What is the 222 attraction?

[99Solutions]

There are lots of niche cartridges with a limited role. None is really an ideal all around cartridge. I think the 222 is not ideal for many purposes and the extra power of the 223 has enabled it to outpace the 222 for the in-between sized animals (wolf, coyote). But when put to its intended role, the 222 is probably ideal. I think it would be perfect for coyote and quite a few fur bearers, in addition to being highly accurate and easy shooting. I’d love one if ammo for it was more plentiful.

Most of our old war-horses made good deer cartridges but were quite overpowered. If pragmatism overruled ubiquity, we’d see far less people hunting deer with a 30-06 and far more with a 260 rem. But I guess since most can’t afford a perfect cartridge for each use case we get either a cannon or a pea shooter and call it good enough.

For those who shoot paper, fur, or can afford to have lots of options, the 222 is awesome. I’m not one of those people but I can see the fun in it.

 

[dan belisle]

There are lots of niche cartridges with a limited role. None is really an ideal all around cartridge. I think the 222 is not ideal for many purposes and the extra power of the 223 has enabled it to outpace the 222 for the in-between sized animals (wolf, coyote). But when put to its intended role, the 222 is probably ideal. I think it would be perfect for coyote and quite a few fur bearers, in addition to being highly accurate and easy shooting. I’d love one if ammo for it was more plentiful.

Most of our old war-horses made good deer cartridges but were quite overpowered. If pragmatism overruled ubiquity, we’d see far less people hunting deer with a 30-06 and far more with a 260 rem. But I guess since most can’t afford a perfect cartridge for each use case we get either a cannon or a pea shooter and call it good enough.

For those who shoot paper, fur, or can afford to have lots of options, the 222 is awesome. I’m not one of those people but I can see the fun in it.

The 223 pushed the 222 out of top place simply by virtue of its adoption by the US (and then others) military. That has always been a major factor in cartridge acceptance. - dan

 

[DGY]

When I was young, it was the "hot" fox/Jack rabbit/Ground hog round that superseded hunting these animals with .22 rf, .22 WMR and various shot-guns. A few guys had .22-250s, and not much else. .223 has prety much taken over, but both the .222 and .22-250 still have a loyal following. The .22-250 would have more life left in it if new rifles are made with a fast twist for heavy bullets.

Back then the rifle of choice in my area was the Brno Fox. Lovely rifle. Also a few Tikas. The brno and Tikas were compact and light, and very refined.

Tika were plainer, and actually quite inexpensive back then.

Good old days.

The fox is sure a nice rifle! The one I have is a BSA cd2 and it is a really nice rifle, but heavy especially with the big scope I put on it! If I can get it to shoot good I will keep it cause it was a good price, if I can’t get it too shoot like I want I will sell it and find something else lol

 

[Trimmer 905]

I have a Sako Vixen chambered in .222 Rem. that absolutely stones varmint/predators out to 200M. Ammo availability is a real problem,though. Only a couple of retailers still carry it.

 

[Meroh]

I have a Sako Vixen chambered in .222 Rem. that absolutely stones varmint/predators out to 200M. Ammo availability is a real problem,though. Only a couple of retailers still carry it.

Not difficult and very economical to reload. Almost everyone did back in the day; not that ammo was hard to find, but because we were cheap. LOL

 

[99Solutions]

The 223 pushed the 222 out of top place simply by virtue of its adoption by the US (and then others) military. That has always been a major factor in cartridge acceptance. - dan

Absolutely. I think the 222 would have hung on better if it was more versatile even without being a military cartridge like the 243, 270, 22-250, etc. And the 222 couldn’t compete as an infantry cartridge due to being too being considered too weak (slow). But for sure - all the military chambering have a huge advantage in displacing similar cartridges. That’s what I meant about the ubiquity.

 

[jjohnwm]

My second or third centerfire rifle, back in the 1970's, was a .222 (first was naturally a .303, and I think a Rem600 in .308 edged it out for second place). Mine was a heavy-barreled BSA and shooting it spoiled me for a long time. I only realized some time later what a gem it was; I naturally thought that all new rifles would shoot that well...but they didn't.

I only recently sold my very last .222; I was and am trying to streamline the list of cartridges that I use, and the .222 couldn't be rationalized alongside the .223, which I have in a number of rifles. So, yeah, I think it's mostly nostalgia...but that's a perfectly valid reason to keep one or get one.

 

[Blockcaver]

Had Remington 722 chambered in .222 when I was growing up (bought by my brother) with a Weaver K10 scope on it. Heck of a varmint rifle around the dairy farm....crows, pigeons, starlings, etc. I reloaded for it, still remember the load...24 grains of Hodgdon BLC under a Sierra 50 gr pointed soft point with a Remington 7-1/2 primer. It was in a 700 ADL stock that my brother inletted the floor plate, safety and bolt to fit the 722.

In late high school a Remington 40X single shot in .222 Magnum was the first rifle I purchased. Today I don't own any .222's, but have a .223 and a couple .204 Rugers to fill the niche.