Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

.222 Cal Rifle (Info Needed)

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by gadawg31, Mar 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gadawg31

    gadawg31 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Georgia
    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
     
  2. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    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
     
  3. 35 Whelen

    35 Whelen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,764
    Location:
    North Texas
    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  4. husker

    husker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,475
    Go find a nice Remington Mohawk 600 in 222. If you really wanna shoot 222 ?
     
  5. TwoEyedJack

    TwoEyedJack Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Southwest Idaho
    The most accurate rifle I ever owned was an old Remington 788 in .222. I wish I had that one back.
     
  6. Buckyt

    Buckyt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    36
    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!
     
  7. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,856
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    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.
     
  8. ole farmerbuck

    ole farmerbuck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,111
    Location:
    Western Ks
    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.
     
  9. airedaleman

    airedaleman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    153
    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...)
     
  10. gadawg31

    gadawg31 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Georgia
    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
     
  11. 35 Whelen

    35 Whelen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,764
    Location:
    North Texas
    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
     
  12. surfinUSA

    surfinUSA Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    630
    Location:
    By the ocean
    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.
     
  13. doggy1953

    doggy1953 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Ocean Springs Mississippi
    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.
     
  14. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,856
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    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.
     
  15. gadawg31

    gadawg31 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Georgia
    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
     
  16. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,431
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Those are $250-275 guns.
     
  17. Ar180shooter

    Ar180shooter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    510
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    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.
     
  18. hardluk1

    hardluk1 member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    nc mountains
    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.
     
  19. velocette

    velocette Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale Fla
    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
     
  20. Numeric

    Numeric Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Land of Green and Gold
    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.
     
  21. ole farmerbuck

    ole farmerbuck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,111
    Location:
    Western Ks
    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.
     
  22. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,856
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    In and of itself, no. The fact that .223 is also cheaper, more powerful and available in far more firearms is.

    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.
     
  23. 35 Whelen

    35 Whelen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,764
    Location:
    North Texas
    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
     
  24. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,856
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    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.
     
  25. ole farmerbuck

    ole farmerbuck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,111
    Location:
    Western Ks
    Now surely of those 47, there's a couple pretty close to being twins. ? No harm meant.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page