.222 vs .223

The quality of the rifle has nothing to do with the caliber. Between these two calibers there is very little difference other than slightly higher velocity and extended range of the .223. For target shooting shooting inside of 200 yards both will suit your needs, they are very accurate, easily reloadable, cheap to shoot and easy on the shoulder. I have a 222 in a Sako made Browning Safari and it's a beautiful gun to shoot. You will be happy with either, but if you're looking for maximum range between the two, the .223 wins. Cheers,

Patrick
 
.222 vs. .223

All other things being the same, the .223 is more than adequate in the tac driving department.... The .222 however, is for the man that wants a .22 centerfire that's just a tad more accurate than that.... ;)
 
Ammo for 223 is widely available. With the 222 you will probably have to reload.

The 222 won a lot of benchrest competitions when it was introduced. Its is no slouch the in the accuracy dept.

I used to have a 222 and I loved it. I would never feel out gunned by a 223 if I had a triple deuce.

The 223 will give you a bit more velocity.

What is the application?
 
Thats kind of a hard question to answer. If you are comparing the exact same rifles, then it won't matter which you choose. If you are comparing the two cartridges, then you have stirred the perverbial $hit pot.

Back in the day, the .222 rem dominated most benchrest and precision shooting competitions. It was said to be more "inherantly" accurate than the 223. The popularity of the .223 grew when it became the standard military NATO round and was commercially available everywhere. It slowly phased out the venerable .222.
IMHO if you have the exact same rifles with the exact same scopes and the exact same trigger set ups and the exact same bla bla bla.....I persanally believe that the .222 will be the more accurate one.

I currently shoot both. I have a newer Savage LRPV in .223 that I am developing loads for, and I am on my second .222 rifle, the first being a Sako. My current remington .222 outshoots my .223. Is it because its a remington.....maybe. Is it because its a .222......maybe. All I can say is it just plain shoots. Not fussy on bullet selection or anything. My .223 shoots well, just not as good as the old duece..........yet!
 
I have owned quite a few rifles in both chamberings. No junkers, either. All shot very well indeed, but if I were to assemble all the results over the years, 222 vs 223, I am sure that a slight, but distinctive edge would go to the 222 in the accuracy department. Individual rifles will show exceptions of course. I once bought a 223 HB Remington that was uncannily accurate. However, at present I have a 700 Classic that is the same, or even better. It all boils down to the attraction of inexpensive practice ammo available for the 223. Regards, Eagleye.
 
The deuce still holds the record at 100 yards fellow was Mac MacMillan Sept 1973
5 shots .009" even the 6ppc has not beat that record.
 
I recently had a strange conversation with a friend of mine. He asked me if he knows anybody with a cheap .222 for sale. I said that they're not that common anymore, why not get a .223? He said that he wants a .222 for wolves because it's better then a .223 and I trap. I said well I dunno maybe you can find a cheap Savage 340 somewhere. I walked away shaking my head, and wondering how much he really knows about guns. :rolleyes:
 
we all know the 222 was a favorite of the benchrest crowd, but I wonder how much the average group size shot in competition has decreased since the hey day of the 222? It could be that the average benchrest group in the 50' and 60's was quite a bit bigger. Not knocking the 222, I've had a couple but I can't see it being more accurate than a 223 all other things being equal. And please, nobody bring up the longer neck of the 222.......most guys load thier bullets out near the lands anyway using very little of the neck....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom