.222 Rem VS .223 Rem

[smovlov]

I know availability of components is different as are the number of firearms chambered but I have a question...

Does the .222 do anything that the .223 wont do performance wise? Would there be any advantage to getting a .222 over a .223 ?

 

[Grumulkin]

If you were to ask a bench rest shooter which was preferred, the answer you would get would be use the 222; the 222 Remington that is. There is also a 222 Remington Magnum by the way.

The neck on a 223 case, like that of the 300 Winchester Magnum, is right at the ragged edge of being too short. You can get very accurate rifles in both though. So, with the exception of having a little more inherant accuracy which you would probably never notice unless you were a serious bench rest shooter, there is no advantage of a 222 Remington over a 223 Remington.

 

[Walkalong]

I agree completely. Unless you are an accuracy nut, and that's 100% OK with me, get the .223. Cases are cheaper, and it will out perform the .222 velocity wise.

The .222 Mag mentioned is equal to the .223 velocity wise, and can out do it if loaded to the same pressure levels, having about 5% more case capacity.

Not many of us with .222 Mag rifles these days.

 

[Rico567]

Back in the day, I used to have a Winchester M70 in .222, a real tack-driver. The only problem with the .222 Remington was its limited case capacity. As I recall, 25 gr. of BLC-2 produced wonderful groups, but maxed out at about 3,000 fps, not very quick for a .22 caliber.

 

[Steven57]

The simple fact that the .223 is so much more popular would be the deciding factor for me. If you need better than one ragged hole at 100 yards, then maybe a mortar?

My Mini14, AR15, and CZ Bolt all shoot anything I put in them and all are way more accurate than me.

And there is a much wider range of .223 bullets available? At Midway USA there are 17 .222 Rem available and 174 .223 available in factory ammo right now.

 

[spitballer]

Interesting comments and worth reading. I've wondered the same thing myself. I've always thought it had to do with case capacity and resulting elasticity of larger cases. Kind of like increasing pressure by seating the bullet deeper into the case - only effective when you're approaching capacity.

As a cartridge designed with the military in mind (must penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards, as I recall) velocity probably took priority over accuracy. Just a guess.

 

[Trailduster79]

In college I used to shoot my father's .222 quite often.

I did reload and I had great accuracy out of it. It was a little more difficult to find ammo for it though.

I liked it because it was different. Everyone has a .223.....

 

[Walkalong]

They both shoot .224 bullets, although the .223 with its increased case capacity is better for the heavier weights.

I look at it like this. A somewhat specialty round in .222, or the more versatile .223.

The .222 will do most of what a .223 will, and will have the edge in accuracy, but the .223 cases are so much cheaper that if price and ease of buying cases is a consideration, or you want to shoot heavy weights like 69, 75, & 77 Gr, then go with the .223. Everything else is a wash.

This is all assuming you reload. If you do not, the price, variety, and availability of .223 ammo over .222 is a big consideration.

 

[bluekouki86]

I've got a Remington 700 in .222 rem mag that I recently started loading for. I really enjoy shooting it mostly because its different, and it really is a tack driver.

One benefit I've found is the availability of lighter .224 bullets (40-52 grain) that AR shooters don't use. That means I've kept my rifle fed while others wait for components.

 

[WVRJ]

The 222 is a great round,especially if accuracy is the main priority.The gentler shoulder angle and longer neck(compared to 223)make for inherent accuracy.I have seen some crazy accurate 222's.My first rifle was a Remington 788 in 222,and what a fool I was for selling it!But the 223 is vastly more popular,and a little more versatile,especially when the heavier bullets are used.I only have 1 222 nowadays,and a pair of 223's,and will likely have a third soon.But I'm still watching for an outdated,semi-retired bench gun in 222 to shoot paper with.

 

[Byron]

My 700 in 222 was bought in the aerly 90's. It is a 1 in 14 twist.I reload 55 grain hornady FBSP. Incredible accuracy.My Ruger No.1 light Sporter in 222 has a 1 in 9. very accurate in 60 grain FBSP Hornady's. I am one of those accuracy people that like the slighter edge in accuracy. If accuracy is what you want,get a 222. Yes, the 223 in equal barrel lengths will give somewhat more range but maybe not much.

 

[witchhunter]

I am waiting on my 700 in .222 to get finished, any day now. I have a 700 in .223 too. Just wanted a triple deuce. I had one years ago and it was a tack driver.

 

[35 Whelen]

Back in the '70's when I was in grade school, my Dad brought home a Remington 700 in .222 with a factory varmint barrel. We took it to the range and I remember when he unpacked one of those old green and white Remington boxes full of factory loaded .222 Remington in the styrofoam inserts. Even at that young age I thought it odd that he was shooting factory loads because he handloaded everything. Anyhow, he proceeded to shoot a 5-shot group, retrieve the target, lay it on the bench and cover the entire group with a dime. I'll never forget that, and that's the .222 as I came to know it. Dad has in the 40 or so years since then always had a .222 of some sort and they all shoot like that. For a while I owned an old Remington 788 with a factory walnut stock that was chambered in .222 and it shot just like all the others.

While I agree that the .223 may be more practical, there's something to be said for uniqueness and originality when every other swinging Johnson at the range is shooting something of the .223 variety.

35W

 

[mbopp]

From what I've heard....
The .222 was designed by Mike Walker at Remington as a benchrest round. He figured a 50gr bullet at 3200FPS was the optimum combination, and the 222 was the result. From there came the 222 Rem Mag, the 223, 6 X 47 benchrest, and maybe a few more (6mm PPC?)
And IIRR without checking, I believe the 222 case is the smallest of the 222 / 222 Mag / 223 family.

 

[Walkalong]

The .222 was designed by Mike Walker at Remington as a benchrest round.

The .222 was the darling of the Benchrest crowd until the 6PPC replaced it.

I believe the 222 case is the smallest of the 222 / 222 Mag / 223 family.

That is correct.

 

[Kp321]

Actually, the 221 should be included in that lineup, making it the smallest.
I have three 222's and will continue to shoot them until I can no longer find 222 brass. Then I will run the 223 reamer in one of them and keep on shooting. Leave the other two in 222 in case ammo comes back. I really doubt that 222 brass will ever go away anyway.

 

[scottishkat]

Everybody that owns the 222 loves it. I have 1 and would not part with it for anything. It can only shoot bullets up to 55 grains and those should not be too long.

The 223 is very versatile a 1in10 or 1in8 twist shooting the 60 gr NPT would make a great deer round here on the east coast.

Good luck and shoot straight

Bob

 

[smovlov]

What is the effective distance of the .222? Are there any modern bolt guns chambers in this round? If you guys had to recommend a gun which would it be?

Also load recommendations? My intrest has been piqued.

 

[Lj1941]

A 222 to a 223 is like comparing a 308 to a 30/06. They will both do the job but the 30/06 will do it's job and has more powder capacity at possibly a little bit less accuracy and with the advantage of ability to handle heavier projectiles.It is a toss-up. I would chose the 223 and 308 & never look back.

 

[NCsmitty]

The practical range for a 222 Rem set up for varmints and small game is 250 yds, although a skilled marksman can extend that much farther.

I believe the Tikka rifle line lists it, and the Remington custom shop has it available.

I use 21.5gr of H322 powder with the Nosler 50gr in my Remington 722 with 26" barrel.


NCsmitty

 

[toiville2feathers]

The 223 has a parent cartridge of the 222 magnum. Because of politics, they changed it slightly and called 5.56.