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

Seems to me the ONLY reasons for getting into a .222 rather than a .223 are all emotional and not logical.

I am not a heartless individual, but I am, for the most part, a practical person. .223 is the easy, economical, and logical choice.

But that’s me.
<checks notes>

Wait….so we’re supposed to be logical and not emotional about our caliber/brand choices!?

Were supposed to be practical!?

I’ve been doing it all wrong for all these years ….. (grin)
 
Wait….so we’re supposed to be logical and not emotional about our caliber/brand choices!?

Were supposed to be practical!?

I’ve been doing it all wrong for all these years ….. (grin)
So have I! Anybody that willing continues to hunt with such outdated, anachronistic cartridges such as 45-70, 30-06, 303 Savage, and the aforementioned 222 (ME!) can't possibly be logical! By the way some folks make it sound, we're just a stone's throw from the stone age! Having said that, I immensely enjoy listening to someone argue the practicality of an antiquated cartridge while helping to skin the animal that said antiquated cartridge dropped just as well as their 277 Super Extra Manstopper did, and at the same range.

Totally off topic, but this year I killed 3 deer; one with my 30-06 and two with my 45-70. Both are on the list of "antiquated" rifle cartridges and not hardly as popular as they once were. My hunting buddy, with his new shiny whiz-bang rifle didn't get to tag anything. It sure chapped his backside that my old Sharps accounted for meat where he didn't. But out of a sense of friendship, I gave him half a deer for doing the lion's share of the skinning on all three. I'd be lying if I said I didn't give him nine kinds of heck over it too! All in good fun of course, but he's decided that this year he's going to leave the new whiz-bang gun at home and carry his old reliable 270; probably won't help him but at least he can have the confidence of an old reliable rifle!

Mac
 
I've skimmed the responses, read the OPs, and I think we've ruled out a lever in these calibers. They're not very "Westerny." You have to get in to .22 Hornet, .218 Bee or .25-35 for those.

That leaves us essentially with bolt guns. OP has a hole in his heart where a .222 should be. There are some really sweet vintage rifles in this caliber that will shoot the lighter spectrum of bullets into bug holes all day long. The Rem 722 comes immediately to mind, and there were many foreign rifles that are semi custom builds in this caliber. Quite a few vintage custom varmint rigs with "obsolete" features that are flat cool can be found around gunshows. A svelte Sako walking varminter in this caliber priced for a song is one I let get away. Any of these would be a whole lot of fun on the range.

.223 is the practical choice. Pick your rifle made since the mid-60s, there's probably a .223 out there.

Up to the OP to decide whether nostalgia trumps practicality. He should walk around a good gun show and see some of the cool vintage and forgotten varmint rigs in the rack in .222 before making a purchase 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.
Precisely, .38 Special! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
I chose to have a .308 Norma Magnum built as my "retirement rifle" when I turned 62 for many of those same reasons. And it was "utterly irrational" considering the facts that .300 Win Mag rifles were (still are) readily available, factory ammo for them was (still is) easy to find, and the .300 Win Mag nearly duplicates the .308 Norma Mag performance wise.
HOWEVER, when I was 16 (in 1964) my then girlfriend's dad didn't have a .300 Win Mag, he had a .308 NORMA Mag, and I'd wanted one ever since. I've had a couple of .300 Win Mags over the years - they just didn't quite "scratch the itch" I had for a custom-built .308 Norma Mag like my 16-year-old girlfriend's dad had and let me shoot a couple of times.
BTW, the .308 Norma Mag is pretty much a handloading proposition. That's okay by me though because I'm an avid handloader. Shoot, I've bought guns just because I thought they'd be fun to load for.
Another BTW, I've had and used my beloved .308 Norma Mag for 14 years now - that's 14 times as long as I had that girlfriend when I was 16. :D
 
I have .222 Rem, .25-20 Win, 7x57 Mauser, .30-30 Win, .30-06, and 7.65x53 Mauser. All are fading or obsolete. I hand load for all of them and have only bought one box of cartridges in the last 50 years. No reason for me to care about availability of loaded shells.

I've killed critters past 300 yards with the .222 and a couple dozen that were somewhat closer. I don't remember ever missing with that gun. It's a Spanish Mauser that I rebarreled. Maybe those chucks and crows would have been deader if they'd been shot with a .223... ;-)
 
<checks notes>

Wait….so we’re supposed to be logical and not emotional about our caliber/brand choices!?

Were supposed to be practical!?

I’ve been doing it all wrong for all these years ….. (grin)

LOL! Nah Brother, I never said “supposed to…anything”. I know plenty of guys who have these illogical unnatural attractions to cold hard inanimate objects. That’s fine. I’m just not one of them.

If everyone on the Starship Enterprise was emo like Kirk, the female crew would have filled sexual harassment and they’d have been blown away their first run out. Someone had to be a logical dude like Spock!

🤠🙄
 
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1083953008 :evil:;) Here's an interesting budget friendly option. This is the bottom of the price scale, you can go up to a $20K+ Blaser. Just search .222 Rem, and you'll find a lot of options including some BR guns and the aforementioned Rem 722. The SAKO Vixens are the one I let get away.
 
The two smaller downsides I see to a 222 are that brass is a lot harder to find and not much for new rifles chambered for 222. I get can over both of those, especially with a bolt action where I don't have to chase my brass around. The huge sticking point for me is that a factory 222 is typically a 1:12 or 1:14 twist, which is a total non starter for me. I don't shoot anything lighter than 75 grains anymore. The better BC 75 and 77 grains just shoot so much better in the wind and deliver so much better energy at range that the 50 grain stuff.

So for me to even consider a 222 would mean a custom barrel in 1:8 or 1:7 twist and throated long enough for 77's. That not that big of a hurdle if you have the money and patience, but you can just pick a 223 off the shelf to do that, so 222 is not for me.

Again I looking at this through my eyeballs. If a 222 loaded with 50 grain vmax's does what you need, more power too you.
 
Thats the nice thing about different likes and wants.
A lot of guys would jump allover a 223 instead of a 222 , which is nice because that leaves a lot of 222 rifles and brass that,s available for us guys that like and want the 222 caliber.

If i cant reload for any rifle out there I dont want it plain & simple.
 
@Litetrigger i bet you have a gorgeous .222 hiding somewhere 😃
I guess I should plead guilty to having a few longtime favorite .222's I grew up with and have had the pleasure of growing old with. From top is a Heavy Varmint class benchrest rifle built by Ed Shilen, next down is a B-Grade Remington 722, the rifle with which the .222 was introduced, bringing to the shooting world a previously unhearof level of accuracy. Next is a SAKO heavy barrel varmint model .222, a duo that added luster the the .222's legendary accuracy, SAKO's Mannlicher style .222 was, and stll is, on every SAKO collectors must have list. Ruger's No.1 .222 is in a class by itself. Look closely at the bottom rifle. Sharp eyed Winchester experts recognize it as a Pre-64 M-70 and quickly announce that Winchester never made Pre-64's in .222 chambering, which is correct. But this one actually happens to be a shur'nuff .222 Rem. The .222 was an overnight success and the darling of gun writers, every varmint shooter wanted one. Everyone. that is except pickey gun buyers who coulden't allow themselves to be seen shooting Remington's bare bones, cheap looking M-722. Why couldn't Winchester offer their classy M-70 in .222? But that wasn't about to happen so Griffin & Howe, and a couple other high end gunsmithing firms figured out how to convert M-70 .22 Hornets to .222's, complete with feeding magazines. So they became known as .222 Hornets, like this one. Depite the slightly smaller bore size of the M-70 Hornet, accuracy of two of the three .222 Hornets I've owned equil that of other top .222's. IMG_8438.jpg DSC_0017.JPG DSC_0095.JPG
 
Last edited:
I guess I should plead guilty to having a few longtime favorite .222's I grew up and have had the pleasure of growing old with. From top is a Heavy Varmint class benchrest rifle built by Ed Shilen, next down is a B-Grade Remington 722, the rifle with which the .222 was introduced, bringing to the shooting world a previously unhearof level of accuracy. Next is a SAKO heavy barrel varmint model .222, a duo that added luster the the .222's legendary accuracy, SAKO's Mannlicher style .222 was, and stll is, on every SAKO collectors must have list. Ruger's No.1 .222 is in a class by itself. Look closely at the bottom rifle. Sharp eyed Winchester experts recognize it as a Pre-64 M-70 and will quickly announce that Winchester never made this model in .222 chambering, which is correct. But this one actually happens to be a shur'nuff .222 Rem. The .222 was an overnight success and the darling of gun writers, very varmint shooter wanted one. Everyone. that is except pickey gun buyers who coulden't allow themselves to be seen shooting Remington's bare bones, cheap to make M-722. Why couldn't Winchester offer their classy M-70 in .222. But that wasn't about to happen so Griffin & Howe, and a couple other high end gunsmithing firms figured out how to convert M-70 .22 Hornets to .222's, complete with feeding magazines. So they became known as .222 Hornets, like this one. Depite the slightly smaller bore size of the M-70 Hornet, accuracy of two of the three .222 Hornets I've owned equil that of other top .222's.View attachment 1246138View attachment 1246139View attachment 1246140
Beautiful collection and that full stock Sako is extremely attractive!
 
So have I! Anybody that willing continues to hunt with such outdated, anachronistic cartridges such as 45-70, 30-06, 303 Savage, and the aforementioned 222 (ME!) can't possibly be logical! By the way some folks make it sound, we're just a stone's throw from the stone age! Having said that, I immensely enjoy listening to someone argue the practicality of an antiquated cartridge while helping to skin the animal that said antiquated cartridge dropped just as well as their 277 Super Extra Manstopper did, and at the same range.

Totally off topic, but this year I killed 3 deer; one with my 30-06 and two with my 45-70. Both are on the list of "antiquated" rifle cartridges and not hardly as popular as they once were. My hunting buddy, with his new shiny whiz-bang rifle didn't get to tag anything. It sure chapped his backside that my old Sharps accounted for meat where he didn't. But out of a sense of friendship, I gave him half a deer for doing the lion's share of the skinning on all three. I'd be lying if I said I didn't give him nine kinds of heck over it too! All in good fun of course, but he's decided that this year he's going to leave the new whiz-bang gun at home and carry his old reliable 270; probably won't help him but at least he can have the confidence of an old reliable rifle!

Mac

Not really a fair analogy IMO.

30.06 and 45-70 may be old, but they are far more available, both in rifles and ammo, than is .222

If I go to Cabelas website and search “.222” and filter it to just firearms related categories, I get 6 products…3 ammo, 1 dies, 1 shell plate, and a cleaning kit. Zero firearms.


If I did the same thing with 30.06 or 45-70, I’d get much more products including a variety of ammo, guns, etc.

I’m NOT saying there is anything inherently wrong with the .222 and I know many of you have beautiful and accurate rifles you are justifiably proud of. I understand .

But today, in 2025, if a person asks whether they should buy a .222 or a .223, based on performance, availability, cost, accessibility, options, and variety, the most practical and logical answer is .223. BUT…it’s not necessarily the RIGHT answer.

If someone is looking for nostalgia …something different…etc., and they understand the current limitations, by all means go the .222 option.
 
Last edited:
Not really a fair analogy IMO.

30.06 and 45-70 may be old, but they are far more available, both in rifles and ammo, than is .222

If I go to Cabelas website and search “.222” and filter it to just firearms related categories, I get 6 products…3 ammo, 1 dies, 1 shell plate, and a cleaning kit. Zero firearms.


If I did the same thing with 30.06 or 45-70, I’d get much more products including a variety of ammo, guns, etc.

I’m NOT saying there is anything inherently wrong with the .222 and I know many of you have beautiful and accurate rifles you are justifiably proud of. I understand .

But today, in 2025, if a person asks whether they should buy a .222 or a .223, based on performance, availability, cost, accessibility, options, and variety, the most practical and logical answer is .223. BUT…it’s not necessarily the RIGHT answer.

If someone is looking for nostalgia …something different…etc., and they understand the current limitations, by all means go the .222 option.
I guess you missed the humor in my remarks there. It was never about availability or what is best in 2025; it was only ever meant to be funny.

But as you mentioned availability, I would remind you that there's a lot more (and better) places to buy ammo and components than Cabelas. I would go so far as to say that if they were the only sporting goods company left, I'd sell my guns and equipment and take up golf! But that's neither here nor there.

Mac
 
Back
Top