22ARC

[igotta40]

I did some light reading about this cartridge tonight, it has my interest. Actually I had started out looking for more info on the Ruger American Gen 2 rifles, and learned on the Ruger website that 22ARC is in the lineup, though not yet available. It’s a nice looking rifle. I already have a Savage 110 chambered in .224 Valkyrie, that I really like. Hope there’s more to come on this new cartridge.

 

[Varminterror]

The 22 ARC seems to be doing well, although, it's not necessarily projected to be anything more than it is. Boutique optionality is growing in popularity, and adaptive manufacturers are riding it hard. We've only had the 6 GT for a few years and we already have substantial market support for 22 and 25GT. We have Creeds in 6.5, 6, 25, and 22... Folks are buying "different," so different sells, and when adopting only means a barrel change, life is pretty sweet. We heard pushback against the 6.8spc and 6.5 grendel for a long time because "they need a different bolt and mags," and guys ignored how easy it was to really do that in an AR-15. Now, we have great market support for more bolts and mag formats for the AR-15, so adopting non-223/5.56, non-.383 boltface rounds is easier and easier.

Side note: I can't imagine anyone in 1950 advising to NOT buy a Rem 721 in 222rem because it used a unique boltface, nor someone in 1964 advising against buying a 760 in 223rem for the same reason... But then again, maybe we do the same still today, because we recognize the .440" boltface in bolt guns is relatively under-supported... But then again, the cost of modification for MOST .440" stickshifts to convert to a more common .383, .473, or .532 cartridge is high, in some cases higher than the price of the rifle, whereas converting an AR between bolt faces is cheap (maybe Savage and Seekins have that part right?).

Some of us do like to cast a small stone at the 22 ARC, however, because it really isn't a 22 ARC, it's a 22 Grendel. The 6 ARC pushed back the shoulder and trimmed back the neck of the 6.5 Grendel case to accommodate the long ogives of heavy, aerodynamic 6mm bullets. But even the 90 class 22cal bullets just don't need so much room, so they kept the full length and gained some powder capacity. This is a relatively unique opportunity, where a 22cal version of a cartridge can much better compete with the 6mm version downrange. Naturally, the extra speed and powder burn means less barrel life, but there's real choice of balance between 22 ARC and 6 ARC, instead of the choice of concession which usually happens when going down in caliber for a given parent cartridge.

I haven't quite decided what I'd wanna do with a 22 ARC, so I haven't built one for myself yet. But I'm very tempted by the idea of a 20" carbon fiber barrel under a thermal optic for coyotes. Just too many other toys in line in front of it...

 

[igotta40]

The 22 ARC seems to be doing well, although, it's not necessarily projected to be anything more than it is. Boutique optionality is growing in popularity, and adaptive manufacturers are riding it hard. We've only had the 6 GT for a few years and we already have substantial market support for 22 and 25GT. We have Creeds in 6.5, 6, 25, and 22... Folks are buying "different," so different sells, and when adopting only means a barrel change, life is pretty sweet. We heard pushback against the 6.8spc and 6.5 grendel for a long time because "they need a different bolt and mags," and guys ignored how easy it was to really do that in an AR-15. Now, we have great market support for more bolts and mag formats for the AR-15, so adopting non-223/5.56, non-.383 boltface rounds is easier and easier.

Side note: I can't imagine anyone in 1950 advising to NOT buy a Rem 721 in 222rem because it used a unique boltface, nor someone in 1964 advising against buying a 760 in 223rem for the same reason... But then again, maybe we do the same still today, because we recognize the .440" boltface in bolt guns is relatively under-supported... But then again, the cost of modification for MOST .440" stickshifts to convert to a more common .383, .473, or .532 cartridge is high, in some cases higher than the price of the rifle, whereas converting an AR between bolt faces is cheap (maybe Savage and Seekins have that part right?).

Some of us do like to cast a small stone at the 22 ARC, however, because it really isn't a 22 ARC, it's a 22 Grendel. The 6 ARC pushed back the shoulder and trimmed back the neck of the 6.5 Grendel case to accommodate the long ogives of heavy, aerodynamic 6mm bullets. But even the 90 class 22cal bullets just don't need so much room, so they kept the full length and gained some powder capacity. This is a relatively unique opportunity, where a 22cal version of a cartridge can much better compete with the 6mm version downrange. Naturally, the extra speed and powder burn means less barrel life, but there's real choice of balance between 22 ARC and 6 ARC, instead of the choice of concession which usually happens when going down in caliber for a given parent cartridge.

I haven't quite decided what I'd wanna do with a 22 ARC, so I haven't built one for myself yet. But I'm very tempted by the idea of a 20" carbon fiber barrel under a thermal optic for coyotes. Just too many other toys in line in front of it...

That is a comprehensive and detailed analysis, thanks.

 

[rdnktrkr]

How does the 22 ARC do at over 600yrds compared to the 6mm ARC, I was thinking about another AR and the only difference between those 2 would be the barrel, I've built the Aero lower and the upper is setting there waiting on me, 17" handguard so I'm thinking 20 or 22" barrel

 

[horsemen61]

Seems like a fun round

 

[troy fairweather]

I'm thinking of picking up a barrel some day for my ar and maybe build a clone to my 6arc upper since I have another of the same handguard. Probably get another shaw barrel when on-sale again since the 6arc shoots so good. I don't really have a use for it tho,

 

[Show Me]

That is a comprehensive and detailed analysis, thanks.

Add that it takes new cartridges and names to bring new and young people into the sports and hobby. Latest greatest examples are expanding.

 

[bfoosh006]

IMHO , the .223 / 5.56 AR juggernaut, is losing a little steam ( it isn't sinking by any means )... lots of people are looking for "more" out of the standard AR sized platform.... rather than just buying another .223 / 5.56 AR15 to add to the herd.
So the more choices, the merrier.

Anyone know , off the top of their head , the barrel life of the 22ARC v. 6MM ARC v. 6.5Grendal ?

 

[WestKentucky]

I struggle to see the point for a lot of the new stuff that’s coming out. This is one of those. Is it significantly better than the Valkyrie? I don’t have a Valk barrel, or an arc barrel either, so maybe I’m just missing out on something. I do want a superspeed small bore, but realistically I don’t want something that I won’t be able to feed in the future, and if I’m going to drop a pile of money on it I want to understand what’s actually better about it than well established rounds like 22-250 or .243, or maybe .204 Ruger.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive never owned a Valk, and only shot a couple of different guns on different occasions, so don't have enough experience.

That said, the ARC case is probably a better design for launching the heavies. Its basically a 22PPC with a long throat and a fast twist....hard to knock the 22PPCs accuracy record.
If all your doing is launching varmint or light medium game bullets, I don't think there will be much difference between the ARC and Valk performance.

Personally the 22ARC doesn't do anything for me. If I didn't already have my 6ARC done, and I got a 22ARC barrel cheap I might have gone that way, but as it stand cant really see an advantage for me to go down to a .22 cal for what I do.

 

[troy fairweather]

Ive never owned a Valk, and only shot a couple of different guns on different occasions, so don't have enough experience.

That said, the ARC case is probably a better design for launching the heavies. Its basically a 22PPC with a long throat and a fast twist....hard to knock the 22PPCs accuracy record.
If all your doing is launching varmint or light medium game bullets, I don't think there will be much difference between the ARC and Valk performance.

Personally the 22ARC doesn't do anything for me. If I didn't already have my 6ARC done, and I got a 22ARC barrel cheap I might have gone that way, but as it stand cant really see an advantage for me to go down to a .22 cal for what I do.

It would be interesting how the new eld-vt bullets fly out of the arc, cheap 22 bullets are cheaper the the cheap 6mms but your still using 30 grains of powder so it's not like it will be 223 cheap. If I had a place to do more woodchuck and coyote hunting the 22 maybe good but the 6arc is more versatile.

 

[R_P_K]

I struggle to see the point for a lot of the new stuff that’s coming out. This is one of those. Is it significantly better than the Valkyrie? I don’t have a Valk barrel, or an arc barrel either, so maybe I’m just missing out on something. I do want a superspeed small bore, but realistically I don’t want something that I won’t be able to feed in the future, and if I’m going to drop a pile of money on it I want to understand what’s actually better about it than well established rounds like 22-250 or .243, or maybe .204 Ruger.

Agreed, at this point in time every possible need in a rifle cartridge has already been filled at this point, and has been over and over for decades. It's just a way for companies to sell us new cartridges and rifles to fill a spot that has been filled many times over by other similar cartridges. I'm not against anything new, but let's not pretend that any of them are needed at this point.

 

[kmw1954]

I have been currently shooting a 223 bolt rifle, which I enjoy tremendously. but is nearing it's end of barrel life. It will most likely be replaced with another 223 barrel. The intended use for this is informal bench shooting at small targets. Though because of this requirement I had been tempted to move up to a 22-250 but I keep coming back to the question of do I really want to burn that much powder punching holes. In this case the 22ARC may be a viable alternative.

Instead, for now I have acquired a 6ARC bolt rifle to play around with. But that also doesn't mean I won't go back to the 223.

 

[Varminterror]

How does the 22 ARC do at over 600yrds compared to the 6mm ARC,

How far past 600? With the 88-90’s, the 22ARC will do very well past 600, and as I mentioned above, it’s basically a horserace. The larger 22 ARC case can push the 88 ELD with the same BC as a 105 Hybrid - BETTER BC than the 108 ELD 6mm - to the same speed as the 6mm can push the 105/108’s. Little more wind drift on the 22 and a little more splash for the heavier 6mm, but overall, VERY similar trajectory.

Anyone know , off the top of their head , the barrel life of the 22ARC v. 6MM ARC v. 6.5Grendal ?

6.5 Grendel tends to hang around for ~4,500-5,000 before things start changing. Not so dissimilar from 223/5.56. 6 ARC is usually gone by 3000 in a gasser, a hair less in a stickshift. I haven’t burned a 22 ARC, but knowing what to expect, I’d want a barrel on hand by 2500.

 

[igotta40]

I have been currently shooting a 223 bolt rifle, which I enjoy tremendously. but is nearing it's end of barrel life. It will most likely be replaced with another 223 barrel. The intended use for this is informal bench shooting at small targets. Though because of this requirement I had been tempted to move up to a 22-250 but I keep coming back to the question of do I really want to burn that much powder punching holes. In this case the 22ARC may be a viable alternative.

Instead, for now I have acquired a 6ARC bolt rifle to play around with. But that also doesn't mean I won't go back to the 223.

Same here. I have a 300 Win Mag that will probably be sold when I run out of hand loading components for it.