, no extraction problems. Furthermore, this load shoots approx 1moa out to 600yds, despite the badly pitted barrel. But as always anyone trying a new load must be cautious as ymmv.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Thanks FB yes I worked up from minimum load as per usual and was surprised to find that the 22gr of N130 worked well without suffering from overpressure problems: no sticky bolt lift, no scored cases, no extraction problems. Furthermore, this load shoots approx 1moa out to 600yds, despite the badly pitted barrel. But as always anyone trying a new load must be cautious as ymmv.

Good Man!!