I find 222 brass at almost eery gun show. I must have a thousand pieces...about half never fired. I think I may have 5 boxes of new Herters The 222 is without a doubt more accurate than the majority of 223s...Lower pressure velocity last longer too. To be honest the 222 mag is a better round than both. I sold my 22-250 as the 222 mag does most of what it'll do...not knocking the 223. It will do just fine for most shooters and is a 25-50 yard longer shooter than the 222 maybe depending on rifle and wind. I have found the 223 to not be quite as accurate as it's predecessors

Seems as though the preferred .22 bench rest cartridge at present is the .22 BR, which is a necked-down version of the 6mm BR. Basically both are necked down and shortened .308 cases with very sharp shoulders. Back nearly 50 years ago when I shot bench rest, it seemed that most BR shooters used either the .222 or the .308, with a smattering of oddball wildcats and other factory calibers like the .243 Win. I personally used the 6.5x55 Swede, and did fairly well with it. Things change with time.

Regarding the accuracy (which really should be called grouping capability) of the .222 vs. the .223, there is not enough performance difference to be worth arguing over unless you are in the bench rest game. There can be little argument that the .223 is preferable for shooting at longer distances. Sort of like the .222 eclipsed the .22 Hornet back in the early days of varmint hunting because you could nail those varmints a lot further out with a .222.

Regarding the availability of .222 brass and ammunition, it is currently available and probably will be for awhile, it is just not nearly as widely distributed as the .223. However, other than possibly for custom and some foreign made rifles, no common American factory rifles have been chambered in .222 recently. That does not bode well for future ammunition availability. It should be considered as being an obsolescent cartridge, at least as a factory loading. I have read that some owners of .222 rifles have had them rechambered to .223. While that is probably feasible and even a good idea, I do not personally know of any such modified rifles.

Amen.

It is called precision.

A gazillion gun rags report "accuracy" for their test guns, and show a chart with PRECISION.

Grouping is precision; accuracy is how close you come to the point of aim.

__________________
I've still got it made.

I try to make that distinction clear at every opportunity. Accuracy means simply that you can hit what you aim at. Any rifle that will hit an elephant at 20 paces is accurate, at least to the extent you connected with the elephant instead of missing it. If you aim at his right eye and hit it, that is precision. One of my pet peeves is the confusion of accuracy with precision because it is so commonly seen in writings that concern shooting. Hitting in the black is accuracy. Putting all shots in the X ring is precision. Shooting and hitting clay birds requires accuracy. Shooting a winning bench rest target requires precision. You can be accurate without being precise. You can be precise but inaccurate.

Hey you guys pickin’ on the .222… Watch out for lightning strikes.

I’ve rarely had any trouble buying .222 brass or loaded ammo. Yeah, the .223 is everywhere - just like white cars. If that’s what you like, that’s great for you. You’ll find what you want and you’ll simplify production schedules for manufacturers. I’d be more enthusiastic about a walnut stocked .222 every time over a plastic stocked .223.

I used to have an old friend who was quite a rifleman and experimenter. He loved doing the high-volume prairie dog shooting when that was in its heyday. He thought the .223 was a bit of a joke for anything except “army guns” - neither fish nor fowl. He preferred his .222s (with 55 grain bullets) for closer shots and used them the most, and he had .22-250s, .220 Swifts, and .243s for longer shots. He always kept two .222s, set up similarly, and alternated between them as they heated up. He particularly liked the Swift, which he loaded with 60 grain bullets, and those were his last two rifles (a Ruger, that he was not really happy with, and then finally a Rem 700). He knew his way around a rifle and I learned a lot listening to him. RIP Neil, my friend.

Interesting argument between accuracy and precision. To me, accuracy is out of the control of the jerk behind the trigger so to speak. If you strap a rifle to a table and press the trigger firing 5 rounds at 100 yards, what you get is how accurate the rifle is. That will change with ammo but, the human factor in not to be accounted in this equation.

Precision on the other had is a combination of the rifle and the person holding the rifle. Again, ammo is a factor but, if you take ammo out of the equation then you have just the 2 factors.

It is kinda funny though, when you look at the definition of accuracy and precision, they define each other.

Accuracy: the quality or state of being correct or precise.
Precision: the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate.

I guess the other thing that I didn't take into account when I started this thread is that the cartridge that I grew up on is one of those cartridges taken from something else, 270 WCF, a necked down 30-06. The 7mm Rem mag and the 300 Win mag taken from the 375 H&H.

I guess that it will always be the way of the world that something new comes from something old.

There was a trend back in the 70s where manufacturers of all types, including gunmakers, seemed to be trying to standardize, simplify, and eliminate all but the best sellers. Now it seems to be a headlong rush in the other direction - infinite variations and choices.

New cartridges primarily exist to create new market $$ for the industry. Ponder this-if every single new cartridge developed in the past 25 years disappeared, would there really be any “hole” in weapons capability? ‘ Course not. The most popular handgun cartridges ALL were invented well over 100 years ago. Rifles are similar, with all truly popular rounds (exception 6.5Creedmoor) being at least 50 yrs old, and the only thing the Creedmoor does that the 100+ yr old 6.5 X 55 Swede doesn’t is fit in a shorter action. The 30 Super Carry isn’t much more than a 7.65 French long (which itself is just a .30 Pederson. Even the army’s new Uber cartridge doesn’t add much to what the 1920’s vintage 276 Pederson provided and it has to run at what, almost twice the pressure for the gain it does provide. Face it. Physics hasn’t changed.

The "Tripple Duce" is a great round and I would have liked one in my collection but
the 300 yard plus shots and usually a 10 mph breeze, here in Nevada
made me go to the 22-250 for those longer shots, that a cci or stinger, would not handle.

In my mind, any .22 center fire is a great round, for lots of things.

The ballistics of the 22 Creedmoor are pretty neat and hard to beat, when it comes to a large case with .224" heavy bullets.
Brass is about $1/case.
If and when I rebarrel the No.1V in 223 Rem, that might be interesting.
The 6.5 Creedmoor is another possibility.
But I like calibers that start with 22 and 45.
Have one in 458 WinMag.

We have three 5.56 ARs and one Colt is getting a Geissele SSP trigger to see how accurate it is.
My '79 OEM SP1 was good for 1.5" at 100yds, with the Colt 3X,
prone or elbows on bench.
Would swap to a longer high end barrel if one ragged hole is possible with the 6920.
Ruger AR is 1:8 and the Colts are 1:7.

Pic with called flyer at 100yds, elbows on bench,
Styer SL with set triggers and 20" barrel.
Usually 5 in a ragged hole but stopped after the
miss that day. Point of aim capable if I didn't drink
a couple of Coladas.

Hope the new owner is shooting the stems and dropping
each grape into a hungry friend's mouth at distance.

Point of aim was right on the bottom of the
thin orange V that the two touch.

Bear beer might be better.

Attached Images

	imagejpeg_2.jpg (89.2 KB, 5 views)
	man1.jpeg (9.9 KB, 5 views)

__________________
Have Fun/Stay Safe

Humm Why did the army go to a high speed .22 (.223) and a new rifle when they had the option of an existing rifle, and a more than adequate cartridge. Start with a .30 Carbine, neck it down to .22 caliber thus changing a 1900 fps rifle into a 3100 fps rifle.

Ooh, that's right MR. Johnson wasn't such a popular guy following WW Twice. The new cartridge which would still fit in the .30 carbine rifle and magazines.

Wait, I remember now, we gave away all our carbines to other countries. No need for a new cartridge for a rifle we no longer carried in stock. Will we never learn?

I do believe I'll enjoy shooting my Rugar M77 in .220 Swift once I get it out to a range. Couldn't beat the price $110.00 Plus tax and buyer's fee, for a total of $125.00. I reasoned if the throat was shot out, I could always set the barrel back two threads and rechamber to one of the other .22 cartridges. I was thinking .22-250.

Llance

Development of the M16 rifle and its 5.56x45 cartridge were well underway at the same time MMJ had his necked-down .30 Carbine case brainstorm. It never had any chance for military consideration let alone adoption. Further, the ballistics of the MMJ 5.7 cartridge were considerably below that of the 5.56x45 (and the parent .30 Carbine) as it used a lighter bullet driven a significantly lower MV.

I'd bet that the MMJ was loaded to the same range of pressures as the parent 30 cartridge as well.
Such a convention would have simplified refitting M1 carbines.
This likely kneecapped the concept beyond it's academic value.
The reverse has seemingly proven fruitful in the AR 15/ M16 platform as it's already set up for much higher operating pressures.
It has spawned some interesting intermediate cartridge development as folks have exploited the platform

__________________
it just needs more voltage

Indeed the AR will withstand very high peak chamber pressures. I remember reading one Army report that tests have shown it will contain well over 100Kpsi without failure of either the receiver or barrel. I think it was tested to 125Kpsi. I have personally examined two M4s that have experienced action failures, one was catastrophic, the other not so much. But there was no way to determine what the cause was. I have also personally conducted in-bore bullet collision tests under several conditions on the M16 without experiencing action failure. Ditto with the M9 pistol. Barrel bulges, no failures.