Long range .222?

[velocette]

Well, long range relative to a .222.
I've read for a long time that the .222 Remington was an excellent 200 ~ 300
yard round. I've been checking out the performance of my .222 with its 24", 1:12
McGowan barrel. The rifle likes Berger 55 grain bullets (BC of .256) with 23.4 gr of N133 propellant which
yields just over 3000 fps. Shoots them into nice little groups at 100 yds.
So I got out my ballistics guesstimates and calculated what the load would do out to 500 & 600 yards.
The software estimated that The bullets would remain supersonic to just past 600 yds (1208 FPS @ 650 yds) This would indicate that use at 500 yards would be reasonable.
The test will begin Thursday, weather permitting.
Anyone have ideas or suggestions?

 

[drover]

There is nothing better than real world testing, but before getting your hopes up too high use the JBM ballilstics calculator and take a look at how wind drift you may have to contend with. Even if the bullet remains supersonic it is moving quite slow and will be very susceptible to wind drift.

drover

 

[MrMajestic]

What's your terminal energy say? Unless you can brain it, it matters. Some have said 450 lb. ft. Of terminal energy but I'm here to tell you 450 in the guts won't anchor them. Accuracy trumps energy but 500 yards is a long poke for a Chuck's brain leaving plenty of room for a crawler. JMHO

 

[velocette]

Mr.M,
With respect, the only living thing I will shoot at is the always moving X ring of a target.
Drover, Wind drift at 500 yds with a full value 90 degree wind is almost 37" ~~7.4 moa.

 

[357Mag]

Velo -

Howdy !

To paint yourself all-the-way out to the corner of your particular performance envelope, you might want to consider use of a swoopy FB ( if one can be had ).

Jimmie Knox used to offer a non-catalogued 55HPFB, that had a pointy #12 ogive.

 

[357Mag]

Velo -

OOPs... I hit transmit in-error.

I talked to Jimmie Knox about whether he thought his pointy 55 could acquit itself well vs a classical
varmint or target HPBT. He at first thought there would be a significant ballistics performance gap
between the two, w/ the boat tail holding a distinct advantage. During a follow-up phone call, Jimmie said he had run some numbers..... and was surprised a just how well his 55HPFB held up ballistics wise.

Knox' 55 w/ the 12 ogive was aero enough to partially offset perceived ballistics disparities it might have had compared to a 55HP BT. The HPFB's " meplat " was quite small. I used them for a couple of years on groundhogs, and they shot extremely well ( for me ) in wind; using my .22-35 Remington wildcat.

My point:
Some thing like that swoopy Knox 55FB might allow you to not only obtain pretty good ballistics, but also could be seated comparatively farther out than you could w/ a maintstream 55BT.

With an informed powder choice, it is even possible that a small increase in powder charge might be secured compared to the charge use under a 55BT ? Hmm. And....this would be w/ a powder offering a pretty full case, IMHO. The .222 has a fairly long neck, so powder would be up-into the neck; given an use of an appropriate " burn rate " choice.

The long ogive 55 is long for a different reason than is the case w/ the monolithic ( non-lead ) 55s.
Those are typically longer in the bullet' body, and their stability w/ use of a 1-14 and .222 velocities would be an area of concern. Whereas the point 55 FB has enough body length to allow good load concentricity, while the ogive is well advance into the barrel.

I DK whether JLK still offers this pointy 55 ?


With regards,
357Mag

 

[moorepower]

What's your terminal energy say? Unless you can brain it, it matters. Some have said 450 lb. ft. Of terminal energy but I'm here to tell you 450 in the guts won't anchor them. Accuracy trumps energy but 500 yards is a long poke for a Chuck's brain leaving plenty of room for a crawler. JMHO

So your saying a .17HH wont work for chucks at 100 yds. ??