.222 Cal Rifle (Info Needed)


PDA






gadawg31
March 5, 2012, 03:17 PM
Ok, guys. Another opinion question for you all. I have been looking for a rifle with the .222 cal and I finally found a few for sale. Here is where I need the experts to chime in: The first one is a Bolt action sporter Savage 340D w/vintage weaver scope, asking $479; Next is a Bolt action sporter Savage Arms/Springfield 840 Series E w/weaver scope, asking $399; Next is a Bolt action Savage Arms Revelation 225 w/weaver scope, asking $399. All look great in the pictures, with very little wear appearance. My biggest question is knowledge and experience with these types of rifles. Have any of you had one of these rifles, or currently have one and what are some things I need to know about this particular weapon. I hate not physically touching a gun before buying it, but I have had several people tell me these are some of the best caliber guns around and that they are hard to find. Any thoughts/suggestions? Thanks.

JD

If you enjoyed reading about ".222 Cal Rifle (Info Needed)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
March 5, 2012, 05:05 PM
All three were basically the same economy centerfire rifle with minor changes.

The weakness is the two peice bolt and single locking-lug design.

It allows case stretch and short case life if you reload.

All there is to know about the models:
http://www.wisnersinc.com/additional_info/Savage_340.htm

Were it me?
I would continue looking and find a Remington 722 or 700 in .222 Rem.
Either one is a way better & more accurate rifle that treats your brass right.
http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=10907915
http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=10685593

rc

35 Whelen
March 5, 2012, 06:56 PM
When I was a kid, Dad owned a Savage 340 in .222 and it was a tack driver easily shooting dime-sized 5 shot groups. I killed my first deer with it. A buddy of mine owned the same Savage in 30-30. I loaded some shells for him and it too was crazy, crazy accurate shooting sub-one inch groups over and over.
Buiy the Savage and don't look back.

35W

husker
March 5, 2012, 08:44 PM
Go find a nice Remington Mohawk 600 in 222. If you really wanna shoot 222 ?

TwoEyedJack
March 5, 2012, 08:48 PM
The most accurate rifle I ever owned was an old Remington 788 in .222. I wish I had that one back.

Buckyt
March 5, 2012, 09:02 PM
I bought a model 788 in about 1966 ( for $75) that is still one of my favorite guns. I don't shoot it much anymore, but it is a really accurate .222. I hope my young'uns will enjoy it someday.
ps- I also have an older Sako with a bull barrel in .222 that is a real tack driver, but not as accurate as my $75 model 788. The Sako is a much prettier gun!

MachIVshooter
March 6, 2012, 12:11 AM
Just curious, but why a .222? I understand if a nice one falls in your lap for a good price, but actively looking for one doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, I'm all about the obscure calibers, but I'd still go with a .223 in this case. It's all about dollars and sense. .223 is plentiful and cheap. .222? Not so much. And the .223 performs slightly better.

Obscurity in a larger centerfire that won't see hundreds of rounds per year is one thing, but in a varmint gun, it's a different story. Now, I also shoot a .17 Rem. and .220 Swift, but they're markedly different from the .223. The .222 is not.

Just food for thought.

If you're dead set on it, go with RCmodel's advice.

ole farmerbuck
March 6, 2012, 12:31 AM
Nobody asked but I just bought a Savage .222. Model 25 lightweight varminter. I dont know why except for the fact that I have 5 or 6 .223's. Havent shot it much but what I have, It shot nice.

airedaleman
March 6, 2012, 10:11 PM
Prices seem quite high to me. The 340 guns are sleepers and I don't think I'd pay wore than 300 for one - and that gun would have to wear a good Weaver or eqivalent. I bought a 340D 222 (made in 1953) with a mutt Chinese Tasco 3/9X a couple of years ago for $212.00 out the door. Got it home and put a Weaverb K10 on it immediately. Shoots one-inch five-shot groups at 100 yards all day long with virtually any ammunition put through it. Triggers on these guns are very complex and not amenable to tinkering. I keep a tube graphited grease in my kit and apply a dab to the sear and the cocking piece nose from time to time. Makes a world of difference in the pull. Surprisingly, the earlier guns are well-finished and many models have walnut stocks. Guns made before 1968 do not have serial numbers. Wisner's discussion of these rifles is rather superficial; there are so many variants that it's really hard to keep them all straight. The 340at the end of its production was available in 225 Winchester. I had one that I bought new, and I was never really comfortable shooting that gun with factory ammunition. I always thought that the 225 pushed the single lug design a bit. (The bolt handle does serve as a safety lug, but still...)

gadawg31
March 7, 2012, 11:00 AM
Thanks guys for all the info. I want to do some more research now and see what I come up with. Mach, not sure why I got into looking for one, but it may have been when I was looking for a rifle that my son could shoot comfortably. I had started looking at .223s, but a gentlemen told me about the .222 being a great rifle for all ages. So, I guess that was why I started and now seems like it would be a fun rifle to have around, since they still make factory ammo for it. Anyway, I appreciate all the suggestions/opinions.

JD

35 Whelen
March 7, 2012, 08:40 PM
To my way of thinking, the .222 is to the .223 what the .308 is to the 30-06. In my experience (I own or have owned all four cartridges) the .222, like the .308 will shoot well with just about any ammo, or any load you care to stuff in the case and ballistically, there's not a whole lot of difference in the cartridges.

Prior to the advent of the .22 PPC the .22 Remington was THE cartridge amongst benchrest shooters and for a very good reason.

35W

surfinUSA
March 7, 2012, 10:15 PM
The .222 was the caliber to get when I was a kid in the 60s If you were looking for an accurate varmit gun. I didn't realize it had become obscure, but I guess with the passage of time it has and is completely overshadowed by the .223.

I might buy one if I got a great deal, but I look at the .222 like I look at the 7mm08. Both are great rounds, but neither will do anything the .223 and 308 can't do. The big difference for me is the big three ammo makers (Winchester, Remington and Federal) make cheap .223 and 308 "white box" ammo and I can shoot a lot more.

If I was a reloader I may feel differently. But since there are a zillion good bolt, semi-auto and even at least one pump action .223 out there, many of which can be had new or used at excellent prices why bother with the .222.

doggy1953
March 7, 2012, 11:53 PM
Got a old Rem 700, shoots great, 3 rounds in a size of a dime at 100 yards. Shot a bunch groundhogs within my day. 55 gr pointed soft point.

MachIVshooter
March 8, 2012, 11:23 AM
I had started looking at .223s, but a gentlemen told me about the .222 being a great rifle for all ages.

It was his pet, nothing more. There is no perceivable difference in the recoil, and they are darn near identical ballistically, with a slight edge to the .223. It's all about money. Rifles and factory ammo in .223 abound in just about every configuration, and even to the handloader, .223 brass is far more available and far less expensive.

There's nothing wrong with the cartridge, but buying a .222 over a .223 would be like buying a specially imported Daihatsu truck instead of a Toyota. Unless you want the little bit of exclusivety, it makes no sense to pay more up front, pay more for parts and have difficulty finding a familiar mechanic to have a vehicle that performs almost as well as the common one that was cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain and easier to find people who will work on it.

gadawg31
March 8, 2012, 03:17 PM
Point taken all. Part of my research and decision making process, was based on some of the feedback I got here and it seems I should stick with my gut and get the .223. I'm with you surfin, if I find a great deal on one, then I may entertain picking it up. Thanks for the great feedback. Take care.

JD

alsaqr
March 8, 2012, 07:15 PM
The first one is a Bolt action sporter Savage 340D w/vintage weaver scope, asking $479; Next is a Bolt action sporter Savage Arms/Springfield 840 Series E w/weaver scope, asking $399; is a Bolt action Savage Arms Revelation 225 w/weaver scope, asking $399.

Those are $250-275 guns.

Ar180shooter
March 9, 2012, 02:34 AM
Just curious, but why a .222? I understand if a nice one falls in your lap for a good price, but actively looking for one doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, I'm all about the obscure calibers, but I'd still go with a .223 in this case. It's all about dollars and sense. .223 is plentiful and cheap. .222? Not so much. And the .223 performs slightly better.

Obscurity in a larger centerfire that won't see hundreds of rounds per year is one thing, but in a varmint gun, it's a different story. Now, I also shoot a .17 Rem. and .220 Swift, but they're markedly different from the .223. The .222 is not.

Just food for thought.

If you're dead set on it, go with RCmodel's advice.
I have to agree with this. OP, why .222? It's not that it's a bad round, but it's been largely taken over by the .223.

If you already have a couple of .223's, then go for it, but .222 is more expensive to shoot, does not perform as well as .223, and there is less variety in factory ammo available.

hardluk1
March 9, 2012, 10:44 AM
The .222 is also costlier to buy factory ammo than the .223 . With the .223 would also have bit more choice with barrel twist in new rifle today from 1-12 to 1-7.

velocette
March 9, 2012, 01:03 PM
The first rifle my dad ever bought was a Remington M722 in .222 Remington in the mid 50's. I still have that rifle and it still shoots little tiny groups. As far as ammunitiion costs are concerned, if you are wise enough to reload your own ammo, the .222 is slightly less expensive to shoot. A few grains less powder and you're pretty limited to bullets under 55 grains due to the 1 : 14 twist barrel.
As noted earlier, the .222 was the darling of bench rest shooters for many years and still is viewed as an extremely accurate round. The .223, not so much, primarily due to its much shorter neck not holding the projectiles as accurately as the .222.
If the OP wants a .222, the he should go for it. Just because the .223 is more common is not a reason to buy it in preference to any other round.

Roger

Numeric
March 9, 2012, 01:26 PM
My dad has a Remington 600 .222 with a Weaver K4-60B. It is a laser beam at 100yds. If you're set on the Savage type, then I'd go for the one with the best scope.

ole farmerbuck
March 9, 2012, 08:16 PM
The first rifle my dad ever bought was a Remington M722 in .222 Remington in the mid 50's. I still have that rifle and it still shoots little tiny groups. As far as ammunitiion costs are concerned, if you are wise enough to reload your own ammo, the .222 is slightly less expensive to shoot. A few grains less powder and you're pretty limited to bullets under 55 grains due to the 1 : 14 twist barrel.
As noted earlier, the .222 was the darling of bench rest shooters for many years and still is viewed as an extremely accurate round. The .223, not so much, primarily due to its much shorter neck not holding the projectiles as accurately as the .222.
If the OP wants a .222, the he should go for it. Just because the .223 is more common is not a reason to buy it in preference to any other round.

Roger
Thanks velocette, now I dont feel so bad about buying the Savage 25 LW varminter. It was expensive but I think I can make a good shooter out of it. I agree with you, if the OP wants a .222, I say go for it.

MachIVshooter
March 9, 2012, 09:28 PM
Just because the .223 is more common is not a reason to buy it in preference to any other round.

In and of itself, no. The fact that .223 is also cheaper, more powerful and available in far more firearms is.

As far as ammunitiion costs are concerned, if you are wise enough to reload your own ammo, the .222 is slightly less expensive to shoot

Did you forget about the brass? You have to buy it before you can reload it, and the stuff doesn't last forever.

.222 Rem. is $32/100 from midway

.223 Rem. Can be bought once-fired for around $50 per 1,000.

Selling a .222 one already has to buy a .223 would be silly. But paying full price for a .222 instead of a .223 is equally silly.

35 Whelen
March 9, 2012, 09:36 PM
Maybe it's because I'm a handloader, but I've always wondered why people base their decisions regarding the purchase of a firearm on the price of the ammunition. Seems silly to me. Like "buy a Mosin because crappy, inaccurate, corrosive ammo for itis really cheap!".

35W

MachIVshooter
March 9, 2012, 11:48 PM
Maybe it's because I'm a handloader, but I've always wondered why people base their decisions regarding the purchase of a firearm on the price of the ammunition. Seems silly to me.

Like I said, you've still gotta buy brass.

I handload, too (47 different cartridges). But in looking at two of the same caliber that have near identical performance, and one of them being available in many more rifles and with much cheaper brass, I'll go with that one. For example, I would choose the 7mm WSM over the 7mm SAUM if I were looking for a short mag, even though I tend to gravitate toward Remington cartridges in hunting rifles.

ole farmerbuck
March 10, 2012, 07:25 AM
Like I said, you've still gotta buy brass.

I handload, too (47 different cartridges). But in looking at two of the same caliber that have near identical performance, and one of them being available in many more rifles and with much cheaper brass, I'll go with that one. For example, I would choose the 7mm WSM over the 7mm SAUM if I were looking for a short mag, even though I tend to gravitate toward Remington cartridges in hunting rifles.
Now surely of those 47, there's a couple pretty close to being twins. ? No harm meant.

35 Whelen
March 10, 2012, 08:19 AM
Like I said, you've still gotta buy brass.

I handload, too (47 different cartridges). But in looking at two of the same caliber that have near identical performance, and one of them being available in many more rifles and with much cheaper brass, I'll go with that one. For example, I would choose the 7mm WSM over the 7mm SAUM if I were looking for a short mag, even though I tend to gravitate toward Remington cartridges in hunting rifles.

I chuckled a little when I read this. Using your logic, it'd be silly to choose either of these cartridges because the 7mm Rem Mag is much or common, brass is much more plentiful and less expensive, and performance of the cartridges is very similar....unless of course you chose one of these because of the HUGE difference in the length of the actions.:rolleyes:

35W

velocette
March 10, 2012, 09:28 AM
Who cares if a round is available in many different rifles?
The OP is talking about ONE rifle, one rifle only.
Brass costs are nearly moot. I neck size for my .222 and the brass lasts a long long long time. Even if you full length resize (which I started out doing) brass life is at least 8 reloads.
If common rounds were the deciding factors, today we'd all be shooting 30-06s and .30 WCF (30-30)s

Roger

MachIVshooter
March 10, 2012, 10:37 AM
Now surely of those 47, there's a couple pretty close to being twins. ? No harm meant.

Some of the milsurps, definitely. 6.5x50 Jap, 6.5x52 Carcano are ballistically identical.

Most of the .30/7.62/7.5 stuff is pretty darn close, too.

Full list is:

.17 Rem
.22 Hornet
.204 Ruger (sister's)
.223 Rem
.220 Swift
6mm rem
.25-06 Rem
6.5x50 Jap
6.5x52 Carcano
6.5x55 Swede
7x57 Mauser
.280 Rem
7.5x54 MAS
7.5x55 Swiss
7.35x51 Carcano
7.62x54 Soviet
7.7x58 Jap
.30-30 Win
.303 Brit
.308 Win
.30-06 Sprg.
.300 RUM (sister's)
.32 Rem
8x57 Mauser
8mm Rem Mag
.350 Rem Mag
.375 RUM
.45-70 Govt.

.25 ACP
7.62x38 Nagant
7.62x25 Tok
.32 ACP
.32 S&W
.32 H&R Mag
.380 ACP
9x19 Luger
9x23 Largo
.38 S&W
.38 Spl.
.357 Mag
.40 S&W
10mm
.44 Spl
.44 Mag
.45 ACP
.45 Colt
.454 Casull

And still have dies and brass for .50 AE, but sold the Desert Eagle awhile ago.

Obviously I don't do rimfires, and have no interest in loading shotshells. Eventually I'll start loading for my .50 BMG, but I shoot it so little it's difficult to justify the equipment.

ole farmerbuck
March 10, 2012, 09:25 PM
Here ya go OP. This is my new Savage. I think I will learn to love it! Its wearing a 6x24 Nikon Monarch.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn88/farmerbuck/222Savagejpg.jpg

Agsalaska
March 11, 2012, 09:46 AM
I am in the 'why the .222 group.' I get it if you see a good deal. But just about anyone can handle a .223.

If you really want something different look at the .22-250

ole farmerbuck
March 11, 2012, 11:08 AM
I am in the 'why the .222 group.' I get it if you see a good deal. But just about anyone can handle a .223.

If you really want something different look at the .22-250
I guess since I have (2) 22-250's and (6) .223's is the reason I got the .222. (still telling myself that I didnt screw up) :)

If you enjoyed reading about ".222 Cal Rifle (Info Needed)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!