Tweet
I currently have my LE6920 outfitted the way I want it and have been fairly happy with it; when loaded correctly, I'm able to obtain the 2MOA of my Aimpoint P.R.O.
With a little more effort, and perhaps a scope, I can see 1MOA if not better (that red dot just FILLS the black on a target).
But for the better part of this year, I've been wanting a bolt action rifle. Something about the sleekness of a regular rifle without a flash hider/comp., nor a long magazine, and all the action going on in a conventional AR (BCG, Buffer Tube, gas components), just seems like it would be nice to shoot and take my time shooting it for the sake of accuracy. Not that an AR platform isn't challenging, but things going at a slower pace seems to be appealing to me... OK, maybe it's because I'm getting old (55).
So the quandry: I've been thinking about where I can shoot (Bay Area in general) which has much to do about distance of the range and most of my target shooting is 100 yards. Chabot has 200 from what I'm told, and only Sacto has somethng further. I couldn't mind trying to start going for 200 yards and beyond. The only kind of animal hunting I can see myself doing is prarie-dog pest control type of shooting, otherwise, it's pretty much target.
I'm deciding on either sticking with .223, or go 22-250 or 270 Rem. as alternatives. The 270 Rem. is close to a .308W from what I gather, but with a little less recoil. Whatever it is I end up with, I will handload it. With that in mind, going to a 22-250, I can use the same bullets and primers as my handload .223's; brass and possibly powder may change (however, I think some of the powder crosses over to both) which makes 22-250 a viable alternative to the .223. There are pros and cons to both as I've been reading these past months on the cartridge itself. The general theme: .223 is "cheaper" than the 22-250, and there appears to be plenty of both. .223 is fine all the way out to 500-600 yards. 22-250 uses more powder so per-cartridge load, it is a bit more expensive than loading .223, but it shoots flatter because it has a higher velocity, and with that, hits harder at the longer ranges (one person observed that on a rifle zero'd in at 200 yards, a .223 drops 22" at 400 yards, but a 22-250 drops 14" at 400 yards - and both would shoot 1" high at 100 yards.)
This would be great if I could shoot 400 or 500 yards every weekend, but I don't. But should I ever make it out to Sacto or anyplace with something further than 200 yards, I'd seriously think about the 22-250.
Has anyone else had this problem to digest? I'm in no big hurry to purchase; I'm "still" researching. The rifles in this category are well represented but I've narrowed my manufacturers to Tikka, CZ and Savage, all in their Varmint series.
With a little more effort, and perhaps a scope, I can see 1MOA if not better (that red dot just FILLS the black on a target).
But for the better part of this year, I've been wanting a bolt action rifle. Something about the sleekness of a regular rifle without a flash hider/comp., nor a long magazine, and all the action going on in a conventional AR (BCG, Buffer Tube, gas components), just seems like it would be nice to shoot and take my time shooting it for the sake of accuracy. Not that an AR platform isn't challenging, but things going at a slower pace seems to be appealing to me... OK, maybe it's because I'm getting old (55).
So the quandry: I've been thinking about where I can shoot (Bay Area in general) which has much to do about distance of the range and most of my target shooting is 100 yards. Chabot has 200 from what I'm told, and only Sacto has somethng further. I couldn't mind trying to start going for 200 yards and beyond. The only kind of animal hunting I can see myself doing is prarie-dog pest control type of shooting, otherwise, it's pretty much target.
I'm deciding on either sticking with .223, or go 22-250 or 270 Rem. as alternatives. The 270 Rem. is close to a .308W from what I gather, but with a little less recoil. Whatever it is I end up with, I will handload it. With that in mind, going to a 22-250, I can use the same bullets and primers as my handload .223's; brass and possibly powder may change (however, I think some of the powder crosses over to both) which makes 22-250 a viable alternative to the .223. There are pros and cons to both as I've been reading these past months on the cartridge itself. The general theme: .223 is "cheaper" than the 22-250, and there appears to be plenty of both. .223 is fine all the way out to 500-600 yards. 22-250 uses more powder so per-cartridge load, it is a bit more expensive than loading .223, but it shoots flatter because it has a higher velocity, and with that, hits harder at the longer ranges (one person observed that on a rifle zero'd in at 200 yards, a .223 drops 22" at 400 yards, but a 22-250 drops 14" at 400 yards - and both would shoot 1" high at 100 yards.)
This would be great if I could shoot 400 or 500 yards every weekend, but I don't. But should I ever make it out to Sacto or anyplace with something further than 200 yards, I'd seriously think about the 22-250.
Has anyone else had this problem to digest? I'm in no big hurry to purchase; I'm "still" researching. The rifles in this category are well represented but I've narrowed my manufacturers to Tikka, CZ and Savage, all in their Varmint series.
Comment