222 Remington Neck Tension
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
wildcatter
Silver $$ Contributor
This going to be a slow process getting answers. I have looked for much of these technical loading answers. The problem getting experienced 222 users to contribute is they are far and few between!
It is a bitch, as today most are turning to the inferior 223, immensely more popular,,, but not near as accurate. Performance, cheap components, availability, and me too, all seem to trump the accuracy, and reliability of this old cartridge!
I am building mine as a 6ppc killer! At least, to take down as many of them as I can in competition on the short range bench rest scene! I would suggest starting with a button .003" tighter than your loaded round. I have .243" loaded necks, for a chamber with a .246" Neck. I am starting with a .240" button, expecting .0025" or so tension after spring back. I also have .241", and .239" buttons for testing. I plan on trying the .239" if not happy with the .240", the lighter .241" will be last and from past experiance with other cartridges, this pretty standard on what worked best.
But this also can be dictated for whats best, depending on the type powder your burning. Some powders prefer more tension than others. So it's always good to have sizing buttons in these ranges. individual barrels can be slightly particular as well. These are my reasons for starting where I stated, and being willing to move in the directions I stated.
Be nice to hear from some that have already been here though!
It is a bitch, as today most are turning to the inferior 223, immensely more popular,,, but not near as accurate. Performance, cheap components, availability, and me too, all seem to trump the accuracy, and reliability of this old cartridge!
I am building mine as a 6ppc killer! At least, to take down as many of them as I can in competition on the short range bench rest scene! I would suggest starting with a button .003" tighter than your loaded round. I have .243" loaded necks, for a chamber with a .246" Neck. I am starting with a .240" button, expecting .0025" or so tension after spring back. I also have .241", and .239" buttons for testing. I plan on trying the .239" if not happy with the .240", the lighter .241" will be last and from past experiance with other cartridges, this pretty standard on what worked best.
But this also can be dictated for whats best, depending on the type powder your burning. Some powders prefer more tension than others. So it's always good to have sizing buttons in these ranges. individual barrels can be slightly particular as well. These are my reasons for starting where I stated, and being willing to move in the directions I stated.
Be nice to hear from some that have already been here though!
I am running .002 neck tension for Lapua brass, turned to .0110 for a .250 neck. Next loading will be some experimentation with different bushings and mandrels. Since this is strictly a 100 yard bench gun, it's doubtful that I will see the difference on paper, but I might feel it when seating. I also anneal after every firing.
wildcatter
Silver $$ Contributor
What is the loaded loaded round neck diameter, and what diameter bushing's are you two using.
I'm a big fan of the 222 Rem and shot it for years - it's a great cartridge.
However, this might surprise you, I know it did me, here's a quote from Sierra in their 50th Anniversary edition of their Reloading Book regarding the 223 Remington, "Despite the critic's comments, any difference in accuracy compared to the 222 Remington is insignificant. In fact, Sierra now uses the 223 for accuracy testing in several of our 22 caliber Match Kings."
Having shot and reloaded for both for many years, I can attest to the aforementioned claim.
wildcatter
Silver $$ Contributor
Evidently they struggle with their ability to seek out absolute accuracy,,, I'm sorry but to date it has been proven that the 223 cannot shoot groups near close enough to set accuracy records, or come close to the groups the 222 has shot or the records it has held! It over the years had held a few accuracy records in Benchrest! Considered to be the tip of the sword when it comes to accuracy!
I agree the 223 is a fine accurate cartridge, but think it can equal the accuracy the 222 has already proven, is a fact that it has not been there,,,,, done that,,,,,,, yet!
Just stating facts, and trying to keep it real!
wildcatter
Silver $$ Contributor
This is not what we looking for, but your quite right, problem is the psi it takes to seat a bullet can be influenced greatly by how the fired case is prepped!
Not insinuating you are not aware, but I have encountered many that don't understand the difference between force and tension.
skeeljc
Gold $$ Contributor
My loaded round neck diameter is .248". I size with a .245" diameter bushing which produces a .2455" neck OD after sizing.
wildcatter
Silver $$ Contributor
Thank you, this pretty much confirms what I'm trying to accomplish!
Casual suggestion: try using fewer exclamation points in your typed comms. It changes how you come across, and not always in a good way, even if the literal meaning of your post was simple fact.
My loaded neck diameter is .2465 with a flat base bullet, which measure .22415-.2243 at the base. I use a .244 bushing.
Next loading will be using a .244 bushing and then a .224- mandrel to see if the seating force is consistent. May go to a .243 bushing, then the mandrel, depending upon spring back.
Again, probably not going to matter, but we're handloaders, it's what we do.....
I am also going to play with not turning these necks and seeing if it affects anything. Probably not, other than it's a lot easier.....
Next loading will be using a .244 bushing and then a .224- mandrel to see if the seating force is consistent. May go to a .243 bushing, then the mandrel, depending upon spring back.
Again, probably not going to matter, but we're handloaders, it's what we do.....
I am also going to play with not turning these necks and seeing if it affects anything. Probably not, other than it's a lot easier.....
I wasn't guessing frictional seating force, but tensile force against an area of seated bullet bearing.
That's what neck tension is, potentially expressed in pounds per square inch.
Neck tension cannot be expressed in inches of interference without association(as measured) to local brass tensile strength. And to know it from case to case means measuring every case.
Unfortunately, we currently have no way to do that.
I'm hoping to spark inspiration in a young entrepreneur, to grab this nugget,, R&D it,, bring it to market.
Then in ~20yrs our neck tension discussions will be meaningful.
It takes this mob a while to adopt change..
Other than 3gr capacity diff, the only significant difference I see between 223 & 222 is neck length. Assuming point blank BR is FL sizing necks, then the 222 has potential for far higher neck tension. Higher load starting pressures -without having to jam bullets. So competitive pressures could be reached with bullets seated where they actually shoot best. That's what I'm thinking on that.
For anyone wondering why there could be far higher tension with a longer neck; it's not automatic.
If neck sizing length exceeds seated bullet bearing, then the bullet seating is not upsizing the entire neck length. The remaining interference below that gripping a bullet pulls with a tension force to bind the base-bearing junction. Now this also has to be overcome for bullet release.
I adjust tension through neck sizing length (not interference). Even while I cannot directly measure tension (in PSI), I can see it across a chronograph. And I can see it with an instrumented mandrel and friction normalized necks (pre-seating force checks). But I sure wish I could measure actual tension.
Last edited:
joshb
Gold $$ Contributor
Well..........I think the data is skewed by the shooters use of a cartridge. I bet that if the nations top shooters focused their effort on the 223, the data would change.
I agree, the .222 does extremely well with 50 -52 grain bullets. The .223 is much more prominent and it's users prefer heavier bullets. I believe you're reading too much into Sierra's statement. If the .223 case design was inherently more accurate, why did Remington use the .222 Mag case (another Cartridge that accrued BR records) for the .17 Rem?
wildcatter
Silver $$ Contributor
I quit high school and went into trade school to become a Journeyman Iron Worker and a Certified Welder! The main reason was some Bi*** telling me about my spelling and grammar, which should be obvious I could give a rats backside about! It never made me a dime, or helped me complete any job I ever tackled!
I started shooting decades ago because I enjoyed it, then the more I shot the more I wanted better results, after decades competing in rifle, revolver, pistol, score, group, combat, you name it, I joined forums sharing my interest.
But rest asured, it would be a cold day in hell I joined a spelling or grammar forum,,,,,,, for two reasons,,
1) I could give a rats ars about the things they do!
2) I have found I really don't care to be drink'n buddies with people that would frequent them!
Just a casual suggestion: try understanding, if you come here to help me shoot better, I'm all fricken ears! If you come here to teach me how to spell and use proper grammar,,,,,, SAVE it for someone who gives a rats ars, cause unlike in high school, today at 68 years of age, I have less use listening to how it is supposed to be done.
I hope my grammar was close enough to explain my feelings on this subject! Now back to the OP's reason for starting this thread!
The fact that the 222 Rem established benchrest records and ruled the benchrest scene for many years cannot be disputed, it's a matter of historical fact. I've read that the designer of the cartridge had this in mind when he developed the cartridge. Its design produces an inherently accurate cartridge, much like the 308 Win.
In my early days of varmint hunting, the 222 Rem was the way to go for medium range, a vast improvement over the 22 Hornet and 218 Bee. The 222 Rem was my first stand-alone strictly varmint rifle. I have nothing but good things to say about it. With IMR 4198 and 50 grain Sierra bullets, 1/2 moa was consistently the norm out of a sporter weight Remington 700. I took a ton of ground hog and a lot of foxes with it - never found it lacking.
Enter the 223 Remington, designed as a military cartridge. That it never captured the interest of the benchrest fraternity is no mystery - why switch to a similar cartridge when the 222 Rem already was established at a record holder in benchrest competition in the 50's.
When it came time to re-barrel my 222 Remington, I opted for the 223 Rem for two reasons, to gain about 100 ft/sec in velocity and because cases for the 222 become exceedingly hard to find. It didn't take long for me to realize that accuracy wise, I could not discern the difference between the two from a precision varmint hunter's point of view with tailored reloads. Apparently, Sierra, who manufactures and test bullets for a living came to the same conclusion.
That was the only point I was trying to make. No way would I claim that the 223 Rem is superior in accuracy potential to the 222 Rem. But for most of us normal precision shooters, the differences are insignificant. Incidentally, my 223 Rem, with a match grade Douglas barrel is a sub 1/4" bench rifle with tailored reloads even in my hands and I'm nowhere near an accomplished bench shooter.
Bottom Line: you can't go wrong with either one.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.