.222 v .223

Bolt action rifles, lever action, pump action, self loading rifles and other miscellaneous longarms.

.222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 05 Jan 2017, 3:03 am

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 :ugeek:
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by bladeracer » 05 Jan 2017, 3:50 am

duncan61 wrote: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 :ugeek:



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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 05 Jan 2017, 3:56 am

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
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 05 Jan 2017, 4:06 am

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.
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by happyhunter » 05 Jan 2017, 6:02 am

.
Last edited by happyhunter on 24 Feb 2017, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .222 v .223

Post by straightshooter » 05 Jan 2017, 7:12 am

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.
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1263
New South Wales

Re: .222 v .223

Post by happyhunter » 05 Jan 2017, 9:14 am

.
Last edited by happyhunter on 24 Feb 2017, 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .222 v .223

Post by on_one_wheel » 05 Jan 2017, 10:07 am

happyhunter wrote: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. ... :problem:

It makes perfect sense to me.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by happyhunter » 05 Jan 2017, 10:48 am

.
Last edited by happyhunter on 24 Feb 2017, 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 05 Jan 2017, 12:00 pm

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
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by on_one_wheel » 05 Jan 2017, 12:30 pm

happyhunter wrote: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.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by bigfellascott » 05 Jan 2017, 12:47 pm

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. :thumbsup:

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 :D
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .222 v .223

Post by on_one_wheel » 05 Jan 2017, 12:48 pm

duncan61 wrote: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
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by happyhunter » 05 Jan 2017, 1:00 pm

.
Last edited by happyhunter on 24 Feb 2017, 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .222 v .223

Post by on_one_wheel » 05 Jan 2017, 1:05 pm

happyhunter wrote: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.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by happyhunter » 05 Jan 2017, 1:18 pm

.
Last edited by happyhunter on 24 Feb 2017, 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Gwion » 05 Jan 2017, 1:23 pm

(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.
Last edited by Gwion on 06 Jan 2017, 6:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Gwion » 05 Jan 2017, 1:25 pm

Yep... Heavier bullets for long range target work in a 223.... not really for long distance hunting.
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 05 Jan 2017, 3:10 pm

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
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by bladeracer » 05 Jan 2017, 7:54 pm

on_one_wheel wrote: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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Bills Shed » 05 Jan 2017, 9:03 pm

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
Swaging your own projectiles is the ultimate in flexibility.
Bills Shed
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 433
Tasmania

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 06 Jan 2017, 12:42 am

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
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by bigfellascott » 06 Jan 2017, 5:21 am

Bills Shed wrote: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 :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Jeff303 » 06 Jan 2017, 6:43 am

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
Jeff303
Private
Private
 
Posts: 77
New South Wales

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Bills Shed » 06 Jan 2017, 7:13 am

Jeff303 wrote: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 :thumbsup:
Swaging your own projectiles is the ultimate in flexibility.
Bills Shed
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 433
Tasmania

Re: .222 v .223

Post by straightshooter » 06 Jan 2017, 7:53 am

happyhunter wrote: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.
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1263
New South Wales

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Gwion » 06 Jan 2017, 11:15 am

Boys, boys....

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

I mean 'what, at how far, with which cartridge'!
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 06 Jan 2017, 12:29 pm

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
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: .222 v .223

Post by Bills Shed » 06 Jan 2017, 1:14 pm

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

Bill
Swaging your own projectiles is the ultimate in flexibility.
Bills Shed
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 433
Tasmania

Re: .222 v .223

Post by duncan61 » 06 Jan 2017, 1:31 pm

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
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Centerfire rifles