.222 v .223

[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

[Jeff303]

Ill have a 222 anyday. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with them.
Dont need the latest just because its newer.
In the paddock theres no difference

[Oldbloke]

The discussion is pointless. The numbers indicate the 223 has an advantage. But in real life it is minimal, perhaps 5%. Not enough to argue over. The foxes don't care about 250fps difference.

[bigfellascott]

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

As you are discovering there are plenty of sheeple out there, I've cleaned up a ****** of Roos over the years with a 222 - over 300 in 4 or 5 days and only 1 needed a follow up shot after a slight miscalculation

[bladeracer]

The discussion is pointless. The numbers indicate the 223 has an advantage. But in real life it is minimal, perhaps 5%. Not enough to argue over. The foxes don't care about 250fps difference.

There is little difference between the two with light bullets, the .223's advantage begins with heavier bullets that the .222 won't shoot.

[happyhunter]

.

[bladeracer]

55 grain for the 222 cos I know my antique rifle stabilizes them and 70 grain to utilize the fast twist flashy new technology 223s of today. Surprise!! sweet FA difference in the bull-istics

36% more energy at 300yds is pretty significant.

[bigfellascott]

It doesn't matter how fast or how heavy the projectile is if you don't put it in the right spot - Period! Getting the shot placement right is way more important than how fast a projectile is going or how heavy it is, seen plenty of small/medium size animals get shot with all sorts of big CF cals that just kept going only to need a follow up shot to kill them because people make the ASSumption that because they used a cannon it would kill the animal no matter where it's shot, clearly they were wrong.

[bigfellascott]

Just get a 204 - it kills very well way out yonder

[bladeracer]

It doesn't matter how fast or how heavy the projectile is if you don't put it in the right spot - Period!

Of course, that's a given, but not relevant to a discussion of the differences between two specific cartridges.

[bigfellascott]

It doesn't matter how fast or how heavy the projectile is if you don't put it in the right spot - Period!

Of course, that's a given, but not relevant to a discussion of the differences between two specific cartridges.

Yeah it is the point mate, does matter if one shoots heavier projectiles at warp speed if you don't put em in the right place in the first place, as I said early seen people use 375HH to shoot roos and not place the shot well and the animal runs off wounded because they do what everyone seems to do and just assume because they use a heavy projectile they can shoot things anywhere and they will fall over which clearly isn't the case all too often, shot placement is the important part to get a good humane kill on anything medium/large, small things like rabbits doesn't matter much when shot with something heavy or light depending on how hard the light pill is driven and whether its a fragile projectile or not.

Speaking of projectiles no one has mentioned what would be the best to get the job done using a 222 or 223, some of these Heavy projies that get run in 223's are more for long range target shooting so not really designed for hunting so to speak (not all of them are target orientated but I think a lot more are designed for that purpose more so than hunting purposes - you could get away with using them if the shot placement is good (ie head shots), haven't seen too much get up and run when whacked in the scone right.

[bladeracer]

Yeah it is the point mate, does matter if one shoots heavier projectiles at warp speed if you don't put em in the right place in the first place, as I said early seen people use 375HH to shoot roos and not place the shot well and the animal runs off wounded because they do what everyone seems to do and just assume because they use a heavy projectile they can shoot things anywhere and they will fall over which clearly isn't the case all too often, shot placement is the important part to get a good humane kill on anything medium/large, small things like rabbits doesn't matter much when shot with something heavy or light depending on how hard the light pill is driven and whether its a fragile projectile or not.

Speaking of projectiles no one has mentioned what would be the best to get the job done using a 222 or 223, some of these Heavy projies that get run in 223's are more for long range target shooting so not really designed for hunting so to speak (not all of them are target orientated but I think a lot more are designed for that purpose more so than hunting purposes - you could get away with using them if the shot placement is good (ie head shots), haven't seen too much get up and run when whacked in the scone right.

If one of them had a significant accuracy advantage I would agree, that would be relevant in choosing between the two. Since the two cartridges in question are pretty evenly matched accuracy-wise, shot placement is not relevant because we can assume that both are capable of placing the bullets with similar accuracy. Difference in recoil is insignificant so we can also assume that one shooter can probably shoot both equally well.

The differences only become apparent when you start asking the cartridge to cleanly knock down bigger targets, then the .223's higher energy potential is significant. Hunting is not at all about trying to kill the biggest beast with the smallest cartridge, that's just stupidity. Hunting is about taking a life, so it is worth having sufficient power plus a decent margin to ensure humane kills and less risk of wounding. Even world champion class shooters can't place every bullet exactly where they want it every time.

[bigfellascott]

If one of them had a significant accuracy advantage I would agree, that would be relevant in choosing between the two. Since the two cartridges in question are pretty evenly matched accuracy-wise, shot placement is not relevant because we can assume that both are capable of placing the bullets with similar accuracy. Difference in recoil is insignificant so we can also assume that one shooter can probably shoot both equally well.

The differences only become apparent when you start asking the cartridge to cleanly knock down bigger targets, then the .223's higher energy potential is significant. Hunting is not at all about trying to kill the biggest beast with the smallest cartridge, that's just stupidity. Hunting is about taking a life, so it is worth having sufficient power plus a decent margin to ensure humane kills and less risk of wounding. Even world champion class shooters can't place every bullet exactly where they want it every time.[/quote]

We should all just buy 50cals and be done with it then hey mate, nothing should get up from being hit with one of them no matter if you hit em in the big toe they should still die hey.

[happyhunter]

.

[bigfellascott]

Where on the body would you shoot a pig at say 200m with a 223 compared to say a 222 regardless of projectile weight? Would you go say for a heart/lung shot with the 223 because its shooting a heavier projectile or would you go a head shot for argument sake?

Which would kill the pig with more certainty do you think - the head shot pig using a 222 or the heart/lung shot with the 223 using heavier projectiles?

[albat]

Must be beer "o"clock on here my thumbs aching from tabbing down , love your work guys

[bigfellascott]

Must be beer "o"clock on here my thumbs aching from tabbing down , love your work guys

Good night

[bladeracer]

160 ft/lbs is not that much and it's mute anyway because at 300 yards neither is going to be reliable on medium game, and that's the point. Mild cartridges like 222 and 223 are a poor choice for heavier game no matter how they are marketed. The difference in terminal energy is minor inside the range the GMX will mushroom properly and continues to decrease right to the distance most game is taken, ie. about 50 yards.

Personally, I'll keep my 222 for foxes and if I need more range I have a 204 for that, which has it all over the 223.. hahaha

I agree with all your points here.

[deanp100]

The 223 outdoes a 222. A 22/250 outdoes the 223. A swift outdoes the 22/250. The 243 outdoes the 22/250. A 25/06 outdoes the 243. There is always something bigger but not necessarily better suited. If they burn more powder they produce more energy. Simple really. Do you need a 6 cyl if the 4 cyl does the job nicely. The 222 has been a cool gun for a long long time and continues to be one. Factor coolness into your equation.