Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 22 CHeetah & 223 WSSM

yep my howa 1500 has 1500 round through it and still going strong 40gr vmax as fast as they can go 750 sound pretty low round count for a barrel that is cleaned and kept cool i have a log of ever bullet that went down the barrel of my 22-250

My 22-250 is a sporter weight barreled Banner Mauser.It was purchased used,so I have no idea how many rounds went through it prior to it coming into my posession.
It's a great walking around rifle for shooting woodchucks,which is obviously not a rapid fire scenario.I know for a fact that I put 100+ rounds through it in load development and yearly checking the zero.At least 1,000 woodchucks have met their fate to this rifle in the last ten years.Hate to admit it,but I've had my share of misses too,especially in the 300 yd. range.Add maybe 100-125 shots for misses.It still regularly shoots into 5/8 of an inch whenever I check it,which is the best I could ever do.

Some people should avoid the 'net and go shooting.

Ladies, the Browning tests subjected the barrels to the same conditions. Exact round count (and even specific test conditions) are immaterial. A chrome WSSM outlives a plain 22-250 by a wide margin. As for the wssmzone, we mostly like the chrome.

OP: I'm glad you got the info you needed.

I don't believe it. Browning's objective was to put the 223 WSSM in the best possible light and to put the 22-250 in the worst possible light, so the honesty/integrity of the test is unlikely to pass the sniff test.

From what I read on WSSMZONE, more 223 WSSM shooters think that the factory chrome lined barrels suck and have either given up on the 223 WSSM or replaced the factory barrels with after-market barrels that aren't chrome lined.

What is your handle on www.wssmzone.com?

Jeff

You can choose to believe whatever you want. There's no need to jimmy a longevity test of a chrome-lined bbl vs. a non-lined one. You'll get the same results out of a comparison of AR-15s if you prefer.

My handle on the WSSM zone is the same as it is here. My own 223 WSSM is an aftermarket bbl for my Savage. What I see there is that essentially everybody likes the Brownings in all chamberings, and the results/experiences are more mixed with the rifles from the then-failing Winchester. Hardly a surprise that a failing company has poor QC.

I have 21 Winchester/USRA 70 WSSMs and think that the QC is equal to any standard production firearm offered by any of the other large manufacturers. Having a pretty good grasp on how marketeers spin things, I believe little that I read in advertising, since the author can't be objective when his/her mission is to convince potential customers of the superiority of the product that he/she is currently pushing.

I'm not a big Browning fan, at least since they stopped using FN Mauser actions.

Just so I'm sure that I understand what you've written, you don't actually own a production 223 WSSM, just a Savage with an after-market barrel? If so, then you don't have any actual direct personal experience with production 223 WSSM, you're just relating other people's experiences as you understand them. Is that right?

Jeff

May have already been mentioned, but I think that the 223 WSSM brass is built for much higher operating pressures so regardless of internal volume the comparison may be dangerous.

Just so I understand what you've written, you don't like Browning to begin with, and/but you own a large quantity of Winchesters. I agree with your spin-doctoring statements in this context.

No, I do not own a factory 223 WSSM, which puts me in the same position as you and everyone else here who has done no actual measuremented testing.

As I said, run the same comparison with ARs if you prefer. It takes no spin-doctoring to discover that a chromed barrel outlives a non-chromed one, no matter how it's treated.

Barrel life is about your personal standards. Coloring the decision by using the pejorative "Lower" doesn't add much to the conversation.

What specific numbers do you assign to your barrels performance before you retire them? I wouldn't replace any varmint rifle barrel that still shot 1 MOA. But, some people may have stricter standards, particularly shooters in competitive sports.

Actually, I've owned 5 or 6 Winchester/USRA 70s in 223 WSSM and still have 2, a 70 stainless Coyote and a 70 stainless Ultimate Shadow. Plus, I had a Ruger #1 in 223 WSSM when the "wow" factor was still high.

Although I have done little reloading for the 223 WSSM, maybe 400 rounds, that is probably enough volume to account for more than a casual introduction.

I agree that chrome lined bores are tough, but the Browning test parameters were far out of sync with what any reasonable person would do.

Jeff

The 40 deg shoulder is the MK1, the 28 deg is the MK2.

What "newer" powder are you wanting to use? I've tried reloader 15 in my MK2, but the best results came from IMR 4064. I believe that is what Charmichel originally used.

Somewhere, packed due to moving, I have the Charmichel's Outdoor Life article. My loads haven't varied much from those.

Here we go, the 223WSSM is dead and rightfully so. The brass is terrible and won't last. It has absolutely no advantage over most 223 chamberings. I was lucky to get rid of mine before most folks found out the same as I. You can blow all the smoke about them that you want, it ain't so.
Butch

I agree that the longevity test was likely a very difficult one, and that neither you nor I nor anyone who cared much about their rifle barrel would shoot way (that fast). At the same time, there are a disturbing number of folks (around here, at least) who won't get any better life than Browning did from their test, if that.

Back in the day, the .22 Swift was said to have a shorter barrel life than the .22-250. Lots of my friends shot lots of rounds through their .22-250's. My son and I both have one, but we have not shot near that many rounds. The number of a 750 round barrel life sounds way low to me. Good luck.

The fact that the 223 WSSM isn't popular, or for that matter all 3 WSSM cartridges, doesn't make it a "bad" cartridge. Are there really any "bad" cartridges?

The biggest problem with the 223 WSSM is probably the standardized 1 in 10" ROT, with the 2nd being the very thick/heavy brass that Winchester/Olin makes. The 1st problem is difficult to address, but the 2nd is easily resolved my using the thinner/lighter Federal WSSM brass.

It does have a lot of case capacity, but the 1 in 10" ROT limits the usefulness when wanting/trying to shoot bullets heavier than 64 grains. My Winchester/USRA 70 stainless Ultimate Shadow shoots 55 thru 64 grain bullets into MOA +/- groups with little reloading effort. While I wouldn't recommend the 223 WSSM in lieu of the 223 o4 22-250, I don't think that it is any worse then the 22-250 or 220 Swift when loaded at comperable speeds, with comperable bullets, and fired from comperable rifles.

Jeff

Start with Swifter data, but beware....the 22-250 will only get 750 rounds, so it stands to reason.....

FWIW in working with Swift data, loads in manuals do not represent the case capacity "edge" the 223 WSSM supposedly has over the Swift, let alone the 220 Rocket I've been loading.

Best thing to do is pick a case, know the cap and work up.

Am finding RL-17 to be a sweetheart in the Rocket....