Is the .222 Remington still relevant?

Excellent question. I have one comment. In other countries where military rounds are verboten for civilians I know the .222 is used. I think there are still a number of modern rifles still chambered in that round.

The triple deuce was one of the first small caliber bench rest guns, and it won many awards for accuracy. I don't believe the .223 is as accurate, but I can't say for sure cause I never owned one. I have had 4 deuces and all were very accurate. Reloading the .222 is somewhat easier as the case neck is longer. I love my triple two's, and would not trade them for any of the modern high velocity .22 calibers on the market. It does what I need it to do, and very accurately.

Not rifles but a while back I got a first generation T/C Contender with 10" barrels in 22 Hornet and 222 Remington. They are accurate beyond my ability to shoot them, recoil is almost nothing, and they area good measurement of any improvement in careful target work. I can't compare the 222 to a 223 but the older cartridge sure lives up to its reputation for accuracy. Plus there's the fun of keeping 'obsolete' cartridges alive.

Jeff

If you want to shoot varmints with a bit of class, the .222 is a good way.

Is the .222 Remington still relevant?

Click to expand...

It is in MY world!

DM

I really like a 222, wish there were more rifles around in the triple. Maybe one day I'll find a nice sako or cz. The 6mm-222 is very nice as well.

accuracy

murf

My Savage .222 Rem is one of my most accurate rifles. It only wears a fixed 4 power scope, but will still group nicely at 100 yards. I like it very much. Soft shooting as well

I have 223 with 14 twist Krieger barrel, 222 with 14 twist K&P barrel, tight neck 222AI with 12 twist Brux barrel and 222mag with 14 twist Hart barrel. Only different between my 223 and 222 is velocity. I build 223AI with 14 twist barrel after reading article in Varmint Hunter Magazine 1995 in fact Pd shooting was pretty good back then so build another 223AI.

Only 223's I've owned has been bolt action and I do like the case same as I like 222.

I think so. I’ve had 4 over the years, a 40x, a Witchita 1375, a Hall S and a blueprinted 700. All have been pleasant to shoot and easy to load for. Never saw the need for a 223. Have used a 222 for fox, bobcat and coyote, never let me down. And was always fun to shoot short range benchrest with. Long live the Deuce!

I like .222 only because I own a beautiful old Savage 340 in .222 Rem. So to me, yes it is still relevant. As far as building up a rifle in .222, I see more disadvantages than advantages by not going with .223 Rem. But hey, its his rifle. Maybe he's got dies and components already. Or just nostalgia.

I think it would be if the US military hadn't adopted the .223. Kind of the same thing that happened to the .300 Savage. They are both great cartridges, but were both supplanted by something far more popular with nearly the same ballistics and application. Since the .22 and 6mm PPC replaced the .222 on the BR scene, stealing the little bit of thunder the .222 had left, hasn't been much interest in the cartridge. That being said, there are some very fine classic rifles in the chambering, and for a light medium range varmint rifle, I would not hesitate to snap one up!

If you have/find it in a rifle you really like that happens to be so chambered, sure.

Otherwise, no. The only thing the round itself will do better than .223 is frustrate you trying to find ammo or brass, and empty your wallet when you do.

I feel bad that some folks don't handload for their very accurate rifles. Yes, some factory ammo is more accurate than others, and some cartridges historically are more accurate than others, especially (.222, .223, 7mm08, .308 and others), but the best accuracy usually comes from handloaded ammo, due to the fact that it's often previously been shot in that rifle, so it fits better than factory ammo. (Pants that you've worn before fit you better, don't they?) Powder measurement is also often more accurate (I use a measure, but check every measured charge and trickle to better than 1/10 grain tolerance). Bullets are also seated a bit longer...just off the lands of my rifles. When necks start splitting, cases need to either be "revived" by annealing, used for plinking, or discarded.

As a 8 yr old my grandfather had me in the field for woodchucks in the rolling hills of western NY.....I am an old man now and still have the 222 I shot my first chuck with- it still shoots dime size groups-

Sometimes you don't need to re-invent the wheel.....not saying that new super duper hot and powerful cartridges aren't fun....I love all the new stuff and if it keeps people shooting and selling guns that's great! .....sometime you just love the good old stuff that works.

Something I should have mentioned in #4 above. Shortly after getting the Contenders, I was at a gun show and lucked into old Lee Loaders (whack-a-mole style) in 22 Hornet and 222 Remington. They were complete and may not have been used at all. Five bucks apiece. Old style reloading for 'old' style cartridges. I've got the regular Lee dies for the calibers but sometimes it's fun to use the Loaders.

Jeff

When first working up loads for accurate rifles, it's good to try different seating depths/powder charges/bullet types/weights, to see what the rifle likes. If you're fortunate to have worked up a great load for a particular rifle in a popular chambering, sometimes you get lucky and it works well in other rifles. The .223 seems to be particularly tolerant of loads/bullets and I've had very few combinations that didn't work in all three of my rifles in that chambering. I've yet to shoot any Sierra .223 bullets in it that don't shoot very well, but a few others don't shoot as well as Sierras. It could be the seater setting for the particular bullet shape, jacket metal, or whatever, but they (and several other bullet maker's wares) shoot quite well.

It could also be that all my rifles are pretty much set up the same way, free-floating barrel, pillar/epoxy bedding, etc. Shooting off the same rests may also contribute to it, but the minimal recoil of the cartridge helps also, because the more a rifle kicks, the harder it is to keep the same hold/follow-through shot, after shot. I find myself not expecting to get MOA or better out of harder-recoiling rifles and am always grateful when the rifle shoots better than expected/needed for the tasks to be undertaken. My remington 700s are more tolerant of a range of ammo loads than a previous Savage 110 I had, even though that Savage shot some loads equally well.
jp

The .222 Rem. will always be relevant as long as beautiful .222s like this Ruger #1 and SAKO Vixen with Mannilcher style stock exist, and there are still folks who appreciate them.

While I personally have never wanted nor will ever want any of my AR builds in anything but 223, I do believe every cartridge has a place. The many, many options we enjoy are a testament to our preferences as unique individuals. A “flavor“ for everyone, so to speak.

Absolutely, the 222 has relevance. It is relevant to each person who made a conscious decisions in running it, has invested time & money into reloading dies/other equip. for it and thoroughly enjoys coming up with & testing different loads for it.

MachIVshooter said:

If you have/find it in a rifle you really like that happens to be so chambered, sure.

Otherwise, no. The only thing the round itself will do better than .223 is frustrate you trying to find ammo or brass, and empty your wallet when you do.

Click to expand...

Making 222 from 223 is very simple, brass is not a problem.

The only 222 I have now is a 14 inch contender that is just insanely accurate.I've mounted a 10X rifle scope on it and shot many groups under an inch,sometimes under half an inch.My first rifle was a 222 in a Remington 788 that I sold to buy a 243.Talk about wishing I had that one back!My cousin bought it,and he won't part with it for any price because of the way it shoots.I always watch for an older bench gun in 222 just to have a super accurate rifle to check my shooting with.But I have a 223 now that is always under half an inch at 100 yards if I'm on my game.I have an old Remington 722 in 300 Savage that I've often thought about putting another barrel on,and some day I may put a 222 barrel on it but keep the old one to make it back to original if I want to.Comparing the 222 to the 223,the 222 has a longer neck and a gentler shoulder angle than the 223 which contributes to its slight accuracy advantage.I just think it's a great round for what it's intended,and it's got great inherent accuracy.It was pretty dominant in benchrest shooting until the PPC's came along.If you look at the 222,it's almost like looking at a 308 mini me,and if you look at the 223,it's like looking at a 300 Win Mag mini me.

It will always matter to me!

As mentioned in previous posts, the .222 was the dominant caliber in benchrest competition for a generation. It set numerous world records and in fact could continue to win matches were it not for a new BR rule that made it and similar .22 caliber cartridges obsolete and favored 6mm calibers like the 6PPC. It was a wise and much needed new rule and broadened interest and participation in benchrest shooting, but killed off the .222 and a few other calibers and rifles like this fantastic .222 BR rifle produced by Ed Shilen about 50 years ago...

Offfhand said:

As mentioned in previous posts, the .222 was the dominant caliber in benchrest competition for a generation. It set numerous world records and in fact could continue to win matches were it not for a new BR rule that made it and similar .22 caliber cartridges obsolete and favored 6mm calibers like the 6PPC. It was a wise and much needed new rule and broadened interest and participation in benchrest shooting, but killed off the .222 and a few other calibers and rifles like this fantastic .222 BR rifle produced by Ed Shilen about 50 years ago...View attachment 929643 View attachment 929644 View attachment 929645

Click to expand...

I’m guessing that thing shoots bug holes @Offfhand

Gorgeous Looking rifle to me!