What is the 222 attraction?

So definitely fair to say if you were looking for utmost accuracy, better off going 222 vs 223?

Thats what I was really wondering. I mean nostalgia is cool and it looks like a great round, but what it actually does
I've owned multiple examples of both. Generally, the 222 is the more accurate of the two. I prefer the 222 Rem !ag over both though. - dan
 
Same accuracy potential as 222, more powder capacity?
Pretty much. Also more of that unusual cachet. I've owned a half dozen at least 223's (1-12, 1-9, and 1-7). Hmm, 4 or 5 222's. And 3 222 Rem Mags. In order of accuracy, it was 222, 222 RM and then 223. Now some of those 223's were AR type rifles, which arent particularly known for their accuracy (yes, there are exceptions, just bring money) so we can discount those, but the others were good quality Remington bolt guns. - dan
 
My .222 is a C.I.L. 900 ( Anschutz 54 ) and has been a tremendous varmint rifle since the late 60's .
It is no longer as accurate as it once was, but is as accurate once as it ever was! 😁
In other words. It doesn't shoot very tight groups anymore, but it will not miss a coyote at 250 yards or sošŸ˜…
I don't think I have ever scoped it with anything but a 3-9x
Cat
 
Pretty much. Also more of that unusual cachet. I've owned a half dozen at least 223's (1-12, 1-9, and 1-7). Hmm, 4 or 5 222's. And 3 222 Rem Mags. In order of accuracy, it was 222, 222 RM and then 223. Now some of those 223's were AR type rifles, which arent particularly known for their accuracy (yes, there are exceptions, just bring money) so we can discount those, but the others were good quality Remington bolt guns. - dan

Interesting. Thanks. Definitely sounds like theres something to it. Think it's like Edi is saying maybe? The chamber/throat geometry is more favorable to the shorter, lighter bullets?
 
True story from the range last year when I mentioned shooting my .223 Wylde out to 1,000.
" BS, the .223 isn't accurate at 1,000 if it even makes it that far!"
" Well, maybe yours isn't, but mine sure enough is. I shoot 95 grain Match Kings with a 6.5 twist barrel . and yup I can do it accurately!"
Cat

That's another thing to factor in when looking at .223 vs .222. How far do you want to shoot? Because light bullets from a fast twist .222 don't have the same potential as a heavy bullet from a slow twist .223 once distance gets stretched or the wind picks up.
 
That's another thing to factor in when looking at .223 vs .222. How far do you want to shoot? Because light bullets from a fast twist .222 don't have the same potential as a heavy bullet from a slow twist .223 once distance gets stretched or the wind picks up.
Yup and most .223's these days often have a 1:8 or 1:9 twist from the factory.
I normally only shoot 50 to 53 grain bullets in my .222, and the majority of kills since I have owned it have been inside 300 meters.
Cat
 
So it seems like rifles chambered in the triple deuce are well sought after, perhaps even commanding a premium. With the 223 on the scene, is this purely a nostalgia/have something different/classy old thing sort of attraction, or does it do something above and beyond that?

I like mine. Tikka 223 re-barrelled by JC to 222 with a heavy bbl, put in a B&C varmint/target stock. For me the draw was accuracy first and foremost, but also brass life, barrel life, cost of handloading (it needs very little powder to hit 2800-3000 fps).

The nostalgia thing was part of it too, but that long neck and practically zero recoil makes it a very very accurate cartridge for target shooting. Used to be the go-to round for benchrest - though there are definitiely better options now.

The 223 is and can be excellent as well, especially with heaver bullets, and ammo is much much cheaper for it off the shelf.

I'd say 223 for hunting and 222 for target shooting.
 
I like mine. Tikka 223 re-barrelled by JC to 222 with a heavy bbl, put in a B&C varmint/target stock. For me the draw was accuracy first and foremost, but also brass life, barrel life, cost of handloading (it needs very little powder to hit 2800-3000 fps).

The nostalgia thing was part of it too, but that long neck and practically zero recoil makes it a very very accurate cartridge for target shooting. Used to be the go-to round for benchrest - though there are definitiely better options now.

The 223 is and can be excellent as well, especially with heaver bullets, and ammo is much much cheaper for it off the shelf.

I'd say 223 for hunting and 222 for target shooting.

For someone who is an efficiency geek (me) that part is pretty attractive, although the longer lasting brass perhaps gets offset by 223 brass being so much cheaper anyway. But with accuracy being foremost in mind I see how it still makes sense!
 
Interesting. Thanks. Definitely sounds like theres something to it. Think it's like Edi is saying maybe? The chamber/throat geometry is more favorable to the shorter, lighter bullets?
More to do with the twist I think. I know my current varmint weight 222 will boringly place 52 gr bullets into tiny little ragged hole groups. My lightweight sporter version for walk around varminting isn't that accurate, but it's close. None of my 223's will do that, consistently. Though with the 1-7 version I can use much heavier bullets so there's that. Best of the bunch in that regard was my 1-7 223 AI. I think a fast twist 222 or 222 RM would do just as well though. - dan
 
More to do with the twist I think. I know my current varmint weight 222 will boringly place 52 gr bullets into tiny little ragged hole groups. My lightweight sporter version for walk around varminting isn't that accurate, but it's close. None of my 223's will do that, consistently. Though with the 1-7 version I can use much heavier bullets so there's that. Best of the bunch in that regard was my 1-7 223 AI. I think a fast twist 222 or 222 RM would do just as well though. - dan
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
 
I currently have a .223 fully built on a 700 action with a 1/12 Gaillard barrel in a H.S. Precision that shoots as good or better than any .222 I have ever shot or seen. At the end of the day the actual gun itself and what it is fed, not to mention the ability of the shooter, will determine the .222 vs .223 thing.
 
I currently have a .223 fully built on a 700 action with a 1/12 Gaillard barrel in a H.S. Precision that shoots as good or better than any .222 I have ever shot or seen. At the end of the day the actual gun itself and what it is fed, not to mention the ability of the shooter, will determine the .222 vs .223 thing.
Not really...
It is a fact there are accuracy differences between the 222 case and the 223 case... this is not to say you can't have a particular 223 as accurate as a 222 but there is a built in accuracy difference because of case capacity and dimensions. Some cases are inherently more accurate than others. Look how the 22 PPC and 6mm PPC dominant short range benchrest. The 6mm BR in some cases shoots as well but the PPC has the slight edge. The 222 has the slight edge in accuracy over the 223 with 50 to 53 grain match bullets. With quicker twists, longer heavier bullets and longer ranges the 223 has the edge. Their have been some very accurate 222 Rem Mags used in benchrest as well and the 6mm/222 Mag (it was referred to as 6x47) until the PPC case was developed and was superior to the 222 and 6x47.
The actual gun, load and shooter do determine the accuracy but in short range benchrest the 222 case has proven to have an inherent edge over the 223 and the 222 Rem Mag.
 
Back
Top Bottom