Velocity difference between .222 Rem. Mag and .223 Rem?

[Dan Rossiter]

I have a new Sierra reloading manual that shows the .223 Rem. about 100ft. per. sec. faster than the .222 Rem Mag. in most bullet weights even though the .222 Mag. case by the dimensions shown seems to have more case capacity. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Which is entirely possible. Another article I read implied the .222 Rem. Mag. was basically a 250yd. cartridge. And yet the .223 has won a few thousand yd. competitions. Where is the big difference? Thanks for any input.
Dan R.

 

[JRS]

Quality of available brass and components. The Rem Mag will do anything and everything the 223 will do, and then some, with all things equal.

 

[Ggmac]

Pressures and twist

 

[Cold Bore]

Another article I read implied the .222 Rem. Mag. was basically a 250yd. cartridge. And yet the .223 has won a few thousand yd. competitions. Where is the big difference?.

I'd say the 222 Rem Mag is easily good for over 250 yards. I have owned and shot one for about 40 years, and there's a whole pile of dead groundhogs that WISH that it was only good to 250 yards.

My guess as to the difference is simply perception, and the two different crowds that are attracted to the respective cartridges .

The Mag was an old benchrest cartridge, so rarely used beyond that arbitrary 250 yard mark. It is a nostalgic cartridge, that isn't experimented with a lot or often built into a custom rifle.

The 223 on the other hand enjoys the benefit of almost unlimited brass, and a huge following amongst the High Power/Service Rifle crowd, who initially shot it regularly to 600 yards, and now to 1000 yards.

To do so effectively though, they built guns with fast twist barrels designed to launch much heavier than standard bullets.

They are close enough that you can pretty much do anything with one that you can do with the other if built on comparable platforms.

 

[Pawnee Bill]

As I understand it, the parent case for the 5.56 NATO was the 222 Rem Mag. It was too long for the intended application so they shortened the neck and voila! The 5.56 NATO was born and was adopted by the military. The fact that it is the standard service round today is the reason for it's popularity. People who shoot 222 Mags today are mainly shooting the original ones with 1-12/1-14 twist which limits you to light bullets. Light bullets are not good for long distance. With a 222 Mag and a 1-8/1-7 twist with 77,80 or 90 grain bullets is to me more accurate than the 223 because of the longer neck on the Mag.

 

[Dan Rossiter]

Thanks a lot for the quick replies. My Savage 112J is a 1 in 14 twist. A 1 in 8 is probably the way to go. Thanks again for the info.
Dan R.

 

[XBBR Shooter]

I have a new Sierra reloading manual that shows the .223 Rem. about 100ft. per. sec. faster than the .222 Rem Mag. in most bullet weights even though the .222 Mag. case by the dimensions shown seems to have more case capacity. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Which is entirely possible. Another article I read implied the .222 Rem. Mag. was basically a 250yd. cartridge. And yet the .223 has won a few thousand yd. competitions. Where is the big difference? Thanks for any input.
Dan R.

The 222 Magnum has suffered from small lack of sales. There is a small (but enthusiastic) group of followers that still love the cartridge.

The reason that you see lower velocities with the mag, when compared with the 223, is 99% of the loading data for the Magnum was developed 25 to 30 years ago, when 45,000 psi was the standard. Now, 55,000 to 60,000 psi is used with new loading data for the 223, so the mag shows poorly.

But when both cartridges are loaded to the same pressures, the Magnum will run away from the 223.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and "myths"spread by people who never even handled a 222 Magnum, much less loaded for one.

"Quality of available brass and components.".... the quality of 222 Magnum brass is better tan average Remington brass - there is some Norma brass floating around which is... well, Norma!!

"Pressures and twist"... the twist is the same for 95% of the bolt guns rifles in existence. At equal pressures, the 222 Magnum will runaway from the 223.

Dan... you asked, "Another article I read implied the .222 Rem. Mag. was basically a 250yd. cartridge. And yet the .223 has won a few thousand yd. competitions. Where is the big difference? Thanks for any input."

The difference is that when the 223 and .222 Magnum were in their early stages of life, the hunting loads were made with the same bullets used for the 22-250... very blunt bullets with thick jackets (0.022").

These pictures are of a factory 222 Magnum round made in late 1960. Note the blunt bullet... it was called a "Semi-point" That bullet had a BC of ~190.




Current varmint bullets for the 222 family of cartridges have jackets that are 0.009" to 0.015-ish, and they are very pointy.

In the 60's and 70's... the 222 was good for 200 yds, the 223, for 225, and the 222 Magnum was good for 250 yards.

But with the better bullet designs (more slippery) and thinner jackets, you can more than double those ranges for woodchucks, and much further for crows.

In equal rifles... anything the 223 can do, the 222 Magnum can do better.

 

[Dan Rossiter]

XBBR;
Thanks for some very informative info. Clears up all the questions I had on the subject. A 1 in 14 twist just isn't going to get the job done. Thanks again.
Dan R.

 

[ireload2]

The military honked up when they adopted the wimpy .223 thinking it suitable for killing humans en mass.
It isn't and they have frittered away tens of millions of dollars adding longer heavier bullets at higher pressures to improve the performance. This required rebarreling a lot of rifles for the faster twist required.
Load the .222 Mag to the same pressures and it will be a few percent better than a .223. It is a good varmint round. I like the 6mm X 222 Mag even better.

If you are not married to the AR-15/M-16 cheap brass is the only reason to own a 5.56/.223

 

[Ned Ludd]

I disagree. The .223 has many positive attributes. There is a wide range of different bullets available, and as you mentioned, brass is also plentiful. A "few percent" increase is really negligible if you know something about reloading. There are a number of members of this forum including myself that have done quite well in F-TR competitions shooting the .223 with 90 VLDs out to 1000 yd. If you can reasonably push a 90 gr pill at about 2850 fps from a 30" barreled rifle, how much more is really needed? Certainly performance at 3000 fps would be an improvement, but only a minor improvement. If someone really feels it necessary, they can easily get that same increase from something like the .223AI, and still get all the benefits of access to the wide range of .223 components available. The .223 Rem cartridge is very easy to load and has excellent precision. It also has very little recoil, making it a great choice for younger shooters or those that don't favor the recoil of heavier calibers. I completely agree that the military made a mistake, but IMO, the mistake was in bullet selection and, as a result, barrel twist rates as you mentioned, not the caliber itself. I'm sure there are many tens of thousands of NVA, Taliban, and ISIS that could directly comment on the .223's lack of stopping power if only they were still alive. That is a debate that will likely continue on long after we are gone. I'm not implying in any way that the .223 has the stopping power of larger cartridges, it clearly doesn't. However, it does allow carrying almost twice the number of rounds at a similar weight burden, so there are some advantages to the smaller cartridge. I agree there were better choices that could have been made, but they weren't so it's a moot point. I believe that there are many shooters here and elsewhere that appreciate shooting .223 bolt guns for the reasons I mentioned and suggesting it is useless for anything but ARs is pretty narrow-minded.

 

[ireload2]

We are not looking for positive attributes we are looking for superior attributes and a better compromise for use on the battlefield. That it is easy to shoot for those offended by recoil is always used by fans that rarely shoot well enough to be effective.
There is so little difference in the two that the .223 should have never been born. After use by the military, the military has been scrambling to deal with a cartridge that will not do the job needed.
Your comment about using a 30" barreled rifle makes my point. You are so desperate for free velocity when you go to something that unwieldy in an otherwise anemic cartridge. No it is not narrow minded rather it is very practical. Would you rather have the Taliban shooting at you with the puny .223 or do you want them shooting at you with a 7.62 Nato or 7.62X54R or any other reasonable combat round. You would much prefer to have them shooting at you with the .223 every time. You are near to causing me laughter even mentioning the AI version. Why not just use a .22 LR. It too has less recoil and noise and it is easy to carry a lot of ammo. We are not discussing a round to train women and kids so you should leave the aversion to recoil out of it unless you feel that is all you are capable of shooting. Why carry all that ammo if you can't shoot well enough to hit anything and you simply use it to spray and pray.

It really has no real function outside of the AR since bolt guns can shoot better rounds. However with Uncle Same financing all that brass, by default though not by any particular merit of any kind, it is the most popular.
Fort varmints and targets the .222 is probably more accurate, the .222 Mag is a little more powerful and the 5.6X50 Magnum is even more powerful.
The government needed a more powerful round and still does. That civilians like it does not mean the civilians know anything.

I disagree. The .223 has many positive attributes. There is a wide range of different bullets available, and as you mentioned, brass is also plentiful. A "few percent" increase is really negligible if you know something about reloading. There are a number of members of this forum including myself that have done quite well in F-TR competitions shooting the .223 with 90 VLDs out to 1000 yd. If you can reasonably push a 90 gr pill at about 2850 fps from a 30" barreled rifle, how much more is really needed? Certainly performance at 3000 fps would be an improvement, but only a minor improvement. If someone really feels it necessary, they can easily get that same increase from something like the .223AI, and still get all the benefits of access to the wide range of .223 components available. The .223 Rem cartridge is very easy to load and has excellent precision. It also has very little recoil, making it a great choice for younger shooters or those that don't favor the recoil of heavier calibers. I completely agree that the military made a mistake, but IMO, the mistake was in bullet selection and, as a result, barrel twist rates as you mentioned, not the caliber itself. I'm sure there are many tens of thousands of NVA, Taliban, and ISIS that could directly comment on the .223's lack of stopping power if only they were still alive. That is a debate that will likely continue on long after we are gone. I'm not implying in any way that the .223 has the stopping power of larger cartridges, it clearly doesn't. However, it does allow carrying almost twice the number of rounds at a similar weight burden, so there are some advantages to the smaller cartridge. I agree there were better choices that could have been made, but they weren't so it's a moot point. I believe that there are many shooters here and elsewhere that appreciate shooting .223 bolt guns for the reasons I mentioned and suggesting it is useless for anything but ARs is pretty narrow-minded.

 

[Ned Ludd]

We run 30" barrels because the .223 cartridge is underpowered? A ridiculous statement at best. F-TR shooters run those barrel lengths in .308 Win as well and F-Open shooters run 32" to 34" barrels in .284 Win and .300 WSM. Are the .308 Win, .284 Win and .300 WSM also underpowered? It's done to get the utmost velocity and has nothing to do the specific caliber. We would run these setups no matter what cartridge was used. That is known as getting the absolute top performance out of whatever caliber you happen to be using and is a foolish argument to use when attempting to denigrate a particular cartridge. I agree that military and civilian applications are two completely different things. However, the OPs original question was about the velocity difference between the .222 Rem Mag and .223 Rem. It had no "military" overtones in it; you chose to start that rant in order to discredit the .223. I merely pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument.

 

[Cold Bore]

We are not looking for positive attributes we are looking for superior attributes and a better compromise for use on the battlefield.

At the risk of taking this thread completely off track ....

What cartridge would you suggest, and in what platform?

Why?

 

[jdh47]

I do not wish to get into a kicking contest but the original AR platform was designed for a shortened 270. The government wanted lighter ammo and the 223 fit their desires.

It is what it is and both cartridges are excellent. Both will perform similar. The 223 like the 308 have an edge on brass availability since our uncle uses it.

Joe

 

[hogpatrol]

 

[lpreddick]

I have a new Sierra reloading manual that shows the .223 Rem. about 100ft. per. sec. faster than the .222 Rem Mag. in most bullet weights even though the .222 Mag. case by the dimensions shown seems to have more case capacity. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Which is entirely possible. Another article I read implied the .222 Rem. Mag. was basically a 250yd. cartridge. And yet the .223 has won a few thousand yd. competitions. Where is the big difference? Thanks for any input.
Dan R.

I accumulated a large number of 222 rem mag brass when building a 6x222 rem mag. I had the brass, so why not build a 222 rem mag. I noted the fairly slow velocities published for the 222 rem mag but suspected with the faster powders and good bcs for 52 gr custom bullets I should get close to 3500+ fps. I had a reamer made by jgs with a 30° shoulder and pushed shoulder forward .017. Using H 4198, LT 30 and LT 32 I'm getting 3550 fps with 52 Tucker and 52 knights. Nosler makes 222 rem mag brass and these have tight primer pockets that take the pressure, while old rem 222 brass can't. I like this cartridge. The 222 was also a benchrest winner and also has slow velocities and I suspect if I make a reamer with a 30° shoulder pushed a bit forward, and try the 222 lapua brass, and fast powders, another screamer?

 

[acloco]

222 Rem Mag is available. Parent cartridge of the 204 Ruger. hint...hint.

Built a 222 Rem Mag AI and a long 222 Rem Mag AI (aka, "Super Duece").

 

[Zero333]

No experience comparing these two in real life...

Just ran some #'s in Quickload and all things being equal... Equal PSI (used 60,000 for this comparison), optimum seating depth (1 caliber of bearing surface in the neck), same bullets (chose 40vmax, 55vmax and 75amax for both cartridges) and choosing the best powder for each cartridge that gives fastest velocity....

the 222remmag always made 20-50 fps more than the 223rem.

In real life there is probably is ZERO difference between the 2 cartridges in velocity (regardless of bullet weight)...
except in some peoples minds.

 

[lpreddick]

No experience comparing these two in real life...

Just ran some #'s in Quickload and all things being equal... Equal PSI (used 60,000 for this comparison), optimum seating depth (1 caliber of bearing surface in the neck), same bullets (chose 40vmax, 55vmax and 75amax for both cartridges) and choosing the best powder for each cartridge that gives fastest velocity....

the 222remmag always made 20-50 fps more than the 223rem.

In real life there is probably is ZERO difference between the 2 cartridges in velocity (regardless of bullet weight)...
except in some peoples minds.

 

[lpreddick]

Interesting. I have a lot of experience with both the .223, .223 AI, and the .223 rem mag modified( 30° shoulder pushed forward .017+-) and multiple chronograph readings don't lie. The slightly larger case volume of the 222 rem mag doesn't automatically guarantee higher velocities however. Using faster powders allows a greater charge(pressure) and I get the 3500+ fps I wanted. I cannot get this with the .223 case. I have reached 3600+ fps with 52 gr bullets using the nosler brass and primer pockets stay tight after 2 firings, but I doubt they will last much longer. Velocity without accuracy is not my goal. I am a varmint hunter and wind is always a problem. Increased velocity reduces bullet drift and this modified .222 rem mag is doing this. One attribute of this case is it's longer neck. With no freebore, I can seat several bullets .020 into the lands and have adequate bullet in the neck and will be able to seat further out as the lands erode. Quickload as is a guide, shooting is " real life".