Since I don't varmint hunt, I know absolutely nothing about the .222. So I was hoping you good people could discuss the similarities and differences of the .223 and .222 for the handloader.

Thanks,

Jim

The .222 Remington was created by Mike Walker, who also developed the button process for rifling barrels and the Models 721, 722, 40X, and 40XBR rifles. Introduced in 1950 in the Model 722, the .222 couldn't have come along at a better time. Varmint shooters were yearning for a new cartridge and a relatively new game called benchrest shooting was growing in popularity. Within ten years after it was introduced, the .222 was literally dominating both shooting sports.

Until the PPC cartridges came along during the mid-1970's, most experienced shooters considered the .222 to be the most inherently accurate cartridge ever to designed. Some still feel that way but the fact remains, few benchrest matches are won today with the .222 Remington. Sadly enough, at the rate old man fate is dealing cards to the .222, it's popularity will probably decline to the point where it enjoys little more limelight than the .222 Remington Magnum.

But the .222 Remington had its days of glory and is still tough to beat as a medium range varmint cartridge. A shooter who chooses the .222 over the .223 (http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/223.html) really isn't giving up as many yards in effective range as many would have us believe. Best bullets for varminting with the .222 are the 50 grain Sierra (http://www.sierrabullets.com/) Blitz, Hornady (http://www.hornady.com/) SX, and Nosler (http://www.nosler.com/) Expander. And a rifle in .222 that won't shoot tiny groups when fed H4198, H322 (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hh322.html')), BL-C(2) (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hblc2.html')), or RL-7 (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/rel7.html')) definitely has a problem that needs looking into.

During the mid-1950's, three .224" caliber cartridges were in contention to succeed the 7.62mm NATO as our primary military cartridge. They were the .222 Winchester, .224 Springfield, and.222 Special, the latter developed by Gene Stoner of Armalite. All were stretched versions of the .222 Remington (http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/222.html) cartridge. The .222 Special won out over the other two and soon became known as the .223 Remington.

According to a popularity chart published by RCBS (http://www.rcbs.com/), based on reloading die sales, the .223 Remington is our most popular .224" caliber centerfire, ranks second only to the .30-06 among all rifle cartridges, and twelfth among all handgun and rifle cartridges. The reason for such popularity becomes quite obvious when one works with the .223 Remington. The .223 shoots flat enough for 300 yard varmint shooting and yet its relatively small appetite for powder is easy on rifle barrels, on the shoulder, on the budget, and muzzle blast is comparatively mild. Neither is the .223 choosy about the diet it is fed, a number of powders produce top performance and superb accuracy, including H335 (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hh335.html')), H4895, BL-C(2) (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hblc2.html')), IMR-3031 (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/imr3031.html')), IMR-4895 (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/imr4895.html')), and W-748 (javascript:Start('http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/w748.html')).

Match grade, hollow point bullets are fine for target shooting with the .223 but they often don't open quick enough for the explosive expansion needed for varmints such as groundhogs humanely at the longer ranges. Best bet for shooting varmints with this cartridge are the Speer (http://www.speer-bullets.com/) TNT, Nosler (http://www.nosler.com/)Expander, Hornady (http://www.hornady.com/) Super Explosive (SX), and Sierra (http://www.sierrabullets.com/) Blitz bullets, with their soft lead cores and extremely thin jackets. For competitive shooting, the Hornady (http://www.hornady.com/) 68 grain and the Sierra (http://www.sierrabullets.com/) 69 grain hollow point bullets are excellent wind buckers but require a rifling twist rate of 1-7 to 1-8 inches for stabilization. Most sporting rifles have rifling pitch rates of 1-12 or 1-14 inches.

Just about identical. The .222 came along first. The .222 is aclaimed in the benchrest and varmit circles as an "almost perfect" cartridge for their needs. Since then, the .22BR, PPC and several others give both the .222 and the .223 a run for their money.

Both cartridges are known for their docile reloading capabilities, accepting most bullets and powders with good accuracy. The .223 is barely larger than the .222 and has about a 2 grain larger powder capacity.

ah.....for me it boils down to the fact that a couple of days at the range picking up once fired .223 has fixed me up for life......222 would be several expensive trips to the shop and emptying of the wallet....

Now.....you might want to try .223 Ackley.......especially nice in the extruded power application....

For my wife and me the .222 is first choice. The .222 with its longer neck handles cast bullets just a bit better. We also like the .222 loaded down to Hornet velocities using 45- and 46-grains bullets. I have a brother who fells the same way about the .222. My Dad on the other hand dotes on the .223, has owned several, and currently has a Remington Model 7 which will astonish onlookers with its accuracy. For us these rifles are not much fun to talk about but great fun to shoot.

ah yes the deuce. that brings back a sad memory... some 8 or 10 years ago i was in one of my favorite haunts and the was an older sako in the used gun rack, very blonde wood and chambered in 222. the price was certainly lower than it should have been; i'd guess from that blonde wood (it looked **** near yellow!). like a dimwit i didn't snag it immediately and a few days later it was gone.

For my wife and me the .222 is first choice. The .222 with its longer neck handles cast bullets just a bit better. We also like the .222 loaded down to Hornet velocities using 45- and 46-grains bullets. I have a brother who fells the same way about the .222. My Dad on the other hand dotes on the .223, has owned several, and currently has a Remington Model 7 which will astonish onlookers with its accuracy. For us these rifles are not much fun to talk about but great fun to shoot.

It you want a edge in have a real tack driver, the 222 is a bit more accurate and as stated above the longer neck is more reloader friendly too.

The major reason for the decline of the .222R & .222MagR is that the .223R became our standard military rifle cartridge. It doesn't do much more than the 222Mag and does less than the 22-250 and the 220 Swift. But the moment it was adopted as standard, every manufacturer chambered a gun for it, and that guarantees its place in the sun. Look what mil use did for the 30-06, 308 and .45ACP.

Bud W

Here's a photo of some 22 caliber cartridges. From left to right.....

22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 221 Fireball (my favorite), 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 222 Rem Mag, 22-250

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/GuideGun/22calcartridges.jpg

The major reason for the decline of the .222R & .222MagR is that the .223R became our standard military rifle cartridge. It doesn't do much more than the 222Mag and does less than the 22-250 and the 220 Swift. But the moment it was adopted as standard, every manufacturer chambered a gun for it, and that guarantees its place in the sun. Look what mil use did for the 30-06, 308 and .45ACP.

Bud W

You know a funny thing about the 223, it almost was never adopted. The case was originally designed to be a 24 cal round code named the T-47 with a 75 grain bullet. They switched to 22 cal on the theory it would weigh less and they could carry more ammo. Well as it worked out, 55 grain did not cut it so rather than cutting losses and switch caliber and they went to a 69 grain bullet and had to rebarrel all existing guns with a faster twist to shoot it well but it is still a 22. It is a shame that they did not go with the T-47 as it would have been cheaper in the long run and net weight saving with 223 turned out to be minimal too. military works in strange ways sometimes.

Second that. Military works in strange, strange ways sometimes....

(USMC; four years, so I know from some experience).

But I do like the 223 caliber. Many have complaints or echo the line about how it is not "quite" as good as a 222, but it shoots more accurately than most shooters can ever hope to hold target on. Plus, it can be effective from deer on down. I like the round alot. And yes you can buy 223 rounds anywhere and weverywhere and they are cheap. And you can relaod them cheaper than just about any other round. But above all they hit where I aim, they shoot predictably, and they do damage.