I am thinking of getting a 222 rem. for target shooting at 100-200 yards. I want a 22 cal and something with little recoil. Since 222 rem was once the standard target calibar (1960's) I thought it would suit my needs. Does anyone have any other suggestions??
222 remington for 100-200 yard target shooting???
- Thread starter sbirm
- Start date
The Triple Deuce has quite a reputation for accuracy. It is no longer in vogue among the benchrest crowd and has almost slipped into obscurity among the rest of us. This is unfortunate because it is pretty much a ballistic twin to .223rem which is a wildly popular cartridge. If you intend to handload I would say go for it, I have a Sako 75 in this chambering and it shoots into .75" at 200yds with boring regularity.
- Location
- Whitehorse, Yukon
Good brass may be hard to obtain in 222 rem. Otherwise it has been a record holder for years and still will shoot.
Recoil isn't going to be a factor!
RC
Recoil isn't going to be a factor!
RC
- Location
- Winnipeg,Man.
I also like the .222 Rem. as it is very much like the .223. The .223 may be a bit faster but the .222 shoots much the same ammo. I have no trouble with getting brass for the .222 as it is so easily made from .223 brass. Choose what brand of brass you want, resize and go to 'er. My old BSA loves the 55 gr FMJs and shoots quite nicely to 200 yards ( limit at our range)
Lapua might be the best brass in production today and I got some this year, its expensive but its very very good brass $70 for 100.you can still buy Winchester for around $35 100 count.
I have 2 and love them, the deuce still holds the record for smallest group ever fired in benchrest.100y even the popular 6mmppc or 6mmbr has not beaten the old deuce as yet.
rem 222 on a calm day can beat the 6mm it gets into problems at 200 & 300y benchrest shooting bucking the wind.
The 223 with a 1/7 twist would be a better choice if you where going to a new gun.
and shoot 80gr & 90gr bullets good for 1000y then
I have 2 and love them, the deuce still holds the record for smallest group ever fired in benchrest.100y even the popular 6mmppc or 6mmbr has not beaten the old deuce as yet.
rem 222 on a calm day can beat the 6mm it gets into problems at 200 & 300y benchrest shooting bucking the wind.
The 223 with a 1/7 twist would be a better choice if you where going to a new gun.
and shoot 80gr & 90gr bullets good for 1000y then
Serious short range Benchrest is dominated by the 6mm PPC period. The next most accurate cartridge is the .222 Remington. It always has been and still is an extremely accurate chambering. Use Lapua brass and 50 grain match bullets and a custom barrel and enjoy bug hole groups all day long.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Even a .222 sporter will make you feel like you can do no wrong when shooting 52 gr Sierras. It is an excellent cartridge which has unfortunately fallen under the shadow of the .223. The second most accurate rifle I've ever owned was a Gaillard barreled M-700 in .222.
I am not denying that statement but how does one come to that conclusion.
Has anyone used the .223 Remington in benchrest to truly test it's limits.
Maybe not considering the 6 PPC is the easy choice.
And what would the measureable difference in group size be between the two chamberings , 222 vs. .223?
Posted on Benchrest Central was a question about the second choice of cartridges used in short range BR competition ... {What do you fellows feel would be the most accurate cartridge out there in 22 cal in regards to consistency just as the 6PPC is in 100/200?}
Answered below by a long time very active match winning competitor...
As compared to the level as seen in a 6PPC...
222 Rem, 22 Beggs, 22PPC .100 Short
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I wasn't suggesting the .223 was more accurate than the .222, nor did I intend to infer that. I suppose I should have made clear that the reason for the .223's greater commercial success lies solely in the fact that it is a military cartridge chambered in a variety of semi-auto gas guns and had nothing to do with intrinsic accuracy. Even Elmer Keith acknowledged that his Sako .222 was the most accurate rifle he owned. My experience was likewise.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
I have owned several 222's and loved them all. What a super easy cartridge to set up.
Brass is still available and of course dies, are off the shelf.
If there was ever a time that 222R brass became unobtanium, there are zillions of 223 brass just waiting to be reborn
Today, I use the 223 because I want the extra case capacity to shoot LR and it fits in with the other competition classes I play in. Otherwise, the 222R is a gem today as it was decades ago.
Jerry
Brass is still available and of course dies, are off the shelf.
If there was ever a time that 222R brass became unobtanium, there are zillions of 223 brass just waiting to be reborn
Today, I use the 223 because I want the extra case capacity to shoot LR and it fits in with the other competition classes I play in. Otherwise, the 222R is a gem today as it was decades ago.
Jerry
This is an interesting topic because I firmly believe that the length of a cartridge neck has something to do with barrel life, accuaracy, stability of the charge burning. I have been considering building a long neck 223 and use 204 Ruger brass necked up and resized in a 223 die. This would leave a neck length similar to the 222 but the case capacity of the 223. It would also "possibly" be legal for F-TR class and be more accuate than 223. I have found that my 223 isn't as accuate as my 22BR.
Steve
Steve
I definitely disagree with neck length having anything to do with barrel life. Accuracy, maybe but little/nothing to do with powder combustion.
back on topic, I have to agree that it (222) is a sweet short range cartridge. I also have to agree with Dennis that the undefeated king of the short range hill is the 6PPC. It's basically in a class by itself and easy to make work too.
back on topic, I have to agree that it (222) is a sweet short range cartridge. I also have to agree with Dennis that the undefeated king of the short range hill is the 6PPC. It's basically in a class by itself and easy to make work too.
Your opinion Ian, the same as mine, but from my research, I believe there is something to it. Compare the throat/barrel life from a 243 and 6mm Rem. The 6mm Rem is far easier to tune and lasts longer even though the 6mm Rem shoots faster. There are other examples as well.
Steve
Steve
You cannot take two cartridges with two different shapes, two different case capacities, two (or more) different firearms/barrels and reach a proper scientific - let alone remotely objective - conclusion. First of all your comparison has far too many variables to make a valid argument and your sample size is far too small. I also refute your belief based on my own subjective experiences.
With the exception of some brilliant ballisticians devoted to the study of bullets and their flight, there is a sad lack of proper scientific research into anything pertaining to shooting hardware. Cartridges, actions, Barrels, bores, break-in....these are all full of opinions, but all lacking in credible research.
Sorry... I am cursed with a background in utilizing evidence based research. This flies in the face of a hobby and consumer industry that is almost completely based on "follow the leader" and the seeking of validation for one's consumer choices.
With the exception of some brilliant ballisticians devoted to the study of bullets and their flight, there is a sad lack of proper scientific research into anything pertaining to shooting hardware. Cartridges, actions, Barrels, bores, break-in....these are all full of opinions, but all lacking in credible research.
Sorry... I am cursed with a background in utilizing evidence based research. This flies in the face of a hobby and consumer industry that is almost completely based on "follow the leader" and the seeking of validation for one's consumer choices.
I didn't have reached these opinions based on my research but from readings published by skilled ballisticians from a number of actual labs utilizing test barrels and digital equipment over a number of years. I only gave an example from what has been published. Again, it is only my feeling that there maybe something to their findings. However, there is a line of cartridges developed to promote these ideas and, if I remember correctly, they were patented so there may be something to the research.
