Thread: 222 vs 223 on deer

The clincher is probably the availability of rifles. Not much choice in new .222 rifles these days.
GPM.

An old acquaintance of mine did culling in the BOP back in the later 70s. His comments on the rugers were that they didn't always shoot that well. A few had them rebarrelled to suit the 222 ammo they could get and the new barrel helped groups incredibly.

well I possibly shot myself in the foot somewhat ,when I shortened my 222 down to 16"..... but its lovely to carry and the animals dont seem to mind.IF I can connect they seem to die just fine.
pretty well said yes to owning it,with one block I hunt in mind...not often a 2nd quick shot is needed and ranges are usually either under 50 yards or waaay out there,250-plus
already owning a .223 that is just great...I wanted a point of difference between the two rifles.
loaded with 50-52grn projectiles and a few of the 63grn semi point sierras...it works fine.
time will tell

Originally Posted by video hunter

There is a post on here titled '223 on deer' that has gained a bit of traction, well done.

Perhaps someone should start a post on 222 on deer?

However parts of it have wandered off onto 222 rifles etc like most of these forum posts do.

I'm not really a gun person and more into my photography. I have a collection as I have stated before on 35mm photos from the past again and I am putting them up for forum enjoyment.

However I have used both 222 and 223 just like others on this forum.
Yes as we all know the 222 caliber was used all over the world and some will have a following on it. So this thread is about the comparison of 222 vs 223 on deer. I'll leave this for the technical gun experts to sort out and explain.


Some postings on 222.
I was just like anyone else joining the NZFS like hundreds of others. At that early time period you could get a reduction deal on the price of either a 222 or a 270 rifle. The rifle I got was a Sako 222.

Yes it was stated on the other post '223 on deer' that a guy shot himself in the foot in the Ruahines and I have heard that a few times also. The 222 photos posting relate to the NZFS Ruahine area about 1974 period.


Attachment 230695

Rain gauge photo..... What has this got to do with a 222/223 posting. The fact is they were there in the 1970s and also I couldn't find other photos to match this 222 posting within that time period associated with deer culling etc.

Attachment 230696

Ruahine red deer

This is what you did in those days.....
1. Go shoot a deer
2. Remove its tail, this was to show the numbers culled.

Garry Sutton was culling in the NW Ruahines in 74. He confirmed the NZFS in their infinite wisdom would not supply ammo for 243 even though it was a perfect calibre for culling. He used a 270 which he called it a blunderbuss. It was the proverbial pos called a BSA CF2.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Shearer

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.

Having owned both 222 and 223, and used 55gr projectiles in them. Thats really where their all round ability lies. I know heavier projectiles will allow more specialised use in todays world. But many people still just want a rifle That will take a deer if they are careful, but also happily shoot a few rabbits and hares with as well. Without the need for a pocket full of technology.
For me, if I want to use or feel I need a heavier projectile Ill grab a 243, if I think the distance will be longer. Or a grendel if the distance is likely to be under 250m

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Having owned both 222 and 223, and used 55gr projectiles in them. Thats really where their all round ability lies. I know heavier projectiles will allow more specialised use in todays world. But many people still just want a rifle That will take a deer if they are careful, but also happily shoot a few rabbits and hares with as well. Without the need for a pocket full of technology.
For me, if I want to use or feel I need a heavier projectile Ill grab a 243, if I think the distance will be longer. Or a grendel if the distance is likely to be under 250m

If you shoot a rabbit or hare with a .223 (or .222 if you could find one twisted appropriately) with a heavy bullet, it will die.

There's a lot to appreciate about the simplicity of having a single light recoiling quiet rifle that kills everything with no fuss - the .223 with 70-80gr bullets is definitely a simple "general purpose" option (as would the .222 be, if built with a 1:7 or 1:8 twist) for the handloader. There's no additional complexity to handloading a heavy bullet vs light.

Originally Posted by gimp

If you shoot a rabbit or hare with a .223 (or .222 if you could find one twisted appropriately) with a heavy bullet, it will die.

There's a lot to appreciate about the simplicity of having a single light recoiling quiet rifle that kills everything with no fuss - the .223 with 70-80gr bullets is definitely a simple "general purpose" option (as would the .222 be, if built with a 1:7 or 1:8 twist) for the handloader. There's no additional complexity to handloading a heavy bullet vs light.

Yes, but so is the same rifles with 55gr projectiles. and flatter shooting at the ranges im thinking of. Simplicity for me is knowing my little Howa 223 will shoot almost any factory 55gr factory load with acceptable accuracy as well as a hand load of same weight if I wish to reload. Over the last few years of ammo and component shortage it has been very comforting knowing my cabinet of ammo of many brands was all usable at the drop of a hat.
when we have time to tinker, then tinker away, but just having a standard factory rifle that shoots standard ammo and being able to pick both up and go hunting has a value of its own.

@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