.22hornet Vs. .223

[capnrik]

I'm going to buy a CZ 572 FS rifle. This is a dandy little carbine with a short throw Mauser action, a detachable box magazine,and a Mannlicher style full length stock. I'm tempted to pick a .22 Hornet,since my primary use for this gun will be turkey hunting in West Texas. I could get it in .223 Remington, and load down with reduced handloads to duplicate Hornet velocity. But can I duplicate accuracy?

Can I handload reduced loads for the .223 that will equal the Hornet factory loads in accuracy?

The Hornet performance is what I am after, but it would be nice to have a gun that is more versatile. God knows I have plenty of 5.56 brass!

 

[Mike Irwin]

In my experience with the Hornet I've found that they can be EXTREMELY fiddly to get really good accuracy with where as the .223, even with reduced loads, is usually a tack driver.

 

[cratz2]

If you handload, I see no reason not to go with the 223. Cheaper brass and with the right load, you can go from under 22 Hornet power/recoil/noise to full .223.

Some folks are just charmed by the little .22 Hornet though... I was one for a while.

 

[PJR]

You have the brass and want a rifle that is more versatile, it sounds like your decision is made. The .223 can be downloaded to Hornet performances and I expect it will be as accurate as the Hornet if not more so. The Hornet, as Mike noted, is not reknown for its accuracy.

I'd opt for the .223 in this rifle also because I like having an action size that fits the cartridge. The .22 Hornet is a smaller cartridge and the action is larger than it needs to be for the round.

A final note the CZ. I owned one of these rifles for a brief period and while it was accurate enough the magazine lips were very sharp on the sample I owned and severely gouged the brass. I'm told that not all of them are like that but you might want to check the magazines before you buy.

Paul

 

[Gordon]

.223 IS easier and cheaper BUT LOVE those Hornets!

 

[telewinz]

I have a .22Khornet which is an "improved" .22 Hornet with about 10% more case capacity. Merits of the Hornet are it's more economical to reload, and its much more quiet than the .223. This can be a major factor if you will be varmit hunting within populated areas/rural areas in the East. In my experience, its effective/accurate range is 150-200 yards and it has no more noise than a 22 magnum. The .223 is more common and is an excellent cartridge in its own right, I shoot it also but its harder to find a light, compact rifle in .223 but it can be done. If I could only get one varmint cartridge, I'd go for the .223 in a Remington 700 Bull Barrel.

BTW, I own a custom Winchester Lo-Wall single shot with an old Lyman 20X scope. Previously I owned a Kimber in .22 Hornet and .223 years ago. If the Lo-Wall had a lighter trigger pull, dust would touch if off.

 

[tex_n_cal]

Ken Waters reported that he found Hornets had a strange habit of throwing at least one flyer out of a five shot group, always spoiling what would be a fine group.

I had the exact same experience with my first two Hornets - A rebarreled Winchester Lo Wall, and a Ruger 77/22 Hornet. I sold both.

I finally bought a Browning Lo Wall, and that proved to be the ticket, especially with Hodgdon Lil'Gun powder. It will keep 5 in 5/8", if I do my part and the wind isn't gusting. Not bad for a light rifle with a fairly heavy trigger. Mine will stabilize 40 grain Nosler Ballistic tips, contrary to what others have written, by the way.

Another advantage of single shots is you can seat the bullet closer to the rifling, than you can on a magazine gun. On my Ruger, I ran into magazine length issues well before the bullets were close to touching the rifling.

The Hornet is a neat cartridge, for th reasons noted. The new powders make it easier to get good results.

Want a tackdriver and don't handload? Ummm...forget the Hornet!