Would you rather have and why????

[Offfhand]

Voting for the 722 in .222 Rem. is a no-brainer for me because that combination was a world-changer when they were introduced and continue to influence everything we know, or think we know, about rifle design,performance and accuracy. I've had several of them over the years, and tested a lot more, and made some valuable observations about the fundamentals of rifle accuracy. Attached are photos of a couple: A "B" grade, with factory checkering and Lyman Super Targetspot scope of the era, and a standard grade with Lyman 10X All-American scope in Buehler mounts, which was pretty fancy stuff back then. Both have the desirable 26" barrels of early production. Also, a target showing the first three 5-shot groups fired from the "B" when I got it last year. Which ain't bad at all.

 

[JTHunter]

Neither. The reason is that I have a 700 with wood stock in .243 already. My reloads let me have the scope dead on at 200 yards.

 

[Dr T]

722. No contest. I have several 223's (A bolt gun, a MSR, and a Single shot) and don't need or want another. But the 722 is an important piece of sporting rifle history.

 

[Sistema1927]

Buy both. Life is short.

 

[Bushpilot]

Offhand, you have some of the coolest rifles on here... and these are no exception... I have the the B with the 26 in barrel..

 

[DM~]

I do have a couple 222's and it's one of my fav cartridges...

BUT, I like the improved extractor in the 700 better and there's nothing wrong with the .223...

DM

 

[old heeler]

I passed on the 722/222 for a 722/222mag, shot ton of PD with it.

 

[witchhunter]

Another vote for the .222. But, I just built a Kreiger barreled 700 in one. It is a great caliber, as is the .223, the deuce was king until the military picked the 223 and it became the darling of almost everyone. A hundred FPS was a lot in the days of many people using a Hornet or a Bee at 2400-2800. Several benchrest records were set with the little deuce for many, many years.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

722 and the Triple Deuce in a heartbeat...but I handload.

 

[montanaoffroader]

Definitely the 722. It would go nicely with my 721.........

 

[MachIVshooter]

If one is just into collecting semi-unique rifles in nearly obsolete chamberings, then the 722. If you actually want to shoot the thing, the 700 .223 is the rational choice.

 

[Legionnaire]

Interesting that they are running neck and neck. I am not a "collector," but still favor the 722. I handload, and am sure I would enjoy playing with the .222.

 

[Riomouse911]

I chose the .223 ONLY because I live in a State that has banned internet ammo purchases, finding .222 Remington ammo is practically impossible on store shelves, and I’m not a fan of having to go reloading-only for my rifles. I practically have to do that now for my Rem 722 in .257 Roberts and for 8x57,.303 British and 6.5x55 Swede rifles since affordable ammo for these can be scarce on most store shelves as well .

Stay safe!

 

[someguy2800]

As was mentioned, a 222 is a reamer away from a 223. But I handload, so I would buy a couple hundred 222 brass and some v-max’s and leave it like it is. You can of course form 222 brass from 223 but I like my head stamps to be correct if reasonably possible.

 

[ExAgoradzo]

Sorry, I haven’t read everybody’s...

I had a 722. Worst gun ever. I know...everyone has a bad gun... nevertheless there’s a bad taste in my mouth.

But more importantly, the round. I’d go .223. I don’t need another gun that has to be rolled on my own... YMMV.

Greg