.223 or .222 Remington...which?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would suggest you think about a 6.5 grendel in a ruger american, cz 527 or similar.

Another vote for 6.5 Grendel as a low recoil hunting rifle.

3rded.

Ive got a 527 grendel, but would be fine with a howa 1500mini or a ruger Pred, as a cheaper option.

Ive shot quite a few critters with .223s as well. Id run that over a .222 just for simplicity sake, and twist.
my prefered bullet for medium game is the 65gr sierra game king, also like the 70gr speer semi spitzer, and 60gr partition.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to beat the heavier bullet option in this situation. It's hard to beat the suggestion of a 257 or 6.5. You may have noticed that more firearms are being offered in 222 Remington than in past years. Looks like there is a revival underway.
 
I have both 222 and 223 both have 1/14 twist barrels, one has Brux other Kreiger. Both are pretty accurate with same bullet and only difference is velocity. Here in Co 22 cal isn't consider big game rifle and I use both shooting pd/coyotes. Hard to beat 222 @ 100yds but when you get wind you do little better with 223 and that's what kill 222 in BR. I shoot 223 more than I do 222 for that reason and there days I'll use 6mm.

You need to look at whole picture and condition (yardage) which includes max if you can.
 
In the days before 223/5.56 there was a 222 Magnum with .222 being the accuracy standard. This was before the net. The consensus was that accuracy was basically the same rifles being equal. That cartridge,222, was the precursor, came first, of all the rounds with that head size. Next time you are at the range and some old guy is shooting a .222 check out his groups. I'll not let go of my Remington 700 VS in 222. The .222 was not designed for larger game however the Eskimo people have been know to hunt polar bears with this caliber.

Addendum: The 1:14 twist works very well with 55gr, bullets. The .222 was and is an effective varmint round reasonably used. If you really want some horsepower in .224 caliber get a Swift.

Don't Forget 22HP.....it was also billed as a wonder cartridge due to its speed.
 
I can't add much to this discussion related to the .223 Rem vs .222 Rembut recognize the .223 as a better investment, since I've seen .222 Rem rifles sitting in the used gun racks for a long time, but .223s are snapped up fairly quickly, even bolt-action rifles.

Someone mentioned the .22-250 and I've had considerable experience with the cartridge, having had two of them over a period of about 20 years, but finally dropped it. The biggest problems with the .22-250 Rem were that:

1. Too much case taper causes severe case stretching, compared to other cartridges of it's size. I long considered having my rifles re-chambered to .22-250 Ackley Improved. That only works for handloaders, however, and I was afraid to make my deadly-accurate rifle less accurate.
2. Most factory rifles have/had too slow a twist rate to be able to shoot bullets heavier than 55 grains with adequate accuracy (are they still?).
3. Although not a real barrel-burner, it's often put in the .22 Swift category, which is unfair. However, I never fired 50 grain bullets in mine, due to the reputation. My rifles shot 53 and 55 grain bullets with excellent accuracy and very flat trajectory to beyond 300 yards.
4. Factory ammo isn't as available, nor as inexpensive as .223 Rem.

Good luck with whatever you buy.
 
Fifty grain bullets, back in the day, were known as being a bit to unstable and lacked longer-range ability, including windbucking, which was a problem for longer-range woodchuck hunting. The .22-250 always seemed at it's best with 53-55 grain bullets and I used mostly 55s.

I eventually bought a 6mm Rem heavy-barreled varmint model for better wind-bucking ability, and it worked fine, but soon sold it because it was too darned heavy to carry around all day. About that time in Maine, woodchucks in fields were not as plentiful, due to the greater number of varmint hunters and predators than in past years, so I backed-off varmint hunting. I was also married, working out of town a lot, and had children, so didn't have as much time to do a lot of varmint hunting.
 
Add this to the myth that match bullets are unsuitable for big game hunting. Not my deer, pic borrowed from another site, but this is the exit wound on a deer from a 223 match bullet after impacting a deer at 110 yards. They don't get much deader than this.

It's certainly dead, but that's a tad more meat damage than I prefer. What happened is that the match bullet blew up, which is why they are unsuitable for hunting.
 
Fifty grain bullets, back in the day, were known as being a bit to unstable and lacked longer-range ability, including windbucking, which was a problem for longer-range woodchuck hunting.

That's then this is now
: My experience is different. The fifty grain Hornady worked great in both 222 and 220 Swift. My shots with the Swift ,at the longest, were 400 yards or so. Less with the .222. Maybe my long distance shooting was closer than what you had in mind.

Match bullets at the normal velocities we used would not expand reliably. We stopped using them entirely. That's then this is now.
 
In my limited experience of shooting living things with match bullets such as Hornady bthp match, they have a very very narrow velocity window where they actually expand and penetrate. Too slow and they act like a FMJ, too fast and they explode like a varmint bullet. I wouldn’t use them on anything but varmints myself. On the other hand a proper hunting bullet will work over a 1000 FPS or better velocity window.
 
I am an old benchrest guy and will always have a soft spot for the triple deuce. If it was me with the choice of 222 or 223/5.6 the choice would be the 222. As an added benefit to the performance of this wonderful little cartridge nobody would confuse me with a modern/internet/sniper/tacticool guy.
 
they have a very very narrow velocity window where they actually expand and penetrate. Too slow and they act like a FMJ, too fast and they explode like a varmint bullet.

One thing we are doing here is comparing forty years of bullets all lumped together. For example, we used Sierra fifty three grain bullets in the .222 and 22-250. We had the FMJ experience. We may be comparing vastly different bullets made twenty years apart. I'd say sincerely that our experiences were different. This would be, "When I used...." Later, on the heavy side, was the 75gr. bullets in 243 and 257 caliber with exceptional accuracy and expansion. I'd suggest OP not trash his "Bob."
 
Can anyone with experience with either or both rounds give me some guidance?
Thanx

The a above quote is from the OP, so it's worth going back and reading his entire post, and his concerns. He has already decided on the make and model of rifle he will buy but is in a quandary about the caliber choice. Simple answer: buy the .223 and don't look back. For all the sound reasons previously posted on this thread. Recoil will be so nearly identical as to be virtually undetectable. Likewise, accuracy will be the same, and there is no reason to think different. The .222 has a well deserved reputation for fine accuracy, as it was highly successful in benchrest competition for a number of years. But that was before the .223 became a factor, after which time the .223 began replacing the .222 in winner's boxs. Somewhat later they were both rendered obsolete by a new category in the benchrest(NBRSA) rule book. Having said that, I confess I have a soft spot in my heart for the .222 and tend to gather them up somewhat like an animal lover picking up stray dogs. But I'm also a fan of the .223, so I have a few of them around too. As shown here: with one pic showing a cute, early series Ruger #1, in .222, and a sweet Mannlicher style Sako .222, plus a customized Ruger#1 .223. Other pic is a benchrest rifle built by Ed Shilen during the .222's glory days, and a LH Remington .40-X in .223 cal., which is fully as accurate as the heavier .222. DSC_0103.JPG DSC_0107.JPG
 
Last edited:
Where did the 22 and 6mm PPC rounds fit in. If recall correctly these were the bench rest cartridges that replaced the .222. Remington worked to get the 222 Magnum in the race. The 222 Magnum was a flop. I still have one of the 40XBR rifles down in the Skunk Works. Nothing wrong with that rifle.
 
One thing we are doing here is comparing forty years of bullets all lumped together. For example, we used Sierra fifty three grain bullets in the .222 and 22-250. We had the FMJ experience. We may be comparing vastly different bullets made twenty years apart. I'd say sincerely that our experiences were different. This would be, "When I used...." Later, on the heavy side, was the 75gr. bullets in 243 and 257 caliber with exceptional accuracy and expansion. I'd suggest OP not trash his "Bob."

They only ones I have any experience with in shooting critters are hornady’s 52 and 75 grain bthp. Depending on the range and resulting velocity those will run the whole gambit from explosive to no expansion. Others such as Sierra or Berger may be totally different, I couldn’t say.
 
The a above quote is from the OP, so it's worth going back and reading his entire post, and his concerns. He has already decided on the make and model of rifle he will buy but is in a quandary about the caliber choice. Simple answer: buy the .223 and don't look back. For all the sound reasons previously posted on this thread. Recoil will be so nearly identical as to be virtually undetectable. Likewise, accuracy will be the same, and there is no reason to think different. The .222 has a well deserved reputation for fine accuracy, as it was highly successful in benchrest competition for a number of years. But that was before the .223 became a factor, after which time the .223 began replacing the .222 in winner's boxs. Somewhat later they were both rendered obsolete by a new category in the benchrest(NBRSA) rule book. Having said that, I confess I have a soft spot in my heart for the .222 and tend to gather them up somewhat like an animal lover picking up stray dogs. But I'm also a fan of the .223, so I have a few of them around too. As shown here: with one pic showing a cute, early series Ruger #1, in .222, and a sweet Mannlicher style Sako .222, plus a customized Ruger#1 .223. Other pic is a benchrest rifle built by Ed Shilen during the .222's glory days, and a LH Remington .40-X in .223 cal., which is fully as accurate as the heavier .222.
Beautiful rifles, and great input.
 
If the options are .222 and .223, I think it comes down to whether you reload or not. If you reload, take your pick. I might opt for a .222 if I had access to an older Remington or Winchester in that cartridge. If you don't reload, or you're buying new, .223 all the way.
 
What's the best way to step around this crap shoot on bullets?

Just get a proper hunting bullet intended for the game you want to hunt. Something like a speer TNT or hornady V-max will work reliably on varmints over a very wide range of velocity, they will still expand and fragment well below 2000 fps. If you need a bullet that will reliable expand and hold together then get something designed to do so like a speer gold dot, sierra gameking, nosler partition, or accubond.
 
Just get a proper hunting bullet intended for the game you want to hunt

I don't recommend bullets unless I have actually used them. I quality my use...what did I use it for. This came about from the old days when it was hard to tell if one was dealing with a varmint or a deer bullets. Things, as you guys pointed out, are a bunch simpler in this day. Maybe the people suggesting a larger caliber may have had something. In the old days we used 75gr. bullets in 257 and 243 caliber. There was no doubt there. This option is out since OP has decided on the rifle with on a choice between two calibers in .224
 
That's then this is now: My experience is different. The fifty grain Hornady worked great in both 222 and 220 Swift. My shots with the Swift ,at the longest, were 400 yards or so. Less with the .222. Maybe my long distance shooting was closer than what you had in mind.

Match bullets at the normal velocities we used would not expand reliably. We stopped using them entirely.

Our prime woodchuck season was March through May here in Maine. Wind was switchy and often quite strong. We walked several miles and shot offhand for any chucks under about 150 yards, but sometimes farther if we couldn't get a prone shot. My best shot was one where the only shot I could get was a head/neck above the grass at a little over 200 yards.

I started shooting chucks with a 30-06 with a 2.5x Weaver, using handloaded 125 grain Sierras. If we weren't sure about the range, sometimes we'd aim a little low and a round would bounce up and nail the chuck. (Later, we noticed that 22 CF varmint bullets didn't bounce, but I never went back to the '06, but with a young family, didn't have enough money to own two CF rifles, so killed several deer with the .22-250.) After I started gunsmithing and got a FFL; I managed to get another '06 and didn't have to sell/trade the .22-250, even though we had 4 young kids to feed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top