.222 Rem. Family

[South Pender]

How much difference in inherent accuracy is there between the .222 Rem. and its offspring--the .222 Rem. Mag. and the .223 Rem.? I've seen shooters opine that the .222 Rem. Mag. is the finest varmint cartridge every developed. As I understand it, both the .222 Mag. and .223 offer several grains more powder capacity over the original deuce, so higher velocities are to be expected. However, do these two lose anything in inherent accuracy to the deuce (all other things, of course, being equal)? On an expansion ratio basis alone, one would think that, overall, the .222 Rem. should be slightly more accurate than its offspring, but has this been found to be the case?

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

One of these cartridges held the record for smallest 5-shot group at 100 yards (benchrest) for about 40 years. Does that mean that the .222 Rem is inherently more accurate than its larger siblings? Very few .222RM or .223 have been used in BR competition, so it would be hard to say with any certainty.

[Oddly enough, the 6PPC virtually eliminated the .222 in BR competition, yet the 6PPC has never held the small-group record at 100 yards AFAIK.]

If you want more horsepower than a .222, but with BR-competitive accuracy, I'd go with a 22PPC (or shortened version thereof) rather than a .222RM or .223. If you want even more speed, and don't compete, the 22BR is worth a look.

 

[BoydAllen]

No one would be able to see the difference in the cartridges that you mentioned from a varmint rifle shot as they are in the field. Benchrest results come from a whole system that no varmint shooter adheres to. They do not adjust their loads continually by loading through the day. They generally have no way of seeing fine differences in accuracy. They certainly do not have sets of wind flags out. I have a bench built .222 and a .222 varmint rifle, the former is capable of sub .2 inch groups under perfect conditions, the latter has never had a problem related to accuracy in the field. It blows up critters with great reliability at distances that do it credit. The flip side of this is that no one enters sanctioned benchrest matches with field suitable varmint rifles. While related, they are apples and oranges. One more thing, if you do some research on the different cartridges in use for benchrest before there were PPCs you are likely to find wildcats that have more capacity than the duce and less than the .222 mag., which would lead me to believe that a fully built, tight neck, no effort or expense built .223 would be very good compared to the .222 in a match between the two, especially at 200 yards on a day when wind drift was a consideration.

 

[K22]

I'm NOT a benchrest shooter, but I shot the 222 Rem in a Model 700 for many years varmint hunting. With IMR 4198 and 50 grain Sierra Blitz bullets this rifle regularly shot five shot groups in the 1/2 moa range. For 200 yards and under I found nothing lacking especially since it was a factory barrel. This was in the days (at least in my area) before range finders, scopes with repeatable and accurate turrets, and guys hauling table rests into the field. It was an excellent hunting rifle until I shot the barrel out at about 5,000 rounds.

In 2009 I rebarreled with a Douglas No. 5 contour barrel, 26" length, 12" twist in a 223 Rem. I replaced the stock with a B&C bedding block stock. This rifle shoot in the 1/4 moa range. I opted for the 223 to expand the range. I know it's "apples and oranges" but I don't think there is much of a practical difference in accuracy between these two, they are both excellent medium range varmint cartridges. Like I said, the 223 give syou a little more velocity but my old hunting buddy could take ghogs in the 250 to 275 yard range with the 222. He was a much better field shot than me and I learned a lot from him about shooting in the field.

 

[nakneker]

I've owned and own multiple 222s. All three calibers you mention are fun, inexpensive to shoot and accurate. Personally I have a fondness for the 222, triple duece so to speak. The brass lasts forever, it's been chambered is some very fine production rifles, and it makes for great custom stick too. The 223 & 222 mag will edge the 222 out when you look at velocity but the little 222 will edge the others out when you look at the neato factor. One my favorites!

 

[centershot]

I too love the duce! I have had a few in .222x35*. I now own one and continue to love it. It has the accuracy of the .222 and I can get 3500 with 52 Burgers. Verified with Lab Radar and Ohler. Makes a great prairie dog round. I shot one last week at 300 yards. I would suspect that the barrel life would approach 4000 rounds.

 

[lpreddick]

I have and shoot all three. I had a 222 Rem mag made to shoot 55 gr varmint bullets as fast as I could since I have wind most of the time. Finding the brass was not easy. Nosler made some 222 Rem mag brass and it's primer pockets could take the pressure to a point, then loose. Could not get much over 3450 before pressure and loose pockets. I noted Lapua was making 222 Rem brass, so I had one chambered with some modifications...30° shoulder, case taper reduced to .010" and shoulder moved forward a bit. This is a killer!!! It maintained the accuracy of the original 222 and with LT 30 I can exceed 3600 fps with a 52 gr varmint bullet. Primer pockets start loosening if MV stays over 3600, so I tone it down to 3550. Less than 24 gr powder per firing so barrel should last a long time. My 223 is just not as accurate and requires more powder to get same MV as this modified 222.

 

[Kurz]

How much difference in inherent accuracy is there between the .222 Rem. and its offspring--the .222 Rem. Mag. and the .223 Rem.?

Alright, since no one else will ask, I will.

How do you define 'inherent accuracy'?

How do you measure 'inherent accuracy'?

What you're gathering here is the same as always, anecdotal evidence of potentially accurate rifles shooting potentially accurate cartridges and loads. There is no data being gathered and no data being presented.

Regards.

 

[South Pender]

Alright, since no one else will ask, I will.

How do you define 'inherent accuracy'?

How do you measure 'inherent accuracy'?

What you're gathering here is the same as always, anecdotal evidence of potentially accurate rifles shooting potentially accurate cartridges and loads. There is no data being gathered and no data being presented.

Regards.

By inherent accuracy, I meant characteristics of the case that determine accuracy (let's say short-range, 100- 200-yd., accuracy), primarily things like expansion ratio, case shape (short and fat vs. long and narrower), neck length, shoulder angle, etc.--similar to the factors that account for the 6 PPC's superiority, in short-range accuracy, to all other 6 mm. cartridges. By these criteria, I think that the .222 Rem. might be seen as slightly superior to the two larger cases, but I could be wrong, and that was why I started the thread.

Consider the following. You set out to build a superbly-accurate rifle for each of the three cartridges--i.e., three rifles. Same action and trigger, same top-quality barrel, with the same barrel weight and contour, same bedding in the same stock. Which would you predict would be the most accurate? We could define accuracy as the average group size of 20 consecutive 5-shot groups shot with each rifle with the best powder/charge weight, best primer, case, and bullet in each.

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

By inherent accuracy, I meant characteristics of the case that determine accuracy (let's say short-range, 100- 200-yd., accuracy), primarily things like expansion ratio, case shape (short and fat vs. long and narrower), neck length, shoulder angle, etc.--similar to the factors that account for the 6 PPC's superiority, in short-range accuracy, to all other 6 mm. cartridges. By these criteria, I think that the .222 Rem. might be seen as slightly superior to the two larger cases, but I could be wrong, and that was why I started the thread.

Consider the following. You set out to build a superbly-accurate rifle for each of the three cartridges--i.e., three rifles. Same action and trigger, same top-quality barrel, with the same barrel weight and contour, same bedding in the same stock. Which would you predict would be the most accurate? We could define accuracy as the average group size of 20 consecutive 5-shot groups shot with each rifle with the best powder/charge weight, best primer, case, and bullet in each.

One barrel for each chambering won't tell you much. You could screw 3 different 6PPC barrels on the same rifle and find that each barrel produces different aggregate accuracy. In fact, serious competitors sort through quite a few barrels, all chambered with the same reamer, to find a really good one.

 

[South Pender]

One barrel for each chambering won't tell you much. You could screw 3 different 6PPC barrels on the same rifle and find that each barrel produces different aggregate accuracy. In fact, serious competitors sort through quite a few barrels, all chambered with the same reamer, to find a really good one.

OK. Let's change the experiment. Use the same barrel for each rifle--rechambering as we go through the three cartridges.

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

OK. Let's change the experiment. Use the same barrel for each rifle--rechambering as we go through the three cartridges.

Good plan.

Glenn Newick did this with a competitive 6BR barrel rechambered to 6PPC, and his aggs were smaller with the 6PPC. [Ideally the rechambering would have been done in the other direction so that the barrel was the same length for both chamberings.]

 

[snert]

Good plan.

Glenn Newick did this with a competitive 6BR barrel rechambered to 6PPC, and his aggs were smaller with the 6PPC. [Ideally the rechambering would have been done in the other direction so that the barrel was the same length for both chamberings.]

But wouldn't that make the results "backwards"??

 

[South Pender]

But wouldn't that make the results "backwards"??

6 PPC first, then 6 BR would make sense, as Toby Bradshaw notes.

 

[Brians356]

6 PPC first, then 6 BR would make sense, as Toby Bradshaw notes.

Barrel length - the untuned variable. Nearly everyone chooses a barrel length, then sticks with it through thick and thin. If they can't find the accuracy expected after a plethora of load combinations, scope swaps, bore lapping, and bedding tweaking, the barrel is declared a pig, still at its original length, and retired.

It's not unlikely that the 6 PPC would shoot best at a different barrel length than the 6 BR prefers. So in that sense, assuring they were both tested at the same barrel length may be futile if the goal is determine which cartridge is objectively superior.
-

 

[BoydAllen]

Much of this depends on the quality of brass rather than small differences in cartridge design. Few shooters have the tools to sort brass with respect to case body wall thickness below case shoulders. NECO does make a gauge that can be used to do this. RCBS makes a gauge as well but I do not think much of its design.

 

[South Pender]

Barrel length - the untuned variable. Nearly everyone chooses a barrel length, then sticks with it through thick and thin. If they can't find the accuracy expected after a plethora of load combinations, scope swaps, bore lapping, and bedding tweaking, the barrel is declared a pig, still at its original length, and retired.

It's not unlikely that the 6 PPC would shoot best at a different barrel length than the 6 BR prefers. So in that sense, assuring they were both tested at the same barrel length may be futile if the goal is determine which cartridge is objectively superior.
-

However, presumably an optimal node could be discovered for any barrel length via powder and bullet choice and charge weight. For this reason, equating barrel lengths might be just fine. The comparison would be between the two cartridges loaded optimally to their node.

 

[MrMajestic]

Much of this depends on the quality of brass rather than small differences in cartridge design. Few shooters have the tools to sort brass with respect to case body wall thickness below case shoulders. NECO does make a gauge that can be used to do this. RCBS makes a gauge as well but I do not think much of its design.

Love my Neco Boyd!

 

[Brians356]

presumably an optimal node could be discovered for any barrel

Any barrel length? Hmmm. If that's true, then barrel length is irrelevant and there's no reason to chamber them in any particular order to obtain equal barrel lengths, is there? A node can be found, best for a particular length, sure. But is there a different length with an optimal node even more accurate? This all highlights the futility of trying to demonstrate the superiority of one or another of two cartridges which are so similar.
-

 

[357Mag]

South Pender -

Howdy !

IMHO - One can't attribute accuracy potential purely to the gun's " expansion ratio ".
Various calibres and chamberings can be made to have the same expansion ratio, via use of
varying barrel lengths; as required.

All short-range benchrest 6PPCs having the same barrel length, would feature the same expansion ratio.
6PPCs with an additional inch or barrel length than customary, for example; would not have a hugely different expansion ratio.

Some inference of accuracy potential might be drawn, from observing successful cartridges that all seem to lie within a certain case capacity zone ( IMHO ). In reality, many shooters have no interest or need in shooting case capacities that are much larger than what is required for the task they have in-mind.
This can sometime make a contribution to the decision for use of longer barrel lengths, as an offset to use of greater case capacity.


With regards,
357Mag