Mount Hawke Sniper Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 As I am going to be starting at the lower end of the scale price wise are these decent rifles to be starting out with?? Do they have any particular plus points or drawbacks. It will be used predominantly for foxes up to 250 yards(think that's the limit of my skills) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 As I am going to be starting at the lower end of the scale price wise are these decent rifles to be starting out with?? Do they have any particular plus points or drawbacks. It will be used predominantly for foxes up to 250 yards(think that's the limit of my skills) For foxes out to 250 yards,almost any production rifle should do-but the most important issue is to test fire it first before you buy it-rifles are individuals,and especially used ones.Individual rifles in any make can be exceptional,but some makes get quite consistently good reports-Tikkas,currently with good reason,but not the cheapest.Ditto older sako models etc-other options you might consider are the Remingtons,often quite good,and Howa which is not expensive,and there will be others suggested here,Rugers are ok. Given you can test fire,I'd be inclined to look at what is available,and short list rifles you feel comfortable with and are suitable for your shooting,rather than fixate on one model/make too early-try and see,is always good advice.And given you test it,it is unlikely that any rifle will not be adequate-after all, one moa will do,and you won't be shooting five shots at a time! Listen to what others have found,but it's your rifle and has to suit you,though again,most are likely to be ok. You might eventually want to upgrade,eg new barrel-if so then the better the base donor rifle the better-I'd consider rebarreling a sako acton way ahead of some others,so might pay a small premium for on older one -which may be a little nicer anyhow,but it will have more use. Good news is there is plenty of choice,and you don't really have to give up any effective performance. Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 shorter barrel life in 22-250 than other .22 cf rounds. If its 250 max there is no tangible ballistic gain foxing. There are a couple of second hand rifles I would avoid due to high rates of bore erosion 22-250 is one. Besides that you putting a 1/3 more powder into a case for nothing, its the volume of powder down the tube that 1. shortens life span 2. makes more noise 3. costs more to feed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6.5shooter Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 shorter barrel life in 22-250 than other .22 cf rounds. If its 250 max there is no tangible ballistic gain foxing. There are a couple of second hand rifles I would avoid due to high rates of bore erosion 22-250 is one. Besides that you putting a 1/3 more powder into a case for nothing, its the volume of powder down the tube that 1. shortens life span 2. makes more noise 3. costs more to feed I the lad wants to use it predominantly for foxing then barrel life wont come into play for a very long time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 As I am going to be starting at the lower end of the scale price wise are these decent rifles to be starting out with?? Do they have any particular plus points or drawbacks. It will be used predominantly for foxes up to 250 yards(think that's the limit of my skills) Just a ps really-both Kent and 6.5 shooter make very valid points about the 22/250. 223 or 222 would be excellent choices too,and there would then be many more rifles to choose from. I would not consider the Hornet-250y is out of its effective range,specially in 222/223/22.250 comparisons,and anything else will be too new/specialised =expensive.Very arguable that anything else would be any better anyhow for your application.If you wanted 300capability,the 22/250 is ahead of the other two,but is itself reaching the limits of its useable performance,and so it goes on....an extra 50 yards starts to get demanding after 250 yards.... Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcampbellsmith Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 As I am going to be starting at the lower end of the scale price wise are these decent rifles to be starting out with?? Do they have any particular plus points or drawbacks. It will be used predominantly for foxes up to 250 yards(think that's the limit of my skills) I had one briefly a long time ago. I didn't view any of the Rugers I owned as precision rifles, but then, I didn't reload or use a moderator then or shoot many roe deer. I suspect that with a good moderator and the trigger pull adjusted to 3 lbs, the .22-250 I had would have shot quite well. The only other comment I would make is with respect to the dedicated scope rings. It was a real pain getting rings for the different scopes I put on my Ruger MK IIs. I'm now of the opinion after 40 years of battling with scope mounting that a scope rail is the answer. I like the 3 position safety on the Ruger MK IIs. You don't say whether you are looking at a std barrel or a varmint barrel. Regards JCS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mount Hawke Sniper Posted May 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 im going to be firing a max of 100-120 rounds a year through it obviously as my skills improve i will attempt to push the distances out further as my skills improve hoping some of my old mans and brothers shooting skills are deep down in my genes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 im going to be firing a max of 100-120 rounds a year through it obviously as my skills improve i will attempt to push the distances out further as my skills improve hoping some of my old mans and brothers shooting skills are deep down in my genes as well. The skill is wind reading,especially as range increases. No gene has been identified. Practise with a 22 cf will help. Good luck and enjoy the learning curve. Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 im going to be firing a max of 100-120 rounds a year through itobviously as my skills improve i will attempt to push the distances out further as my skills improve hoping some of my old mans and brothers shooting skills are deep down in my genes as well. The skill is wind reading,especially as range increases. No gene has been identified. Practise with a 22 cf will help. Good luck and enjoy the learning curve. Gbal I had one briefly a long time ago. I didn't view any of the Rugers I owned as precision rifles, but then, I didn't reload or use a moderator then or shoot many roe deer. I suspect that with a good moderator and the trigger pull adjusted to 3 lbs, the .22-250 I had would have shot quite well. The only other comment I would make is with respect to the dedicated scope rings. It was a real pain getting rings for the different scopes I put on my Ruger MK IIs. I'm now of the opinion after 40 years of battling with scope mounting that a scope rail is the answer. I like the 3 position safety on the Ruger MK IIs. You don't say whether you are looking at a std barrel or a varmint barrel. Hi JCS,generally agree,Rugers are ok,not tops for consistent excellent performance from the factory esp the No1,falling block (pity!)The odd 77 can be-the UK factory BR record was held by a Ruger varmint in ppc,some years ago,but the sakos were more reliably useable out of the box(es). Ruger rings were ok for standard 1 inch and 30 mm,but I hope someone does a conversion solution from Ruger 'bases' to picatinny or rail these days-mounts have become more of an issue generally.All much less of an issue for a starting fox rig,of course.Even an accurised Mini 14 might do-or is that a step too far,or even possible?Never shot the 222 version,though the problem was not in the cartridge,and the 77s are a different kettle of fish. Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 I the lad wants to use it predominantly for foxing then barrel life wont come into play for a very long time!On the other hand as a SECOND HAND rifle it might already be shot out or in its final throws- MY POINT not a great S/H choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6.5shooter Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 On the other hand as a SECOND HAND rifle it might already be shot out or in its final throws- MY POINT not a great S/H choice The lad never referred to buying second hand. If this was the case then yes of course, a decision to buy would be silly unless the history of the gun was known or it was borescoped. Who is to say a 223 would not be shot out either? Again in my view buying second hand centrefires is tricky unless you know the history or borescope it! At 100-200 shots per year on fox sized targets the barrel will last a LONG time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The lad never referred to buying second hand. If this was the case then yes of course, a decision to buy would be silly unless the history of the gun was known or it was borescoped. Who is to say a 223 would not be shot out either? Again in my view buying second hand centrefires is tricky unless you know the history or borescope it! At 100-200 shots per year on fox sized targets the barrel will last a LONG time! Hence advice to test fire it first-that is probably the best test-if its ok.Of course,if it's not ok on test fire,it might be the load... Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz6br Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 im going to be firing a max of 100-120 rounds a year through it obviously as my skills improve i will attempt to push the distances out further as my skills improve hoping some of my old mans and brothers shooting skills are deep down in my genes as well. Few years ago I just did fox control, my first rifle was a sako vixen 222 when I was 18 and I had it for 7 years and it killed around 150 foxes a year with very little target practice. Then I wanted to improve my skills and the only way to do that is shoot more at all different ranges, I've gone from shooting 200 bullets a year to silly amounts now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 The lad never referred to buying second hand. If this was the case then yes of course, a decision to buy would be silly unless the history of the gun was known or it was borescoped. Who is to say a 223 would not be shot out either? Again in my view buying second hand centrefires is tricky unless you know the history or borescope it! At 100-200 shots per year on fox sized targets the barrel will last a LONG time! Apologies but although he does not mention second hand here, he has another thread running and its is apparently going to be very much be the second hand route. .223 rem has a lot longer life, imagine how long an assault rifle might last in 22-250. You wouldn't need a bore scope to tell a .223 rem was very well shot, the evidence will be right there in terms of external wear generally ( though the likelihood of the OP owning or being able to appraise the bore with one I should think slim). A 22-250 could easily appear as new externally- barrel life is that different. Why have more noise and shorter barrel life in a new or p/o rifle, higher re-loading costs if you are not going out to ranges were the 22-250 will show its worth? (certainly somewhere over 250-300 yds with up to 55 grn) the 22-250 might be a fine cartridge in its own right but it don't suit here IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 Apologies but although he does not mention second hand here, he has another thread running and its is apparently going to be very much be the second hand route. .223 rem has a lot longer life, imagine how long an assault rifle might last in 22-250. You wouldn't need a bore scope to tell a .223 rem was very well shot, the evidence will be right there in terms of external wear generally ( though the likelihood of the OP owning or being able to appraise the bore with one I should think slim). A 22-250 could easily appear as new externally- barrel life is that different. Why have more noise and shorter barrel life in a new or p/o rifle, higher re-loading costs if you are not going out to ranges were the 22-250 will show its worth? (certainly somewhere over 250-300 yds with up to 55 grn) the 22-250 might be a fine cartridge in its own right but it don't suit here IMO. ...and a 222/223 is just plain easier to shoot well,especially for a new shooter!(23 v 37 g powder recoil). Test fire if used,sometimes a firecracked leade etc will retain m.o.fox,tho such wear should be avoided,and a clean looking bore might not shoot that well... the real evidence is where the bullets go on target,so test fire it! Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rem700 Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 hi i own the same rifle ,with the plasic paddle stock got very good groupings with norma 53 or 55 gr factory ammo now reload for the 22.250 and get under 1/2 group at 100yds with a velocity of 3373 the barrel is a very thin sporter and has fore end pressure [not free floating] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 hi i own the same rifle ,with the plasic paddle stockgot very good groupings with norma 53 or 55 gr factory ammo now reload for the 22.250 and get under 1/2 group at 100yds with a velocity of 3373 the barrel is a very thin sporter and has fore end pressure [not free floating][/quo That's absolutely fine-in effect its a 223 with 53/55g at 3373-and for most purposes that is enough,as has been suggested. The available extra 300 fps in the 22/250 are not always needed,but the potential is there. Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 hi i own the same rifle ,with the plasic paddle stock got very good groupings with norma 53 or 55 gr factory ammo now reload for the 22.250 and get under 1/2 group at 100yds with a velocity of 3373 the barrel is a very thin sporter and has fore end pressure [not free floating] That's practically .223 rem figures with a 55 grn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.