I got my first .222 -- a Remington 722 -- back in the 50's. It was an excellent varmint rifle. I have always wondered why the .223 has largely replaced it. Is there some real advantage to the .223 over the .222?

They are both fine cartridges/calibers. The only reason the 223 seems to have replaced the 222 is due to the popularity of the AR-15. I have a Hornady reloading manual from the mid-70's in which they say that the "223 is a fine cartridge, whether it ever obtains the popularity of the 222 remains to be seen." Given equal length barrels, the 223 does have a slight advantage in velocity.

No practical advantage so far as the cartridge is concerned. The original Stoner AR-15 was prototyped in the 222. The .mil wanted "more", so Stoner lengthened the case and the 222 Magnum was born...but it was too long to fit in the AR prototype without re-tooling, so the neck on the 222 magnum was shortened (and the shoulder just slightly) to fit the prototype action, and the M16/5.56x45 was born.

The shoulder set-back was necessitated to allow enough neck to adequately hold the bullet.

All of this is what you get when you design something by committee.

The biggest advantage of the 223 over the 222 is in today's rifles. The common rifling twist in 222 is 1:14, in 223 its 1:7 to 1:10. This allows the 223 to use bullets up to 77gr when seated to magazine length. The 222 is limited to 55gr or less....

All of which is to say that it depends on what you're using the rifle for: Varmints there's no practical difference between 222 and 223. While the 223 may be of slightly flatter trajectory/wind drift, they're both limited in their effectiveness by the accuracy of the rifle and the ability to read wind to 250-300 yds under optimum conditions.

The 222 held all kinds of benchrest records, but was mainly due to the quality of the rifles and perhaps in those rifles, the neck length provided more consistent alignment, though this may be mitigated with today's benchrest equipment and loading techniques.

I've personally killed a "sackfull" of whitetails with the AR-15 in 223, but using 60gr Nosler partition bullets and limiting myself to shots under 200 yds at most... all one-shot, no tracking kills. I could have probably done the same with the 222 if I had one with a 1:7 twist barrel (up to 1:9 with this bullet).

I have a 222 in a Remington 788 with a Shilen barrel in 1:14 twist, and an AR-15 with a 1:8 twist, and both are sub-MOA guns, but it's just more "elegant" to shoot ground squirrels with the 222.

Just about any caliber that gets military acceptance has a boom in popularity in whatever country we happen to be talking about.

I recall the .222 being considered about a 200 yard groundhog gun while the .223/.222 Magunum strectched that about 50 yards. That's not really that much difference in the real world. But, the cheaper brass (used surplus) and cheaper surplus ammunition help fuel the change.

The .222 was developed for a purpose (rather specialized at that) and was the state of the art at that time. Think of the .223 as a later evolution of the product. The additional rifling twists that allow the use of heavier bullets if desired also help widen the market for the product. A 1-9 twist allows the use of 75 gr bullets and produces about the same wind drift and drop as .30 bullets at similar velocities.

The minute you win a military contract to supply ground troops...... you have 'won the war'.


Besides, a 222 is WAY too small to effectively kill. Why, you'd need at least a 223..........

The .223 has become a versatile medium range cartridge and has a justifiable reputation as a tack driver.

Much has changed since the M16 was issued with 55 grain FMJ ball. CMP competitors have developed loadings that greatly extend range and increase accuracy. Now with bullets in 77 grain magazine length (2.260") and 80 grain single load length ("2.500"), it is easy to reach 600+ yard targets. A 77 grain SMK over 24 grains of RL15 or Varget or similar medium rate powder is well into the performance zone of the smaller 6mm loadings. (Mk 262, the preferred DMR round, duplicates this competitive loading.) The cost is more modest than a larger round, about half the powder of a 30-06 or 308 and match grade projectiles are a little cheaper too - about 1/2 to 1/3 the weight. I have "service" rifles (heavy barrel A2) that shoot ten shot groups 0.5MOA in my hands. Some of the people I shoot with get 0.3MOA. These are ten shot groups of the above loadings at 200 yards.

At least on the East Coast US, there aren't many places to take a shot above 300 yards, let alone 600. (Good for target, but not so much for hunting, IMHO.) And this is a round that an average shooter can use to hold a six-inch circle at 300 yards firing rapid from the sitting or prone position - much harder to do in 30 cal.