Originally Posted by Westro
All of these comments are right on. I'll tell you what, the 22-250 has a much better FF (Fun Factor) on dogs than a .223 on a much more consistant basis.
Either one you'll be happy, but I'd vote .223 in the semi auto and 22-250 in the bolt.
It's a moot point, since the .22-250 in semi-auto can't be found, except maybe in a Browning BAR. I don't know of any AR-type rifle that offers the .22-250 caliber. If I were shooting, I would take both caliber rifles. You have to remember that the .22-250 will heat up the barrel far faster than the .223. This is not a problem with slow, longer-range shooting, but if you are in a hot-heavy shooting situation, the .223 is the better choice....but at shorter ranges. Trying to get consistent kills at 500-600 yards is going to result in more misses than hits, in my opinion, unless you have a spotter, no wind, and know exactly how your rifle will perform at long distances. Naturally, there will be exceptions, but if you want longer ranges, I would not consider calibers in the .222-223 ranges. You need a heavier bullet, such as those in the 6mm range or larger, to buck any wind present.
Buy two rifles and shoot one while the barrel of the other cools down. Three rifles is even better. BTW, the recoil with a .22-250 should not be a factor. I have read about the "increased recoil" in past publications. Recoil has never been a problem for me with the .22-250, because I have to stop shooting after 10-20 rounds to let the barrel cool, so this provides for giving my right shoulder a break. Even if I had to shoot all day long, I don't think the recoil is a negative factor. I use a .20 VarTarg for shorter distances because of recoil that is low enough that I don't lose sight of the target in the scope. It's like shooting with a rimfire (which I use extensively for ground squirrels at ranges up to 100 yards).