remington 700 sps varmint

Does anyone have any experience with the remington 700 sps varmint in a 22-250.:confused:

No, but I've been loading the .22-250 for more than 30 years.

what load do you use, if you don't mind me asking?

My rifle, a Rem788 with a 1/10 twist, likes Sierra 55g SBT and HPBT GameKings best over IMR 3031. When I was younger and hunted with it often, I could hit golf balls at 400yds. Not every shot, and not every day was a good one, but that is what the rifle is capable of. It would do the same with MatchKings, but I wanted hunting bullets for clean kills on large New England coyotes. The rifle's disadvantage is the skinny buggy whip barrel that heats up quicky, but I hunted coyotes, so three shots was the most I ever got. Knowing that I could cover a 10shot group at 100yds with a dime has always been a big confidence booster. My brother got himself a new Savage a couple of years ago in the same chambering, and while were are still in the load testing process, it shows a marked preference for Sierra GK's also, though it doesn't like 3031 quite as much as mine does. (It's leaning towards BL-C2 and 4895.) Those are the bullets I would start with, but your rifle may or may not agree. Every rifle has its own opinions on the matter.

which one would you go with the remington 700 sps or savage 110 both with a heavy barrel?

I have a h&r 223 but i would like something with a little more reach.

Well, that's an easy opinion for me. I have never been a fan of the Rem700. I think they dropped the ball when they stopped making the 788, a much more accurate rifle at a much lower price. I suspect it was starting to affect sales of their much more profitable 700, not to mention continuing to make it look bad in comparison. They have a model 700 with a detachable mag, though, and for me that's a big plus in a hunting rifle. I am glad to see Rem is selling a Mauser 98, even if it is imported. A much better design that has stood the test of time. I would buy one of them if I didn't have a safe full of real Mausers. The mini's don't have the claw extractor, so I lost interest in them.

I would go with the Savage, no question. One of the most accurate out of the box production rifles made today, great triggers, and so simple to swap barrels on that it's almost like a Contender/Encore with a magazine. I have yet to see one that was made in the last ten years that wasn't MOA with factory ammo and a lot better with handloads. (I also get Gun Tests, and they agree.) Many will complain that they aren't the prettiest rifles around. So what. The targets are pretty enough for me. As a friend says, "It's like an ugly woman with ...ahem... talents. Turn off the light." I don't buy rifles for how they look on my wall, in fact I never display them at all. (I do own several pretty ones, but they've only stayed with me because they can shoot little groups, not because I like the stocks.) I would go with the laminated stock and heavy barrel if I wasn't going to be carrying it, synthetic and lighter barrel if I was. My brother's is a laminate with heavy barrel and I would buy one like it in a minute if I didn't own my Rem 788.

I am going to be crawling with my ghillie suit on so lighter would be better but i can fire a lot more rounds through a heavy barrle. what about the savage stevens model200

Basically the same rifle with a less expensive stock.

yah looks dont count much when you miss the trophy of a life time. And ruger also makes an accurate rifle. what are your thoughts on them?

I like the model 77 action a lot, but I don't like it as much as I do Mauser 98's. The #1 is a great single shot, as were the old #3's, but if I'm going to have a single shot, I'd rather have one I can switch barrels on, so I own a Contender. The mini 14 is an action I love, (who couldn't love Garand's masterpiece?) but I have yet to own or shoot one that can do 2MOA (I haven't shot one of the new target versions), the mini 30 seems to be a bit more accurate, but still not good enough for the money they ask for it. I think the 10/22 is the last rimfire rifle I will ever buy and I wouldn't sell mine. The old .44mag semi's are great little deer rifles. I've never shot one of the levers, so I have no opinion on them. All in all, I like Ruger rifles and the newer ones seem to be much more accurate than the older ones.

Do you have any experience with the new 338 federal in the ruger or any other rifle?

No, I have never even seen one to examine it.

I hear it is great elk and deer gun for short to med ranges. so that would probably suit me for the rest of my life other than a few toys.

I would shoot one if someone handed it to me and said "Go for it!" But there is no way on earth I would even consider buying one. Honestly, I can't see that it would give any practical advantage at all over a .308 or an -06. I could load a lot of rounds of .308 with decent bullets (at least 100) for what they want for twenty .338Feds from the factory. For reloading, the brass is priced beyond belief (if and when you could find it), as are the loading dies (good luck finding them, too), and there's a laughably minimal bullet selection compared to .30 cal. There's four strikes right there, more than enough to count it out. It's just another "answer in search of a problem" designer cartridge, a rather feeble attempt to boost flagging rifle sales, and it won't do anything that dozens of current offerings won't do as well or better. I'd bet it will be obsolete in two years. I would rather have the 77 in .358win if I thought a .308 wasn't big enough. With either I could even shoot cast bullets for most of my hunting needs or go jacketed if I wanted more range than 150yds or more knockdown power. For target use, the old unfancy .308 is one of the most inherently accurate cartridges ever designed. So, what's the .338Fed actually good for besides some speculation over a few beers? An adequate short range big game round, of which we already have a gazillion. Why fix what works?

I don't know i might go for a 30-06 in ruger or remington cdl. Was shooting my dads last weekend and loved it put 9 rounds in the bottom of a paper cup. I think that's pretty good for an original Ruger M77.

It's really good. There were runs of Rugers 25-30 years ago that had Green Mountain Barrels, I know because I was working for GMRB at the time. Those were much more accurate than their own barrels. I was looking in the gun shop where they sell my custom knives today at their selection of Savages, especially at the one with a detatchable mag. The prices were all around $400 give or take a little, and that has Rem & Ruger beat by a considerable margin. The new S&W rifles looked good, too, but were a bit pricey.

What are your thoughts on the weatherby vanguard. And does the monte carlo stock help with recoil?

I think the Vangard is a well made and fitted rifle with a not undeserved reputation for decent out of the box accuracy. I still mentally cringe when I hear the Weatherby name for two reasons: remembering those super shiny flashy ugly stocks they sold when I was a kid, and what it felt like to shoot one of their big magnums back then (not pleasant). I like the new ones, how they look and how they shoot.

The monte Carlo stock has one purpose, namely to put your head in the proper position to see through a scope. They have no effect on felt recoil per se. The things that affect recoil are the overall weight of the rifle and the quality of the recoil pad, not to overlook bore diameter, bullet weight, and case capacity. Shooting offhand, a light little Win94 carbine with a metal buttplate in .30-30 shooting 170gr loads is not at all fun in a t-shirt and two shots is enough. A very heavy single shot .50BMG with bipod and thick pad can feel like a medium weight .243 at the bench and you want to shoot it all day.

I think i am going to go with a 270 wsm for the fact that it can reach out a little farther than the 270win which is still a great cartridge given the time it was developed.