New to me 222 Rem

[Walkalong]

. If the 2015 doesn't impress me

It should do well.

 

[TEXASJD]

Please excuse me for continueing to butt in on this thread, but previous mention of the success of the .222 Rem in benchrest competitions caused me to remember this beautiful .222 benchrest rifle built by Shilen back in the 1960's. Bench rifles tend to be rather ungainly affairs with little thought to appearance so long as they shoot well. However, Ed Shilen, who was a consistent winner in BR competitions, also had an eye for a rifle's contour and finish seen in the attached pics. I haven't shot this rifle in competition for decades but keep it around because of its sculptured contours and craftsman finish. The barrel, stock and action sleeve were made in Shilen's shop. The action is a Rem 40-X single shot (no magazine cut). BTW, the .222 faded out of BR competition not because more accurate cartridges were developed, but because a then new BR classification and rules made it inpractical to compete with the 222. Otherwise I'd still be shooting this rifle.View attachment 1180937View attachment 1180938View attachment 1180939View attachment 1180940View attachment 1180941View attachment 1180942View attachment 1180943

Not sure if there is anything much more accurate than a Duce but a 6mm dopes the wind better

 

[TEXASJD]

Med to med fast burn rate hard to find something they won’t shoot

 

[Anchorite]

It should do well.

I’m still burning 2015 in my 222. Bought 4 8lb jugs back in the late 90s. Love that stuff.

 

[P Flados]

FYI,

I am pretty sure both H332 and AA 2015 are small kernel extruded powders.

Then when you look at the Quickload data, the key numbers (charge, fill & velocity) are very close. My bet is that when AA 2015 was introduced, it was intended to go head to head with H322. Based on the H332 track record, I would expect AA 2015 to work very well.

 

[Walkalong]

Yes they are, and yes they are similar, and they both worked well for me in 6 PPC, and although N-133 pushed them out, they still worked very well.

 

[1948CJ2A]

That's good information to know; always appreciate this community's wealth of knowledge.

I loaded up the same charge, brass, and primer but with two different projectiles both in 50gr weights. One is the Hornady V-Max, which I already had some on hand from some of my 22-250 loads. The other one is Speer Varmint, which are not polymer tipped and have a slightly fatter taper to them compared to the Hornady V-Max. The C.O.L for the Speers is 2.155 and 2.165 for the Hornady. I started off longer, then checked in the rifle and backed them off a couple of hundredths off that. They chamber fine and magazine length is no issue on the 722.

I hope to make it out to the range sometime in the next month to test and then report back.

 

[35 Whelen]

As a boy I remember my dad coming up with a Remington Model 700 heavy barrel in .222 Remington. I distinctly remember going to the range with him and watching him shoot insanely small groups with it. When it came time for me to deer hunt he got a Savage 340 in .222 for me to use.
I would think any of the medium-fast burning powders such as H322 or H335 would work great. Handloaded, the .222 is not far at all behind the .223/5.56 and will pretty easily run a 55 gr. bullet 3200 fps. I can probably gey my Dad's load log and see what powder and loads he used in his various .222's.
35W

 

[MacAR]

will pretty easily run a 55 gr. bullet 3200 fps.

I can't speak for your rifle, but my 340 won't shoot 55s for crap. I'd say that has to do with the 1 in 14 twist rather than the load itself. Mine does it's best with a 50gr pill, so I stopped experimenting there.

Mac

 

[Litetrigger]

Excuse me for butting in again, but had almost forgotten this Winchester Pre-64 M-70 chambered for .222 Rem. If you're thinking "Woah, Winchester never made a M-70 in .222" you are right, so how this one came to exist is interesting. From its very beginning the .222 earned a reputation for accuracy but that reputation came about because of its performance with Remington's butt-ugly M-722, which Winchester fans would have nothing to do with. So the clever gunsmiths at Griffin & Howe devised ways to convert M-70 .22 Hornet rifles to .222. The coversion was more complex than a simple rechambering job because of the odd case extraction and ejection of the Hornet bolt, plus converting the magazine system to feed the .222. Plus the looming possibility that the Hornet's smaller .223" bore might not shoot well enough with the larger .224" diameter of .222 bullets. So it cameabout M-70 .22 Hornets became .222 Hornets and the barrels so marked, and .222 ammo shot beautifully, on a par with Rem. 722's. The conversion must have become rather popular for a while as I've found three of them: one that I later had rebarreled to .223 Rem, and another shown here.

 

[1948CJ2A]

Excuse me for butting in again, but had almost forgotten this Winchester Pre-64 M-70 chambered for .222 Rem. If you're thinking "Woah, Winchester never made a M-70 in .222" you are right, but how this one came to exist is interesting. From its very beginning the .222 earned a reputation for accuracy but that reputation came about because of its performance with Remington's butt-ugly M-722, which Winchester fans would have nothing to do with. So the clever gunsmiths at Grinnin & Howe devised ways to convert M-70 .22 Hornet rifles to .222. The coversion was more complex than a simple rechambering job because of the odd case extraction and ejection of the Hornet bolt, plus converting the magazine system to feed the .222. Plus the looming possibility that the Hornet's smaller .223" bore might not shoot well enough with the larger .224" diameter of .222 bullets. So it cameabout M-70 .22 Hornets became .222 Hornets and the barrels so marked, and .222 ammo shot beautifully, on a par with Rem. 722's. The conversion must have become rather popular for a while as I've found three of them: one that I later had rebarreled to .222 Rem, and another shown here.View attachment 1181735

That's interesting and I had never heard of this. I agree the M70, especially the pre-64s, were much more attractive than their Remington 721 and 722 counterparts of the same era.

My 722 has an after-market stock, hand-checkering, ebony tip and cap with spacer, and polished bottom metal left in the white. I really like the look of it much more than the stock look. I'll see if I can get some better pictures posted of it on this thread soon.

 

[Walkalong]

Love that .22 Hornet........

 

[Anchorite]

Excuse me for butting in again, but had almost forgotten this Winchester Pre-64 M-70 chambered for .222 Rem. If you're thinking "Woah, Winchester never made a M-70 in .222" you are right, but how this one came to exist is interesting. From its very beginning the .222 earned a reputation for accuracy but that reputation came about because of its performance with Remington's butt-ugly M-722, which Winchester fans would have nothing to do with. So the clever gunsmiths at Griffin & Howe devised ways to convert M-70 .22 Hornet rifles to .222. The coversion was more complex than a simple rechambering job because of the odd case extraction and ejection of the Hornet bolt, plus converting the magazine system to feed the .222. Plus the looming possibility that the Hornet's smaller .223" bore might not shoot well enough with the larger .224" diameter of .222 bullets. So it cameabout M-70 .22 Hornets became .222 Hornets and the barrels so marked, and .222 ammo shot beautifully, on a par with Rem. 722's. The conversion must have become rather popular for a while as I've found three of them: one that I later had rebarreled to .222 Rem, and another shown here.View attachment 1181735View attachment 1181736View attachment 1181737View attachment 1181738View attachment 1181739

Wow. Really cool story. Thanks for sharing … and long live the Deuce!!

 

[Milt1]

I take exception to the remark that Winchester never made a Model 70 in .222 caliber because I have one. It isn't pre-64, rather it was made in 1978.

 

[1948CJ2A]

Took some pictures outside today of my 722 in 222 Rem. The more I shoot and handle this rifle, the more I like it. I had to put my Sako 22-250 in the back of the safe for a little bit while this one gets some late deer season varmit hunting trips.

 

[Milt1]

Took some pictures outside today of my 722 in 222 Rem. The more I shoot and handle this rifle, the more I like it. I had to put my Sako 22-250 in the back of the safe for a little bit while this one gets some late deer season varmit hunting trips.

The rifle may be a 722 but the stock is custom. It didn't come from the factory like that, who did that beautiful piece of wood?

 

[1948CJ2A]

The rifle may be a 722 but the stock is custom. It didn't come from the factory like that, who did that beautiful piece of wood?

That's correct, it's definitely not the original 722 stock that Remington put on it when new. I don't really have the back-story other than I bought it on GB in August and the seller said it came from a gunsmith's custom collection. Whoever did the checkering did a full wrap-around on the fore end, which is difficult and time consuming. I tried hand checkering a stock several years ago and it definitely is NOT my calling. I have high appreciation for those who execute checkering and wood-working at a high level like that.