The .243 beat out the .250 not because "the gun writers" said it was better, but because SOME gun writers promoted it, including one very influential writer who basically designed it, Warren Page. (I always enjoy it when somebody claims all gun writers say the same thing.)
The .243 did have advantages when it appeared in 1955. One was a 1-10 twist, and most .250's didn't have a 1-10 at the time, but a 1-14 which didn't always shoot well with every 100-grain bullet. (Of course, Remington somehow bypassed this basic knowledge when they brought out the .244, also designed by Warren Page, but that's history.)
These days the .243 beats the .250 for SOME hunting because brass is far more available, plus a wider variety of bullets. But if you handload, you can use .22-250 brass in a .250, and in fact it's often better quality than today's .250 brass.
As far as killing deer there isn't any difference, unless you want to shoot them at 500+ yards, where the .243 wins because of (again) a far wider bullet selection for that task.
In cool factor the .250 wins easily, both because of its longer history and the older rifles still available. If you use a "modern" .250, with a Remington 700 or Savage action, stainless barrel, and synthetic stock you lose a lot of style points, but are still probably ahead of the .243.
If you Ackley Improve the .250 (as if it could be improved) you lose to the .243, whether the rifle's traditional or modern. In fact you might lose even more style points if you AI a .250 99 Savage.
