.222 Rem Info?

[mattx109]

I have a significant amount of experience with pistol calibers, but not much with rifle calibers.

I've fired and am fairly familiar with .22LR, .22 Mag, .223 Rem, and 30-06. I'm looking into a new bolt action rifle, however, and came across the option of having it chambered in .223 or .222 Rem. Could someone give a little detail (thinking hunting use for nuisance coydogs and thinly cut dead trees) about the the latter round? A search pulled up nada.

And in case anyone has any opinions, the rifle I'm looking at is a CZ 527 Lux. I've owned a 452 Varmint for a while now and love it.

 

[dakotasin]

don't know anything about the cz rifles - don't have any.

the 222 is, for practical hunting purposes, the same thing as a 223. the 222 holds a little less powder, gets a little less velocity, is a little quieter, and recoil is, like the 223, nonexistent. the 222 is the ex-darling of the benchrest crowd - very accurate chambering.

for shooting varmints and the like, you can figure the 223 will give you a couple of yards over the 222...

 

[Frank in MT]

Sometimes.....less is MORE........

The .222 Rem IS a true classic cartridge. I've had several over the past 35 years I've been a gun nut. You will have a tougher time finding .222 brass or loaded ammo VS .223 but not by much. Brass life is very long if you reload.

The CZ's are IMHO very impressive guns for the money. They do tend to be a bit rough around the edges but all of those small deficiencies are fixable.

I have a LUX in 9.3x62 and I'm quite impressed with it. The action WAS rough but by lapping it a bit with abrasive grit in grease on the raceways it smoothed up in about a hundred or so cycles of the bolt.

Personal opinion, but I would give the .222 Rem the nod here. In a world gone nuts over excessively light rifles, shooting high velocity rounds, wearing huge scopes........Go with the .222 Rem, sometimes less truly is more.

FN in MT

 

[retiredsgt]

mattx109 I was just in the maket for a .222 Rem. Have an older Rem. Model 722 in .222 Rem., and wanted a new rifle. The only Anmerican made gun in .222 Rem., is the Rem. BDL. Remington did make a "Classic" in .222, back in the mid 90's. I checked and couldn't find one, nor anything except a BDL. That is just TOOooo much for my taste. What I did find was a new Remington Classic in .221 Rem. Fireball. It is essentially a shortened .222 Rem. One of my local dealers(50 miles away in Stuart's Draft) had a Classic, that was marked down, $100, for a cash sale. So I bought it, and am in the process of working up a load. Very Promising.
If you reload, I'd go with the .222 Rem. If not, go with the .223REm. Yoy will not go wrong either way.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I've had a Remington 222 "cheap" model 788 since they first came out in the 70's or whenever.

The 222 round is an actual "tack driver".
Thumb tacks were my primary 100 yard target when I used to shoot it a lot.

Even that low dollar 788, while not hitting the tac every time, would scare the heck out of it and nail the tack more often than not.

 

[Swamprabbit]

My last .222 was an old Savage (don't remember the model no.) with the detachable magazine and the sidemount scope base. Even that rifle, with it's long trigger, shot 0.5 MOA with 52g hollowpoints and Win 748. I sold it last year.

I know the .222 is VERY accurate and used to be very popular with the groundhog shooters here. My dad gave me an Anschultz .222 as my first centerfire varmit rifle in the early 70s and it was a deadly on critters out to 250-300yds. The .223 is beating it out in the market due, I think, to the fact that it is a military cartridge. For me, nostalgia aside, I have to vote for the .223 due to wider options on loading heavier bullets.

 

[0007]

I bought a used pre-Sako Finnish rifle in .222 at my regular gunshop. When I mumbled something about having it re-chambered to .223, the owner threatened to give me back my money. He said the .222 was MUCH more accurate then the .223. I kept the rifle.

 

[aerod1]

I agree with M2 Cabine.
I also have a Remington 788 chambered in .222 It is without a doubt one of the most accurate guns I have ever owned. I will never let it get away from me. I want my grandson to experience the joys of shooting that rifle. I own several .223 rifles but the .222 Remington 788 has all of them beat. The amazing thing is that the 788 was supposed to be Remington's economy model.

Jim Hall

 

[Byron]

I have a 700 Clasic in 222.Accurate is an understatement for this round.The best group I have ever shot was with this round.The day was perfect and at 225 yards,I had 1 1/4" for 5 shots.Byron

 

[mattx109]

I've taken a look at some ballistics for the .222, and along with the experiences here, it looks like I'll go that way. I'm going to check on availability around here, but I don't think it'll be a problem.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[mattx109]

I just thought of another question:

Anyone know where I could find some good bulk .222 Rem that's not corrosive?

 

[rust collector]

Shouldn't encounter any corrosive 222 around, as it's not that old and hasn't seen military use.

If yer interested in accuracy, you will want brass that's uniform, similar to what was used to work up the loads in the manual. Although Sellier & Bellot, Igman, Lapua and others probably load 222, I recommend a common source such as Federal, Remington or Winchester. There are a bunch of discount ammo outfits, but you'll find that the freight can be a deal killer. Just pick up 5 boxes at the dealers and reload em for years.

 

[retiredsgt]

.222 remington

Byron: If you ever decide to get rid of the Remington Classic in .222....................................

 

[Byron]

Sarge, It has a home. In fact I am going on a cayote hunt later this month and the 222 will do its duty again. I load the Nosler 50 BT based on factory specs. The Winchester 50 grain is about as accurate.
What branch were you in and when did you get out? Byron