.222 v .223

[duncan61]

I am sure this has probably been done before but I believe .222 does a very similar job to .223 and you cant load up a hornet to .222 even with a k chamber can anyone enlighten me.I have heard some tales over the years about .222 is useless in the wind or rain compared to .223.is this true

[bladeracer]

I am sure this has probably been done before but I believe .222 does a very similar job to .223 and you cant load up a hornet to .222 even with a k chamber can anyone enlighten me.I have heard some tales over the years about .222 is useless in the wind or rain compared to .223.is this true

Main difference is the twist rate is usually about 14" for .222 barrels, which limits bullet weights compared to an 8" twist .223.

I loved my .222 in the eighties, but I wouldn't bother nowadays.

[duncan61]

fair point.I will not get a .223 till my .222 is worn out and I rebarrel.I have seen what mixing the ammo can do

[duncan61]

Mine is a 22 inch S/S barrel with a 1.12 twist.I bought it new as my first high power rifle when I got my first damage licence for the farm I worked on.

[happyhunter]

.

[straightshooter]

Hi Duncan61
Your ss barreled 222 will probably deliver acceptable accuracy for 10 000 or more rounds so it's unlikely to need replacement for a long time unless you shoot professionally.
So if you already own a 222 and it satisfies your needs then why worry about a change?
On the other hand if you are looking to buy a rifle in the 222/223 class then a 223 is a 'no brainer' as many people these days have worked out for themselves.
Why?
Although there is only a slight difference in power, not enough to argue about, a 223 especially with 9" twist or even faster has it all over a 222.
It can use a wider range projectiles which will enable you to take heavier game at longer ranges.
Due to the 223's popularity brass and ammo are readily available and due to it's military use ex mil ammo and components are sometimes available at bargain prices.

[happyhunter]

.

[on_one_wheel]

And what is this heavier game shot at longer ranges where a fast twist 223 is a "no brainer"?

Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. ...

It makes perfect sense to me.

[happyhunter]

.

[duncan61]

Settle people.All the myth I heard was when I went north to shoot full time and the factory up Carnarvon give me the big yarn about how .222 wont work and we are all doomed but it did the job for me.I was younger and could see with a 6x40 fixed nighteater.I wish I had done this work when I was in my 30s cos I used to get pretty worn out.I have shot pigs on the run in the neck with my little .222 and it bowls them over.Its a forum and we can get all tech on ballistics but I have seen a kangaroo take a .243 in the nose and hop off.I put it down next shot and I have hit a roo in the chest at 100m with a 17HMR and it has dropped on the spot.One thing I am certain is that if you dont pull the trigger it will not drop

[on_one_wheel]

Answer the question. What is this "heavier game" and at what distance that makes the 223 a no brainer?

According to my ADI reloading manual the maximum weight projectile for
.222 is 63 grains
And
.223 is 90 grains

A .223 will fire the little 63 grain projectile at
3200 fps
A .222 will fire it's 63 grain projectile at 2935 fps

Bigger projectiles at higher speeds equals more energy at greater distances.

More retained energy means its more likely to cleanly kill larger game than a .222 would at any given range.

Simple realy.

If you doubt that then start punching the numbers into a balistic calculator and see how far both calibers will keep the projectile above the magical 300 f/lb mark.

[bigfellascott]

Mate shot a pig the other night at 200m with his 222 using I think 50gners - banged it right behind the ear and dead as a dodo, I'll say it again it's all about shot placement, get that right and you can drop just about anything with smaller CF cals, see pigs hit with 308's and the like and they run never to be seen again - shot placement is king above velocity or projectile weight for me.

If you are taking running shots or shots through scrubby country with the likely hood of hitting some foliage as it were then get a decent cal that will have more chance of anchoring them no matter where they are hit but if you have some open plains type land where you can take your time and place the shot well the smaller cals can usually get the job done ok IF YOU PLACE YOUR SHOTS WELL, if you're a peanut with f*** all ability get something bigger to do the job with to help allow for your inability as it were.

Or you can do what we were doing the last few days and use a IR scope and stalk in close and smack em that way

[on_one_wheel]

Settle people.All the myth I heard was when I went north to shoot full time and the factory up Carnarvon give me the big yarn about how .222 wont work and we are all doomed but it did the job for me.I was younger and could see with a 6x40 fixed nighteater.I wish I had done this work when I was in my 30s cos I used to get pretty worn out.I have shot pigs on the run in the neck with my little .222 and it bowls them over.Its a forum and we can get all tech on ballistics but I have seen a kangaroo take a .243 in the nose and hop off.I put it down next shot and I have hit a roo in the chest at 100m with a 17HMR and it has dropped on the spot.One thing I am certain is that if you dont pull the trigger it will not drop

What has been described here is exactly the reason why I stopped shooting roos with the .243 and bought myself a .223

The heavier projectile from the .243 is better suited to larger or tougher game as it was just drilling clean holes.

My .223 hits and expands far more rapidly than my .243

This practical test of balistic performance also helps to substantiate the claim that a .223 is better for larger game than a .222

[happyhunter]

.

[on_one_wheel]

hahaha.. hang on.. you compare your 223 to a 243 then say that proves something vs a 222? Lol. Try this test. Shoot a Kangaroo in the head with a 223, then shoot another in the exact same part of the head with a 222 and see if you can tell the difference. Do the same with chest shots, 10x then post up the results

You're realy struggling with the concept of balistic performance aren't you.

Ps. Shooting roos in the chest is not allowed.
Head shots only acording to the standards that the permit stipulates.

[happyhunter]

.

[Gwion]

(Edit: looks like HH beat me to it with his last response while I was taping away on my phone)

I think HH is pointing out the "heavier, larger, further" misnomer.

OOW pointed out pushing the same size bullet at faster speeds but the heavier bullets (say, 80gn in a 1:8 barrel) will be going slower and will be describing a more pronounced arc in the trajectory. Despite better performance for windage, this elevation arc makes picking range critical at longer distances. Yes, the bullet will carry further with more energy but putting it in a reliable kill zone gets trickier as range increases due to the trajectory.

If you were to say the ability to fire heavier bullets puts larger game at moderate ranges in your grasp, there may be no argument. A flat, fast round of the right construction is easier to place precisely in a hunting situation where max point blank is where you are operating.

Do the ballistics and see what gives best max point blank for a 3" kill zone (brain shot) between 222 with a 50gn bullet and 223 with an 80gn bullet (max vel). My bet is the 50gn will give you longer MPB and so give you 'further'.

I think it's the combination of " heavier = larger and further" that is getting in the way here. Happy to be proven wrong; just my understanding of the argument here.

[Gwion]

Yep... Heavier bullets for long range target work in a 223.... not really for long distance hunting.

[duncan61]

When I lived in the bush there were times I was working as a plumber at the adjoining station and needed a small red roo for food so I would hit them in the boiler room.At the time I only had the 17 Hmr and during the day I was not the best at distance head shooting.Now every thing is head shot cos that drops em better.Up north you cant get that close to them in the day.I would normally have the .243 for long range but it was in Bunbury 1300Km away

[bladeracer]

According to my ADI reloading manual the maximum weight projectile for
.222 is 63 grains
And
.223 is 90 grains

A .223 will fire the little 63 grain projectile at
3200 fps
A .222 will fire it's 63 grain projectile at 2935 fps

Bigger projectiles at higher speeds equals more energy at greater distances.

More retained energy means its more likely to cleanly kill larger game than a .222 would at any given range.

Simple realy.

If you doubt that then start punching the numbers into a ballistic calculator and see how far both calibers will keep the projectile above the magical 300 f/lb mark.

For standard or common .222's, twist is normally 14", which I think is too relaxed to stabilise 63's. My long-range bullet was 52gn, but I also shot 53gn and some 55gn FMJ's I picked up. 60gn might work okay but I think you're pushing the limits at that point. There is good reason why the majority of .224 bullets are in the 50-55gn range.
8" twist .223 will shoot up to about 80gn or a bit heavier depending on the specific bullet.

There is a difference, but it's not huge. In the interests of your target though, it's better to work further above the margin than rely on shot placement to fill any performance shortfall. My ADI book lists both the .222Rem and .223Rem pushing 55gn bullets at around 3100fps, with 300ft/lbs (and 1600fps min. velocity for VMax) at 470yds.

The .223's advantage is its tighter twist barrel allowing the heavier bullets. If you're only going to use the 35-55gn bullets then either will do the job just fine, but one will let you use heavier bullets if and when you wish to.

[Bills Shed]

I am with Happy hunter and his merry crew. Faster, heavier etc mean bugger all if you can not put it in the right place. A well placed shot will do its job even if it is a little lighter and a hair slower. It is all academic. Your Pig/ roo/ fox does not care at what speed the hole appeared in its head!
If you have a 222 there is no need to " upgrade" to 223.

Bill

[duncan61]

Thanks for your opinions I have learned more about rifle twist and understand the difference now and why the military wanted to use a smaller calibre with a heavier bullet

[bigfellascott]

I am with Happy hunter and his merry crew. Faster, heavier etc mean bugger all if you can not put it in the right place. A well placed shot will do its job even if it is a little lighter and a hair slower. It is all academic. Your Pig/ roo/ fox does not care at what speed the hole appeared in its head!
If you have a 222 there is no need to " upgrade" to 223.

Bill

+1

[Jeff303]

Imho, target is one thing, but if you need to take your 223 out of its comfort zone & use a heavy pill for hunting , perhaps stepping up to a bigger round would make more sense.
All rounds have a sweet spot of opmimal projectile weights.
Maybe thats just me tho

[Bills Shed]

Imho, target is one thing, but if you need to take your 223 out of its comfort zone & use a heavy pill for hunting , perhaps stepping up to a bigger round would make more sense.
All rounds have a sweet spot of opmimal projectile weights.
Maybe thats just me tho

Nicely said

[straightshooter]

And what is this heavier game shot at longer ranges where a fast twist 223 is a "no brainer"? Sounds a bit keyboard hunter to me.

Dear happyhunter (?)
I am happy to entertain criticism based on what I have actually written but not on a dyslexic amalgam of phrases or terms I may have used that is then put up as a 'straw man' for argument!
Please go back and reread my post, but this time make some effort to concentrate on what is actually written, and then tell me what is so egregiously wrong.

You might care to tell us how you personally have found a fast twist 223 with heavy bullets either deficient or insignificantly advantaged compared to your standard 222. I am sure at least some of the posters on this thread would be interested to know.

[Gwion]

Boys, boys....

Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who....

I mean 'what, at how far, with which cartridge'!

[duncan61]

I thought this might open a can of worms.I am enjoying the feedback cos I have worked with other shooters and .223.Like a lot of things you have to witness it to find the truth.A lot of attitude towards .222 may be cos its older and has been superseded by .223.people are surprised when the see what the .222 does

[Bills Shed]

superseded....... Now there is fighting words. Now it really begins.


Bill

[duncan61]

I have always believed the .223 was developed for the Military as the .222 did not quite reach the speed and penetration the U.S.were looking for.The.222 remington magnum was in the running but the Military chose the .223 which made it the popular cartridge it is today.They all work great regardless.I started this post cos I was not sure why I copped so much negative attitude by other kangaroo shooters when they found out I use a .222.Also my rifle is a light weight Ruger M77 with a slim S/S 22 inch barrel and synthetic stock not floated just bog standard.Till they physically see me drop roo after roo they dont believe it can do the job.I get where they are coming from that if you dont have a bull barrel fully floated .223 with a 24 inch barrel you dont stand a chance but I did alright