Thread: 222 vs 223 on deer

Well this is a cool post

I'm just starting a 222 Rimmed build.

Some guys would think that's odd with absolutely no factory ammunition available.

I have somewhere around 25 different calibers of rifles.
There are 4 rimfire I don't reload for
One rimfire I do reload for
If the remaining 20 different centerfire calibers there is one I don't reload for because I got given heaps ( but do have dies and massive piles of brass ).

So what I'm getting at is I personally don't find factory ammo a good point in choosing a caliber
Shoot what you want for what ever reason you choose too

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

yes sadly the Forest service stores board had much to answer for - the sako vixen in .222 ran out and what did the Muppets in stores Board replace it with a sportco .222 no one wanted them

Had one of them for a while, was still more accurate than a Mini 14 in 223. Ruger was good for about 6 inch group @ 100yds before a bit of tuning, was never particularly good for accuracy.

Main difference between the two - for some reason the .222 only ever seemed to be produced in barrel twists that really limited the weight of pill. Modern .223's with fast twist barrels are a lot more versatile than the older slow-twist jobbies, and if you can still pick up new .222's they don't seem to have the faster twist rates that give you the versatility.

Originally Posted by No.3

Main difference between the two - for some reason the .222 only ever seemed to be produced in barrel twists that really limited the weight of pill. Modern .223's with fast twist barrels are a lot more versatile than the older slow-twist jobbies, and if you can still pick up new .222's they don't seem to have the faster twist rates that give you the versatility.

you know the funny part about that????
if Stoner had been listened too..the 5.56/223 would have KEPT a slowertwist barrel for military use.... a barely stable projectile is much more vicious on impact than a very stable one

Originally Posted by Nathan F

Me

I heard of a guy that had to replace his Tikka .223 barrel after 14,000 rounds. Must have been the fact it was never cleaned that accounted for the terribly short barrel life…

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

okay but how many hunters reload and are willing to burn their 223 barrel out by supercharging it

Loading heavy bullets inside book load data parameters gets you the performance referred to, with no barrel life reduction

Originally Posted by gimp

Loading heavy bullets inside book load data parameters gets you the performance referred to, with no barrel life reduction

okay reloaders who know what they are doing will I dont doubt use loads that will be all okay for their barrel - but my point was that a new shooter who buys factory ammo will not find any real difference in practical terms between .222 and .223 - so if you can buy a sako vixen in .222 and enjoy the best ever made

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

okay reloaders who know what they are doing will I dont doubt use loads that will be all okay for their barrel - but my point was that a new shooter who buys factory ammo will not find any real difference in practical terms between .222 and .223 - so if you can buy a sako vixen in .222 and enjoy the best ever made

A shooter purchasing factory ammo will indeed notice a very distinct difference between .222 and .223 - there is very little .222 ammunition available to purchase unfortunately

Which is better 222 or 223?
222 Remington performance is only slightly less than the more common 223 Remington. A 55 grain 222 Remington round travels at 3,095 feet per second with 1,170 foot-pounds on target. Compare that to the same 55 grain 223 Remington round which travels at 3,240 feet per second with 1,265 foot-pounds on target.

is that substantially better - I would suggest only marginally better - look a goat or fallow at 100 yds thru shoulder -will they notice- likely not - and on that note I give up as I am a dedicated .222 shooter always have been - long live that fine caliber

It is true that with 55gn projectiles there is little difference but modern 223s will happily shoot 80+gn projectiles. There in lies the biggest difference.

Bought my Sako Vixen .222 from the NZFS in the early 70's for $180 if my memory is correct. Still got it. Had it re-blued and re-chequered a few years ago and restored the accuracy by cutting an inch off the barrel and recrowned it.
As the NZFS was slow to adopt .223 I bought a Ruger Mini 14 in 1979 and got Din Collins to modify it to fire .222. It was a great rifle (particularly with the large capacity magazines) and surprisingly accurate.

@Backcountry Bob that backs up what a mate told me about them.
Something rings a bell about an old story about their barrels. Supposedly the barrels were machined extremely quickly for budget purposes and could build up a lot of internal stresses which didn't help accuracy.
A proper rebarrel got away from that

Oh, I hadn't heard that about the barrels. I've got a Hardy suppressor attached now and it's shooting as good as new. I've always been pretty meticulous about cleaning it which probably helps.

Graham Henry did an article in late 80s for Rod n Rifle magazine...breaking down the cost of making a rifle...bottom line was some of the rifles of the day..Ruger was named only had $50 left from that budget for the barrel...and yet they still turned out good rifles.
little wonder a rebarrel to something higher spec made big difference

I have a 222 with a 9 twist 20 inch barrel. It shoots the same 69gr mk as my 8 twist 23inch 223. Just 200fps slower. Both could be pushed a bit harder but accuracy is were it is. If I chopped the 223 it would loose a lot of the advantage making terminal performance more comparable.