Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
22-250 vs. 223 for a long range beginner?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="amaziah" data-source="post: 358300" data-attributes="member: 23140"><p>Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit lol peace brother. My first 2 sentences talked about cheap surplus ammo as being cheap meaning not very accurate and I will add it's fun but when I want to get serious and shoot the wing off of a fly at 300 yards I use handloads. You try to use for your argument that your expensive V V handload defeats my argument lol. my point exactle. .223 sux at over 300 yards unless you handload. But my point is if you handload why not get the best! Handloading and components are expensive and time consuming so y not send rockets down range instead of salt size lead? Or if you are going to spend lots of time and money on it y not do it much better as money and time are about the same? For 600 yard animal kills the .223 is not the ideal. Yep you kill some, but how many do you wound? The fact is the 6.5mm grendel sends 3 times the lead and has superior accuracy at long range. Humane kills are higher. This is from a magazine fed ar15 with no seated long one shot at a time target shooter bs. Defend your mediocre cartridge all you want, everyone knows ,223 has sucked since the Vietnam war and still does. Today we have much better options from target barreled guns at budget prices. The you state you have to be a wind expert lol experts would use a bullet like a 6.5mm that bucks wind much better that the mouse cartridge .223. The .223 was a **** poor cartridge in 1965 and now it still is crap given that bullets like the 6.5 are vastly superior in performance. The only thing the .223 has going for it is it can be cheap if you buy the surplus ammo that the military doesn't want. </p><p></p><p>I know someone who killed a bear with a .223. But if I go bear hunting I sure as hell will not use a .223. Yep most people use .223 in an ar15 but since we are on this board, those who are knowledgeable in firearms know there is better equipment than what is sold at the local sporting goods store at times. </p><p></p><p>Given that you are considering the 22-250 tells me you want more than a surplus fed .223. 22-250 if that is what you are limited to but for the same money the 6.5 mm's are the best in my opinion and some others in a small cased round.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="amaziah, post: 358300, member: 23140"] Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit lol peace brother. My first 2 sentences talked about cheap surplus ammo as being cheap meaning not very accurate and I will add it's fun but when I want to get serious and shoot the wing off of a fly at 300 yards I use handloads. You try to use for your argument that your expensive V V handload defeats my argument lol. my point exactle. .223 sux at over 300 yards unless you handload. But my point is if you handload why not get the best! Handloading and components are expensive and time consuming so y not send rockets down range instead of salt size lead? Or if you are going to spend lots of time and money on it y not do it much better as money and time are about the same? For 600 yard animal kills the .223 is not the ideal. Yep you kill some, but how many do you wound? The fact is the 6.5mm grendel sends 3 times the lead and has superior accuracy at long range. Humane kills are higher. This is from a magazine fed ar15 with no seated long one shot at a time target shooter bs. Defend your mediocre cartridge all you want, everyone knows ,223 has sucked since the Vietnam war and still does. Today we have much better options from target barreled guns at budget prices. The you state you have to be a wind expert lol experts would use a bullet like a 6.5mm that bucks wind much better that the mouse cartridge .223. The .223 was a **** poor cartridge in 1965 and now it still is crap given that bullets like the 6.5 are vastly superior in performance. The only thing the .223 has going for it is it can be cheap if you buy the surplus ammo that the military doesn't want. I know someone who killed a bear with a .223. But if I go bear hunting I sure as hell will not use a .223. Yep most people use .223 in an ar15 but since we are on this board, those who are knowledgeable in firearms know there is better equipment than what is sold at the local sporting goods store at times. Given that you are considering the 22-250 tells me you want more than a surplus fed .223. 22-250 if that is what you are limited to but for the same money the 6.5 mm's are the best in my opinion and some others in a small cased round. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
22-250 vs. 223 for a long range beginner?
Top