What is the 222 attraction?

Joel said:
okay, in that case if someone wanted as much accuracy out of their 223 they could find (or order a barrel) twisted 1-12 or 1-14 and pretty much have it?

Didn't get a chance to shoot slow twisted 223s as much as I would have wanted to. Edi made me curious about jump to the lands in a 222 chamber vs a 223 that might see 77-80 gr bullets as well etc
Click to expand...
Joel:

You can't do that [well you can, but you won't like the results!]

Even with a .223 Remington chamber, if you have a barrel with a 1:12" or 1:14" twist, you cannot shoot 77-80 grain bullets out of it, unless you like making nice, sharp bullet-shaped keyholes in the target. Even in the .22 CHeetah those bullets will not stabilize in a 1:12" twist & they're moving out at more than 3,000 fps, a fair bit faster than what is possible with those bullets out of a .223 case, even a .223AI.

If you want to see how good a .223 can be, then do what I've done, on a cheap [back in the day at least] Stevens 200. Right after buying it new for ~$200 from SIR a number of years ago, I sold the barrel & the stock, picked up a take-off Savage 10-BR laminate stock for $50, bought a couple of take-off stainless-steel HVBR barrels [~$100 each], had the threads & chambers cut off, then threaded & chambered for the .223 by a BR gunsmith. Bought & installed a Savage Basix trigger. Bought & installed a Savage bolt lift kit. Mounted an old B&L 36x FIXED BR scope I had from back when I shot Benchrest.

Using RWS brass, R-P 7 1/2 BR primers, 25.0 grs. of WC735, topped with Berger 52 gr. HPFB-M bullets set to kiss the lands. Best 100 yd. group thus far is 0.255" 300 yd. AGG is 1.875".

My first BR rifle, a sleeved Remington 700 in a glued-in MacMillan fibre-glass BR stock, had a Shilen SS LVBR barrel & a Lilja SS HVBR barrel, both in .222, the trigger had been re-worked to 2 oz. by Grant Schick, who also bushed the firing pin and bolt & installed a Gilkerson insert. I installed a Wolffe spring & Tubb titanium firing pin. It carried the above-mentioned B&L 36x FIXED scope in the old 1.5 oz. shaved Bushnell aluminum rings. It used the same bullets & primers, but R-P brass & N322 [Scottish-made H322]. Looking at my 30+ year old targets, a bunch of them are in the 1's [ie. 0.1###"] & 3 were screamers [ie. 0.0###"], shot at IBS registered BR matches.

I think it is germane to add that rifles chambered for the .223 Remington hold or have held a grand total of 0 records. The Deuce held the world record for the smallest group [5 shots in 0.009"] for 40 years [all of which time the .223 was available if someone wanted to give it a go, not to mention the .22PPC, any of the many versions of the .22 Waldog or the .22 BR] until it was beat a decade ago by a .30 Stewart.
 
What I am saying is that if a 223 chamber is cut to allow heavier, longer bullets you will not get optimal performance with 40-53 gr bullets because of the long jump. This is imparted by the reamer and has nothing to do with twist. You'd have to have a chamber cut to provide optimal jump for the ogive placement of your shorter bullets.

I am NOT saying "shoot 77-80 grain bullets through a 1-12 or 1-14 twist 223 barrel!"
 
jamesharrison said:
Using .223 RWS brass, R-P 7 1/2 BR primers, 25.0 grs. of WC735, topped with Berger 52 gr. HPFB-M bullets set to kiss the lands. Best 100 yd. group thus far is 0.255" 300 yd. AGG is 1.875".

My first BR rifle, a sleeved Remington 700 in a glued-in MacMillan fibre-glass BR stock, had a Shilen SS LVBR barrel & a Lilja SS HVBR barrel, both in .222, the trigger had been re-worked to 2 oz. by Grant Schick, who also bushed the firing pin and bolt & installed a Gilkerson insert. I installed a Wolffe spring & Tubb titanium firing pin. It carried the above-mentioned B&L 36x FIXED scope in the old 1.5 oz. shaved Bushnell aluminum rings. It used the same bullets & primers, but R-P brass & N322 [Scottish-made H322]. Looking at my 30+ year old targets, a bunch of them are in the 1's [ie. 0.1###"] & 3 were screamers [ie. 0.0###"], shot at IBS registered BR matches.

I think it is germane to add that rifles chambered for the .223 Remington hold or have held a grand total of 0 records. The Deuce held the world record for the smallest group [5 shots in 0.009"] for 40 years [all of which time the .223 was available if someone wanted to give it a go,not to mention the .22PPC, any of the many versions of the .22 Waldog or the .22 BR] until it was beat a decade ago by a .30 Stewart.
Click to expand...
Great post!
This is confirmation of what I have been saying about some cases are inherently more accurate than others, specifically the 222 over the 223.
 
Some interesting reading from Wikipedia….

The .222 Remington or 5.7×43mm (C.I.P), also known as the triple deuce, triple two, and treble two, is a centerfire rifle cartridge. Introduced in 1950, it was the first commercial rimless .22 (5.56 mm) cartridge made in the United States. As such, it was an entirely new design, without a parent case.[2] The .222 Remington was a popular target cartridge from its introduction until the mid-1970s and still enjoys a reputation for accuracy. It remains a popular vermin or "varmint" cartridge at short and medium ranges with preferred bullet weights of 40–55 grains and muzzle velocities from 3,000 to 3,500 ft/s (915–1,067 m/s).


Introduction


The .222 Remington was developed by Mike Walker, an engineer at Remington, who shot it in a benchrest competition in 1950 at the Johnstown, New York, gun club.[3] It was introduced with the Remington Model 722 bolt-action rifle.[4] The accuracy and flat trajectory of the bullet resulted in the adoption of the round for varmint and benchrest rifles. The faster .220 Swift and .22-250 Remington provided more reach than the .222 Remington. These larger cartridges have roughly 50% more power than the .222, but also cause more muzzle blast and barrel erosion.[1]





Size comparison between .222 (left), .223 (center) and .222 Magnum (right) [ photo was deleted]


The .222 Remington was eventually eclipsed in benchrest competition by the 6mm PPC.


When the US military was looking for a new smallbore rifle cartridge, Remington started with the .222 Remington, and stretched it to increase powder capacity by about 20% in 1958 to make the .222 Remington Magnum. The greater powder capacity put the velocities between the standard .222 Remington and the .22-250. The cartridge was not accepted by the military, but it was introduced commercially.[5] In 1963, the .222 Remington Special, also based on a stretched .222 case, was adopted along with the new M16 rifle as the .223 Remington / 5.56mm NATO. The NATO cartridge had a capacity only 5% less than the Magnum. Given the close performance to other cartridges and military acceptance, both the .222 Remington and the .222 Magnum faded quickly into obsolescence, being replaced by the .223 Remington.


While the .222 Remington is rarely found in current production in America, its derivative cartridges are among the most popular in the world. In addition to the .222 Magnum and .223 Remington, the .222 has also served as the parent case for the .221 Fireball, the fastest production handgun cartridge.


The .222 Remington is still fairly popular in Europe, where producers like Anschütz, Sako & Tikka, Steyr, Sauer and Weihrauch chamber rifles for this caliber. Firearms that are usually chambered for the .223 Remington/5.56×45mm NATO caliber are often rechambered for the .222 Remington for sale in countries where regulations restrict or forbid civilian ownership of "military calibers". Examples of countries with such legislation include Spain and (formerly) France.
 
We have a model 70 .222 I bought as a stepping stone for my very recoil and noise shy daughter. Reduced loads are a blast to shoot, sound and recoil about the same as a 17 hmr.
 
8 twist tikkas shoot alot of light weight bullets really well. Don't believe for a second they don't, even down to the 40 gr v max. This is directed at the comments that they may not like light bullets due to the twist. It seems to be a non issue, unless your shooting benchrest competition
 
I’m a fan of both the .222R and .223. However, I’ve been a fan of the .222 for a lot longer time. I currently have (and previous owned) a number of accurate rifles in each caliber. I am a handloader. At 100-300 yds,, I consider the .222R to be slightly more accurate than the .223. The edge is very small and is possibly just my experience based on my specific rifles. In my opinion, the only thing superior about the .222R is a slightly better case design. The long neck contributes to very long barrel life and flexible bullet seating depth provides handloaders more options to optimize the accuracy.
The .223 has a few inherent advantages over the .222, in my opinion. Slightly more powder capacity = slightly faster bullet speed. Many of the highly accurate bolt action 223’s are built with fastest twist barrels for heavier bullets options. These factors might give the edge to the .223 as a slighter better round at longer ranges.
In my specific rifles, I’ve played with lots of powders and bullet combos and I’ve found that the .223 has consistently better ES’s and SD’’s over the .222R. I’m interested in hearing if anybody else has a similar observation?
 
jamesharrison said:
Thank you Dennis & Joel for the kind words.

Ok, maybe not; now I'll have to buy myself a bigger hat!

;-)
Click to expand...
I’m considering putting my ‘bigger hat’ on EE soon, will be ‘downsizing’. Acknowledging I’m in the presence of giants. Great information, well presented and a good read. This old dog has learned a few new tricks. Thank you.
 
My first real varmint rifle was a .222 Remington 700 BDL. It was accurate and deadly. I had no complaints in the field or at the range. Since then I've owned three or four other .222s, and currently own two more. I choose .222 rifles because the cartridge is typically available in rifles that are better made than the average USA made .223 rifle. My Anschutz ( CIL 900) shoots better than it reasonably should with its skinny barrel and indifferent bedding. Thumbnail size groups are the norm. My Brno ZKK 601 is similar, not quite as precise but very elegant with its mini mauser action and that cool little pop-up peep sight. Ive owned a coupe of Sako 461 Vixens, beautifully built and perfectly proportioned for the caliber. And they were superbly accurate. Not sure why I sold them. The cartridge is accurate, deadly on all the varmints I've used it on up to coyote and beaver size. Cheap to reload.
I only eventually bought a .223 when I wanted to experiment with heavy .22 cal bullets. I save that fast twist .223 rifle for long distance target shooting and varmint shooting in the wind with 60-70 gr. bullets. Everything else gets a 50 or 40 gr. from my .222's.
 
Friday's Food for Thought:

Mike Walker, an engineer with Remington & the 1st President of IBS [International Benchrest Shooters] designed several cartridges: the subject of this thread, the .244 Remington [aka 6mm Remington] as well as the 6mm & 7mm Remington BR.

The interesting thing about all these cartridges is that they are the only U.S. commercial factory designed cartridges where the point formed by the extension of the shoulder angles, ie. the throat of the rocket's venturi cone if you will or the tip of a plasma cutting torch, is within the cartridge case, NOT in the barrel's throat. The 22 PPC & 6mm PPC were another case where this occurred, but these cartridges were designed by Ferris Pindell & Louis Palmisano [Palmisano Pindell Cartridge]. The 6mm Lee Navy & .30-40 Krag were others, but they were designed by the U.S. military.

What does this accomplish?

The point is the hottest point in the cycle of a cartridge being fired. Everything from this point forward is cooler, hence less erosive to the barrel. It is far better that this occurs in a consumable, as opposed to the barrel, although some might argue that the barrel is also a consumable, but I disagree, to a certain point.

Why is this important?

The life-span of a barrel is based on combustion temperatures, which, to a certain point, is determined on the powder used, the powder charge & the # of times it occurs in a given period of time [Heat kills!].

The .222 has a demonstrated longer case life than the .223, not only because it holds 5% less powder. So does the 6mm Remington [aka .244 Remington], even though the 6mm / 244 has a 4% greater case capacity than the .243 Winchester.

Remember: Handloading a cartridge is the study of interior ballistics, while trajectory is the study of external ballistics. Both of these are components of Rocket science.

Be proud of yourselves, you Rocket Scientists!

:)
 
The first one I owned was a 788. Got it for dirt cheap but then realized it wasn’t going to offer much of anything over my CZ 527 in .223 and sold it without ever shooting it. The second one was a BSA Hunter that I bought for the cool mini Mauser action. I was going to use the action in a build until I realized they had somehow managed to overly complicate the Mauser action and sold it without ever firing it either.

I guess the point of this rambling is that for myself it just doesn’t have much appeal. There’s nothing wrong with it but other than maybe precision target shooting, it really doesn’t offer anything over the.223.
 
"There’s nothing wrong with it but other than maybe precision target shooting, it really doesn’t offer anything over the .223."

Other than it's quieter [important in increasingly suburbanized areas], uses less powder than a .222 [70 rounds more per #], is more accurate & has a longer barrel life, for its intended use, ie. target or 250 yd. varmint shooting.
 
jamesharrison said:
The point is the hottest point in the cycle of a cartridge being fired. Everything from this point forward is cooler, hence less erosive to the barrel. It is far better that this occurs in a consumable, as opposed to the barrel, although some might argue that the barrel is also a consumable, but I disagree, to a certain point.
Click to expand...

"Modify the cheaper part, not the more expensive part" is always sound advice haha

Is the location of this point basically a function of shoulder angle and neck length?
 
Joel:

You got it, yes, it is.

A lot of years ago, there was a series of articles in PS [Precision Shooting] magazine about experiments using re-formed, cut-down .30-06 brass to make "Long Neck" .308 brass & the concomitant increase in barrel throat life.

The current cartridge designers did not pay much, if any, heed to it. After all, they are in the business of selling rifles and gunsmiths have to make a living, too.

For all of the design work done by Hornady in re-designing the .30 T/C to make their 6.5 CM, you'd think they would have considered this, but for the CM that would have resulted in lesser velocity as the body length would have to be cut back in order that the cartridge still fit into a short, ie. 2.800" action. Nevertheless, the point on the 6.5 CM is right at the end of the case neck, as opposed to well out into the throat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom