It has been suggested from time to time that the .223 Rem. is not as inherently accurate as the .222 Rem. Ignoring the fact that almost all .222s are commercial bolt guns, whereas many .223s are military or ARs, would you expect slightly better accuracy from a .222 than from a .223 assuming the same action, barrel quality, and load-development efforts? Let's say two tuned-up Remington 700s with varmint-weight barrels--one a triple deuce, the other a .223.
Is There an Actual Difference in Accuracy between the .222 Rem and the .223 Rem.
- Thread starter South Pender
- Start date
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
Fellows that claim superior accuracy for the .222 over the .223 with otherwise identical builds may have have forgotten (or never known) that back in the day, after the ascendency of the duce, that there were a number of wildcats based on its case, or that of the .222 mag. that were slightly larger in capacity than the .222 in order to gain some advantage in velocity for 200 yard competition. I think that if the chambers were equally well designed, and the brass and dies of the same quality and, again the latter properly designed, that at 200 yards, that the .223 would have a slight advantage, just as those old wildcats did. I know that this opinion will rile some up a bit, but that will be good for their circulation ;-)
Souh Pender -
Howdy !
" Back in the day "....... the .222, .222Mag; and (old tymee ) " 6 X 47 " were the darlings of short-range benchrest. For whatever reason, the .223 didn't make substantial inroads into the game. It was still in the throws of debate over suitability for MIL use, in places like SE Asia.
FWIW -
When viewed through the lenses of things like " ideal case capacity " and " ideal bore capacity ", it may be a purist could view the .222 as " theoritically " close/close to " ideal "; for hyper-accurate 100yd BR shooting.
It's fer sher the .222 racked-up its far share of world record small groups.
With regards,
357Mag
Howdy !
" Back in the day "....... the .222, .222Mag; and (old tymee ) " 6 X 47 " were the darlings of short-range benchrest. For whatever reason, the .223 didn't make substantial inroads into the game. It was still in the throws of debate over suitability for MIL use, in places like SE Asia.
FWIW -
When viewed through the lenses of things like " ideal case capacity " and " ideal bore capacity ", it may be a purist could view the .222 as " theoritically " close/close to " ideal "; for hyper-accurate 100yd BR shooting.
It's fer sher the .222 racked-up its far share of world record small groups.
With regards,
357Mag
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
This covers some of what I referred to. There were others.
http://www.6mmbr.com/compcartridges.html
IMO accuracy cannot evaluated in a meaningful way outside of the conditions that rifles are shot in. For instance, no one would deny the accuracy of the .30 BR at 100 yards, but at 200 even though it retains the same theoretical accuracy, it is affected more by the wind than the 6PPC which limits its performance in situations where that is a factor. If there was no wind, then that would be another matter, but generally there is.
I have seen a number of teen groups shot with a friend's .20 PPC, a cartridge that by all standards is over case capacity, but it overcomes this because of the extreme quality of the rifle, and the components that are used to load it. Things do not always follow what theory dictates.
Yes, the .222 has a fine record, dominating benchrest from shortly after it was introduced until the PPC came along, but like many things in life, the sport has a large follow the leader component.
Years ago, working with factory rifles (Remington) in both .222, and .223, I was able to tune them up to the same level of accuracy.
Years back, a fellow that I know had gotten a hold of a very good case of Federal .223 brass (before Lapua was available) and shot a fully built tight neck .223 in registered competition for some time, until that brass was used up. By his account, it was very competitive.
Most shooters who are really interested in registered benchrest competition are going to shoot a 6PPC, which leads me to conclude that questions like this one are really about choosing a chamber for a rifle that will not see competition use. Invariably those who do not shoot competition stop short of doing everything that would be needed to shoot the smallest aggregates, and for that reason, small differences in design potential get lost in the wind both literally and figuratively. One hardly ever sees a non-competitor using wind flags or loading at the range. Both are required to do well in short range group competition.
http://www.6mmbr.com/compcartridges.html
IMO accuracy cannot evaluated in a meaningful way outside of the conditions that rifles are shot in. For instance, no one would deny the accuracy of the .30 BR at 100 yards, but at 200 even though it retains the same theoretical accuracy, it is affected more by the wind than the 6PPC which limits its performance in situations where that is a factor. If there was no wind, then that would be another matter, but generally there is.
I have seen a number of teen groups shot with a friend's .20 PPC, a cartridge that by all standards is over case capacity, but it overcomes this because of the extreme quality of the rifle, and the components that are used to load it. Things do not always follow what theory dictates.
Yes, the .222 has a fine record, dominating benchrest from shortly after it was introduced until the PPC came along, but like many things in life, the sport has a large follow the leader component.
Years ago, working with factory rifles (Remington) in both .222, and .223, I was able to tune them up to the same level of accuracy.
Years back, a fellow that I know had gotten a hold of a very good case of Federal .223 brass (before Lapua was available) and shot a fully built tight neck .223 in registered competition for some time, until that brass was used up. By his account, it was very competitive.
Most shooters who are really interested in registered benchrest competition are going to shoot a 6PPC, which leads me to conclude that questions like this one are really about choosing a chamber for a rifle that will not see competition use. Invariably those who do not shoot competition stop short of doing everything that would be needed to shoot the smallest aggregates, and for that reason, small differences in design potential get lost in the wind both literally and figuratively. One hardly ever sees a non-competitor using wind flags or loading at the range. Both are required to do well in short range group competition.
Boyd's points are well taken, as usual.
I would like to add FWIT this observation, when the 222 was king, and folks (me included) using the 222m and 6x47r, bowed to the PPC. in the mean time other version of the 222 basic chamber proved to be superb
Ted Boughton and others took a 222m reamer and ground it to reproduce a 222 neck and shoulder resulting in a water capacity about like the 223 and velocities equal to the 223 std pressure loads. called the 222 1/2's some with full neck and some with necks in between the 222m and 222 but all with the shoulder.
The result was very accurate, competitive (all things equal) with the 222 with better 200 performance re higher velocity.
the thing I have noticed with few exceptions, the winning designs, ppc, br etc, all have minimum taper and sharper shoulder than the 223. thus I lean toward the 222 or variants, less taper, sharper shoulder, if I wanted the velocity of the 223 I would have some fun with the 222m or the 222 1/2.
sure ppc and brs will beat them as the ranges get longer but still fine accuracy.
Bob
I would like to add FWIT this observation, when the 222 was king, and folks (me included) using the 222m and 6x47r, bowed to the PPC. in the mean time other version of the 222 basic chamber proved to be superb
Ted Boughton and others took a 222m reamer and ground it to reproduce a 222 neck and shoulder resulting in a water capacity about like the 223 and velocities equal to the 223 std pressure loads. called the 222 1/2's some with full neck and some with necks in between the 222m and 222 but all with the shoulder.
The result was very accurate, competitive (all things equal) with the 222 with better 200 performance re higher velocity.
the thing I have noticed with few exceptions, the winning designs, ppc, br etc, all have minimum taper and sharper shoulder than the 223. thus I lean toward the 222 or variants, less taper, sharper shoulder, if I wanted the velocity of the 223 I would have some fun with the 222m or the 222 1/2.
sure ppc and brs will beat them as the ranges get longer but still fine accuracy.
Bob
I have owned many different .223 rifles over the years. Some factory and some custom. The .222's I owned were factory built rifles and did show excellent accuracy over the .223's. But today's technology can and has changed all that...........A good custom or factory rifle in both calibers will shoot the same, or better, or worse. All depends on the built or make. Then depends on the shooter. Two of the three .222's I owned were one hole group guns at 100 yds, the third was ragged hole group. My .223's were all different. I was very disappointed in a custom factory built Remington 40X in .223. 1" groups at 100 yds with any load. You can make any gun do what you want to a point, if your up to the task as the shooter.
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
Generally, the factory .223 that I tuned up, a 788 Remington, that I floated, bedded, and did a little trigger work on, before I had started using flags, or loading at the range, would shoot wallet five shot groups that were +- 3/8". Doing the same to a model 722 chambered in .222 gave the same result. This was with one piece dies, and a home made rest. I had a lot of fun.
In those days, I could only afford one rifle at a time, so I would pick up a likely candidate, tune it up to the point where I could see no more improvement, sell it, and reinvest in another carefully selected project. I had a lot of fun, and learned a bit in the process. Later, I met a benchrest shooter who introduced me to Precision Shooting magazine, and explained the basics of that sport, and my understanding and perspective changed in a major way.
Speaking to the subject of custom barrels on factory rifles, many fellows that I have known, who did one of these projects, had not one clue about chamber design, or that benchrest quality work is generally no more expensive than that done by some smith who makes his living working on rifles that will never see competition, and would not stand a chance in a match if they did. To make a valid comparison, a lot of attention needs to be paid to every single detail, many of which, the majority of shooters are not familiar with.
In those days, I could only afford one rifle at a time, so I would pick up a likely candidate, tune it up to the point where I could see no more improvement, sell it, and reinvest in another carefully selected project. I had a lot of fun, and learned a bit in the process. Later, I met a benchrest shooter who introduced me to Precision Shooting magazine, and explained the basics of that sport, and my understanding and perspective changed in a major way.
Speaking to the subject of custom barrels on factory rifles, many fellows that I have known, who did one of these projects, had not one clue about chamber design, or that benchrest quality work is generally no more expensive than that done by some smith who makes his living working on rifles that will never see competition, and would not stand a chance in a match if they did. To make a valid comparison, a lot of attention needs to be paid to every single detail, many of which, the majority of shooters are not familiar with.
Variables ? Remington used the same components to make the 40X's, actions stocks, triggers,and barrels were the same up until they were chambered either in .222 or .223, by the same gunsmiths. They were tested with Remington match bullets, Remington primers and using the correct Remington cases in Remington's indoor shooting range on the same benches using the same test scopes, over a number of years.
That's about as fair of test you could do.
If you go by records or past records, my money is on the .222. I not sure if the .223 has ever held a accuracy record.
Hal
Mark M.
Silver $$ Contributor
Who's to say the powder, primer and bullet combinations in the test you mention were absolutely peaked out for accuracy in of those particular rounds, you could always just grab a box of each of the shelf and see which on shoots the best, but we both know there's lots of room for improvement, that why if we look at the winning records of the shooter that have been competing against one another for yrs., looking for the best loading combination possible, last I seen the 222 holds the record
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
Excellent information, but I would correct your memory on one small detail. The .222 and .223 have the same shoulder angle, 23 degrees.
Remington's test loads were hand loaded and know accuracy loads for the 40 X's and recorded on each target. Remington .22 bench rest bullets were some of the very best of the time.
Testing was done in a indoor shooting by the same shooters.
Winning records are done by seperate shooter, outdoors introducing and testing wind, and mirage reading skills.
Hal
Testing was done in a indoor shooting by the same shooters.
Winning records are done by seperate shooter, outdoors introducing and testing wind, and mirage reading skills.
Hal
I had an ugly Savage 340 in .222 sporting a 3-9 steel tube Weaver, very accurate with handloads and light bullets (1:14 twist).
I was at the range shooting it when the local Police Snipe Team came to shoot their 3 Rem 700's in .223 with 3-9 Leupolds. I was looking at their targets, through a spotting scope, while they were shooting and the ugly 340 was better for accuracy. Their best group 3 rd was about 1.5" and mine was a 10 rd group of 0.7"
Stupidly I sold the gun and wish I had it back.
I now have a Rem 700 in .223 with a 1:9 R5 barrel.
I was at the range shooting it when the local Police Snipe Team came to shoot their 3 Rem 700's in .223 with 3-9 Leupolds. I was looking at their targets, through a spotting scope, while they were shooting and the ugly 340 was better for accuracy. Their best group 3 rd was about 1.5" and mine was a 10 rd group of 0.7"
Stupidly I sold the gun and wish I had it back.
I now have a Rem 700 in .223 with a 1:9 R5 barrel.
I think a big clue here is that the .222 and its derivatives were used very successfully in competition, whereas the .223 was not. The other consideration that might affect its (.223) reputation is timing. In other words it is plausible that the competitive shooting community had moved on to the 6ppc, and the .223, being very similar to the .222, was not a logical choice to pursue. Truthfully, the most glaring differences are neck length, and powder capacity. In practice, these differences or potential benefits to each may be almost impossible to discern.
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.