PDA

View Full Version : 222 vs 223



REMY
08-17-2008, 11:15 PM
Hi
Just like to know anyones opinion on witch of the two would have the accuracy edge over the other?
THX in advance Remy:)

Alan Schenck
08-17-2008, 11:42 PM
I've had many of each and usually the 222 will out shoot the 223 at 200 yrds. or less.

REMY
08-18-2008, 04:18 AM
Thanks for your reply ,can you give me the reamer/chamber info or print # i would be looking for a no turn chamber.
Remy

janderson0
08-18-2008, 08:02 AM
Just last year when I still had a 222, Lapua brass was not a choice, and without it I would not think about a no-turn chamber.

Jim

Pat B.
08-18-2008, 09:12 AM
May out agg a .223 HOWEVER, I have built many .223's and .223 AI's that will easily shoot 1/4'' @ 100 most of the time.. And have shot many many 3 shot groups in the .0's... This with no turn Lapua and either Nosler BT's or Sierra matchkings. Who would have thought it could be ?

j mckinnie
08-18-2008, 09:32 AM
what are the differences between a 223 &222 1/2?:confused:If not the same I'm guessing there very similar.If so its no surprise that both will SHOOT.Jim

mike in co
08-18-2008, 12:10 PM
i have a no turn neck 223. it has been hard work to get it into the low 2's. i recently was able to try another lot of powder and finally broke into the high 1's.
i think a no turn neck is going to be hard to shoot small...unless maybe if you went to 220 beggs.....

i have shot a 222 in the past, and have considered building another but pretty sure that 220 beggs no turn with lapua 220 russian brass is a much smarter move.



mike in co

Cheechako
08-18-2008, 01:38 PM
what are the differences between a 223 &222 1/2?:confused:If not the same I'm guessing there very similar.If so its no surprise that both will SHOOT.Jim

They are similar but not the same. Don't forget, the 222 1/2 is a wildcat so there are no standard dimensions.

I have maybe 15 to 20 different 222/223/222RM wildcats in my collection. I would suspect that they all shoot about the same. There's only so much you can do with those tiny cases.

l to r = 222, 222 1/2, 222RM, 223

Ray

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i239/ray928/22212.jpg

goodgrouper
08-18-2008, 01:50 PM
The 222 would probably be more accurate . But the better .223's will outshoot the average or less than average 222's. And the 223 will give you another couple hundred yards of reach but I still like the 222 a little better. I guess it's because they are a little less ordinary.

Cheechako
08-18-2008, 04:08 PM
I don't want to start a pi$$ing match here, but I can't understand how anyone can say that one particular case is more accurate than another. Not just the 222 family, but all Benchrest cartridges.

Ray

Octopus
08-18-2008, 05:21 PM
The 222 has the advantage over the 223 in both accuracy and barrel life.

The 223 has a slight advantage in velocity.

The above have been well established over the recent three decades.

Pete Wass
08-18-2008, 05:42 PM
A HV bench rifle in 223; a no turn "Match" chamber in it. The thing would shoot zeros in the calm using H-4895 and Nosler Ballistic Tipped bullets. I shot brass I picked up off the range in it. Another of those rifles I sold and am sorry for.

As long as one gets enough neck tension on a bullet, I don't believe the brass matters a heck of a lot; assuming it fits the chamber. From my 10 years experience with brass, I think the subject is way over blown. As long as things aren't grossly out of whack, Brass is simply a container for those things that matter.

moore
08-18-2008, 05:56 PM
in my mind ,its the 222 hands down,the 223 aint even close.......

Cheechako
08-18-2008, 06:51 PM
The above have been well established over the recent three decades.

Octopus

Established where and by whom?? By 1978 the 222 based cartridges were being replaced by the PPCs so where did this 3 decades of proof take place?? It certainly wasn't at the ultimate accuracy proving grounds - Benchrest.

Moore

You are entitled to your own opinion of the two cartridges and I'm sure that you can relate all kinds of anecdotal evidence, but that's hardly proof of anything.

If you guys think that case shape determines accuracy, just read the current thread on the 30-30 BR and talk to the guys who still shoot the 30 Aardvark, or the 30 Wolf Pup.

Ray

j mckinnie
08-18-2008, 08:12 PM
for the pic's Ray,I always thought the 222&1/2 was a blown forward 222.but obviously its a pushed back 222mag.Guys 222 was once king,but people chasing velocity came up with many variations.I believe Shilen produced 222&1/2 in the day.I still say if your shooting paper that no neck turn is a joke but am glad people are willing to give that edge to the rest of us:D.Jim

goodgrouper
08-18-2008, 11:37 PM
Octopus

Established where and by whom?? By 1978 the 222 based cartridges were being replaced by the PPCs so where did this 3 decades of proof take place?? It certainly wasn't at the ultimate accuracy proving grounds - Benchrest.

Moore

You are entitled to your own opinion of the two cartridges and I'm sure that you can relate all kinds of anecdotal evidence, but that's hardly proof of anything.

If you guys think that case shape determines accuracy, just read the current thread on the 30-30 BR and talk to the guys who still shoot the 30 Aardvark, or the 30 Wolf Pup.

Ray



I believe the 222 was introduced to the benchrest world in 1951 or 52 so from then to 1978 is pretty close to three decades. In that time it also managed to set the still standing world record 5 shot 100 yard group.

I think thousands of guns chambered in any specific cartridge can be averaged over many years to determine if they are of accurate design. THe 219 D wasp was on top of the heap before the 222 invention and then likewise for the 6ppc when it was introduced. The average 6ppc will outshoot the average 222 and the average 222 will outshoot the wasp and so on.

For someone to debate the existing inherent accuracy of a case and the proven internal ballistic characteristics of a cartridge seems a bit strange in this day in age in this game. Study up on the 6x47 vs the 6ppc reports. Two cases, same caliber, very similar case capacities, yet one was finicky as hell and had the worlds smallest tune window and the other has been on top and winning for nearly 30 years. It's case design, you can bet your bottom dollar! Don't believe me? Ask Dr Palmisano how many cases he experimented with before and after his improved 220 russian idea that were junk. When he discovered the winner, he knew it.

moore
08-19-2008, 12:14 AM
It appears from the rest of those on this thread,that my opinion might be shared...I guess about the only proof that can be offered is the fact that in short range benchrest I know of no record held by the 223 at any point in time however I could be wrong..But I dont think I am wrong on the 222 haveing held some and I think still holds some..............

Tony C
08-19-2008, 06:28 AM
Mike Walker introduced the .222 in September 1950 at Johnstown (Pine Tree Rifle Club). By 1955, six of the top ten shooters used the .222 at the NBRSA National.

A little later, others like Ed Shilen and Ted Broughton shot versions of the 222 1/2.

Cheechako
08-19-2008, 11:12 AM
Since Octopus said "recent 3 decades" I incorrectly assumed he meant 1978 - 2008.

We all know that benchrest shooters tend to favor one cartridge over another simply because it's what everybody else is shooting. Following that same logic, the Federal primers and V V 133 must be inherently the most accurate also. If somebody started winning matches with the 220 Russian straight out of the box you will see a rush toward it. And this is not an extreme example. It may be happening as we speak. And I don't think you will say that the Russian case has all of those accuracy dimensions that you think are important.

You are correct that the 6x47 was/is a finicky cartridge to load for. But that didn't make it any less accurate than the PPC. It only meant that shooters weren't willing to devote the necessary time to it. With the advances in powders and in bullet and barrel quality since the 70s wouldn't it be interesting to see just how much difference there is between the two now.

And don't belittle those above mentioned improvements. Don't forget, the PPC wasn't a .100 aggregate cartridge in its early days either. The case hasn't changed in those 30 years so it must be something else.

And Dr Lou only tried one case, as far as I know. He was shooting his Eraser which was a shortened 220 Swift case and happened upon some SAKO 220 Russian brass which he felt would have made case forming much easier so he had his reamers reground slightly and the same basic case shape and dimensions became the PPC. So was the Eraser inherently accurate also? It must have been.

Debating inherent accuracy is something that has gone on for years and I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that the arguement is now officially over.

I noticed that you didn't comment on the 30-30, 30 Aardvark, and 30 Wolf Pup. I'll also throw in cases like the 22 and 6mm Beggs, just to keep things interesting.

Moore

The 223 wasn't even born until 1965 so I don't think it's fair to say that it was not as good as the 222 because it doesn't hold records. The 222 had a 15 year head start. And world records are really shooter accomplishments, not cartridge accomplishments.

JMHO

Ray

goodgrouper
08-19-2008, 12:52 PM
We all know that benchrest shooters tend to favor one cartridge over another simply because it's what everybody else is shooting. Following that same logic, the Federal primers and V V 133 must be inherently the most accurate also. If somebody started winning matches with the 220 Russian straight out of the box you will see a rush toward it. And this is not an extreme example. It may be happening as we speak. And I don't think you will say that the Russian case has all of those accuracy dimensions that you think are important.


Actually, if you do some studying, you will find that the straight 220 russian has been experimented with for years with less than satisfactory results, at least in comparison to the ppc. Internal combustion has everything to do with the shape in which it is contained and some cartridges produce better combustion evidenced by how many different pressure curves they tolerate and how uniform the velocities are. There are volumes written about this subject in every manner from piston engines to cartridge experimentation. I would suggest you try reading some if you don't believe it. As an ardent student of these principles, I can assure you they are well documented, scientific facts.

The fact that most ppc shooters use N133 and Federal primers is because they have found it to shoot well. However, the ppc (becuase it is an inherently accurate case) will also shoot T32, 8208, H322, and others very well too. I'm not debating that BR shooters can be sheepish at times, but this only means that if there were something better to be shooting, everyone would be using it. I don't think people like the ppc for it's fancy name, they use it because they have found it to be the most accurate. There have been several shooters win big matches with 6 br's yet there has not been a huge swing to switch over in the br world. You may ask yourself why.





You are correct that the 6x47 was/is a finicky cartridge to load for. But that didn't make it any less accurate than the PPC. It only meant that shooters weren't willing to devote the necessary time to it. With the advances in powders and in bullet and barrel quality since the 70s wouldn't it be interesting to see just how much difference there is between the two now..


Not to offend you, but you really need to study br history a bit more. The day in and day out aggs for the 6x47 were never as small as the ppc. It gave some small groups now and then but was far too finicky to stay on top all the time. WHY? WHAT MAKES A CARTRIDGE FINICKY? You use the same bullets, the same powders, the same primers, so why doesn't it work as well? The answer is undeniably CASE DESIGN!

Get ahold of the Benchrest Shooting Primer and read the articles about the 6x47 experimentation. There were many top name shooters who devoted OODLES of time to making the cartridge work. I'm sorry, your argument doensn't hold any water.





And don't belittle those above mentioned improvements. Don't forget, the PPC wasn't a .100 aggregate cartridge in its early days either. The case hasn't changed in those 30 years so it must be something else...


Actually, your history is off again. The ppc case has changed. Sako brass and Norma brass that were used in the first half of it's use were and are totally different dimensionally than the Lapua brass most use today. Not to mention the brass alloy Lapua uses is stronger and allows more pressure which seems to have helped the ppc since it's inception.






And Dr Lou only tried one case, as far as I know. He was shooting his Eraser which was a shortened 220 Swift case and happened upon some SAKO 220 Russian brass which he felt would have made case forming much easier so he had his reamers reground slightly and the same basic case shape and dimensions became the PPC. So was the Eraser inherently accurate also? It must have been....

According to several sources, Lou spent thousands of dollars experimenting with other cases and designs both before and after his collaboration with Ferris Pindell for the 6ppc. None worked out quite as well as the ppc. I believe the book by Glenn Newick details a little of this story if memory serves.






Debating inherent accuracy is something that has gone on for years and I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that the arguement is now officially over. ....

It's only been continuing becuase there are still people who don't understand the physics of internal combustion and don't care to learn it. As I said before, the documentation is there for all to read, but some choose not to read it or believe it. Yet, all you really have to do is attend a br match and talk to a few guys who have experimented with different cases in efforts to find a better mousetrap. Do you even shoot BR?




I noticed that you didn't comment on the 30-30, 30 Aardvark, and 30 Wolf Pup. I'll also throw in cases like the 22 and 6mm Beggs, just to keep things interesting.

I didn't comment on the 30 aardvark or the 30 wolf because I know nothing about them. I do know about the Beggs cartridges and they are based off the same parent case as the ppc. Again, why?

I don't understand your argument with this. You, on one hand, say that case design means nothing for accuracy. Then on the other hand you point to cartridges that are based off the same parent case as the ppc and intend to show that they are superior? Interesting. What makes them better? If all cases are equally inherently accurate or inaccurate, why single out certain cartridges to prove your point? You are what we used to call in college debate classes "contradictory".

Cheechako
08-19-2008, 01:10 PM
grouper

I think I'll excuse myself from this thread since you are resorting to ad-hominem attacks without really knowing anything about me. Since you are from Utah I assume that we have shot against each other but I don't know for sure. I'm going out on a limb by saying that I probably started shooting Benchrest years before you did. I don't need to "study", "do my research", or "attend a BR match". I've done all of that. It's been an interesting thread.

Ray

Butch Lambert
08-19-2008, 01:31 PM
Ray is smart enough not to be drawn into a pissing match. Ray has one of the most extensive cartridge collections any where. His specialty is the wildcats. He does know the history of the cartridges.
Butch

goodgrouper
08-19-2008, 02:50 PM
grouper

I think I'll excuse myself from this thread since you are resorting to ad-hominem attacks without really knowing anything about me. Since you are from Utah I assume that we have shot against each other but I don't know for sure. I'm going out on a limb by saying that I probably started shooting Benchrest years before you did. I don't need to "study", "do my research", or "attend a BR match". I've done all of that. It's been an interesting thread.

Ray

Sorry Ray. I didn't know that point by point debate was being "attacked" in your book. Clarification of the facts was in order and it's up to you whether you want to ignore them or not but don't suppose you can bring up the points you chose and not be questioned by this community. I think 95% of people here would agree that there is something to case design in the ppc even if they can't explain why.

goodgrouper
08-19-2008, 02:55 PM
Ray is smart enough not to be drawn into a pissing match. Ray has one of the most extensive cartridge collections any where. His specialty is the wildcats. He does know the history of the cartridges.
Butch

Butch,
Since when did a civilized debate and clarification of some history become a "pissing match"?

j mckinnie
08-19-2008, 08:00 PM
With all the flash new stuff around these days it would be interesting to see what a 222 could do.But alas my funds don't stretch that far,so I go with the odds.If I was a rich man I would give the old deuce a go again.The 6X47 will be my hunting gun when I get around to it old barrel use & culled booollets from my 6 ppc will get a use.Jim:eek:

Charles E
08-19-2008, 08:36 PM
I think 95% of people here would agree that there is something to case design in the ppc even if they can't explain why.It kind of depends on what you mean. I think there is *something* to case design, and I'll bet Ray does too, but it is on the order of 1%, 2%, something like that. As with any small variable, the larger one's dwarf it.

I believe what is successful depends more on what powders are available at a particular time -- powder is a large factor. Keeping to the topic that started this thread, given the different capacities of the .222 and .223, which one is more "inherently accurate" will depend on just which powders they "inherit." A fullish case with a good, consistent rise time on the pressure curve will, day in & day out, usually shoot better than a case with lower loading density, or with a case/powder combination that gives less consistent pressure rise.

All I have to say on the topic.

goodgrouper
08-19-2008, 08:53 PM
I believe what is successful depends more on what powders are available at a particular time -- powder is a large factor. Keeping to the topic that started this thread, given the different capacities of the .222 and .223, which one is more "inherently accurate" will depend on just which powders they "inherit." --quote


Well it would make sense that in a combustion, the combustible would be pretty important too now wouldn't it! ;)

Butch Lambert
08-19-2008, 11:23 PM
Goodgrouper take the time to go through your posts in the archives.
Butch

Pete Wass
08-20-2008, 07:01 AM
A possible reason for one chambering having an advantage over another could be the ratio of powder to the size of the bullet. Chamberings that are called "Overbore" seem to suggest this. It appears in the case of the 30-BR that there is a great efficiency, for lack of a better term, in the combination of bullet size and case capacity. It seems the more compact one can make this ratio with the correct components, the better the rersults. Does this make any sense? Also Size seems to matter here too. Fatter cases seem to make better "Lovers".

Boyd Allen
08-20-2008, 02:44 PM
One can surely shoot whatever one wants, within the rules. I didn't read every line of the above posts, so excuse me if this is a repeat. Obviously, the 6PPC allows many to be one caliber, and in many cases, one rifle competitors in all three bag gun classes. If one intends to shoot the same matches, choosing a .22 automatically means that one has to be a two caliber shooter, and since the best small 6 is the PPC which most would agree is at no disadvantage to any .22, the question becomes why go to the extra expense and trouble of a second caliber? If the best small 6 was still a 6 x 47, I am sure that there would be many more running two calibers.

A little anecdotal info for the .222 side, I believe that 4 (+-) years ago Dennis Thornbury won a light heavy two gun, at Visalia, against an excellent field, with a sleeved XP100 in .222 that he pulled out of the back of the gun safe. No doubt, the rest of the field were 6PPCs driven by some of the best.

As to the .223, Lapua no longer makes small flash hole brass for that caliber, as they once did, but I bet that if some of the current brass' flash holes were swaged down, as mentioned in the recent 30-30 thread, and the proper reamer/ FL die combination obtained, I shouldn't be surprised if excellent and competitive results were the result. I think that we sometimes forget that .aggs. have improved since the 6PPC took over, and it has yet to be established what if any effect the changes that made these improvements possible would do for a fully built .223. Perhaps someone with a large R&D budget will become curious and give it a try, if not we will never know.

goodgrouper
08-20-2008, 04:10 PM
Goodgrouper take the time to go through your posts in the archives.
Butch

:confused:?:confused:?:confused:? Can you expound on this?

Con Cross
08-20-2008, 05:46 PM
Butch,
Since when did a civilized debate and clarification of some history become a "pissing match"?

Mr. Goodgrouper, would you believe many fiery gentleman think that everything what happen to differ is a fight.

Gentleman, would you believe Mr. Butch Lambert can possibly be one of those fiery gentleman?

Con

HovisKM
08-21-2008, 08:10 AM
NO !!! :rolleyes:

j mckinnie
08-21-2008, 09:00 AM
aint in OZ no way please no way:(:confused::eek::mad:

mike in co
08-21-2008, 09:13 AM
lots of talk...but i don't think i saw anyone say they have tried the 223 in a true br configuration ? i am guesiing that some work has been done in the past...but i do not see any supporting posts ?

my ar15 is close, but it is only a 250 neck and while i did turn the necks it is not a true neck turn chamber.

any of you bolt gun guys done any work here ??

mike in co

mojo2138
08-21-2008, 10:07 AM
I believe that Stan Buchtel shot a 223 in competition with good result. See the Benchrest Shooting Primer. He was a long time proponent of the long skinny "Duece" cartridges.