Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What killed the 222?

My understand is, back in the day it was very popular. Sounds like the benchrest crowd really liked it too. I know a lot of comp shooters went to the 22PPC etc, is that what pretty much killed it off?

I figure the 223 didn't help, but I don't know anyone shooting a 223 for comp.

Just curious, seems like a nice little round that went from very popular, to pretty much extinct.

thanks.

You already answered your question.

The 223 stole it's place as a varmit round and the PPCs took the relatively small benchrest game away from the 222.

The need for 150 fps and to spray the countryside with FMJ ammo.....grins




There are too many guns out there for it ever to be extinct.
CZ, Remington, and Browning last I knew still make rifles chambered for it, but prolly not for long.

BR is almost all 6mm at 200 and in today.

Mine is alive and well. It is the most inherently accurate, and the most enjoyable, centerfire round that I shoot. Long live the 'triple deuce'.

My 788 in .222 is alive and well. Easy to load for. Thirty-three years old and still extrememly accurate after 1000's of rounds. Sent many a critter to "varmint heaven." It aint dead by a "longshot."

It may be hard to find where you live but it's very much alive where I am.

A military cartridge using cheap to buy cartridges. The fact that it's made in every action type by every company helped to guarantee the 223's success as well. I have two 222s and one 223. Both are equals until you move to the heavy bullets.

My belief is, that unless you're shooting competition or are on a tac team, why bother with bullets over 60 grains in a 223? I've had 243s for the heavier bullets and have a donor Stevens 200 for a 6x45mm.

In my case at least, the 223 is going the way of the do-do.

dogcatcher223,
A tight neck 222 in a proper BR rig will BURN little, and I do mean little, holes at 100 yards.Think 25 shot averages under .2 in good conditions.Its just not that hard to do.But most BR matches are shot at 100 and 200 yards.A regular 222 at 200 yards is a hand full against the likes of the PPC family.Alot of BR shooters that stuck with that caes went to a 222 and a half to get a bit more FPS.A well tuned 222.5 with the shooters head screwed on straight will do very well at 200.
But the PPC is just so easy.The PPC will give something on the order of 5 times the case life of the 222.And tuning is fast and easy.Not that the 222 is hard to get tuned up.
Heres my play 6mm PPC the first time to the range.11 rounds into a .197 agg.

And thats on a simple M700.Woodchuck gun.
I still have my 222.And it still drills little ones.
dave

The real tragedy is the 222 Magnum; of course I'm a fan The 223 AI before there was one , with a nice long neck to boot,not to fan any flames.

I have 3 222's in my safe and 2 222 Magnums. There are no 223's, I've got it covered.

The ability to use mil-surp and cases pretty much has made the 223 shine. Not that 222's are expensive.

Funny, the 221 FB has made a splash, yet the Deuce seems forgotten

I'll always have a 222.

The availability of inexpensive surplus 223 brass and number of varmint rifles chambered for 223 and the PPC & BR cartridges for the bench rest crowd.

Well I have two Rem 722's in 222 and two in 222 Magnum.
I recently shot some excellent groups with all four of them. One 222 shot a .184, 3 shot group at 100 yards, and the other shot a 1/4" group, same number of shots, same distance.
The 222 Mags both shot two 1/2", 5 shot groups at 100 yards with factory ammo.
I just don't think that currently made sporting rifles can do much better without tweeking. I did nothing to these rifles except clean them, and adjust trigger pull weights.
Both the 222 and the 222 Mag are outstanding cartridges, and both are easy to load for with several accurate loads developed for each without much fuss, for the rifles I have.
Sad they left the turf, but that's progress..or is it?
Yep, as Britt said, as soon as the 6mm PPC hit the scene, I sold my 222 and 6x47 bench rifles and had two PPC's built, around 1973. I made my own bullets back then too.

I like the 222s longer neck and the fact that my wife bought me my first 222 - a Rem 788. It has sentimental value.

I have made my own bullets for years in a number of cals, including 224 and 6mm. Bullets made from rimfire cases got my attention first. Cheap, easy to make and just as accurate as any varmint bullet made today.

I suppose that if I was buying my first .224 CF, I would buy a 223. It makes sense, given the lower price of 223 Rem loaded ammunition and brass.

Dogcatcher223: The 222 Remington is not dead - not by a long shot!
But it is suffering from a serious case of "over-looked"!
I currently am shooting 6 Rifles in caliber 222 Remington.
It is a splendid and useful round, one that for sure should not be ignored by todays factory Rifle makers.
It MAY die here in about 25 years though.
In other words, factory brass may not be made for it after that.
I have an all stock Remington 40XB-BR in 222 Remington that is so wonderfully accurate that I only use it on special occassions!
I want this Rifle to last me the rest of my life - so it sees no heavy usage's at all.
I also have a splendidly accurate Sako L-46 in 222 Remington as well as 2 Remington 700 Classic's, a Model 722 Remington and a Remington 700 Varmint that shoots nearly as well as my 40X in 222!
I have owned many other 222's over the years and as of today never had one that the accuracy did not please me!
I actively seek out Rifles in 222 Remington caliber to buy.
Long live the 222 Remington!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Thanks for all the input. I have always wanted to try one. I have three 223's, and one 223AI, not to mention a 204 and 22-250AI. I pretty much have the varmint gear covered. Something about the 222 being a classic, keeps me wanting one though.

Me too.. I have a couple of NIB Rem 700 small-face short actions in the safe and have been thinking of making a .222 Rem magnum.. Just something about that round makes me drool...

Cartridge selections are cyclical. Several cartridges, including the 22 Hornet and the 45/70, have teetered on the brink of extinction, only to bounce back after a few years rest.

Here's a reason that I like the 222 that makes absolutely no sense: the case looks nicer and I like the longer neck.

The 222 operates at lower pressure. Keeping loads in line with your reloading manual will have the barrel and brass lasting longer. I have 30 year old Remington brass that has been reloaded at least 20 times. It's no worse for wear. With 50/52 grain bullets, my rifles have all shot 20.5 grains of IMR4198 into small clusters.

The 222 isn't particularly finicky about the powders it likes. At least six work well for me, but my 222s are all hunting/varmint rifles. I've never been able to do better than .5100 yd, but honestly, who cares? When I'm tromping around in the bush, I cannot hold well enough to duplicate what happens on the range anyway.

For years, I've shot home made 52 grain FB bullets or bullets made from RF cases. All shoot remarkably well. But, repeating an earlier post, if I was starting over again, I'd probably buy a 223.

My only draw to the 223's was the cheap ammo. Those days are long gone now, so if I am going to load for something, i would assume load for something "cool."

Actually, my 223's are the only guns of mine I never reloaded for, just didn't see the point with Winchester White Box. I think that ammo is now extinct though.

Far from dead in my safe. Still shooting a Sako L-46 purchased in the 50's. Yes, a one owner. Also, a M-70 Hornet converted by
G&H in the same period. Fine accuracy from both. Name implies the real history of these two weapons.
A sweetheart cartridge.

I have a couple of .223's and a .220 Swift that all shoot bugholes. If I'm going for a stroll out to the back forty it's most likely my old 788 .222 will be making the trip with me. It still shoots sub-MOA and I just plain like the cartridge. It was the first real varmint cartridge I owned, the first cartridge I reloaded for. Back in the day it made a few shots the boys still remember, and earned me a completely undeserved reputation as some kind of wizzbang shooter. (They tend to forget the misses.)If I had to stick with the .222 for all my varmint shooting it wouldn't bother me a bit.

--The .223/5.56mm with it's cheap brass and 150fps velocity gain

--The BR crowd's fickle, superstitious nature

--Nobody's writing about the Triple Deuce, so young/new shooters don't know about it unless they're blessed with Gun Looney dads who own them.

--The firearms market (most markets?) rely on hype to keep the public excited and buying things. The .222 Rem is 58yrs old, small and unassuming, and doesn't contain the word "magnum" anywhere in it's name. It's a very efficient, accurate, Little Engine That Could, but that's only attractive to older, experience shooters, who aren't as likely to get all sweaty over new product hype and "feature articles," ie, paid advertisements in the mainstream gun rags.


I'd love to see companies like Kimber and Ruger adopt the .222 Rem as their latest lost cause like they did The Bob. I heard Dwight Van Brunt on Gun Talk yesterday say that their Bob sales have far exceeded their predictions, so obviously not everyone wants the latest super-mag. Maybe the .222 has too much competition to do as well as the Bob, but I'd like to see it given a chance. It's a dandy little cartridge.

I think it could actually make a resurgence. Like I posted prior, 223 ammo is no longer cheap, so it is a moot point for the average Joe. I am going to buy some 223 dies soon.