6mm-.222 remington

Discussion in '6PPC, 6-6.5x47, 6XC, 6 Rem, 243' started by jonsidneyb, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    I am curious about this wildcat.

    I am sure this is going to be very very mild mannered cartridge.

    Does anyone know where I can find performance specifications on it?

    Not interested in the 6x45 or the 6x47 based off of the .223 and .222 magnum but of the old classic .222 necked up.
     
  2. fdshuster

    fdshuster Site $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    4,082
    jonsidneyb: Not trying to throw cold water on your idea, but, some areas for you to consider.,1) The little 222, I have several) is a great ctg. but has a small case powder capacity. Opening it up to 6mm will still have limitations, since you simply cannot get enough powder in the case: the main problem with the 223 opened up to 6mm.,2) Since Lapua no longer makes 222 brass, glad I stocked-up when it was available) you are limited to few if any, choices of quality brass. Remington is definitely not quality!,3) When you open up the case neck to 6mm with the mandrel, the case neck will be pulled out of alignement-- way out, resulting in a lot of runnout with the loaded round, as verified w/ the Sinclair runnout gage. Some, but not all, will straighten-out during firing,s), but not all: they can be thrown in the garbage can. After years of using only high-quality brass, like Lapua and Norma, I recently picked up an old Sako Vixen,L46), this one in 222 Rem. Mag. I'm now forced to use the Remington brass: what an awakening. When the barrel,original Bofors steel) is due for replacement, it will not be in 222 Rem Mag. Just some of my thoughts, coupled with some experiences. :)
     
  3. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    I do know the capacity is very low on this cartridge.

    I know there are dies and reamers available for this 6/222 out there already. I was just curious on what kind of results this old wildcat gave.

    The .25 copperhead .257/222 does not seem to be a bad little cartridge so I thought a 6mm version of it might be a nice little thing.
     
  4. oldroper

    oldroper

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    127
    Acording to The Handloaoders Manual Of Cartridge Conversion the 6/222 has a water capacity in grs of 24.88gr the 222 has 26.19 gr and the case is different from the 222 and 25/222. Since you already know the case capacity of the 25/222 you know it's less than the 222 case and if you look at the velocity of the 6x45 and 6x47 you will be less that those case. In a custom rifle I wouldn't expect any less groups if you compare it to a custom 6x45 or 6x47. My first Br rifle was a 6x47AI.
     
  5. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    That is curious that the capacity would be smaller than both the .222 and the .25/.222. Does anyone know why the capacity is smaller than those?

    The capacity is not really an issue since if it was I would definately be looking at something else.

    I guess I am looking at the small end of size and velocity scale rather than faster like most seem to be looking for.
     
  6. Cheechako

    Cheechako

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,055
    jonsi

    I would guess that the author measured the volumes differently, used different brands of brass for the cartridges or was, how do I put this, wrong.:rolleyes: You can't neck a case from 224 to .243 and decrease the capacity.

    The 6/222, aka 6 x 43, is a perfectly reasonable wildcat as long as the owner realizes it's limitations, and it appears that you are experienced enough to know what you're doing. Even smaller 6mm cartridges, like the 6mm Super Jet exist, so you're not at the bottom of the ladder with the 6/222.

    JMHO

    Ray
     
  7. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    does this cartridge have a name other than these two 6/222, aka 6 x 43
     
  8. jb77

    jb77

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    The Loss of capacity is due to a larger caliber bullet being seated into the case. If case capacity is measured with out a bullet being seated then of course the results will differ.
     
  9. Cheechako

    Cheechako

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,055
    What????:confused:

    Ray
     
  10. Cheechako

    Cheechako

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,055
    I'm not taking sides here so I did my own very unscientific test of capacity.

    I used one case for all the measurements.

    W-W SUPER 222 REM

    Empty with fired primer in place = 95.9 Gr

    Filled to top with H2O = 123.3 Gr

    Weight of water = 27.4 Gr

    Filled with H2O and bullet seated .235" deep = 176.1

    Subtract bullet weight,54.7 gr) = water weight of 25.5 Gr

    Neck case up to 243.

    Empty with fired primer in place = 95.9 Gr

    Filled to top with H20 = 124.2 Gr

    Weight of water = 28.3 Gr

    Filled with H20 and bullet seated .235" deep = 186.2 Gr

    Subtract bullet weight,64.4 gr) = water weight of 25.9 Gr


    So FWIW, by necking up to 243 we gained .9 Gr water capacity without a bullet and .5 Gr with a bullet seated.

    Ray
     
  11. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    hmmmm,

    Then how is it that the .25/222 has more capacity as well? If there is a capcity difference I would think the one with the most and the one with the least would be at the ends of the three cartridges.

    .222 6/.222 257/.222
     
  12. oldroper

    oldroper

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    127
    You need to read my post again. Acording to The Handloaoders Manual Of Cartridge Conversion the 6/222 has a water capacity in grs of 24.88gr the 222 has 26.19 gr and the case is different from the 222 and 25/222. If they just necked up the 222 to 6mm sure you would have more capacity.


    Don't get me wrong when I say this, I guess I should have explained what different means but I assume you figure out they changed case dimensions.
     
  13. jb77

    jb77

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    Ray how deeply are you seating the bullets into the case? I completely agree that if you only seat no deeper than the shoulder neck junction you will gain volume. It's when you seat the larger caliber bullet below the neck shoulder junction you lose volume as the larger caliber bullet is displacicg more area than the 223 cal. bullet.
     
  14. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    It would have seemed simpler to just neck up the same as with the .25

    Maybe someone knows what is different about this than the .25/222 besides the diameter.
     
  15. Cheechako

    Cheechako

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,055
    You guys are making this a lot more complicated than it is.

    I did not continue my experiment by necking that same case up to 25 caliber. But if I had, there's no doubt in my mind that the capacity would have increased a little more. Probably not as much as the difference between the 22 and 24, but an increase nevertheless.

    My post tells you the amount that I seated the bullet. It was the same in both examples. It's obvious that had I seated the 24 caliber bullet deeper or the 22 caliber shallower, the results would have been different. But I was comparing the H2O capacity difference between a 22 and a 24 case and to do that everything else had to stay the same.

    It's obvious, also, that if i had used a different case for each caliber the results could have been completely different. But that would not have been a valid comparison. I suspect that the capacities shown in the book were different for that very reason, or because of different seating depths, or, as I said, the guy didn't know how to measure case capacity.

    I didn't say this yet, but I will now. I think that the difference between a 222, a 6x43, and 25/222, IN CASE CAPACITY, is so small as to be unimportant. Things such as bullet weight, bullet seating depth, powder burning rate, barrel length, etc, etc will determine what will work and what won't.

    JMHO

    Ray
     
  16. oldroper

    oldroper

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    127
    Don't get offended but you need to contact someone on reamers and get some prints.

    The 25/222 and 6/222 both have diferent case from the 222 and less case capacity. I think the reason they change those cases was to minimize load density over just necking up the case. The 25/222 case is shorter than the 222 and if you neck down the 6/222 you couldn't chamber that case in a 222 according to the manual I listed. How you throat a wildcat can also effect load density so you have afew unanswered questions if you get serious about building one. Well good luck
     
  17. rstreich

    rstreich

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    528
    Ray's right. You guys are definitely making this too complicated. A 6-222 as jonsidneyb described it is nothing more than a 222 Rem necked up to 6mm. It cannot have less case capacity, it can only have more. And I can't imagine anyone seating a bullet deeply enough into the neck of a 222 to go past the neck/shoulder junction.

    You can find one drawing of a 222 Rem here and one of a 6-222 Rem here. I couldn't find anything for a 25-222, but I didn't look real hard either. Maybe you're referring to a 25-222 Copperhead? If you have a 6-222 Rem, or a 25-222 Rem that does not have the same dimensions as a 222 Rem--other than the neck diameter--then it isn't really an X-222 Rem. It might have been based on that case, but it ain't the same.

    A reamer maker can make your case however you want it. All you have to do is provide the dimensions or a dummy that he can take measurements from. To paraphrase Ray: It just ain't that big of a deal.

    robert
     
  18. jonsidneyb

    jonsidneyb

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    rstreich>
    Thanks for trying. I can't view the pages, it says it is forbidden.

    Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access /jpg/cd222remington.jpg on this server.
    You may need to create an index.html page or enable the directory browsing by creating an .htaccess file containing "Options +Indexes".

    Yep, It is the Copperhead I am thinking of.

    I know that Sam Fadala wrote of this cartridge many years and the Copperhead was talked about by Wooters.

    I just can't fine much in the way of information.
     
  19. rstreich

    rstreich

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    528
    Hmm, that's a new one on me. Just put your cursor in the address bar and hit the return key. The image will load then.

    robert
     
  20. DrBubba

    DrBubba

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1
    As a couple others said...the 6mm-222 and the 25-222,Copperhead) is nothing more than necked up 222 remington.

    Hodgdon website for load data has loads and velocities for the
    6mm-222. Check it out.

    I have several of the Wootter's articles on the
    Copperhead.

    There is Wootter's load data at this site:

    25 Copperhead Data

    Here are a few specs on the Copperhead collected from the articles:

    o Cartridge: 25-222 "Copperhead"
    o Designer: John Wootter
    o Parent Case: 222 Remington necked up to .257"
    o Birth: Introduced in Guns & Ammo November 1966
    o Action: Sako L-461
    o Barrel: Douglas Premium
    o Twist: 1:14
    o Barrel Length: 18 3/8"
    o Stock: Fajen AAA Fancy Walnut Mannlicher
    o OAL: 38 inches
    o Weight: 7 pounds fully loaded,seven rounds)
    o Scope: Leupold 3X Duplex
    o Mounts: Sako
    o Bullets: 60gr-100gr,3,000fps - 2455fps)

    Wootter's original article references:

    * Guns & Ammo November 1966
    * Handloader #18, 1969
    * Rifle #22
    * Guns & Ammo May 1978

    Several are in the Wildcat Cartridges Books. If I remember right there is articles on the 6-222 in there too.

    Hope this helps some,
    DB
     

Share This Page