I have always wanted a 222. Should I now consider a 223 instead?

I've owned a 223 for 30 years and have purchased several more since then. It is a very versatile cartridge and I will always have 1 or 3 😁

Last year I came across a really good deal on a 222 barreled action that was too good to pass on. I've had fun shooting and tinkering with the caliber, even went as far as making brass for it out of 223 casings. RMR had Winchester brass for cheap so I have some of that to work with now.

Even with cheap Hornady 53 BTHP bullets, it is consistently printing groups in the .5's, and I'm hoping that a little tuning and bedding will shrink that.
 
Laphroaig said:
So .222 has a reputation for stellar accuracy. Is there any science behind that, such that the cartridge itself leads to better accuracy? Another way of saying that, with 2 rifles with
exactly the same components, same case headstamp, primer, and bullet, will the .222 always shoot tighter groups than .223?

My thinking is it shouldn't if everything else is the same, but I've never owned a .222.



That seems to be the choice in bench-rest rifles.
Click to expand...
Between the two I'd say six of one, half dozen the same according to your parameters. Or at least that's my opinion given the distance isn't over 300 yards. My opinion only, of course. I prefer the 222 for the reasons I listed above, but not knocking the 223 either.

Mac
 
I love the triple deuce and we had a nice Remington 722 on the ranch. It was very accurate and easy to load for. The long neck held the bullets well and it fed like butter in the action.

Nostalgia aside, however, I would have to go with the .223 now. It is ubiquitous and checks all of the boxes of the .222 with a super abundance of components. If you already owned one, I would say keep it and enjoy it, but since you are starting from scratch, I would pick the .223.

You will also find a much greater variety of rifles at potentially better prices with the .223.
 
Last edited:
Avoid ubiquity, find a nice rifle in 222. I have two, a minty Savage 340 D which is my go-to lender rifle and a modern Savage Walking Varminter which is remarkably accurate. Take the time to find a Sako Vixen, for example, and enjoy an elegant rifle and cartridge combination.
 
When the OP said 222 I thought Sako Vixen. I have a friend who when he passes has instructed his wife to sell me his. It won't leave his hands otherwise. And I love that gun but he can keep it for a while I hope. I have a 223 cz527 to use for the jobs a 222 will do, but if you want a 222 by all means go for it! It might mean a used rifle, but if you've always wanted one go get it.
 
I'd choose .223 .... Especially if it's just for the range.
My .223 range gun is a Savage 110 Trail Hunter, 22" medium heavy barrel. Good triggers and accurate. I have a Arken Optics SH4 4-16x50 optic on mine.

Have one in .308 as well, and a 22" Ruger American Rimfire that I can shoot so day
 
Last edited:
Laphroaig said:
So .222 has a reputation for stellar accuracy. Is there any science behind that, such that the cartridge itself leads to better accuracy? Another way of saying that, with 2 rifles with
exactly the same components, same case headstamp, primer, and bullet, will the .222 always shoot tighter groups than .223?

My thinking is it shouldn't if everything else is the same, but I've never owned a .222.



That seems to be the choice in bench-rest rifles.
Click to expand...
I've been told that shorter bullets and slower bullet RPM/twist help accuracy. The 223 powder column is greater which may inhibit consistent ignition.

One of my 223 bolt guns with a 1:7 Krieger barrel is capable of very small groups, but I have never tested it on paper in different conditions. It's mostly used for steel targets at distances where things like wind are a bigger issue.

If I could only have one, it would be the 223. The 222 is a lot of fun though.
 
I'd choose the .222 precisely because it isn't a .223!

That's utterly irrational, of course, but then, so is the whole topic. They're very nearly the same damn cartridge, so the question really boils down to "Do I want 'retro-cool' or do I want 'easy'?" The target, whether paper or flesh, will never be able to tell a difference.
 
I think your choice comes down to which firearm, and how much shooting you plan on doing. I would go .223/5.56 just for the fact that you should be able to go to your local sporting goods/gun store and always find a box of ammo for about $12 on the shelf. A box of .222 rem will be at least twice the cost, if it is even available. Lever actions, your choices will be between the Henry Long ranger or a Browning BLR. Both are beautiful and on the pricier side of the equation. But they are very nice, and will get you some thumbs up at the range.
For a bolt gun, you can go with the Ruger American Ranch in 5.56 NATO, and it will take inexpensive AR magazines. And there are probably a couple dozen other bolt action choices ranging from $300- $3000 or more, depending on how serious you are about shooting 1/4" groups at 100 yds.

The main advantage of .223/5.56 vs. .222 rem would be the number and types of bullets available for loading. And the rate of barrel twist, even for .223 caliber, will also come into play. Most .222 barrels will have a twist rate of 1 in 12", which will limit you mostly to bullets no heavier than 55 grains. This could be a consideration for hunting, especially if shooting coyotes, racoons and larger.

Someday, I myself would like to have a nice Browning BLR stainless/laminated .223 rifle for desert plinking and nighttime coyote blasting, but I have other priorities at present.

Good luck in your quest.
 
If I wanted an odd cartridge instead of a 223 it would be a 22-250, 220 swift, 22 PPC, or even 222 TCM. An odd cartridge, 222, that doesn't have any real advantages over a 223 but some real world disadvantages doesn't make sense to me even if it is just component availability and ammo availability.

A 223 can be just as accurate as a 222 and visa-versa.
 
Last edited:
If you want a 222 I would say go for it. The 223 will do anything the 222 will do plus a little more. But the 222 has a certain cool factor. Starline has 222 brass in stock right now. Papua also makes brass for the 222 but its not currently available.

My 222 is a Remington 600 which is kind of rare. Remington made more 243's and 308's than 222's plus so many of the 222's have been reamed out to 223.
 
W.E.G. said:
The formula for accuracy is to match a quality barrel with a quality bullet with a well-assembled rifle and a good trigger.
Click to expand...
Yes, in general, but some calibers are indeed more accurate than others when you start wanting to/are able to, shoot very very small.

I still have a box of new .222 brass from when I had one and stashed brass back, but its unlikely I will get another one simply because
I will never try to shoot one in a true registered Benchrest match again, it would be 6 PPC, and everything I would want to do with a
small .22 caliber can be done with the .223.
 
Thank you gentlemen. Some really great responses here. More than I expected. This is a great forum for help and information. I appreciate all the opinions and advice. As I suspected, most are in favor of the 223. I am not hung up on a lever gun. I already have a few "Cowboy" lever guns, so a bolt action will suit me fine in either 222 or 223. I actually prefer a bolt action for range use. And I hunted with a bolt action for decades, both shotgun and 22 caliber, so a bolt action is nostalgic for me. If I get back into hunting, a bolt action 222/223 will work for me.

Just a quick check at a local gun shop's website reveals a whole-lotta 223 rifles for sale, VS zero 222. But we knew that. Plenty of 222 caliber on the used market as mentioned by a few posters.

I do reload and shoot 303 British, also considered by many as obsolete. Therefore an obsolete cartridge is not an issue for me to reload nor shoot. But now I'm leaning toward the 223 after reading all the responses. I was 15 when I wanted a 222, many moons ago. Back then, I had not even heard of a 223, so there was no comparison to me at the time. All of my older friends that shot 22 LR usually migrated to a 222 on the way up, so that's what I thought I wanted back then. Now, things have changed a bit. As most things do.

I'm still mulling it over. 223 has my interest at present. But I might go triple deuce now, and put the 223 on the wish list for next year.
 
In my area the 222 is pretty much dead. I know one person that owns one and I have never seen him bring it to the range. In it's day the 222 was the accuracy champ and I lusted for one but more important things took most of my funds. By the time I managed to get into 22 centerfire the 223 and 22-250 were the big things.

I can't remember the last time I saw a box of 222 ammo for sale but 223 is plentiful. 22-250 is still somewhat available. I am a light bullet user as nothing I have hunted locally needs anything heavy. As to accuracy I have a rifle in each caliber that has delivered groups that were slightly less than .3" off a bench with handloads I worked up. Maybe a 222 could beat either slightly but I fail to see a reason to mess with a close to obselete caliber for a tiny accuracy improvement.

I do understand the lure of shooting older calibers though.
 
While I am a true 222 believer and have two of them, I think that the 223 has pretty well replaced it. That said, if I came across another 700 BDL in 222 like I used to have, I'd grab it. Brass, bullets, powder, dies, I have it all.
(I think that a carefully crafted 222 may be a smidge more accurate)
 
I haven't had a statistically significant number of .22 centerfires, but will say that my .223s - a bolt action and a very massaged AR - are as accurate as the .222s I used to have, a Sako and a Remington.
But a friend's .222 Remington is more accurate than any of mine.

So accuracy within the limits of a 52 gr SMK is a wash. Wasn't that 100, 200, and 300 yards back before the 6mm took over benchrest?
 
.38 Special said:
I'd choose the .222 precisely because it isn't a .223!

That's utterly irrational, of course, but then, so is the whole topic. They're very nearly the same damn cartridge, so the question really boils down to "Do I want 'retro-cool' or do I want 'easy'?" The target, whether paper or flesh, will never be able to tell a difference.
Click to expand...
This is the best answer IMO.

I really enjoy shooting my 722 in triple deuce. It's a tack-driver and fun to shoot.
 
If your looking at an AR style rifle Id look at a 223, h-ll it was designed for it. A bolt gun would be a 222 Rem. as far as components they are the same 55gr and under, you can even make 222 brass from 223 so even that component is equal. Is the 222 more accurate, it can be when they were both avalible before the PPC come on the scene nobody was able to compete in BR with a 223. So it would seem it is inherently more accurate, can the common shooter and rifle wring out the difference, I doubt it.

I bought my first 223 in 1966 and shot it for 30 yrs doing control work and hunting. it was a great rifle but my Stevens 340 in 222 and Sav 23 in 22 H were my goto pelt hunting rifles.

I still pelt hunt and find the 222 to be a more than sufficient for called coyotes in a bolt action, my AR is in 223 and 20P, it rarely gets taken because an AR doesnt handle well for me.

In my Predator/varmint hunting rifles I have 222s, a 223, 22-204, 5.6x50M, 22-250, 22-250AI, 22 Sav Highower and an assortment of 6mm's from 6x45 to 243 Win. and have used the 22H and 218Bee in the past. I still find myself grabbing a 222 more often than the rest.

The one thing I have found with the 222 is that it is harder to find a load that won't shoot well than to find one that does, it seems to shoot with a selection of powders, I've used Herters 101 I believe, 3031, 4320, BallC, 748, H-335, 2230, and 800X and all made small groups. Bullets just about anything acceptable for the twist of the rifle shoots well. One of the least expensive hunting bullet out there is my favorite coyote hunting bullet, the 52gr Speer Varmint.

No load work up just rounds that fit.
XcEZ85.jpg

Q7DaGR.jpg


Same stevens at 100 yards
AH2Pn9.jpg


My latest 222 a 50+ yr old Valmet combo gun.
q3aWSP.jpg


The 788 in the field
D6CYEK.jpg


Sako Vixen 222
Hg8qej.jpg


Win Model 70 222
X5aAGk.jpg



My varmint/target built on a Savage 10.
UuOj8X.jpg



The 222 Rem may be old but it can still hold its own. I'd take a 222 over a 223 anytime and I've played with both for almost 60 years.
 
Last edited:
Here's my woodchuck/coyote medicine...elegant, light to carry when walking them up....and deadly out to ~250 yds, (I've got a target with an 1-1/4" 7-shot group shot off my porch rail at 220 paces). It's chambered in .222 Mag, (the parent case from which the .223/5.56mm evolved). Pic below posted previously here on THR.

When compared to the .223, either the .222 or its slightly longer Mag brother have a longer neck. That makes them a bit more tolerant for bullet seating, neck tension and is also a major plus for cast bullet shooting. But, were I to look for a similar rifle, at this point with the vast support in components alone, I'd go with the .223 and hope that I could find a Sako as light and beautiful as the Mannlicher below. Best Regards, Rod

1736800178010.png ​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
.222, .223 or .222 Mag?
Replies
23
Views
7K
44AMP
4
IWAC
  • Locked
.223 or .222 Remington...which?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
7K
jmorris
jmorris
P
  • Locked
17 Rem vs. 222 Rem
Replies
12
Views
4K
Skyshot
S
W
  • Locked
Hmm, the .223 MAY have some armor piercing potential....
Replies
17
Views
1K
Nightcrawler
N
J
  • Locked
Help! Just bought a rifle with 2 different calibers marked on the barrel!
Replies
7
Views
1K
John Wayne
J
Back
Top